Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[Saint]

pretty shit of the AFL to suggest Auskick would have to go if gambling ads were banned

this is the kind of bullshit we're dealing with

It's $100m. It's not small potatoes.

The AFL spends waaayyy more on Auskick, including the half time games being free for everyone involved, than any other sport does on similar programs. Probably more than all the others combined.

The AFL gets more TV exposure.

The real impact of a blanket gambling ban is that there will be less money for the AFL to spend.

Further disclosure, I'm an Auskick co-ordinator and we let kids who can't afford it attend for free. Plus there's other kids who only do Auskick because it's half the price of other sports.

Sports participation has been subsidised by drinking, gambling and unhealthy food for as long as I can remember, at both the AFL and local level.

I do not want the AFL to go the way of almost every other sport in that if you can't afford a subscription you can't watch your team play.

If it means more sport on FTA, that might be a better health outcome overall than those with gambling addictions having a very small reduction in the amount of advertising they see.

 

[Carn The Berries]

pretty shit of the AFL to suggest Auskick would have to go if gambling ads were banned

this is the kind of bullshit we're dealing with

No bloody wonder Gil landed himself a job with Sportsbet. What an absolute crock of faeces!

Auskick has NAB's name plastered all over it, if you're that hard up (which the AFL isn't) get them to stump up the cash.

 

[Carn The Berries]

It's $100m. It's not small potatoes.

The AFL spends waaayyy more on Auskick, including the half time games being free for everyone involved, than any other sport does on similar programs. Probably more than all the others combined.

The AFL gets more TV exposure.

The real impact of a blanket gambling ban is that there will be less money for the AFL to spend.

Further disclosure, I'm an Auskick co-ordinator and we let kids who can't afford it attend for free. Plus there's other kids who only do Auskick because it's half the price of other sports.

Sports participation has been subsidised by drinking, gambling and unhealthy food for as long as I can remember, at both the AFL and local level.

I do not want the AFL to go the way of almost every other sport in that if you can't afford a subscription you can't watch your team play.

If it means more sport on FTA, that might be a better health outcome overall than those with gambling addictions having a very small reduction in the amount of advertising they see.

This is probably the worst take I have ever read on BF... And that's saying something.

Auskick was thriving long before the world was bombarded with gambling ads. The AFL has the cash, what they choose to do with it is on them.

 

[Saint]

This is probably the worst take I have ever read on BF... And that's saying something.

Auskick was thriving long before the world was bombarded with gambling ads. The AFL has the cash, what they choose to do with it is on them.

The AFL introduced a rule that 10% of revenue had to be spent on community sport.

If they lose $100m, that's $10m from community sport. $100m is 10% of the AFL's total revenue. It will affect women's football too.

I've run plenty of sporting clubs as part of committees. And we often have taken money or gifts from places we'd rather not have to. In an ideal world it'd be fruit-drives and boiled vegetable functions. In the real world, it's ice-cream shops, fast food and the local pub.

I don't take significant losses of revenue streams easily. Because it'll mean more hard work for committees and less kids attending. It sounds like hyperbole, and maybe it is, but running junior clubs isn't easy. This past year has been the worst since the 90's.

Also, the stance I'm taking of banning it during the matches would probably wipe half of that money anyway. I'm just saying a blanket ban is lazy and less effective than targeted regulation.

 

[Gralin]

The AFL introduced a rule that 10% of revenue had to be spent on community sport.

If they lose $100m, that's $10m from community sport. $100m is 10% of the AFL's total revenue. It will affect women's football too.

I've run plenty of sporting clubs as part of committees. And we often have taken money or gifts from places we'd rather not have to. In an ideal world it'd be fruit-drives and boiled vegetable functions. In the real world, it's ice-cream shops, fast food and the local pub.

I don't take significant losses of revenue streams easily. Because it'll mean more hard work for committees and less kids attending. It sounds like hyperbole, and maybe it is, but running junior clubs isn't easy. This past year has been the worst since the 90's.

Also, the stance I'm taking of banning it during the matches would probably wipe half of that money anyway. I'm just saying a blanket ban is lazy and less effective than targeted regulation.

and i'm saying for something like gambling

which has zero real societal benefit a blanket ban is appropriate

the money they funnel into things is to stop them from being shut down

"look how much good we do with some of the money we take from people, ignore the all the lives ruined directly and indirectly, think of the children (only the ones playing sport not the ones who are homeless because dad has an addiction to our product)"

 

[Saint]

and i'm saying for something like gambling

which has zero real societal benefit a blanket ban is appropriate

the money they funnel into things is to stop them from being shut down

"look how much good we do with some of the money we take from people, ignore the all the lives ruined directly and indirectly, think of the children (only the ones playing sport not the ones who are homeless because dad has an addiction to our product)"

I think a blanket TV ban won't have a lot of impact on problem gambling. It's like banning it in newspapers. Won't change anything.

