A favour to ask....

[immortalmike]

It's on like Donkey Kong. Got a call from our rather agitated new CEO asking me to pull out of the directors nomination as it's going to be a pain in the arse for him & cost the club money. The directors get rubber stamped every year and they're unprepared for a real election.

I told him I'd pull out if the club made a public commitment not to renew the poker machine licenses. He can't do that so I'm sticking to my guns.


I don't really want to do this, I've got better things to do with my time & I'm a very busy man. But I really, really hate poker machines. I'm an addict myself. Ameet Bains tells me that the club has 'aspirations' to get rid of them. Everyone has aspirations. I used have aspirations to marry Emma Watson. I feel that unless someone kicks up a fuss the club will continue to suck money from the pokies addicts.

I also feel it wouldn't be so bad to have an actual hardcore fan like myself on the board rather than the usual ex players and grandees. I doubt I'll win but I'll give it a shake.

Maybe your efforts would be better placed in governmental activism and actively seeking to restrict pokies rather than berating the club for making a small sum of money off of something that is perfectly legal to own.

I appreciate the fact that you're a recovering addict and that the machines are designed to get people hooked. Unfortunately most things that are legal and fun are designed that way. I myself am a problem eater. The addictive nature of certain additives and especially sugar is only now being realized. Personally I don't think it's my role to be regulating what others can and can't do based on my addiction. Because the truth is most people who eat a hamburger won't have trouble not eating another, in the same way most people who put a dollar in a pokie machine won't have a problem walking away. Personally I'm for recovering from the addiction rather than eliminating something other people enjoy in a harmless way.

 

[Tommycash]

bresker please keep it up. There will always be naysayers and those who don't want to rock the boat. In my state there is only one place you can play pokies and you can bet neither of our clubs make any money from that sort of gambling, even if the rest of the country wants to keep Pokies there is no good reason why football clubs should exploit their communities. I have always been massively uncomfortable with our clubs possession of Pokies and I hope that changes ASAP. Easier now when we aren't so reliant then it will be if we expand the program.

Have you thought about setting up a petition that fellow members can sign up to?

 

[Allan Shorty]

When is the vote? Who can vote ?

 

[ScragCity]

Maybe your efforts would be better placed in governmental activism and actively seeking to restrict pokies rather than berating the club for making a small sum of money off of something that is perfectly legal to own.

I appreciate the fact that you're a recovering addict and that the machines are designed to get people hooked. Unfortunately most things that are legal and fun are designed that way. I myself am a problem eater. The addictive nature of certain additives and especially sugar is only now being realized. Personally I don't think it's my role to be regulating what others can and can't do based on my addiction. Because the truth is most people who eat a hamburger won't have trouble not eating another, in the same way most people who put a dollar in a pokie machine won't have a problem walking away. Personally I'm for recovering from the addiction rather than eliminating something other people enjoy in a harmless way.

Using legality to defend the actions of an organisation is a flimsy argument. Of course they are legal, if they weren't there'd hardly be any debate over the morality of it. Unfortunately a lot of things which are legal are not ethically congruent with our belief systems. If we brought out a Western Bulldogs cigarette brand I'd be against it. Do I want cigarettes to be made illegal? No. I'm a libertarian. What I don't want is a football team I support making money from things which I see as predatory when there are plenty of viable alternatives.

 

[MYOB]

Give Finey on SEN a call if you want some publicity. He is big on this topic and I'm sure would be interested to hear your story.
SEN 94291116 7.00pm to Midnight

 

[immortalmike]

Using legality to defend the actions of an organisation is a flimsy argument. Of course they are legal, if they weren't there'd hardly be any debate over the morality of it. Unfortunately a lot of things which are legal are not ethically congruent with our belief systems. If we brought out a Western Bulldogs cigarette brand I'd be against it. Do I want cigarettes to be made illegal? No. I'm a libertarian. What I don't want is a football team I support making money from things which I see as predatory when there are plenty of viable alternatives.

Then where do you draw the line?
There's a very good argument to be made that merchandising in and of itself is predatory. As is advertising.
Hey by your logic we shouldn't sell chips at Barkers, don't want to make kids overweight, no beer either.
Objective legality is a far better argument than something as subjective as morality. Yours is the flimsy argument sir.

 

[lachy]

Maybe your efforts would be better placed in governmental activism and actively seeking to restrict pokies rather than berating the club for making a small sum of money off of something that is perfectly legal to own.

