Is Russell Crowe a hypocrite ?

[coach]

As reported in todays Telegraph?

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sport/nrl/story/0,26799,24981241-5006066,00.html

NRL clubs sign with betting agency Ezybet

By Andrew Webster | January 30, 2009 12:00am



STRUGGLING rugby league clubs are about to sign en masse with an on-line betting agency as they start to feel the strain of the global financial crisis.

On the day The Daily Telegraph revealed that Knights star Jarrod Mullen has been dragged into a messy stewards inquiry because of his relationship with jockey Allan Robinson, the Sharks and Knights agreed in principle to deals with little-known agency Ezybet.

Other clubs are poised to follow, including South Sydney - despite co-owners Russell Crowe and Peter Holmes a Court vowing a year ago to remove poker machines from its embattled leagues club because it fostered problem gambling.

The deals - which are still awaiting approval from the NRL - are similar to the one Gold Coast struck during grand final week. Fans will be able to bet on Sharksbet and Knightsbet on a host of sporting fixtures.

"We have to explore new revenue streams," Sharks chief executive Tony Zappia said. "You can't quantify how much we can make out it. In hard financial times such as these, more people seem to gamble so it makes sense to benefit off that."

The timing of the announcement seemed ill-advised after it emerged Mullen was quizzed by Racing NSW chief steward Ray Murrihy because his mobile number appeared on Robinson's phone records.

Robinson is at the centre of investigations into betting activities at country tracks involving a mystery punter. Mullen is not accused of any wrongdoing.

"This deal should be seen in its own light, and not because of the issue with Jarrod," Knights chief executive Steve Burraston insisted.
"(Questions about integrity) only involve dishonest people. And I'd like to think there are no dishonest people in our game."

NRL chief executive David Gallop said the deals were being examined by lawyers - but he did not oppose the principle of being aligned with betting agencies.

The NRL has a lucrative sponsorship deal with TAB Sportsbet.
"Gambling will happen around the game anyway," he said. "We think it's only right that sports such as ours have an ability to be compensated for the association."

It remains to be seen how much clubs stand to benefit from the association but Ezybet general manager Ryan Kay estimated about "$1 million a season".

"While the revenue opportunity is clearly attractive we are approaching these arrangements carefully to ensure that the right safeguards are in place to protect the game," Gallop said.

Souths boss Shane Richardson said his club had not signed a deal yet and its members were being sounded out about whether they wanted to sign the deal.

 

[coach]

We all remeber about 18 months ago when the teams owners Russell Crowe and Peter Holmes a Court pushed for a no pokie policy at the still yet to be opened leagues club. As the Telegraph story says both our owners believed poker machines fostered gambling problems for a part of society that could ill afford it.

So now we have the club looking at taking gaining revenue from a gambling establishment. If 18 months ago you didn't like poker machines why now do you want to involve yourself with an on-line betting agency?

Obviiously, from a financial point of view things have changed a whole lot in the past 18 months. And along with that so has the gambling morals of our owners.

We saw, heard or read about the video Russell made a month or so ago asking for us the fans to get more financially involved with the club. To become members and put our cash where our heart is. Nothing wrong with that and I applaud Russell for saying say.

At the same time we had Russell saying he was looking to cut back on his expenditure in the team. So is he looking to replace his money with money from gambling?

As for Shane Richardson saying "Souths boss Shane Richardson said his club had not signed a deal yet and its members were being sounded out about whether they wanted to sign the deal."

I can only think that talks between Souths the betting agency have been on going for sometime. Shane says that members were being sounded out. Well I am a member and the club has no asked for my opinion. Are you a member and have they asked you?

It would not surprise me if that the Telegraph had not broken this story then we would not have heard a thing from the club.

​

 

[Dave Q]

Russell Crowe is a real life hero.

We are very lucky to have him as a co-owner.

 

[coach]

Russell Crowe is a real life hero.

We are very lucky to have him as a co-owner.

Dave I am not saying he hasn't done a lot for the club. Quite obvioulsy him and Holmes a Court has. We wouldn't be here today with out them.

Just saying that he comes across as a hypocrit when one minute he doesn't want the club involved with poker machines and the very next the club is looking to get to gether with a betting agency.

 

[Dave Q]

I understand the point coach, but there is a danger of misinterpretation.

It is a dilemma mate, I do agree with you.

 

[Nemesis]

The Telecrap were always going to jump on this story and raise the "12 months ago you wanted to ban pokies... bla bla" issue,
hence Richo & Nick's video to the members.

