Eddie misrepresents pokies tax as a footy tax

[Kwality]

So says the very self interested Collingwood president:
"To suddenly out of nowhere, without any consultation, to have what looks like being a footy tax imposed is going to hit football clubs right between the eyes"
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...er-julia-gillard/story-fn7x8me2-1226145360308

Is Eddie still on the Packer payroll?
While it is believed the AFL does not support any co-ordinated publicity blitz, AFL chief Andrew Demetriou has held talks with ministers, including Families Minister Jenny Macklin.
And the man who helped install Ms Gillard in The Lodge, former national ALP secretary Karl Bitar, is helping to co-ordinate the campaign in his new job as a Crown casino lobbyist.
That's angered senior Labor ministers, who claim Crown billionaire James Packer is pulling the AFL's strings through Mr Bitar to protect his own casino profits.

The pokies issue applies only to some clubs and to dress it up as an AFL issue is a bit rich.

The clubs industry in NSW & Q are leading the charge against the tax & the AFL clubs in the gun should not be using the AFL to prosecute their non footy related interests.

Then there is a misrepresentation of State & Federal politics:
One AFL president, who asked not be named, said: ''This is not about politics, this is about survival.
''The clubs are on the hook for millions of dollars on pokies. We've spent millions buying the machines and now the Government goes bang and changes the rules, undermining our revenues.''
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...er-julia-gillard/story-fn7x8me2-1226145360308

Will fans of the clubs using pokies simply fall in behind the position of their clubs or address a social issue facing the community?

 

[newcastlefalcon]

Eddie is a very good advocate for causes that are in his self interest as long as people realise that whatever he says within the law is fine.
Sometimes I wonder whether someone from Broadmeadows could reflect on where he came from rather than and before speaking from where he is.

 

[R00StaR]

This is not about politics, this is about survival. The clubs are on the hook for millions of dollars on pokies. We've spent millions buying the machines and now the Government goes bang and changes the rules, undermining our revenues.

Well thats business isnt it? Happens all the time and theres no song and dance. That said, AFL clubs shouldnt need to explore outside revenue streams for survival. The AFL need to do more to insure clubs can concentrate on what their designed to do, be the best football clubs possible!!

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Saw it on Insiders this morning.

Poor form by McGuire to oppose such a worthy initiative

 

[Beaussie]

How is the planned pokie reforms involving pre committment a pokie tax? Wake up to yourself Eddie.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Will fans of the clubs using pokies simply fall in behind the position of their clubs or address a social issue facing the community?

When I went to Windy Hill earlier this year I was disappointed to see shitty pokies around the place. I should really express my dissatisfaction.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

So says the very self interested Collingwood president:
"To suddenly out of nowhere, without any consultation, to have what looks like being a footy tax imposed is going to hit football clubs right between the eyes"
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...er-julia-gillard/story-fn7x8me2-1226145360308

Is Eddie still on the Packer payroll?
While it is believed the AFL does not support any co-ordinated publicity blitz, AFL chief Andrew Demetriou has held talks with ministers, including Families Minister Jenny Macklin.
And the man who helped install Ms Gillard in The Lodge, former national ALP secretary Karl Bitar, is helping to co-ordinate the campaign in his new job as a Crown casino lobbyist.
That's angered senior Labor ministers, who claim Crown billionaire James Packer is pulling the AFL's strings through Mr Bitar to protect his own casino profits.

The pokies issue applies only to some clubs and to dress it up as an AFL issue is a bit rich.

The clubs industry in NSW & Q are leading the charge against the tax & the AFL clubs in the gun should not be using the AFL to prosecute their non footy related interests.

Then there is a misrepresentation of State & Federal politics:
One AFL president, who asked not be named, said: ''This is not about politics, this is about survival.
''The clubs are on the hook for millions of dollars on pokies. We've spent millions buying the machines and now the Government goes bang and changes the rules, undermining our revenues.''
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...er-julia-gillard/story-fn7x8me2-1226145360308

Will fans of the clubs using pokies simply fall in behind the position of their clubs or address a social issue facing the community?