Gambling is enjoyable to most people who do it in moderation. And it harms a small proportion who become addicts.

 

[Gralin]

I think a blanket TV ban won't have a lot of impact on problem gambling. It's like banning it in newspapers. Won't change anything.

Gambling is enjoyable to most people who do it in moderation. And it harms a small proportion who become addicts.

it harms a small proportion to a great degree

and every person that gambles is at risk of becoming part of that group

they want those people ruining their lives, that's their business model and letting them advertise is bad

again, Murphy wanted more than just TV banned

if you think the ban won't do much then you're really complaining about the lost revenue meaning you are happy to get the things you want at the expense of the addicts

 

[Carn The Berries]

The AFL introduced a rule that 10% of revenue had to be spent on community sport.

If they lose $100m, that's $10m from community sport. $100m is 10% of the AFL's total revenue. It will affect women's football too.

I've run plenty of sporting clubs as part of committees. And we often have taken money or gifts from places we'd rather not have to. In an ideal world it'd be fruit-drives and boiled vegetable functions. In the real world, it's ice-cream shops, fast food and the local pub.

I don't take significant losses of revenue streams easily. Because it'll mean more hard work for committees and less kids attending. It sounds like hyperbole, and maybe it is, but running junior clubs isn't easy. This past year has been the worst since the 90's.

Also, the stance I'm taking of banning it during the matches would probably wipe half of that money anyway. I'm just saying a blanket ban is lazy and less effective than targeted regulation.

I'm sure the AFL commission is clever enough to amend it's rules to ensure that community football isn't disadvantaged by this "rule". The whole "won't somebody think of the children" is the AFL trying to protect their bottom line.

If gambling advertising revenue is worth $100m to the AFL, they should be absolutely f***ing ashamed, they know as much as anybody else the negative impact it's having. I will not shed one tear if the league has to rebalance it's books. If it chooses not to (and let the $10m you've quoted fall out of community football) that's on them.

Or... They could actually show some leadership, acknowledge that this is a scourge on society, and declare that they won't accept sponsorship from betting agencies and will realign their business model accordingly.

Sadly, I don't think that is likely to happen.

 

[Saint]

I'm sure the AFL commission is clever enough to amend it's rules to ensure that community football isn't disadvantaged by this "rule". The whole "won't somebody think of the children" is the AFL trying to protect their bottom line.

If gambling advertising revenue is worth $100m to the AFL, they should be absolutely f***ing ashamed, they know as much as anybody else the negative impact it's having. I will not shed one tear if the league has to rebalance it's books. If it chooses not to (and let the $10m you've quoted fall out of community football) that's on them.

Or... They could actually show some leadership, acknowledge that this is a scourge on society, and declare that they won't accept sponsorship from betting agencies and will realign their business model accordingly.

Sadly, I don't think that is likely to happen.

Four Victorian AFL clubs still rake in $40m per year from pokies revenue. Hawthorn sold theirs for $32m to pay for the Kennedy Centre. Carlton get most of it, with $19m a year direct from pokies.

Direct pokies revenue is a lot worse than sports gambling advertising, but it's the Government's fault for not banning it?

 

[Carn The Berries]

Four Victorian AFL clubs still rake in $40m per year from pokies revenue. Hawthorn sold theirs for $32m to pay for the Kennedy Centre. Carlton get most of it, with $19m a year direct from pokies.

Direct pokies revenue is a lot worse than sports gambling advertising, but it's the Government's fault for not banning it?

But is it though? That's direct income from actually operating pokies, as compared to the AFL who receive $100m just from the ADVERTISING of sports betting.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

can you imagine if they dropped auskick when they are already struggling to keep kids though?

seems like shooting themselves in the foot to keep their executive bonuses which kind of tells you everything you need to know about whether those kind of people are worth the salaries they get

Closed shop for the privileged who couldn't cut in the corporate world.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Closed shop for the privileged who couldn't cut in the corporate world.

And they'd still come out and tell us that the game has never been in better shape....

 

[JackOutback]

Banning gambling ads seems like it should have been an easy win for Albo, most in his own party seem to want it, people want it, rookie error to make this mistake and another rookie error to let it drag on. I don’t mind a backflip if it leads to the right decision, time to give this the stage 3 tax cuts treatment.

