League, the clubs and the pokies

Crosscoder ,that's actually not correct. Independent research has shown that pokie addicts don't generally switch to horse racing or sports betting or lotto or keno or craps; it's the pokies they can't resist. Maybe it is the noise and light that makes them particularly insidious. That "old dear" may gamble $100 once a week on lotto, but they would lose that $100 in half an hour on the pokies, and lose their whole pension in a few hours. That's the difference with the pokies, you can get stung in no time, even playing 5 cent machines. The counsellors will tell you the pokies are by far their biggest issue, and they cause more damage to more people than any other gambling source. Do something about the pokies and the whole community, including the leagues clubs will benefit.

I'd be glad to be of assistance. I would relish the opportunity to take Gus Gould on - one on one in a verbal exchange on the pros and cons of poker machines and their involvement with the NRL. Sign me up !!!!!

the club I support in the AFL is from WA and doesn't get 5 cents from pokies,,,,and as my second AFL team nor will the Giants....that doesn't make what the Vic teams are doing right of course....the AFL isn't clean but at least we don't have the embarrassment of its CEO siding with the pokie palaces...what is Gallop doing?...I know his stance is popular within RL circles but is not helping his cred in the wider community....

why is it my business?...well for a start I have kids that will one day be exposed to these cretinous machines (the oldest in the next year or so)...and even without my own kids, I have compassion for friends and wider family who could fall prey to excessive pokie losses .... Barry look you have a view which is essentially that you're a casual player who doesn't like the new measures ...fair enough...maybe you're genuine or perhaps you're someone from a pokie club posing as a casual player...who knows...bottom line is that despite all the hoo hah in the RL media, there are plenty of people who think these measures are worth a shot,,,,and they're coming whether you like it or not...get over it

Crosscoder - what is your view of Gallop, Gould and Mortimer getting involved against this pokie reform. Do you agree or disagree with their stance?

huh?... I 'admitted' this in my first few posts without any prompting from you or from anyone else (if you can be bothered checking)... just because I don't directly respond to your various posts on this issue doesn't mean I ever denied it... I 'm not going to chase down every red flag you fly... geez... yes it seems that some Victorian AFL clubs have recently put their snouts in the same trough that NRL clubs have been feeding from for years... so what...

But did he feel depressed and suicidal at the end of each session because he had spent far more than he had planned? This law will not stop people playing, or even playing large amounts. I play the pokies, but set limits on myself. If I lose (which is mostly), as long as I don't go over my limit, I don't feel too bad as that's what I planned to spend and as you say you could easily spend that amount on another activity. It may not even work, but I can see merit in it, and if it saves a few people from becoming destitute, then it should be worth a go. And I agree, it will be a hassle registering, like it's a hassle putting on seatbelts, showing ID at pubs etc.

The Barry, Only brought up Iran as an example that restricting access does work, a concept that goes against my personal free-wheeling beliefs, but you can't ignore the facts, make it hard to do stupidly bad things to yourself like gambling, drinking or drugging to excess and the number of people who do so go down. I love my league, to the point of almost silly obsession (you should see my memorabilia, I have a flag commemorating the 1953 French tour and a banner for the Moscow Magicians league team), but doing the right thing transcends blind support for the administration of the game or people like Gould who admits he worked in the pokie industry for 12 years - hardly unbiased one would think. These are reforms similar to the laws regarding drink driving or seat-belts or bike helmets, once they are introduced we will wonder what the fuss was all about.

I notice you finally had to admit some Victorian clubs would have to lose the pokie licences.Took a while,but we got there.

Ever seen the continued results of excessive drinking.I lost a cousin an innocent driver,in an accident by a drunk. There are people who are addicted to pokies and ruin their lives and families and there are idiots and alcoholics who do likewise. Yes a different subject matter,but the same result.Unless poker machines are banned and ditto alcohol.so it will continue. BTW GoGWS something we all overlook ,the taxes from these infernal machines go into consolidated revenue,which at times no doubt are used provide facilties for sporting teams including oops Blacktown GWS . Its like the taxes on cigarettes. Got a suggestion champ as you are so passionate about the issue,petition Collingwood AFL club to stop ripping off the poor unfortunates in their community.Poeple are still hurting there ,I have no doubts.

I wrote to Xenophon about this issue, here is part of his office's reply that is pretty interesting: Under the proposed scheme, venues will have the option to install low-intensity machines, which are configured to limit average losses to around $120 per hour, if they do not wish to participate in the pre-commitment scheme. Now, does anyone out there think $120 per hour is an unfair restriction? So no need for pre-commitment or registration if you can manage to limit yourself to only blowing a dollar every 30 seconds. I would suggest the only people who couldn't handle that amount would be problem gamblers.

I worked with a guy that used to love skydiving - it was a real rush - you could even say he was addicted. He spent thousands every year fuelling his addiction - and at the end had nothing to show for it.