I'm confused, regardless of what your views are in relation to pokies: who's interests would you expect the President of the Collingwood Football Club to represent?

 

[Scodog10]

Either way it goes beyond that. 9 of the 10 Victorian clubs use poker machines as a source of revenue so not only is Eddie going into bat for his own club, but also the other Victorian clubs.

The annoying thing is that the overall message that this isn't good for all those clubs will be lost in the wash due to his stupid choice of words.

 

[Tas]

Should have highlighted that not all clubs rely on pokie revenue, so it is not a footy tax.

I think it is one thing to abuse the system and exploit the problem gamblers, it is another to campaign against a moral cause to help against exploiting problem gamblers, it highlights a real dirty streak.

Of course doing the right thing is going to have an economic impact, I am sure those who were pro-slavery in the day had good economic reasons to support the status quo remaining the same.

Wrong is wrong though. The ends doesn't justify the means.

 

[Coledinho]

Its like watching two blind men argue about who has the hotter girlfriend. Eddies one eyed hypocrisy is so ridiculous it actually makes him look like a troll. He claims he supports responsible gambling initiatives but fails to accept that these new reforms are that. Surely gambling less = more responsible. You dont need proof Eddie for something that is just plain old common sense

 

[yodellinhank]

Should have highlighted that not all clubs rely on pokie revenue, so it is not a footy tax.

I think it is one thing to abuse the system and exploit the problem gamblers, it is another to campaign against a moral cause to help against exploiting problem gamblers, it highlights a real dirty streak.

Of course doing the right thing is going to have an economic impact, I am sure those who were pro-slavery in the day had good economic reasons to support the status quo remaining the same.

Wrong is wrong though. The ends doesn't justify the means.

Similar to North Melbourne's (and Essendon's) relationship with Betezy, who are being investigated for offering inducements for the opening of betting accounts.

Are you very vocal against that partnership in light of the accusations?

 

[Coledinho]

Similar to North Melbourne's (and Essendon's) relationship with Betezy, who are being investigated for offering inducements for the opening of betting accounts.

Are you very vocal against that partnership in light of the accusations?

Thats a long bow to stretch. BetEzy had a recent takeover and they are the guys being investigated, not the company officials they would of initially signed off with.

 

[Tas]

Similar to North Melbourne's (and Essendon's) relationship with Betezy, who are being investigated for offering inducements for the opening of betting accounts.

Are you very vocal against that partnership in light of the accusations?

I hope they throw the book at them and hope we dump them. I would fully support an industry wide banning or severe restricting of online gambling.

The problem is, with so many clubs sourcing revenue from gambling it makes it difficult for us to totally ignore any form of revenue from gambling, we are not that financially secure that we can ignore that revenue stream while every other club in Victoria is exploiting it and exploiting the more profitable/more damaging forms of gambling. If we fall too far behind in revenue we will struggle to compete.

If you would adjust financial figures to be before gambling revenue we wouldn't be as far because what we get from that is a pittance compared to the revenue generated by pokies.

If the AFL had the stones to tell clubs you have 5 years to sell off your pokies and ween yourself off gambling revenue because they are going to impose a total gambling revenue ban in 5 years then I would be all for that. Clubs could sell the interests they have to commercial operators and let current contracts run their course.

It is very difficult for a club like ours to make the moral statement alone.

 

[RUNVS]

If a AFL club needs poker machine money to survive then as far as i am concerned that club doesn't deserve to exist.

 

[yodellinhank]

Thats a long bow to stretch. BetEzy had a recent takeover and they are the guys being investigated, not the company officials they would of initially signed off with.

I signed up for the donsbet with betezy, was about 2 years ago. I was offered $50 of free bet credit to do so. I think the arrangements have been going on quite a while.

I'm fine with such a thing, I like betting on sport and feel that in some small way registering through the club sponsor might help increase the sponsorship of the club.

 

[Coledinho]

I signed up for the donsbet with betezy, was about 2 years ago. I was offered $50 of free bet credit to do so. I think the arrangements have been going on quite a while.

I'm fine with such a thing, I like betting on sport and feel that in some small way registering through the club sponsor might help increase the sponsorship of the club.

