Why Gallop is right on this one

[Green Machine]

Are these emotional rebukes simply a part of the active debate on such an important issue? Are they designed to inform or educate Australians on the real issues and justify their carefully researched solutions?

Or are they simply another example of the delirious, sensationalised abuse we've become accustomed to from our politicians every time someone dares to challenge one of their proposals and points out the error of their ways?

Are they genuine about finding workable solutions to serious issues or are they blindly agreeing to whatever they can to ensure support from independents to keep themselves in power?

The NRL is being funded by "family misery'' and ''pokie addicts" . What a statement! I don't need to point out the inaccuracies and totally misinformed nature of these outlandish assertions.

Go ahead Phil, point them out,

 

[Perth Red]

Do you need pokie funding for jnr sport to thrive? Nope (see WA)
Do pokies add to the major problems of gambling? Yep (see countless reports)
Does making something harder to do reduce the amount of people doing it? Yep (see smoking changes)

am I missing something? There seems to be little argument for keeping pokies that I can see.

 

[Ice Ice Brady]

LOL Frailty, I had a quick look at the Wenty Leagues Annual Report

Total Revenue for 2010: 39,933,500

of which 1,343,026 of expenses was "donations".

and a measly 47,250 donated to "responsible gaming".

 

[Perth Red]

LOL Frailty, I had a quick look at the Wenty Leagues Annual Report

Total Revenue for 2010: 39,933,500

of which 1,343,026 of expenses was "donations".

and a measly 47,250 donated to "responsible gaming".

Surely you can't expect them, to be giving away more than 3% and still pay the execs salaries can you?

 

[Ice Ice Brady]

Surely you can't expect them, to be giving away more than 3% and still pay the execs salaries can you?

LOL,

If I am reading this annual report, 1,203,916 million in Director's "costs" (including salaries, bonuses and entitlements) - but that is only for the 6 highest paid and up from 1,104,570 from the previous year. For the 6 highest paid directors, that is only 100k less than what they give to the community so with another 3 directors, you can be guaranteed that Wenty Leagues gives more money to its directors than the community.

The total wage cost is 9,445,978. Meaning Directors wages are over 10% of the total cost. That's quite a lot.

Great club.

 

[Stuff]

Face the facts, of the alleged 5million people who play the pokies, 60,000 (3%) are 'problem gamblers'.

ENORMOUS FAIL.

End of story.

Correct.

 

[bildo]

He's the head of the club that perhaps makes the most money out of all of them off poker machines, he can hardly be considered objective.

How much of his income comes directly or indirectly from gambling? I am sick of him mentioning the Keno and other forms of gambling all the time .
I really don't like the bloke any more . Sterlo, the Rabbit and even Vossy are no better, i suppose.

 

[Frailty]

LOL Frailty, I had a quick look at the Wenty Leagues Annual Report

Total Revenue for 2010: 39,933,500

of which 1,343,026 of expenses was "donations".

and a measly 47,250 donated to "responsible gaming".

Revenue =/= profit.

From that revenue you need to take out staff costs, maintenance (which includes ground for Rugby League, Cricket, and Netball in the area).

Please tell me what the profit of the club is and see how that percentage works?

 

[Stuff]

I'd like to know Phil Gould credentials when commenting so passionately on these matters, apart from his massive conflict of interest due to his position with Penrith.

Aside from Phil Gould's own experience in the industry, see if you can find anything out about a bloke named John Gould. Google will probably help. "Aristocrat" would be a decent hint too.

 

[Frailty]

LOL,

If I am reading this annual report, 1,203,916 million in Director's "costs" (including salaries, bonuses and entitlements) - but that is only for the 6 highest paid and up from 1,104,570 from the previous year. For the 6 highest paid directors, that is only 100k less than what they give to the community so with another 3 directors, you can be guaranteed that Wenty Leagues gives more money to its directors than the community.

The total wage cost is 9,445,978. Meaning Directors wages are over 10% of the total cost. That's quite a lot.

Great club.

Directors don't get salaries - but their costs in perform their roles.

This includes attending charity events, etc.

The 6 highest paid staff are not directors, but would be the CEO and CFO, etc. Compared to the banking industry or any other competing industry these wages are small.

 

[Ice Ice Brady]

Revenue =/= profit.

From that revenue you need to take out staff costs, maintenance (which includes ground for Rugby League, Cricket, and Netball in the area).

Please tell me what the profit of the club is and see how that percentage works?

I know revenue does not equal profit. But it's not a case of the club saying at the end of the year, "we've made 3 million, lets donate 1.5 million".