What do you mean compassion for me ? You're so arrogant to assume that I haven't seen the damage. I have, I do. I just have a different viewpoint about it than you that revolves around personal accountability. As for your work colleague - it's a real shame that's where he ended up but : 1) he wasn't an addict because he played the pokies once. 2) his addiction was forged because he kept CHOOSING to go back and play. People aren't addicted the minute they first try something. Habits are formed through repetition of behaviour. You go and play the pokies every lunch time - guess what - you might become an addict. Surprise. My point about all this is that people who refuse to accept accountability and modify their behaviour at the front end then complain about being an addict at the back end (wasn't my fault - I was addicted) and then legislation gets put in to protect the absolute minority that ruins enjoyment for the majority. And please don't come back with "you've never seen it" because I have. You don't play the pokies so you don't know. I don't know a single person that lines up at RSL doors at 8am waiting for the pokies to open. I know these people exist but it's not the portrait of the average pokie player. For me and everyone I know that plays the pokies it's an incidental thing that happens after a few drinks we go and have a slap. Mostly we lose a few bucks. Sometimes we lose more than we'd like and sometimes we get a win up that pays for our night out and there have been a couple of occassions where I've had wins in the thousands. No fair dinkum person would ever claim to be ahead on the pokies but I see it as an acceptable incidental entertainment expense. Having to sign up and set limits for myself will mostly stop me playing the pokies - why go to the hassle for a few minutes game time. Besides the pain in the neck factor I really object to having to "register" every time I want to play a pokie. I really don't understand how this helps problem gamblers anyway? They can set whatever limit they like and most venues actually allow players to set limits for themselves already. These rules are poorly planned and target the wrong users. That is how the rules will not impact problem gamblers yet reduce pokie turnover - it's very simple. NRL clubs too good for too long??? - yet again you comment on something that you have absolutely no idea about. Most Leagues club grants to NRL clubs don't even cover the salary cap, let alone all the other running costs involved in an NRL club. There is trough of cash of yours is in your imagination. I'm not going on about this any further. GoGWS - if you don't play the pokies why is it any of your business what rules are put in place ?

saw a good point on another website....if people like Gould are so worried about the community let's take the pokie licences off NRL teams and give them hospitals, schools, universities, charities...if there must be tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, of profits generated by these venues why not give the proceeds directly to educators, to doctors, to medical researchers and to the poor...why give them to sportsmen...why not let sportsmen live/die on revenues directly attributable to their sports - gate receipts/sponsorships/broadcast revenues etc,,,...gambling on pokies really has nothing to do with sport, other than sporting clubs (in NSW) have an historical connection in relying on pokie revenues....time to move on and grow up... of course this will never happen ...the NRL clubs will keep their pokie palaces (and some Victorian AFL clubs as well) but perhaps they can stop crying about these harm minimisation measures....give the measures a run and see what happens... if they don't work in helping problem gamblers that will become very apparent very soon... logic, and some preliminary evidence from other trials, suggests it will work...

Gee that's compassion for you Barry....you obviously haven't seen the damage up close.... I had a co-worker who used to put a fortnight's pay through the pokies most pay days.... he'd blow his pay in one or two nights then go around the office borrowing $50 from several people for his food/rent so he could limp through to the next pay day and do it all again!!...some people need limits....and what's the big deal anyway?....are daily limits such a bad thing?...has it occurred to the NRL and clubs that some reduction in profits may actually be legitimate and responsible - that their business models are actually causing harm and that to be socially responsible may entail moving lower revenue/profit levels.... the NRL and clubs shouldn't overplay their hand....they've had it too good for too long..at the moment there seems to be an intransigence, belligerence and arrogance from some sections of the clubs industry and NRL that could blow up in their faces....apologists from the NRL and RL media come up with empty arguments, such as Gould's article, and wonder why few people are impressed - they think people don't realise that and they all have their snouts in the pokies trough....that they all rely on pokies revenues, directly or indirectly....

$25M ??? Most Leagues Club grants don't cover the salary cap. Don't let facts get in the way champ.

Chris - I've read your post further down so respect where you're coming from but don't assume youi're the only person that has had addiction in their lives. All addicts have plenty of opportunity to recognise and cease their reckless behaviours before they become addiction. The alternative is that as soon as you have one slap on the pokies or a sip of beer or whatever you are an addict which just isn't the case. Regardless - I have sympathy and empathy for what you have been through. With all due respect to you I'm not going to take my social reform leads from what they do in Iran. I'm sure having a beer and a lazy $20 in 'Queen of the Nile" is the least of their worries. I did see a 60 mins story of the proliferation of drag queens in Iran these days though - makes you think ...

With due respect Barry, you don't know what you are talking about. Ask anyone who has worked in the field of addiction or who has tried to deal with addiction; it ain't weakness. Maybe you should do a little study on the issue, You could go in the AA direction and read the Big Book or the medical direction, start perhaps with the DSM IV. Or just drop into a 12 step meeting and hear what people's real experiences with addiction have been. One thing is certain, trying to deal with addiction from the 'weakness' perspective does not work. One thing that does work is reducing access, and if you don't believe me go to an Islamic country like Iran and look for alcoholics, they are there but in tiny numbers (and yes, I have been there). So limiting access to poker machines will work, again go ask any recovering pokie addict what they think of these reforms. As for the 70% of pokie users who are not problem gamblers, I don't think mandatory limits on betting will be that hard, you fill in a form and get a card, something you do to join a club anyway.

The big difference is that a guy who spent $100,000 on transformer toys will still have the option of selling said toys on ebay, most likely at a profit. Someone who has spent $100,000 on pokies will not have the same option.

*looks at what Turbodewd wrote* *circles* "The NRL must be ruthlessly profit-oriented" *circles* 'It must also force Channel 9 to show Origin live in Perth and Adelaide'. IIf you want to make the most money, you sign a contract for the most money, and so you dont get to care where they show it. If you care where they show it, then you sign a contract with someone who'll do that, rather than the contract for the most money.