I'm not opposed to SSFC doing a deal with a betting agency and I don't find it hypocritical in the slightest.
Souths Leagues club and the football club are two separate organisations servicing very different types of customers.

I can understand Rusty and PHAC's stance on pokies at the Leagues club in regard to problem gambling.
At the Leagues club, the pokies are within easy reach and with their flashing lights and music etc are constantly attracting
the attention of patrons, some of whom are on pensions, other forms of social security or are generally on low incomes.
Many famililies with children go there to have nice meal in the restaurant, have a drink etc and pokies are an unneccessary temptation
for a lot of these people who can least afford to lose money playing them.

Sports betting is not as easily accessible to the people who may play pokies at the Leagues club, as you would have to physically walk into
a TAB agency or go online to place a bet. I believe the two situations are entirely different, so I don't have a problem with it.

As Gallop has said, people are already betting on football, so why shouldn't football clubs derive some benefit from it?
We don't seem to have a problem with alchohol companies like Tooheys being involved with Rugby League and achohol abuse is far bigger
problem in society than problem gambling.

 

[Fein]

The courageous move to ban the pokies at the Leagues Club was rejected by the members as I understand it.

That, coupled with the arse falling out of the global economy presents new challenges for all clubs to not only bolster revenue but seek other income streams.

Personally, I'd be disappointed if we didn't take advantage of what appears to be, money for jam.

 

[BPS]

Russell may be a hypocrite in your eyes Coach, but there is one thing that is certain, and that is that you are consistant

 

[big country]

Fein is spot on - mountain out of a mole hill by the media as usual - also, i wonder how many other clubs' CEO's would keep such open lines of communication by notifying their members of such proposals via video link?

 

[Ronnie Dobbs]

Pokies and a punt on the footie are mutually exclusive beasts.

On the footy there is at least a form line & your odds are near to 50/50, with draw being the only glitch at the end of 80 minutes.

A little different to the pokies to say the very least.

I don't see the big deal, there is a world of difference between them morally.

 

[SouthsSupportUnlimited]

ok, this is how i read this
Sure, he said no pokies machine, sure, the society may struggle with that especially with the pokies being in an area such as redfern, but we cant just have 1 club not doing pokies, we need class action. Poker machines is one of the biggest entertainment industries in out country and it heavily appeals to poorer communites (a chance to bring 'wealth'). With this is mind, it brings most money in for clubs even with poker taxes. For clubs to get rid of them, they need to bring in some alternate entertainment that brings similar money in [which would be very hard to do]. I to be honest, will not mind if pokies come in.

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

There is little doubt that Crowe is.

However what football team is going to turn away money particularly a sydney club with our rabid competition for sponsorship and the corporate dollar.

 

[coach]

I do understand why the club is looking at other avenues to increase income. In these times you need to look far and wide. I have no problem with what the club is doing.

Russell opened himself up for criticism when he took his stance on poker machines. There was always the chance that in the future the club even if it was just through its membership of the NRL was going to involve itself with gambling.

 

[SouthsSupportUnlimited]

yeah, he has opened himself up for critisism and to be called a hypocrit....everybody will say nemorous things in there life that will be calling them a hypocrit
i was watching south side story on Youtube the other day and Geroge piggins said in 2002 when re-admitted, ill stand by anyone who runs this club in the future [ maybe not word for word, but basically that, and look how he is swollowing his own words to this day? Where is the press about him?

 

[Nemesis]

There is little doubt that Crowe is.

However what football team is going to turn away money particularly a sydney club with our rabid competition for sponsorship and the corporate dollar.

In making that statement, you've just proven that you're the hypocrite.

 

[ballfreek]

Couldn't agree more Nemesis. Especially this bit ...

"At the Leagues club, the pokies are within easy reach and with their flashing lights and music etc are constantly attracting the attention of patrons, some of whom are on pensions, other forms of social security or are generally on low incomes."

We're talking about an online betting system that each club will benefit from personally. I'd assume that people on pensions, centrelink etc would not have computers at home, and if they did, could probably not afford monthly internet to go with it.

Furthermore it would be less likely they would have credit cards, which would allow them to bet online (I'm assuming CC would be the main option to set up an online betting account??)

I know my above rant may seem like a generalisation, however (besides the fact that they are both forms of gambling) I don't see how they are comparable.

Rusty and PhaC's decision to remove pokies from SSLC was because they felt it was in the best interests of the Redfern (and surrounding) community. As opposed to the numerous additional forms of betting, whether online or in person, this was something they could actually control, which will hopefully have a direct effect on the community.

And besides, online betting has been around for years, and will continue to be there whether Souths choose to be directly involved with it or not.