O'Farrell cuts put the boot to sport clubs.    :(

    Katherine Danks
    The Daily Telegraph
    July 10, 2012


O'Farrell's cuts will see funding to local government sporting facilities halved.

LOCAL sports clubs will be deprived of money to upgrade netball courts, skate parks and cricket pitches as part of the state's budget cuts, Treasury documents reveal.    :(

A confidential report obtained by The Daily Telegraph reveals funding for local government sporting facilities will be almost halved to $2.5 million this financial year.

It means there will be less money for not-for-profit clubs and local councils to install floodlights, build new canteens and resurface courts.

Parramatta Auburn Netball Association president Kim Higgins said sport clubs rely on government assistance to maintain and improve courts.

It was recently awarded two grants to resurface netball courts and provide a shaded area for spectators and players.

"Without government assistance we would need to increase our playing and registration fees, and this is something that we are really reluctant to do especially in today's economic climate," Ms Higgins said.   

"At PANA we pride ourselves on providing a sporting activity at a reasonable price."

Sport and Recreation Minister Graham Annesley said the $4.3 million in funding last year was inflated because of rolled over funds and outstanding commitments from previous year's programs.

"The total grant funding in 2012-13 is the same as it was in 2011-12," he said.

However, Opposition Leader John Robertson said it was clearly a 41 per cent cut in funding.    :(

"The O'Farrell government has cut funding for sporting organisations from $4.3 million last year to $2.5 million in this budget - depriving sporting groups of the money they need to upgrade their grounds, purchase equipment and keep kids sports programs operating," Mr Robertson said.    :(

"These cuts are mean-spirited and will leave football clubs, netball associations and other local sporting groups without the funding they need to stay afloat."

Tennis Wollongong president David Stratton said small clubs were run by volunteers and would struggle to meet any increase in costs.

Tennis clubs rely on government money to help pay the $20,000 needed to resurface synthetic grass tennis courts.

"You're not going to attract anybody to the court, particularly coaches and juniors, unless there is the correct infrastructure," Mr Stratton said.

Bankstown Mayor Khal Asfour said the council was recently refused a government grant to develop Roberts Park in Greenacre by building pathways, a playground and seating.

The council has received almost $450,000 in government grants since 2006-07.

"The NSW government shouldn't be looking at finding savings by taking money away from helping our kids," he said.    :(

I thought money from poker machines was used to support sporting clubs.....If not why not???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 7:49am:

I thought money from poker machines was used to support sporting clubs.....If not why not??? :-? :-? :-?

oh you will be saying next all car rego goes into roads.......

where have you been all these years???.


I can see why all this funding is being cut.. it isnt just sport..its everywhere take a good hard look..

but someone has to pay for all these asylum seekers. dont think the pollies are going to go without their pay increases for the sake of asylum seekers do you?

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 7:49am:

I thought money from poker machines was used to support sporting clubs.....If not why not??? :-? :-? :-?

It does at local level.  Registered clubs sponsor local sport and community organisations with surplus revenues from club activities.  The pokie tax however goes direct to consolidated revenue and these days it attempts to pay off the States debt.

You can whinge all you like Mr Crook but 12 years of mismanagement by your comrades is the cause of spending cuts.

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 7:49am:

I thought money from poker machines was used to support sporting clubs.....If not why not??? :-? :-? :-?

Pokies give peanuts to charity
Date April 15, 2012


Charitable and community contributions made by clubs are nothing more than a ''smokescreen'' to disguise profits from problem gambling, according to the first research to look at donations from the clubs industry.

A Monash University study has found charitable contributions are ''minuscule'' compared with profits made by clubs and an ''extremely inefficient and high cost method of funding community sporting activities''. It also reveals that the electorates where gamblers lost the most money on pokies were all Labor seats.

''It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that poker machine community benefit claims are principally intended as a device to legitimate poker machine operations,'' the study, led by Professor Charles Livingstone, said.

''There is no doubt that poker machines cause considerable harm. Claims of community benefits are arguably a smokescreen to both enlist the support of those who benefit from them - local sporting clubs and charities, for example - and deflect attention from the harm caused by poker machines.''