I appreciate the fact that you're a recovering addict and that the machines are designed to get people hooked. Unfortunately most things that are legal and fun are designed that way. I myself am a problem eater. The addictive nature of certain additives and especially sugar is only now being realized. Personally I don't think it's my role to be regulating what others can and can't do based on my addiction. Because the truth is most people who eat a hamburger won't have trouble not eating another, in the same way most people who put a dollar in a pokie machine won't have a problem walking away. Personally I'm for recovering from the addiction rather than eliminating something other people enjoy in a harmless way.

I suspect you may get few supporting you on this one Mike, however I am one that will.

Pokies and gambling in general are huge issues in society in general but attacking the club for having a small amount of legal pokies and that being a platform for the board is not something I support.

Our club is a $50 million plus business now, and people who sit on the board need to have the skills to sit across the mountain of issues directors face . Just for a little background I do sit on a board as a director in the non profit sector similar to that of a football club with over a $40 million budget so an speaking from experience.

There is a much bigger issue in football with gambling, that is the millions of dollars the AFL takes in sponsorship from gambling organisations whilst trying to protect the code from the insidious effects of match fixing and other serious gambling issues. We know of many gambling issues amongst AFL players and being heavily involved at a coaching level in local football it permeates through there as well.

Efforts were made to stop tobacco sponsoring sport, to make a genuine change in the football environment banning gambling sponsorship will do a lot more in society than getting one club with one of the smallest amount of pokies from committing to get rid of them.

Though I do support Breskers intent, I cant stand pokies, I just do not believe this is the platform to attack as the internal impact is significantly higher than the greater good.

 

[Tommycash]

Then where do you draw the line?
There's a very good argument to be made that merchandising in and of itself is predatory. As is advertising.
Hey by your logic we shouldn't sell chips at Barkers, don't want to make kids overweight, no beer either.
Objective legality is a far better argument than something as subjective as morality. Yours is the flimsy argument sir.

Not really, none of those things are specifically designed to be addictive. The Cigarette analogy is a far better one. But as with most analogies it is also not complete.

Unlike any of the things you raise Pokies are not widely available elsewhere, they do not tear finances and families apart and they do not disproportionately effect lower socio-economic people. By your argument there is no place for questioning laws that make it illegal for same sex couples to have intercourse, there is no place to question state sanctioned genocide. But of course I know from your posting that you are far more reasonable than that, and that is not what you truly believe. There is always a place for ethics and morality in decision making at any level.

This is a divisive issue so there will of course be disagreement, but I support the idea that our club shouldn't profiteer from something that has been proven to be a societal evil, something that is designed to and does very successfully remove a persons ability to rationally think. It's hard for us who aren't effected or who have taken the odd punt without getting addicted to understand how devastating pokies can be, but just look to the recent allegations against Crown Victoria - people were soiling themselves while betting and Crown would provide them with clean clothes.

Nothing that makes a person shit themselves rather than stop betting for five minutes to go to the toilet can be good, and our club definitely shouldn't have anything to do with it.

 

[mambavino]

I suspect you may get few supporting you on this one Mike, however I am one that will.

Pokies and gambling in general are huge issues in society in general but attacking the club for having a small amount of legal pokies and that being a platform for the board is not something I support.

Our club is a $50 million plus business now, and people who sit on the board need to have the skills to sit across the mountain of issues directors face . Just for a little background I do sit on a board as a director in the non profit sector similar to that of a football club with over a $40 million budget so an speaking from experience.

There is a much bigger issue in football with gambling, that is the millions of dollars the AFL takes in sponsorship from gambling organisations whilst trying to protect the code from the insidious effects of match fixing and other serious gambling issues. We know of many gambling issues amongst AFL players and being heavily involved at a coaching level in local football it permeates through there as well.

Efforts were made to stop tobacco sponsoring sport, to make a genuine change in the football environment banning gambling sponsorship will do a lot more in society than getting one club with one of the smallest amount of pokies from committing to get rid of them.

Though I do support Breskers intent, I cant stand pokies, I just do not believe this is the platform to attack as the internal impact is significantly higher than the greater good.

You've put forward thoughts almost identical to mine.

Breskers intent is admirable, but in my view this isn't the right way to execute that intent.

