Sport and Pokies

[Rocky Rhodes]

Nathan Tinker saved the club. That was why they were pushing so hard for him.

Pim, like the headless one your opinion is totally molded by the telecrap. There was no talk about newcastle struggling until Tinkler talk came about. Surely the agenda was obvious.

The Tinkler deal was about the knights wish to become number one, not regarding their survival or saving the club.

That was why they were pushing so hard for him

Yep, pushing so hard they rejected his original offer. Not a sign of desperate survival is it.

[Rocky Rhodes]

Ones pessary must still be loose from last evenings loss. no?

loss? hahaha...

Go back to sleep you dreamy dope because only in your dreams that will happen..

loss hahaha....

btw, the fact that you are chasing me across threads suggest someone is bitter about their loss....haha

[Guest]

loss? hahaha...

Go back to sleep you dreamy dope because only in your dreams that will happen..

loss hahaha....

btw, the fact that you are chasing me across threads suggest someone is bitter about their loss....haha

Don't be perturbed, Being uneducated is not your legacy alone. Please do adjust your pessary, your brain may become active soon after.

[Rocky Rhodes]

haha...he is still going! Bitter as hell and with a massive grudge! And he thinks i lost something haha good one china! My grin is still here, from ear to ear...haha lol

[Guest]

Your experiencing a phantasm, your shovel is far to small china town. The dictionary may help with your pessary and phantasm, the rhode is far to rocky. haha lol heeha love you long time.

[Guest]

Don't be perturbed, Being uneducated is not your legacy alone. Please do adjust your pessary, your brain may become active soon after.

LOL! pesary yes she definatley has one..

[Guest]

LOL! pesary yes she definatley has one..

the phrase that ends with a wet week best sums RR up. no?

[Spanner in the works]

I totally agree with you, and i am by no means a fan of pokie machines. My gripe with this whole notion is that the government is getting manipulated by the minority who cannot help themselves.

I'd rather them leave this issue for the time being and try and fix the alcohol problem, which in my opinion is spiraling out of control. I am astounded by how many people choose to obliterate themselves at least once a week. Lookng at the future generations - the problem is only getting worse.

Unlike problem gamblers (who do enough damage to themselves and their loved ones), alcohol affects not only the persons surrounding circle of kin but random, average people who they may have never met (assaults, etc).

As harsh as this sounds, i do not care for a person that chooses to self-destruct. It's sad to see, but to me, the person is as good as gone. It's up to them to get out of the hole they dug.

What pisses me off is when i see innocent people get caught up negatively in an act, perpertrated by a dope who can't help himself when drinking.

Spotted that. As an aside, it costs the country $36 billion dollars a year according to a study done by AERF. Here's the link to all the documents:
http://aerf.com.au/Harm_to_Others_Fu...ith-errata.pdf
http://aerf.com.au/Harm_to_Others_Summary.pdf

Love to know how much problem gambling costs? I'm all for the pokie reforms. Just thought perspective is good. Differing views are a good thing.

[Headless Chook]

That debt was past debt, however each yr they were basically breaking even or making small profits. When the NRL negotiate their new tv rights the knights could have easily payed off those debts. 3 millions is insignificant in the scheme of things, look at Cronulla who have debts of 9 or 10 million yet they are still around. So your claim of struggling to cope is complete BS.

Point is Newcastle without no pokies at all (way less than pokies with restrictions) are surviving. Case closed....

I'm struggling to see how the new TV deal would allow them to pay off the debts as the cap increase would go towards paying players not clearing debts. As for when the debt was incurred, what does that have to do with anything? The club was in debt, was struggling to meet its expenses and falling way behind the other clubs in terms of infrastructure. They may have survived off the field for a while longer but the club knew they couldn't continue to exist in their current format and thats why they brought Tinkler in. They rejected his first offer because they wanted to do the right thing by members, not because they were in a strong position financially. if they were so strong financially, they wouldn't have entertained the thought of joining with Tinkler in the first place.

[Rocky Rhodes]

I'm struggling to see how the new TV deal would allow them to pay off the debts as the cap increase would go towards paying players not clearing debts. As for when the debt was incurred, what does that have to do with anything? The club was in debt, was struggling to meet its expenses and falling way behind the other clubs in terms of infrastructure. They may have survived off the field for a while longer but the club knew they couldn't continue to exist in their current format and thats why they brought Tinkler in. They rejected his first offer because they wanted to do the right thing by members, not because they were in a strong position financially. if they were so strong financially, they wouldn't have entertained the thought of joining with Tinkler in the first place.

Gosh you can get lost in an argument so easily. Let's get back to the original argument that a club won't survive with poker machine restrictions. My points is Newcastle has survived yet don't have any poker machine revenue at all. They are only 3 million in debt as opposed to the likes of cronulla who are 10 million in debt (more than 3 times). That makes the original argument null and void.

I'm struggling to see how the new TV deal would allow them to pay off the debts as the cap increase would go towards paying players not clearing debts.

Who says the cap will increase dramatically. Even if it did any club is not forced to use all of it's salary cap expecially if it is in survival mode.

As for when the debt was incurred, what does that have to do with anything?

If yearly money flow is positive then debt is not a big issue. You seem to have no idea about business whatsoever.