In NSW, pokie users lost almost $5 billion in 2010-11 or $1003 per adult. The clubs gave $63.5 million to community organisations and charities or 1.3 per cent of poker machines losses.

In Victoria, gamblers lost $2.6 billion or $701 per adult. The clubs gave $62.8 million to community and charitable groups or 2.4 per cent of losses.

''Since poker machine losses are very large … the amounts expended on community benefit purposes appear to be large themselves. But as a proportion of losses such claims are minimal,'' the research found.


http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/pokies-give-peanuts-to-charity-20120414-1x040.html#ixzz20Al2D9D7

Nice spin from imsook.

Sport and Recreation Minister Graham Annesley said the $4.3 million in funding last year was inflated because of rolled over funds and outstanding commitments from previous year's programs.

"The total grant funding in 2012-13 is the same as it was in 2011-12," he said.

But lets not let the truth get in the way of a good story here.

Swagman wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 9:38am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 7:49am: I thought money from poker machines was used to support sporting clubs.....If not why not??? :-? :-? :-? It does at local level.  Registered clubs sponsor local sport and community organisations with surplus revenues from club activities.  The pokie tax however goes direct to consolidated revenue and these days it attempts to pay off the States debt ...

... without success





State debt blows out 40 per cent as borrowing spree comes under fire
January 16, 2012


NSW and Queensland are slipping behind in tax competitiveness as they also spearhead a borrowing spree that will see state debt blow out more than 40 per cent by mid-2015.

An analysis by the The Australian of the mid-year budget updates finds state and territory net debt is forecast to surge by more than 40 per cent from $129 billion at June this year to $183.7bn in 2015

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/state-debt-blows-out-40-per-cent-as-borrowing-spree-comes-under-fire/story-e6frgczx-1226244932453i

Slash spending or lose AAA rating, Baillieu warned
Date February 17, 2012.

THE Baillieu government has been told to slash spending further and rein in state debt or risk losing Victoria's coveted top credit rating.

In a hairy-chested review of the state's finances, Moody's has confirmed Victoria's AAA rating, but has also demanded further austerity to offset lost revenue from a sluggish property market, lower GST receipts and the end of Commonwealth stimulus payments.

State Treasury's budget update, released late last year, predicted net debt would double from $11 billion last year to $22 billion in 2015.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/slash-spending-or-lose-aaa-rating-baillieu-warned-20120216-1tbys.html#ixzz20ApkYI4H

It's effing recreation, you want to play sport don't expect me to pay for it.

Guildford wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 11:38am:

It's effing recreation, you want to play sport don't expect me to pay for it.

You arent paying any more or less for it anyway.

Australia can be such a nanny state sometimes.

Gambling is a prime example of this.

In the UK, we have William Hill and Ladbrokes to do online, in-game betting.
This is available world-wide - I have an account with both.

In a recent visit to Australia I tried to log in -
"Because of restrictions in online gambling placed on Ladbrokes by the Australian Government, we cannot accept any bets from an Australian IP Address. We apologise for the inconvenience which is beyond Ladbrokes control"

I called up and they said Australia (along with the Arab world) is on the list of heavily restricted gambling countries where it is illegal to offer online ability to gamble.

Anywhere else in the world is fine.

And to top it off, you've got idiots like Xenophon who want to restrict you even further from being able to bet on sports.

All because a couple of cretins can't handle their addiction.

Punish the 99% for the 1% of idiots.

So to put my bet on the Euro 2012, I had to get my dad to go into my account in the UK, place the bet using my passwords.

Way to go Australia. The Nanny State country.

Quote:

It also reveals that the electorates where gamblers lost the most money on pokies were all Labor seats.

Hahahaaahahahahahahahaahahaha

Why the heck was that even in the article? To take a lil swipe @ labour - bias much? Hahahahahahaha. As if voting labour has anything to do with gambling on the pokies.