Every single website on planet earth does it. This is legal. BetEzy is being accused of other bad behaviour that isnt related to this.

 

[fairdinkum]

Should have highlighted that not all clubs rely on pokie revenue, so it is not a footy tax.

Even if all AFL clubs did depend on pokies revenue, it still wouldn't be a 'footy tax'.

Not only are the pokies reforms not targetted at nor exclusive to footy clubs, but they do not involve any form of taxation.

Eddie's choice of words - and I doubt they were spur-of-the-moment - was utterly ridiculous. Lowest common denominator type stuff which is usually the domain of insipid major political party leaders like Tony Abbott.

In some ways I have a lot of respect for Eddie. In other ways I think the man is schmuck.

 

[laminex]

Should have highlighted that not all clubs rely on pokie revenue, so it is not a footy tax.

I think it is one thing to abuse the system and exploit the problem gamblers, it is another to campaign against a moral cause to help against exploiting problem gamblers, it highlights a real dirty streak.

Of course doing the right thing is going to have an economic impact, I am sure those who were pro-slavery in the day had good economic reasons to support the status quo remaining the same.

Wrong is wrong though. The ends doesn't justify the means.

roobet anyone,

 

[Dorval6]

Eddie is a very good advocate for causes that are in his self interest as long as people realise that whatever he says within the law is fine.
Sometimes I wonder whether someone from Broadmeadows could reflect on where he came from rather than and before speaking from where he is.

Always have to laugh at the way he pulls out the 'boy from Broady' line from his house in Toorak......

 

[Frank Grimes]

It's impossible for the Clubs to justify thier stance against the pre-commitment reforms on anything other than greed.

The pre-commitment reforms are proposed to stop those addicted to gambling from throwing all their weeks earnings away by chasing their losses. It allows them to set a limit before they gamble when they would suppossedly will be in the frame of mind to know how much they can afford to lose. It's not banning gambling and it's not increasing the tax in any way. The only patrons which it affects are those with a gambling problem. It's an initiative which I totally agree with and hope the greed of the corporations (and the AFL) don't stop the bill from passing.

The legislation is not about targeting AFL clubs. If the AFL clubs are looking for somebody to blame then they should blame themselves. They are the one who decided to base their revenue by leeching of those who are problem gamblers. Anyone can see that the government would implement legislation to vices (legal or not) which is not good for the community. They do it all the time with alcohol, drugs and gambling. If an AFL club goes down the gurgler because they relied on people's misfortunes then that club deserves it.

I'm well aware that Richmond has pokies themselves and I haven't been afraid to say that it's something that disgusts me in the past and not afraid of to say it now.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=825019

 

[grogan]

OP misrepresents pokie reform as pokie tax.
As P .keating once said to the car manufacturers 'The shoe is designed to pinch."

 

[The_Reaper]

The best possible thing would be to give clubs a 'moral high ground' bonus if they don't use pokies.

The teams that qualify for this will have 1.1* their number of premiership points on the ladder.

 

[Kwality]

OP misrepresents pokie reform as pokie tax.
As P .keating once said to the car manufacturers 'The shoe is designed to pinch."

Quite right, my mistake, precommittment not tax. Sucked in by Eddie's claims?

To quote fair dinkum :
Even if all AFL clubs did depend on pokies revenue, it still wouldn't be a 'footy tax'.

Not only are the pokies reforms not targetted at nor exclusive to footy clubs, but they do not involve any form of taxation.

Eddie's choice of words - and I doubt they were spur-of-the-moment - was utterly ridiculous. Lowest common denominator type stuff which is usually the domain of insipid major political party leaders like Tony Abbott.

In some ways I have a lot of respect for Eddie. In other ways I think the man is schmuck.

 

[MaddAdam]

The best possible thing would be to give clubs a 'moral high ground' bonus if they don't use pokies.

The teams that qualify for this will have 1.1* their number of premiership points on the ladder.

Where do we sign up?

 

[jacko57]

I do have to laugh at the way the pokies industry spokesmen always claim that this will be ineffective, it won't solve problem gambling...........so why are they so worried about it?