They may have survived off the field for a while longer but the club knew they couldn't continue to exist in their current format and thats why they brought Tinkler in.

lol...may have survived and couldn't continue to exist in the same sentence. Are you related to bejerrk, adzta or china?

falling way behind the other clubs in terms of infrastructure

Infrastructure has little to do with a clubs survival. Infrastructure may result in better performance on the field but that's all. Souths had poor infrastructure for 20 odd yrs yet continued to survive.

They rejected his first offer because they wanted to do the right thing by members

If the club was in desperate needs the right thing would have been accept any reasonable offer. You are struggling big time matey.

[Headless Chook]

Gosh you can get lost in an argument so easily. Let's get back to the original argument that a club won't survive with poker machine restrictions. My points is Newcastle has survived yet don't have any poker machine revenue at all. They are only 3 million in debt as opposed to the likes of cronulla who are 10 million in debt (more than 3 times). That makes the original argument null and void.



Who says the cap will increase dramatically. Even if it did any club is not forced to use all of it's salary cap expecially if it is in survival mode.


If yearly money flow is positive then debt is not a big issue. You seem to have no idea about business whatsoever.



lol...may have survived and couldn't continue to exist in the same sentence. Are you related to bejerrk, adzta or china?


Infrastructure has little to do with a clubs survival. Infrastructure may result in better performance on the field but that's all. Souths had poor infrastructure for 20 odd yrs yet continued to survive.



If the club was in desperate needs the right thing would have been accept any reasonable offer. You are struggling big time matey.

No not really. Newcastle wanted a club that could be successful, they knew under the current arrangements that was never going to happen. Yes they might have been able to clear their debts under their current existence, but if you continue to run last because you're not competing on the field as a result of not spending your fuill cap then pretty soon sponsorship money, gate takings, merchandise sales, food and beverage sales and all those things that went into them turning a profit would decline and so would that bottom line you're talking about. You seem to be concentrating on the profit they are turning without really thinking about what goes into turning that profit. Infrastucture off the field has a lot to do with a clubs success which ultimately helps them become successful financially.

[Rocky Rhodes]

No not really. Newcastle wanted a club that could be successful, they knew under the current arrangements that was never going to happen. Yes they might have been able to clear their debts under their current existence, but if you continue to run last because you're not competing on the field as a result of not spending your fuill cap then pretty soon sponsorship money, gate takings, merchandise sales, food and beverage sales and all those things that went into them turning a profit would decline and so would that bottom line you're talking about. You seem to be concentrating on the profit they are turning without really thinking about what goes into turning that profit. Infrastucture off the field has a lot to do with a clubs success which ultimately helps them become successful financially.

yes really.

I clearly pointed out a few times why we are debating (the issue at hand) and yet time and time again you go off on a complete tangent. The issue is surviving, not success on the field. Can you read?.... or are you naturally thick?

Currently newcastle are a mid-range team so even on your tangent you are completely wrong.

You seem to be concentrating on the profit they are turning without really thinking about what goes into turning that profit.

If they are making a profit (regardless of how) then they are surviving....lol

Please do not debate with me again. I have no time trying to explain things over and over to mental midgets.

[bondi-boy]

That debt was past debt, however each yr they were basically breaking even or making small profits. When the NRL negotiate their new tv rights the knights could have easily payed off those debts. 3 millions is insignificant in the scheme of things, look at Cronulla who have debts of 9 or 10 million yet they are still around. So your claim of struggling to cope is complete BS.

Point is Newcastle without no pokies at all (way less than pokies with restrictions) are surviving. Case closed....

Only because Tinkler walked in the door.

[stsae]

Dont be fooled by this statistic

Clubs have always pointed out their percentage return to punters, but the masses are generally fooled as the majority of gamblers leave the return in the machine.

Here is a typical example

A punter puts $100 in a pokie ...

As he winds his outlay down to say $20 he gets a win of $85 ...

His total is now $105

As most gamblers do they continue to bet it is eventually all gone.

Scenario
Punted $100

The machine paid out $85

The club has ended up with $100

The punter zero

The club will say .... The machine paid out 85% on the bet

Thats how you interpret a statistic with an open mind.


Dont be fooled by the payout statistic

What happens when the next punter comes along chucks 20 in the same machine and pulls 200 bucks out???

As I said I'm not a player of the things, no interest whatsoever. But I know some that are very tinnie and often pull some cash from the bludgers. Also some who watch and know when a machine hasn't paid out for a while and it's due. That's when they hookin. That's why people who work in those environments aren't allowed to punt on their machines.

I also know that the establishments that i personally know, those who deal with the figures, say that's if they just took everyone's cash, like you suggested, they wouldn't struggle to survive like they do.

[Headless Chook]

yes really.

I clearly pointed out a few times why we are debating (the issue at hand) and yet time and time again you go off on a complete tangent. The issue is surviving, not success on the field. Can you read?.... or are you naturally thick?

Currently newcastle are a mid-range team so even on your tangent you are completely wrong.



If they are making a profit (regardless of how) then they are surviving....lol

Please do not debate with me again. I have no time trying to explain things over and over to mental midgets.

The thing is, would they really have been turning a profit without the loans from Tinkler and other private sponsors?

Maybe you could use your mental genius to explain this for me, seeing as I'm such a mental midget

"Contrary to comments made by the Knights board of directors earlier this year that the football club would show a small profit, the NRL club's published annual report for 2010 in fact showed a loss in excess of $1.6 million,"