 

[Kram]

Iron ore crash threatens Chalmers’ budget surplus hopes​

Alex Gluyas Markets reporter

Aug 15, 2024 – 2.06pm The slump in iron ore prices threatens the federal government’s chances of delivering a third consecutive budget surplus, providing ammunition for the Coalition ahead of next year’s election.

Benchmark iron ore prices have sunk 3.6 per cent this week to $US95.25 a tonne, according to S&P Global’s Platts, spooked by a warning from Chinese steelmaker Baowu of a “harsh winter” ahead for the industry.​

 

[nut]

The AFL introduced a rule that 10% of revenue had to be spent on community sport.

If they lose $100m, that's $10m from community sport. $100m is 10% of the AFL's total revenue. It will affect women's football too.

I've run plenty of sporting clubs as part of committees. And we often have taken money or gifts from places we'd rather not have to. In an ideal world it'd be fruit-drives and boiled vegetable functions. In the real world, it's ice-cream shops, fast food and the local pub.

I don't take significant losses of revenue streams easily. Because it'll mean more hard work for committees and less kids attending. It sounds like hyperbole, and maybe it is, but running junior clubs isn't easy. This past year has been the worst since the 90's.

Also, the stance I'm taking of banning it during the matches would probably wipe half of that money anyway. I'm just saying a blanket ban is lazy and less effective than targeted regulation.

How many kids parents are addicted to gambling?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

My daughter works in a pub, they are a TAB in the sports bar , then of course they have the "gaming" room, where she sometimes gets the graveyard shift.
So she heads to work at around 8:30 pm and shuts up shop at 4:30am.
I was asking her about the customers who are gambling that time of night on a weeknight.
So there are the ones who go to the pub, then just gamble for hours afterwards.
Then there are the tradies and the like , who go and gamble before they go to work.

Personally i think the pokies are the most brain dead way you can possibly throw your money away.

 

[Gralin]

Labor's special envoy for social cohesion


Lol

 

[Chief]

"Agency" being the libertarian answer to any injustice.

 

[Gralin]

"Agency" being the libertarian answer to any injustice.

We're talking about the guy who told welfare recipients to wait until after the election for an answer on what Labor would do if elected, but that they'd be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Gralin]

Literally what is the point of Labor

Period products classified as ‘lifestyle related’ like vapes and gaming consoles under draft NDIS plan

Proposal comes as research suggests 78% of Australians with disability who menstruate cannot afford such products

www.theguardian.com

The federal government has proposed excluding period products from the national disability insurance scheme despite research suggesting 78% of people with disability who menstruate cannot afford them.


The federal government has proposed excluding period products from the national disability insurance scheme despite research suggesting 78% of people with disability who menstruate cannot afford them.

The full list of "lifestyle" choices is wild, internet and phone are included in the list as is funeral costs

Apparently funerals are a lifestyle choice as is menstruation

 

[Chief]

The **** is wrong with these people?

 

[Rob R]

We're talking about the guy who told welfare recipients to wait until after the election for an answer on what Labor would do if elected, but that they'd be pleasantly surprised.

The guy whose only claim to fame was making sure that he was the only one who could front the cameras at Beaconsfield.

ALP has been a terrible disappointment, no reason not to vote green, teal, minor party or independent next election.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Except for people who like gambling?

Some people like cigarettes too. Shall we bring advertising for those back?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Setka the puppet master: Labor’s new hit on the Greens

Labor is threatening the Greens with a social media offensive in marginal seats that paints MPs as puppets of disgraced CFMEU boss John Setka unless its bill is passed.

www.brisbanetimes.com.au

Also, I think Labor are doing irreparable damage to their relationship with the union movement as a whole by refusing to have the CFMEU's back when they need it most. It sends a message to every union that Labor will take their money but won't necessarily show loyalty in return. It weakens the incentive for them to donate to Labor.

 

[cartwright]

Literally what is the point of Labor

Period products classified as ‘lifestyle related’ like vapes and gaming consoles under draft NDIS plan

Proposal comes as research suggests 78% of Australians with disability who menstruate cannot afford such products

www.theguardian.com

The federal government has proposed excluding period products from the national disability insurance scheme despite research suggesting 78% of people with disability who menstruate cannot afford them.


The federal government has proposed excluding period products from the national disability insurance scheme despite research suggesting 78% of people with disability who menstruate cannot afford them.

The full list of "lifestyle" choices is wild, internet and phone are included in the list as is funeral costs

Apparently funerals are a lifestyle choice as is menstruation

Well, ill be giving some feedback

The draft list of NDIS-excluded items was initially listed as open for public feedbackuntil 5pm on Sunday.

Shorten said the consultation process would now be extended for another week and close on 25 August instead.