SOB

Quote:

"Because of restrictions in online gambling placed on Ladbrokes by the Australian Government, we cannot accept any bets from an Australian IP Address. We apologise for the inconvenience which is beyond Ladbrokes control"

I wasn't AWARE of that

EXCELLENT !

( ... so you STILL have to leave your house - in order to LOSE it)

Verge wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 10:05am:

Nice spin from imsook. Sport and Recreation Minister Graham Annesley said the $4.3 million in funding last year was inflated because of rolled over funds and outstanding commitments from previous year's programs. "The total grant funding in 2012-13 is the same as it was in 2011-12," he said. But lets not let the truth get in the way of a good story here.

to be fair to IMFULLOFIT, I doubt he is capable of understanding your explanation. Hes not the brightest bulb on the tree.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 1:40pm:

Quote: "Because of restrictions in online gambling placed on Ladbrokes by the Australian Government, we cannot accept any bets from an Australian IP Address. We apologise for the inconvenience which is beyond Ladbrokes control" I wasn't AWARE of that EXCELLENT ! ( ... so you STILL have to leave your house - in order to LOSE it)

im with you. like we need MORE gambling - especially the kind where you can lose your house while not even leaving it. Gambling is for mugs.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 2:03pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 1:40pm: Quote: "Because of restrictions in online gambling placed on Ladbrokes by the Australian Government, we cannot accept any bets from an Australian IP Address. We apologise for the inconvenience which is beyond Ladbrokes control" I wasn't AWARE of that EXCELLENT ! ( ... so you STILL have to leave your house - in order to LOSE it) im with you. like we need MORE gambling - especially the kind where you can lose your house while not even leaving it. Gambling is for mugs.

I'd wager that there are those of the Left who disagree. Pun intended...

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 2:03pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 1:40pm: Quote: "Because of restrictions in online gambling placed on Ladbrokes by the Australian Government, we cannot accept any bets from an Australian IP Address. We apologise for the inconvenience which is beyond Ladbrokes control" I wasn't AWARE of that EXCELLENT ! ( ... so you STILL have to leave your house - in order to LOSE it) im with you. like we need MORE gambling - especially the kind where you can lose your house while not even leaving it. Gambling is for mugs.

AUSTRALIA - NANNY STATE

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 11:53am:

Australia can be such a nanny state sometimes. Gambling is a prime example of this. In the UK, we have William Hill and Ladbrokes to do online, in-game betting. This is available world-wide - I have an account with both. In a recent visit to Australia I tried to log in - "Because of restrictions in online gambling placed on Ladbrokes by the Australian Government, we cannot accept any bets from an Australian IP Address. We apologise for the inconvenience which is beyond Ladbrokes control" I called up and they said Australia (along with the Arab world) is on the list of heavily restricted gambling countries where it is illegal to offer online ability to gamble. Anywhere else in the world is fine. And to top it off, you've got idiots like Xenophon who want to restrict you even further from being able to bet on sports. All because a couple of cretins can't handle their addiction. Punish the 99% for the 1% of idiots. So to put my bet on the Euro 2012, I had to get my dad to go into my account in the UK, place the bet using my passwords. Way to go Australia. The Nanny State country.

I dont think this is a punishment. I think its to keep the profits in australia so they can tax them.

SOB

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 3:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 2:03pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 1:40pm: Quote: "Because of restrictions in online gambling placed on Ladbrokes by the Australian Government, we cannot accept any bets from an Australian IP Address. We apologise for the inconvenience which is beyond Ladbrokes control" I wasn't AWARE of that EXCELLENT ! ( ... so you STILL have to leave your house - in order to LOSE it) im with you. like we need MORE gambling - especially the kind where you can lose your house while not even leaving it. Gambling is for mugs. AUSTRALIA - NANNY STATE

SEVENTY per cent of Australians support tackling problem gambling with mandatory precommitment technology or $1 maximum bets, according to a new survey.

Independent research firm AMR conducted a survey of 1212 people about their views of proposals to stem gambling addictions, on behalf of the anti-gambling campaigners Stop the Loss Coalition.

