Less than 4000 members voted for the amendment. Why should/would the club move to transition out?
2 Likes
because itās a dumb long term investment that is being increasingly regulated by the government, which directly affects that revenue stream
2 Likes
Sin taxes save me from paying the government. If you are stupid enough to donate to gambling companies I really donāt care.
1 Like
Where did you get the number of people that voted on the resolution. Iāve been trying to find it but can locate it. They released the Director voting numbers but I canāt see the resolution numbers.
Seems like most members just donāt care enough about the club to vote at all.
The degree this is true would be reflected in the sale price. So, itās really meaningless.
Iām taking the total directors votes, halving, then multiplying by 36%. It assumes everyone voted for both directors and this and used both votes they could on directors.
1 Like
the lease is worth less every year, getting rid of it sooner and diversifying revenue streams is the smart thing to do
Do you have any data to support that?
Sales, etc.
yeah I asked my mate for a quote on the whole thing and he sorted me out
1 Like
Thatās some solid data there.
Fully trustworthy.
Incredibly smart.
1 Like
yeah heās a pretty smart bloke, wins on the pokies a fair bit
Sounds more solid with every bit of information.
Should have gone for a spot on the board.
heās no paul weston but he could probably scream abuse at a few young players
Doubtful.
If heās a nobody, heād already be on Blitz giving Nino a run for his money.
If itās truly going to be worth less each year, that will be factored into the price. So, unless you think the EFC can predict what will happen better than the likely buyers, any price will be either fair or a bargain for the purchasers.
If we started looking for a buyer now, sure. If we start in 5 years and between now and then the government caps daily spends at $100, then the price will be even lower.
Like this isnāt hard to figure out. The industry isnāt going to grow
But you somehow think the experts who would be looking to buy wouldnāt know this and factor it into the price???
Obviously they would? What a government might do and what they have announced they are going to be doing are clearly different
Your premise is that the value of the pokies will go down so we should sell them now, correct?
But youāre basing this off public information, which the EFC would also have.
Whereas the buyers who are likely to be experts in this field probably know a lot more than the public on likely government policy. In which case they will know what the āfairestā price is better than EFC.
If they fully agree future revenues will be impacted, then the price will already be commensurately lower. Given they know more than us, theyāll probably argue a price lower than fair. But if there is competition we may get fair. Either way, that future revenue drop will already be factored into the price.
So, the argument that pokie revenue will drop so sell now isnāt a good argument since that revenue drop will already be factored into the price you can get.
