rayven
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jun 26, 2005
- 9,955
- 1,749
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- PC racing
Same place we are with them...
Broke
Isn't part of your clubs rescue plan is the aquisition of more pokies to increase revenue?
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Eddie misrepresents pokies tax as a footy tax
- Thread starter Kwality
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Isn't part of your clubs rescue plan is the aquisition of more pokies to increase revenue?
This whole argument is rediculous.
Problem gamblers make up an insignificant percentage of total revenue, and if the AFL are saying they need the revenue from problem gamblers to survive they should be ashamed of themselves.
If the opposition is right it wont work anyway.
Problem gamblers make up an insignificant percentage of total revenue, and if the AFL are saying they need the revenue from problem gamblers to survive they should be ashamed of themselves.
If the opposition is right it wont work anyway.
FYI there are limits on the amount of alcohol you can consume in pubs and clubs.
300k
Really?
What a malicious and blatant lie.
Do you think that anyone is stupid enough to believe your shit?
Not that it's overly relevant to the thread, but he does earn $255,805 a year from World Vision. Which is pretty low TBH.
Eddie Dingle
Moving chairs
As Rob pointed out his salary is 255k but he also receives other "bonuses"
Not so malicious and blatant now was it champ?
Are you stupid Grin?
Cool. Can the nine other club presidents that have spoken out against the new tax also each have their own thread?
I'm sure they wouldn't want Eddie to get all the credit as he's only of the ten to publicly oppose it.
And BTW - With bonuses and other perks (free car, travel etc) etc, TIm Costello's salary package with World Vision works out at about $300,000 - with over $250,000 in cash. So, it's no "malicious and blatant lie".
I'm sure they wouldn't want Eddie to get all the credit as he's only of the ten to publicly oppose it.
And BTW - With bonuses and other perks (free car, travel etc) etc, TIm Costello's salary package with World Vision works out at about $300,000 - with over $250,000 in cash. So, it's no "malicious and blatant lie".
Got a source on that?
Crickets
- Banned
- #60
Crickets
A basic google search for "Tim Costello Salary" brings up the numbers.
The World Vision Annual Report for 2007 shows a base salary of 205,000 and $45,000 of other benefits ... so the numbers suggested for 2011 look reasonable...
That said, are people actually suggesting that a $300k package for a bloke in the role he has is too much? Seriously?
FFS, do people out there get what senior business people and execs earn? They expect him to do that sort of role for basic wage?
Here is more info:
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110212170821AAINtWu
From that:
Thanks Eagles
So quite a good salary.
But put into context, he's not quite the "hypocrite" that Footyhead07 claims.
In fact, I think he has been campaigning against the scourge of pokies, especially in less affluent suburbs, for at least a decade.
I'm surprised Jeff Kennett with his admirable work for those who suffer from mental illness, is not in agreement with him with regards to the harms of Pokies. Perhaps, in this case, self interest outweighs principles.
In any case it seems commonplace these days that those who seek to defend the common good against powerful cashed-up vested interests, can expect to be demonised.
Perhaps it was always thus.
So quite a good salary.
But put into context, he's not quite the "hypocrite" that Footyhead07 claims.
In fact, I think he has been campaigning against the scourge of pokies, especially in less affluent suburbs, for at least a decade.
I'm surprised Jeff Kennett with his admirable work for those who suffer from mental illness, is not in agreement with him with regards to the harms of Pokies. Perhaps, in this case, self interest outweighs principles.
In any case it seems commonplace these days that those who seek to defend the common good against powerful cashed-up vested interests, can expect to be demonised.
Perhaps it was always thus.
My understanding is that this is tripe. I believe 88% of pokie machines can be easily converted to become lower intensity machines that will NOT require pre-commitment under the legislation. Only higher intensity machines will require pre-commitment.
If that is incorrect, I would love someone to correct me.
My understanding is that they are simply trying to limit the rate at which people can lose money. So if gamblers want to use small fry machines they can gamble to their hearts content.
Seems a pretty modest reform.
And no, I don't like the Dogs owning pokies at all.
With pre-commitment what is stopping the problem gamblers putting a huge limit on the card? Will there be income checks before issuing cards like there are skill checks before issuing drivers licenses? I really have no issues with pokies, or gambling at all really. It's all nice to try these new programs but wouldn't trials have been prudent first to see if they work? I can't see this working if people can set their own limit
Hearts to hearts
Premium Gold
- Mar 16, 2001
- 25,097
- 62,353
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Wales, Eastwood, West Ham
This isn't to ban poker machines, it's to reduce the cap a player can lose to $120 an hour. that's a lot of revenue still. It's just petty to oppose it.
AFL clubs might enjoy the extra but none depend on it as NRL clubs do. Good opportunity for the family game to differentiate itself and back the reforms.