The survey found 70 per cent of participants supported the roll-out of mandatory precommitment technology.

It also found 67 per cent support for the measures among participants intending to vote Labor.

Key independent MP Andrew Wilkie ripped up his agreement to support the Labor government in January after Prime Minister Julia Gillard reneged on a promise to introduce the measures by 2014 and instead proposed a trial of the technology in the ACT.

The survey found 70 per cent of respondents supported Mr Wilkie's decision to withdraw support to the minority government after Ms Gillard's policy U-turn.


The technology requires gamblers to use an electronic card to set a limit on how much they are prepared to lose on high-loss machines that can chew through $1200 an hour.

Mr Wilkie's original position was to have $1 maximum bet limits that would cut losses to $120 an hour but Ms Gillard was not in favour.

Most states currently have poker machines with $10 maximum bets.

The survey found 83 per cent of people supported $1 bet limits, with 90 per cent support among those intending to vote Labor.

Both mandatory precommitment technology and $1 bets limits were recommendations by the Productivity Commission.

The Reverend Tim Costello, the face of the Stop the Loss Coalition, says the survey's results show that the electorate's appetite for serious reform remains strong, and that the government's current watered-down proposal doesn't go far enough.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/solid-support-for-pokies-reform-survey-on-gambling/story-e6frf7jx-1226336724550

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 4:08pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 3:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 2:03pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 1:40pm: Quote: "Because of restrictions in online gambling placed on Ladbrokes by the Australian Government, we cannot accept any bets from an Australian IP Address. We apologise for the inconvenience which is beyond Ladbrokes control" I wasn't AWARE of that EXCELLENT ! ( ... so you STILL have to leave your house - in order to LOSE it) im with you. like we need MORE gambling - especially the kind where you can lose your house while not even leaving it. Gambling is for mugs. AUSTRALIA - NANNY STATE SEVENTY per cent of Australians support tackling problem gambling with mandatory precommitment technology or $1 maximum bets, according to a new survey. Independent research firm AMR conducted a survey of 1212 people about their views of proposals to stem gambling addictions, on behalf of the anti-gambling campaigners Stop the Loss Coalition. The survey found 70 per cent of participants supported the roll-out of mandatory precommitment technology. It also found 67 per cent support for the measures among participants intending to vote Labor. Key independent MP Andrew Wilkie ripped up his agreement to support the Labor government in January after Prime Minister Julia Gillard reneged on a promise to introduce the measures by 2014 and instead proposed a trial of the technology in the ACT. The survey found 70 per cent of respondents supported Mr Wilkie's decision to withdraw support to the minority government after Ms Gillard's policy U-turn. The technology requires gamblers to use an electronic card to set a limit on how much they are prepared to lose on high-loss machines that can chew through $1200 an hour. Mr Wilkie's original position was to have $1 maximum bet limits that would cut losses to $120 an hour but Ms Gillard was not in favour. Most states currently have poker machines with $10 maximum bets. The survey found 83 per cent of people supported $1 bet limits, with 90 per cent support among those intending to vote Labor. Both mandatory precommitment technology and $1 bets limits were recommendations by the Productivity Commission. The Reverend Tim Costello, the face of the Stop the Loss Coalition, says the survey's results show that the electorate's appetite for serious reform remains strong, and that the government's current watered-down proposal doesn't go far enough. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/solid-support-for-pokies-reform-survey-on-gambling/story-e6frf7jx-1226336724550

if it is a nanny state to prevent people destroying their lives easily then im fine with it. Traffic lights and collision-proof fencing is also 'nanny'.