Donations are a cost and it is reflected like that on the income statement. Any funds donated reduces profits.

Profits were about 1.3 million IIRC (closed the report) - so donations roughly equalled profits. I think that gave them a 400 000 tax write off too. Lucky them.

It just proves that the club should be donating more. Does it have shareholders?

What are your thoughts on the 9 directors of the club earning more than what the club donates?

 

[Perth Red]

Directors don't get salaries - but their costs in perform their roles.

This includes attending charity events, etc.

The 6 highest paid staff are not directors, but would be the CEO and CFO, etc. Compared to the banking industry or any other competing industry these wages are small.

which is irrelevant when you are trying to justify causing misery through gambling by piggy backing on the benevolent side of the industry.

 

[redvscotty]

I love seeing the screen light up with Lions and Diamonds.

 

[Ice Ice Brady]

Directors don't get salaries - but their costs in perform their roles.

This includes attending charity events, etc.

The 6 highest paid staff are not directors, but would be the CEO and CFO, etc. Compared to the banking industry or any other competing industry these wages are small.

Sorry, my bad. so the 6 highest paid staff members get over 1.2 million. While the 9 directors get honorariums of $29 000 each plus CPI.

So overall. We now have over 200k more given to the management/directors of the club than what they donate to the community.

I wonder what the Afghani Hassanian Youth Association could do without those funds.

Meanwhile 47k donated to "responsible gaming".

AND... we don't know how much of those "donations" were used to keep the Wentworthville Rugby League team afloat. I'm not sure if Wenty gives funds to the Panthers either, but surely those funds would be counted as "donations" on this annual report.

 

[Ice Ice Brady]

Frailty, if clubs can use the argument that without them and their pokies revenue, community and sport groups will cease to exist, surely they would have to be donating more than 3% of revenue to those groups? And not retaining similar levels of profit and paying directors/management more than what is donated to those groups?

 

[Frailty]

Wow... Let's get rid of clubs Ice Ice Brady and see how any of these groups go, also see how the 300 families of employees from each club go when they are out of a job too.

Do you believe banks are giving to charity anything near their executives or directors? Do you believe any business is? But this is ok, because they are just putting in fees for using an ATM...

At what point does personal responsibility become existent again? This is just bad policy that will do more damage than any good that it does. Do you honestly believe this will reduce problem gambling? It will not achieve what it is designed to do - but put people who work in clubs as well as a plethora of community groups in a worse of position.

You may say they only put in a small amount into the community - but it is a hell of a lot more these groups are getting from anywhere else. We are happy to have online betting agencies and TAB advertising and allowing bets on anything - but its clubs that are the problem.

Will the government match the money lost to the community? I doubt it.

 

[Ice Ice Brady]

Wow... Let's get rid of clubs Ice Ice Brady and see how any of these groups go, also see how the 300 families of employees from each club go when they are out of a job too.

Do you believe banks are giving to charity anything near their executives or directors? Do you believe any business is? But this is ok, because they are just putting in fees for using an ATM...

At what point does personal responsibility become existent again? This is just bad policy that will do more damage than any good that it does. Do you honestly believe this will reduce problem gambling? It will not achieve what it is designed to do - but put people who work in clubs as well as a plethora of community groups in a worse of position.

You may say they only put in a small amount into the community - but it is a hell of a lot more these groups are getting from anywhere else. We are happy to have online betting agencies and TAB advertising and allowing bets on anything - but its clubs that are the problem.

Will the government match the money lost to the community? I doubt it.

The pokie machines will still exist. If you want to play without pre-commitment, you can spend the first few years playing low intensity machines.

If you want to play high intensity machines, you will have to sign up for pre-commitment. Because that is where the money is being lost. The cost to our society is too great to do nothing about the pokies problem.

Why are we the only country that relies on pokies for entertainment at clubs/pubs? Because we were the only country stupid enough to not nip this in the bud a long time ago.

Now the easy ride is over for clubs, RSLs and Leagues clubs. If they are paying their management so much (more than what they donate the community), then they should be capable of coming up with other ways of maintaining revenue.

And on the argument that these people will go elsewhere and at least their money is going to good use. Well according to the figures stated, 3% of that money is going to good use - that is not a lot.

Will they gamble elsewhere? You will find a vast majority won't. People aren't necessarily addicted to pokies for gambling reasons. It's the whole package of lights, sounds, environment, free softdrinks,, tea and coffee that make them addicted. If they wanted to win money, they'd play other games that require some skill or have better odds.

