Souths, Pokies and Holmes A Court

[Mr Angry]

You'll find that 1% is 1% of gamblers not 1% of the population.

 

[Ziggy the God]

Officially the Pokies Ban at Souths Leagues Club was defeated without a whimper the other day.

I was just wondering peoples thoughts on this matter : Would the Ban have been defeated had Holmes A Court still been at Souths ? Do Souths fans think its a good or bad thing that HAC has gone ?What do other clubs fans think about the Pokie defeat or if losing HAC to the game is a good or bad thing.

I personally think its a shame that the Pokies Ban was defeated, but pokies are unfortunately a necessary evil for all clubs in Sydney. A good friend of mine is a director at an RSL sub branch club, and he tells me they'd be pretty much dead without them. But they also still keep giving heaps to the local community by allowing schools and the like to use their auditorium for any function they may need it for. Plus they help fund local junior footy teams as well. Personally i think its a disgrace that pubs are exempt from the Pokie Tax. Most clubs actually contribute to their community, but pubs contribute nothing but riches into the owner's pockets ... but thats another matter

on HAC i thought he was naive in some footy-related areas, but was a bit of a refreshing change in the game. Oh well, such is life. He's gone, and the Pokies Ban was defeated. But would it have been if he was still at Souths ?

It certainly is a shame, because just like there are those that like to go and have a flutter on the pokies, there are also some that don't like them at all. People would have had a choice to go to a club of its size without machines.

Maybe it was naive by HaC, but his intentions where not bad on this issue.

People where on here saying that it would be difficult to get it across the line, and I guess they have been proven right.

 

[Simo]

Ok, let's work on the assumption that your 1% is right.

20, 000, 000 x .01 = 200, 000

'Hundreds of thousands'.

is it 1% of gamblers are prob or 1% of nation are prob gamblers?

 

[RainMan]

Ok, let's work on the assumption that your 1% is right.

20, 000, 000 x .01 = 200, 000

'Hundreds of thousands'.

Every person in Australia plays the pokies hey....

 

[Frailty]

Every person in Australia plays the pokies hey....

The statistics are based on the population.

It would be poor and flawed research to give a percentage of the gambling population. It is too subjective. Who is determined to be considered a gambler? It would be basically the opinion of the researcher or the subject. I.e. one person could only gamble once, and not count themselves as a gambler, whilst they still have gambled!

It is important to note that problem gambling is defined as any gambling that directly affects the life of the person. So in otherwords it could be $10 and still be considered to be a problem.

 

[Frailty]

Yes, always the minority that get their way or are heard the loudest. :roll:

Because democracy is just majority rules right?

 

[Mr Angry]

It is important to note that problem gambling is defined as any gambling that directly affects the life of the person. So in otherwords it could be $10 and still be considered to be a problem.

So it is bullshyte.

 

[Frailty]

So it is bullshyte.

No if someone has to pay $140 on rent... and has the $140 but puts $10 in the pokies and loses it... it is problem gambling.

 

[madunit]

Is that actually true.
I thought pubs still paid tax on poker machine takings

They do.

 

[Mr Angry]

No if someone has to pay $140 on rent... and has the $140 but puts $10 in the pokies and loses it... it is problem gambling.

But if some has $400 dollars and spends $10 that is a problem too?

 

[Frailty]

But if some has $400 dollars and spends $10 that is a problem too?

No it's not... that's where you have missed the point... gambling is only problem gambling when it affects the life of the person... $10 from $400 is affordable and doesn't affect the life of the person... however if that person gambled all of it... it would be....

One person spends $10 and another spends $400 and they both have a problem...

 

[Mr Angry]

Ok I did miss read what you said.

That said, freedom is freedom to make bad choices.

 

[Frailty]

Exactly, that's why they aren't banning pokies (just trying to take more money out of them). Clubs by law have to have self exclusion policies so there are avenues for problem gamblers to gt help...

The current stance at the moment on pokies could be likened to any drug or alcohol problem... You can prohibit and or regulate its use but unless you reduce the demand, the problem will always be there.

 

[spider]

i would think 1% of the population claimed as 'problem gamblers' would be close

but, that accounts for lottery, pokies, horses, grey hounds, sports betting (league, golf, etc), casino's, etc,

so its a pretty long bow to draw when throwing that stat up while discussing 'pokies'

 

[Frailty]

i would think 1% of the population claimed as 'problem gamblers' would be close

but, that accounts for lottery, pokies, horses, grey hounds, sports betting (league, golf, etc), casino's, etc,

so its a pretty long bow to draw when throwing that stat up while discussing 'pokies'

Speak to any professional on the issue, and they will agree problem gambler use all those methods, although pokies are generally the most used.

But I agree there is not point taxing pokies and nothing else. Though you will never find NSW Lotteries tax (the government taxing itself?!)

 

[spider]

Speak to any professional on the issue, and they will agree problem gambler use all those methods, although pokies are generally the most used.

and probably the most accessible form of gambling as well

here is something i found amusing - seems a pretty across the board assessment...

21% of the world's poker machines operate in Australia

70% of problem gambling is associated with poker machines

333,000 Australians are problem gamblers

For every one problem gambler, there are at least five and up to 10 people that are affected.

The average spend of a problem gambler is $12,000 per annum, compared with $625 for the rest of the gambling population.

(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2005):

The total net takings from gambling in the year 2004-05 were $15.5 billion

http://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/gambling_treatment_clinic/gambling_problem.html

 

[The Survivor]

Why ban them. Are we going to ban ciggies and alcohol as well. When are people going to be made accountable? After all they are the ones that play them no one forces them. Why be an apologist for society. If people are stupid enough to go broke playing them then tough.

 

[j5o6hn]

Well little Easts person,Ciggies are heading for a ban and booze will be banned off TV in a few more years,you have an anti pokie senator in Federal Parliament,how long before he start to offer deals on legislation,if the Federal Govt places curbs on the Pokies.
Trust me they have the power,I cant understand why the clubs are so reliant on the bloody things anyway,they should be about building members ect,and getting away from the machines,cause no matter which party is in when they need money where will they look gambling and taxes on it .

 

[adamkungl]

Well little Easts person,Ciggies are heading for a ban and booze will be banned off TV in a few more years,you have an anti pokie senator in Federal Parliament,how long before he start to offer deals on legislation,if the Federal Govt places curbs on the Pokies.
Trust me they have the power,I cant understand why the clubs are so reliant on the bloody things anyway,they should be about building members ect,and getting away from the machines,cause no matter which party is in when they need money where will they look gambling and taxes on it .

Because they bring big incomes for little investment....are you for real? Why spend money advertising, providing music gigs, etc, when you will make a much larger profit from some shiny lights and spinning pictures? So a few people's lives get f**ked up. As far as I'm concerned, (which i'm not mind you, they're f**king morons), it's the addict's problem, not the club's, or the pokie's, or society's. The way things are going accountability will be a thing of the past. The government seems to be trying their hardest to legislate against stupidity, so any problem is someone else's fault.

 

[The Survivor]

Well little Easts person,Ciggies are heading for a ban and booze will be banned off TV in a few more years,you have an anti pokie senator in Federal Parliament,how long before he start to offer deals on legislation,if the Federal Govt places curbs on the Pokies.
Trust me they have the power,I cant understand why the clubs are so reliant on the bloody things anyway,they should be about building members ect,and getting away from the machines,cause no matter which party is in when they need money where will they look gambling and taxes on it .

Condescending arsehole.