But it is typical for you that YOU liek gambling online, therefore you should be allowed to. You dont have a lot of beliefs that arent intrinsically tied up with YOU.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 3:42pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 11:53am: Australia can be such a nanny state sometimes. Gambling is a prime example of this. In the UK, we have William Hill and Ladbrokes to do online, in-game betting. This is available world-wide - I have an account with both. In a recent visit to Australia I tried to log in - "Because of restrictions in online gambling placed on Ladbrokes by the Australian Government, we cannot accept any bets from an Australian IP Address. We apologise for the inconvenience which is beyond Ladbrokes control" I called up and they said Australia (along with the Arab world) is on the list of heavily restricted gambling countries where it is illegal to offer online ability to gamble. Anywhere else in the world is fine. And to top it off, you've got idiots like Xenophon who want to restrict you even further from being able to bet on sports. All because a couple of cretins can't handle their addiction. Punish the 99% for the 1% of idiots. So to put my bet on the Euro 2012, I had to get my dad to go into my account in the UK, place the bet using my passwords. Way to go Australia. The Nanny State country. I dont think this is a punishment. I think its to keep the profits in australia so they can tax them. SOB

Yes that is what it is about but in Australia the club industry is lobbying for exclusive rights to internet gambling and most gambling institutions have plans in place and acton happening including an off shore presence and interaction with other markets. A lot is going to happen in this area and much of it is not good.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 4:47pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 3:42pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 11:53am: Australia can be such a nanny state sometimes. Gambling is a prime example of this. In the UK, we have William Hill and Ladbrokes to do online, in-game betting. This is available world-wide - I have an account with both. In a recent visit to Australia I tried to log in - "Because of restrictions in online gambling placed on Ladbrokes by the Australian Government, we cannot accept any bets from an Australian IP Address. We apologise for the inconvenience which is beyond Ladbrokes control" I called up and they said Australia (along with the Arab world) is on the list of heavily restricted gambling countries where it is illegal to offer online ability to gamble. Anywhere else in the world is fine. And to top it off, you've got idiots like Xenophon who want to restrict you even further from being able to bet on sports. All because a couple of cretins can't handle their addiction. Punish the 99% for the 1% of idiots. So to put my bet on the Euro 2012, I had to get my dad to go into my account in the UK, place the bet using my passwords. Way to go Australia. The Nanny State country. I dont think this is a punishment. I think its to keep the profits in australia so they can tax them. SOB Yes that is what it is about but in Australia the club industry is lobbying for exclusive rights to internet gambling and most gambling institutions have plans in place and acton happening including an off shore presence and interaction with other markets. A lot is going to happen in this area and much of it is not good.

online gambling is one of the most dangerous forms of gambling around since it is OFFSHORE and out of control.and if you think it is all run by upstanding citizens..... :(

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 5:14pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 4:47pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 3:42pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 11:53am: Australia can be such a nanny state sometimes. Gambling is a prime example of this. In the UK, we have William Hill and Ladbrokes to do online, in-game betting. This is available world-wide - I have an account with both. In a recent visit to Australia I tried to log in - "Because of restrictions in online gambling placed on Ladbrokes by the Australian Government, we cannot accept any bets from an Australian IP Address. We apologise for the inconvenience which is beyond Ladbrokes control" I called up and they said Australia (along with the Arab world) is on the list of heavily restricted gambling countries where it is illegal to offer online ability to gamble. Anywhere else in the world is fine. And to top it off, you've got idiots like Xenophon who want to restrict you even further from being able to bet on sports. All because a couple of cretins can't handle their addiction. Punish the 99% for the 1% of idiots. So to put my bet on the Euro 2012, I had to get my dad to go into my account in the UK, place the bet using my passwords. Way to go Australia. The Nanny State country. I dont think this is a punishment. I think its to keep the profits in australia so they can tax them. SOB Yes that is what it is about but in Australia the club industry is lobbying for exclusive rights to internet gambling and most gambling institutions have plans in place and acton happening including an off shore presence and interaction with other markets. A lot is going to happen in this area and much of it is not good. online gambling is one of the most dangerous forms of gambling around since it is OFFSHORE and out of control.and if you think it is all run by upstanding citizens..... :(

What does that mean? the gambling facility that is blocked is british apparently. Not one of the saudi ones. No gambling facility is above board - not onshore or offshore. the government wants their cut though so they want onshore.

SOB

you know what though? That is online censorship. I never heard about it on the news. When was this policy brought in? And what other policies have been brought in to censor us that we dont know about?

SOB