AFL clubs might enjoy the extra but none depend on it as NRL clubs do. Good opportunity for the family game to differentiate itself and back the reforms.
I don't think there's anything to stop gamblers from putting massive limits on these cards. However the theory is that a problem gambler would be in a better frame of mind to know how much he can afford to lose before he starts gambling. While problem gamblers are in the middle of the thier pokies session the main thing on their mind is to chase their losses or "just one more time" or "another $50 won't hurt" and then they suddenly find they blew their weekly grocery income or money for their power bill. The pre-commitment is to help them to think of how much they can afford to lose before they start playing.
I don't know why casual gamblers will have a problem with the walk to the counter to pre-register. Are people really that lazy? Even if this initiative has just a minor effect I thinks it's till worth it. But by the reaction from the Hotel lobby and AFL clubs claiming that they will lose a lot of revenue suggests that it going to have more then just a minor effect on problem gamblers.
Edit: Looks like there's a $120/hour limit on the high performance machines. Still $120/hour is a lot of money.
Interesting that rather than debate the facts of these reforms, you find someone who agrees with them and then discredit them because they make money.
How about you tell why these reforms will br bad for the country, if you can
- Thread starter
- #68
Of the 9 presidents sucking on the pokies teat only one was so silly as to call the action on pokies a 'footy tax' ... a Toff from Toorak aka the boy from Broady.
problem gamblers dont go to a club thinking thy will blow their entire pay, they think i'll just play $100, then another $100, then another, then another and suddenly they have no money before they realise. They know a win is just around the corner so they draw in their credit card and spend that, then draw down on their mortgage etc.
They probably wouldn't have set a 50k limit with a $600 pay check.
Eddie Dingle
Moving chairs
Interesting that rather than debate the facts of these reforms, you find someone who agrees with them and then discredit them because they make money.
How about you tell why these reforms will br bad for the country, if you can
Why will they be good? I don't play the pokies, never have hopefully never will, but I reserve my right to and to lose as much money as I choose to. Again the nanny state mentality of this country comes to the fore. I have to drink my beer out of plastic after midnight at my local because of a minority of morons and now I'll have to declare what I am prepared to punt before I do. Isn't that my business?
Why are the majority punished because a minority can't control themselves? I have nothing to lose or gain by these reforms but the very idea of them insults my every sense. Added to that we are being dictated to by a Tasmanian that was elected by 13,000 people. That's not how a democracy works is it?
They will be good because they help problem gamblers and their families, thats undeniable.
Its hard to believe your outrage at now being slightly inconvenienced by something that you 'hopefully never will' have to do.
I'll hopefully never drive across the nullabour, and so i wouldn't give two shits if they put in a few speed bumps just because few dumb teenagers are speeding through towns.
Your true reason for opposing this reform isn't being declared here. Time to fess up.
Eddie Dingle
Moving chairs
As I said I have nothing to lose or gain from these reforms. But I will stand by my rights to decide my own fate should I choose to play pokies.
I'm outraged that the government are doing this to stay in power when they realistically would never touch them had they had a majority.
I'm outraged they do relatively nothing about the cancer that is cigarette smoking (pardon the pun) when that costs this country far more than problem gambling. And please don't bring up plain packaging as a defence that they are doing something.
sedders this is all a meaningless debate as these reforms will just not get through, right or wrong they will not get through. The government has just too much to lose. I am only defending my rights as an adult in this country to make decisions that I believe I am entitled to make.
It is not popular to defend the evil pokies and the people that become rich from the misery of others and I don't feel I am doing that. I am defending my rights, if you will I am pro choice, no one forces people to play these machines and no one forces me not to.
Personal responsibility is highly underrated in this country.
Nothing in these laws are stopping you from doing this. In fact, they are promoting that very idea!
The whole point is this - problem gamblers, once they sit down in front of a poker machine, effectively cannot 'choose their own fate' any longer. I mean, obviously at the base of it they can. But the entire environment is designed in a way to ensure that their senses are dulled and they have no concept of time. They get sucked in and just keep putting in the money. What this law is basically proposing is saying "Hey, let's make it so that before people go into that environment which is designed to keep people playing, they can decide how much money they'd like to spend."
Eddie Dingle
Moving chairs
Well said legend166 and I understand that but in my mind they made the choice in the beginning and they choose to sit there. It's like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer you know it's going to hurt and you can't win so why do it?
I realise I am in a distinct minority but in my humble opinion people will gamble, on pokies or other wise, so lets get to the heart of the issue with problem gambling and not just do a cosmetic cover up job which this is.
People keep arguing there is no proof it wont work, but there is no proof it will?
- Moderator
- #75
Hmm so lets see... The AFL and NRL will actively campaign against it, the SANFL has been for months already - and you single out mcguire? I dislike him as much as the enxt man, but this is ridiculous.
lol @ north people in this thread.
lol @ north people in this thread.
Similar threads
