Tigers leagues?

[Yossarian]

Agree, I would like to follow a club that doesn't rely on the scourge of problem gambling.

"scourge of problem gambling"?

You are kidding right?

Ask the local kids, the local retirees, the bowling, golf, darts etc etc about relying on clubs. Give yourself an uppercut and stop listening to the left wing loonies.

I don't think you have to be a "left wing loony" to not be totally comfortable with the gaming industry being the main financial backer of your club. Personally I'm ok with letting people largely exercise their free choice to gamble, but it cannot be denied that problem gambling exists and it is a key contributor to the revenue of leagues clubs. I know the clubs put money into the community but they aren't charities and the source of a lot of that money is actually pretty distasteful. Again, I don't think it marks me out as some kind of rampant communist that I'm not entirely in love with the idea that some of Benji Marshall's salary is being paid by people feeding the pokies at Wests Ashfield rather than their families at home.

I think you are stretching it a bit to say "problem gambling …... is a key contributor to the revenue of the leagues clubs. How many problem gamblers have you talked to in order to ascertain they are a key contributor to the revenue?

42.3% according to the Productivity Commission. That is to say 42.3% of contributions to poker machine revenue come from problem gamblers.

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/82554/gambling3.pdf

 

[Goose]

Yoss, both you and I have quoted figures in relation to problem gaming. the thought struck me, how subjective is the definition of problem gambling.
Kerry Packer lost millions every year on the punt, but clearly did not have a problem as he bet within his means and all that.
However a bloke his spends his last $10 buying lottery tickets and goes without lunch that day because of it, prob does have a gambling problem.

Yet I imagine in most definitions or studies they would prob have them reversed.

I remember reading a study once saying if you would not leave a half finished drink at the bar, you were an alcoholic (amongst other conditions). I never leave a half empty drink at the bar, but I also never leave a meal at a restaraunt or leave a game of ten pin bowling after 8 frames. Dont think makes me a bowlaholic or foodaholic.

I imagine that the definition will have certain conditions as above, cause as I said, a problem gambler is tough to define.

 

[Yossarian]

Goose I believe the PC definitions are based on expenditure on gambling as a percentage of income. So even though Packer say lost $20m a year, if he earned $300 million it's less than 10% of his income. Maybe that still ranks him at the lower end of the problem gambling scale.

You're right though that definitions are an issue.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Goose I believe the PC definitions are based on expenditure on gambling as a percentage of income. So even though Packer say lost $20m a year, if he earned $300 million it's less than 10% of his income. Maybe that still ranks him at the lower end of the problem gambling scale.

You're right though that definitions are an issue.

The definitions, it's beside the point. I'd like to think we're at the point where the club is being proactive in being a profitable entity without "handouts."

 

[2041]

Agree, I would like to follow a club that doesn't rely on the scourge of problem gambling.

"scourge of problem gambling"?

You are kidding right?

Ask the local kids, the local retirees, the bowling, golf, darts etc etc about relying on clubs. Give yourself an uppercut and stop listening to the left wing loonies.

I don't think you have to be a "left wing loony" to not be totally comfortable with the gaming industry being the main financial backer of your club. Personally I'm ok with letting people largely exercise their free choice to gamble, but it cannot be denied that problem gambling exists and it is a key contributor to the revenue of leagues clubs. I know the clubs put money into the community but they aren't charities and the source of a lot of that money is actually pretty distasteful. Again, I don't think it marks me out as some kind of rampant communist that I'm not entirely in love with the idea that some of Benji Marshall's salary is being paid by people feeding the pokies at Wests Ashfield rather than their families at home.

How do you feel about getting money from people drinking grog until they cannot stand up and cause all sorts of social problems?

If people wish to play the pokies then that is their choice. After all it is their money not yours. No one puts them in a headlock and forces them to play. My wife actually does quite ok on the bet thank you.

I think I said pretty clearly that "I'm ok with letting people largely exercise their free choice to gamble" - oh yes, there it is, second sentence.

My point is that I don't necessarily see these things as completely black and white "free choice" versus "nanny state". I'm not saying I've got a perfect answer about what the level of regulation should be but I don't think we ought to allow exploitation of the weak willed and stupid solely in the name of free choice.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

We all saw how sucessful Rusty was eliminating the pokies. So in short, they might not be pleasent, but they are a neccessity for any club to survive