The old ladies that throw their money in machines and press a button won't be betting on horses or online. With pre-commitment, there is a chance that less lives will be ruined and some people will have the chance to realise they have a problem.

You might as well accept this measure, because there is no stopping it from happening. That is if the best clubs/NRL have is Steve Mortimer.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Why should I when I don't need one for on line gambling etc?

But you do, if anything you need more checks to establish an account, than you would to get one of these cards.

Serious problem gamblers would probably work out how to own multiple cards anyhow, but really, those that are just starting out on the problem gambling path, may be a lot less inclined to with some proper obstacles in there way.

Getting a card will be a pretty easy process, a lot easier than signing up for a online gambling account is, and it seems the clubs (and pubs) are just crying wolf again like they did when the smoking bans came in place.

Clubs which could see what would happen, and so created more diverse income streams went well. This is just another situation like that, and given that self exclusion doesn't work, having been to counselling for problem gambling in the past, they will ratify that most clubs/pubs don't enforce it, and would just prefer to ban you from the place (which is fair enough, as I don't think it's fair to have to baby sit people who have a problem), or turn a blind eye, which is why something like this would work a lot better as the onus is on the person themselves, and given default betting limits of $100 will allow the majority of casual punters to have there fun, while the serious gamblers may increase there limit (see their is still an allowance for these types of people, just means you need to set a limit which YOU can afford).

The system is currently broken, not just from how the exclusion process works, but volume of machines in nearly every pub and club (10% of the world pokie machines are in NSW!!!), which means those with a problem have a hard time avoiding being in these situations.

The impact to the majority of people is minimal, and if anything, most clubs would probably combine a club membership with one of these types of cards to make it easier to administer, pubs will probably have greater challenges, but I don't care really about the pub situation, as they rarely contribute much to the community as a club does, and if anything, pubs should be providing a much more diverse range of activities to bring the patrons in than most do currently.

 

[Frailty]

The pokie machines will still exist. If you want to play without pre-commitment, you can spend the first few years playing low intensity machines.

If you want to play high intensity machines, you will have to sign up for pre-commitment. Because that is where the money is being lost. The cost to our society is too great to do nothing about the pokies problem.

As others have mentioned, gamblers will find a way to exploit this system so it will not achieve what it is setting out to do - meaning you are destroying registered clubs who already pay a pokie tax as well as give to the community.

If pokies is this great cost to society - then what is the point of adding to this cost by implementing a response that won't work.

Why are we the only country that relies on pokies for entertainment at clubs/pubs? Because we were the only country stupid enough to not nip this in the bud a long time ago.

I agree, if they stopped this before it began it would be fantastic - but it hasn't happened, and to implement this now would be severely damaging to many more peoples lives and then not even address this issue of problem gambling.

Now the easy ride is over for clubs, RSLs and Leagues clubs. If they are paying their management so much (more than what they donate the community), then they should be capable of coming up with other ways of maintaining revenue.

This is a flawed argument... Because they pay management they should come up with other ways to maintain revenue? That has nothing to do with the benefits clubs give to the community. The first response of any business is to cut costs - and benefits to the community will be the first to go.

And on the argument that these people will go elsewhere and at least their money is going to good use. Well according to the figures stated, 3% of that money is going to good use - that is not a lot.

So job creation is not a good use? Maintenance of community facilities is not good use? These are not included in your false 3% figure.

Will they gamble elsewhere? You will find a vast majority won't. People aren't necessarily addicted to pokies for gambling reasons. It's the whole package of lights, sounds, environment, free softdrinks,, tea and coffee that make them addicted. If they wanted to win money, they'd play other games that require some skill or have better odds.

Problem gamblers will gamble however they can. This is the sad truth - and as others have already conceded - problem gamblers will be able to exploit this system further.

The old ladies that throw their money in machines and press a button won't be betting on horses or online. With pre-commitment, there is a chance that less lives will be ruined and some people will have the chance to realise they have a problem.

The old ladies that throw their money in the machines are also less likely to be problem gamblers. There isn't less chance of peoples lives being ruined - because they will bet else where and exploit the flawed system.

You might as well accept this measure, because there is no stopping it from happening. That is if the best clubs/NRL have is Steve Mortimer.

I am not associated with any club - but this situation doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up and say 'oh well'. Democracy is about discussion.

I do find it amusing though that everyone has also forgot about the ATM limits too... Pity about those who want to spend money in the club that isn't on gaming...

 

[Frailty]

Personal responsibility means shit anymore. I will just say I have a problem and then wait for the government to help me out.