Gambling Act bites Dogs' plan
Link
AN equalisation concept proposed by the Western Bulldogs to impose a luxury tax on gaming machine profits appears to have been scuttled just days after its release.
In its equalisation paper submitted to the AFL -- under the apt heading Catch-up Footy -- the Dogs want a more even and fairer distribution of all club and AFL profits.
In the paper, the Bulldogs requested a radical change to the way AFL clubs were financed in the future, including a massive across-the-board increase in football department funding by the league and a luxury tax on poker machine revenue.
But, after making inquiries to the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, The Australian was told sharing of gaming profits might be considered illegal.
A spokesperson for the VCGLR said yesterday The Gambling Regulation Act 2003 states that a venue operator must not enter into, or be a party to, a "prohibited venue agreement".
"A prohibited venue agreement is an agreement, arrangement or understanding entered into by a venue operator under which the venue operator provides to another person, as consideration, an amount calculated by reference to its gaming machine revenue," the VCGLR said.
"The Western Bulldogs proposal that Victorian AFL clubs should contribute a certain percentage of profit from their poker machine revenue to a common pool for equitable distribution may be considered such an agreement."
The VCGLR is an independent government statutory body charged with maintaining and improving public confidence in the integrity of sports with regard to their betting environment. It also can withdraw licences to operate gaming machines and force the removal of key officials if it finds an organisation has acted inappropriately.
The authority said it recommended that venue operators seek their own legal advice on the interpretation of the gambling law and how it applied to this proposal.
The Dogs could be left red-faced by the gambling act as one of their strategies for equalisation was a redistribution of a pokies tax, which they prefer to an AFL equalisation option of taxing clubs on football department spending above a certain figure.
"The growth in scale and dependency on poker machine revenue in (most) AFL clubs and the growing revenue differentials between larger and smaller Victorian franchises in this area have been to the detriment of the competition," the Dogs' submission says.
The Bulldogs wanted a system in which poker machine profits over a certain proportion of gross club revenue could be contributed to a common pool for equitable distribution.
Bulldogs chief executive Simon Garlick said last night: "That option is one of a number of options in the paper. While there are some potential hurdles, if it was embraced, I'm sure there could be ways and means to revisit the act."
Garlick said his club earned a profit last year of $300,000 from its two venues with pokies.
Carlton is understood to have made in excess of $4.5 million from five venues last year. Several other Victorian clubs last year made more than $3m from their gambling venues.
Western Bulldogs president Peter Gordon said his club carried an accrued debt of about $7m and argued that it was tougher for the less wealthy clubs to get into business markets outside those generated by football. The Bulldogs emphasised their submission was for the good of the game.
Re: Gambling Act bites Dogs' plan
What a crap article from Greg Denham. He just wants to find holes in any initiatives from the Dogs.
To get around something like this the AFL can just manipulate funds they receive and give out and don't have to mention that its all under Pokies money.
Re: Gambling Act bites Dogs' plan
There are a lot of people making a lot of money from the current setup. We need to expect this sort of thing. There is going to be a lot of obstacles and mud dug up to forestall any kind of equalisation policy, simply because it means a reduction in revenue for many powerful people and their organisations.
Re: Gambling Act bites Dogs' plan
Lost me at Greg Denham, the oracle on what won't happen. Just a Carlton propaganda machine with no credibility.
Re: Gambling Act bites Dogs' plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bornadog
What a crap article from Greg Denham. He just wants to find holes in any initiatives from the Dogs.
To get around something like this the AFL can just manipulate funds they receive and give out and don't have to mention that its all under Pokies money.
I think its embarassing that we didn't consider what we were doing could be illegal.
In all honesty that part of the equalisation plan was a pipedream and not a great idea. I hate to say but I agreed with Carton's Swann in that he redistribution concept was flawed.
Re: Gambling Act bites Dogs' plan
I for 1 am happy that we are actually speaking up as a club and not laying down for a change.. We are demanding more money and it has caused a bit of a stir. Lets keep pushing, if we are loud enough they will eventually listen
Re: Gambling Act bites Dogs' plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FrediKanoute
I think its embarassing that we didn't consider what we were doing could be illegal.
In all honesty that part of the equalisation plan was a pipedream and not a great idea. I hate to say but I agreed with Carton's Swann in that he redistribution concept was flawed.
I am sure Peter would have an idea about the law and how it should work, however, I agree with you.
Re: Gambling Act bites Dogs' plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DragzLS1
I for 1 am happy that we are actually speaking up as a club and not laying down for a change.. We are demanding more money and it has caused a bit of a stir. Lets keep pushing, if we are loud enough they will eventually listen
We have to focus on Etihad as this is the most glaring issue, and the one where we'll get the most cross club support. As a team, we have decent facilities, two first round draft picks, A quality coach, a list manager and good leadership.
We have to start putting runs on the board so we can have some leverage in these arguments.
Re: Gambling Act bites Dogs' plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ghost Dog
We have to focus on Etihad as this is the most glaring issue, and the one where we'll get the most cross club support. As a team, we have decent facilities, two first round draft picks, A quality coach, a list manager and good leadership.
We have to start putting runs on the board so we can have some leverage in these arguments.
In addition to Etihad, another issue is football department spending. Perhaps there should be a cap on how much clubs can spend on coaching, training and the rest?
Re: Gambling Act bites Dogs' plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
F'scary
In addition to Etihad, another issue is football department spending. Perhaps there should be a cap on how much clubs can spend on coaching, training and the rest?
Why?
The club has proposed a minimum should be spent, not a maximum. Your idea just stifles growth of the game.
Re: Gambling Act bites Dogs' plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bornadog
Why?
The club has proposed a minimum should be spent, not a maximum. Your idea just stifles growth of the game.
I suppose the salary cap on the playing list stifles the growth of the game too?
I know the club has proposed a minimum spend in the football department but isn't that in the context of increased financial support from other people's money? If that doesn't eventuate (and the article says it won't), broadened capping may be the equalisation mechanism.
Re: Gambling Act bites Dogs' plan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DragzLS1
I for 1 am happy that we are actually speaking up as a club and not laying down for a change.. We are demanding more money and it has caused a bit of a stir. Lets keep pushing, if we are loud enough they will eventually listen
No they won't, they'll just work hard to discredit us and make it look like we're a pack of whiners suffering from financial mismanagement. Which is what they're doing now.