I think it would be better to first open up a dialogue about the issue with the club. For all we know the club has every intention of divesting itself of the pokies licences in the medium term, but has to ensure the long term viability of other club and social programs (of which there are many) before it can do so.

Regardless, I wouldn't support someone joining the board on the platform of one isolated issue.

 

[ScragCity]

Then where do you draw the line?
There's a very good argument to be made that merchandising in and of itself is predatory. As is advertising.
Hey by your logic we shouldn't sell chips at Barkers, don't want to make kids overweight, no beer either.
Objective legality is a far better argument than something as subjective as morality. Yours is the flimsy argument sir.

It's nowhere near as grey as you think. I draw the line at anything that aims to get people addicted to using/consuming whatever it is. And yes that includes marketing sugar-based breakfast cereals to five-year-olds.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

Breaker you have put yourself in a strong position to influence the clubs policy on EGM's. What about an agreed compromise that they come up with a timeline ti divest the club of EGM'S you will pull out?

 

[Fossie 32]

I suspect you may get few supporting you on this one Mike, however I am one that will.

Pokies and gambling in general are huge issues in society in general but attacking the club for having a small amount of legal pokies and that being a platform for the board is not something I support.

Our club is a $50 million plus business now, and people who sit on the board need to have the skills to sit across the mountain of issues directors face . Just for a little background I do sit on a board as a director in the non profit sector similar to that of a football club with over a $40 million budget so an speaking from experience.

There is a much bigger issue in football with gambling, that is the millions of dollars the AFL takes in sponsorship from gambling organisations whilst trying to protect the code from the insidious effects of match fixing and other serious gambling issues. We know of many gambling issues amongst AFL players and being heavily involved at a coaching level in local football it permeates through there as well.

Efforts were made to stop tobacco sponsoring sport, to make a genuine change in the football environment banning gambling sponsorship will do a lot more in society than getting one club with one of the smallest amount of pokies from committing to get rid of them.

Though I do support Breskers intent, I cant stand pokies, I just do not believe this is the platform to attack as the internal impact is significantly higher than the greater good.

I wouldn't have thought this is 'attacking' the club. Rather, having input on an issue that some people feel strongly about and believe to be addressed. I do see the point about seeking a board position possibly being disruptive, so maybe another approach would be the way to go.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

If the current board thinks so highly of their two nominees, they should be confident that the members will elect them on merit rather than by censoring bresker's biography, putting him last on the slate, etc.

All totalitarian authorities get what is coming to them eventually.

That bresker has been a pokies addict is certainly valid information to be included in his biography and it is regrettable that the incumbents have opted to use censorship to remove this. However, I also acknowledge that some of the removed content was not biography and was campainging material that does not belong in a biography.

I didn't realise how undemocratic the process of "electing" a board actually is. Just a charade when it is all said and done.

 

[Snarls Barkley]

Well done bresker for following through and trying to get the conversation started. It’s a shame that the most important part of your message was cut out as this was the perfect platform to get the conversation started. The other two candidates are much more qualified and have more expertise to sit at the board and will get the nominations but hopefully you have another chance to reiterate your message before the AGM. Maybe going to print media or radio would be an option to get your message out there. I don’t think you being seated on the board is the ultimate goal, we just need a platform for you to say your views where the club need to express there stance and their long term plan to reduce or get rid of our pokies revenue.

I think it’s sad that the 9 Victorian clubs rely so much on pokies revenue. I have a lot of respect for North Melbourne for taking their stance. The boards of the other 9 clubs are filled with successful businesspeople from around Australia, I find it hard to fathom that they can’t work out a way to make money without resorting to pokies machines. Hawthorn made something like $23 million off them this past year. I don’t think AFL clubs should be able to call themselves leaders in the community whilst going down this path. The pokies path is something you’d expect from local amateur clubs who are struggling to stay alive not from professional clubs in a billion dollar industry.

I don’t expect us to get rid of them tomorrow but it be nice for us to express a plan to get rid of them eventually. Like Geelong have done. I really hope that we are the next club that decides we want to get rid of our pokies but I have a feeling that we’ll continue to exploit them until a time comes where the AFL decides that no clubs should own pokies machines.

 

[SonOfScray]

I have cooled on my position re: pokies at our club. Still anti, but not angry at FFC. They are a scourge and I don't think you can claim to be a community club if you prey on your own through them. I believe the club is balancing the ledger somewhat with things like Sons of the West etc.

I'd like to see a plan that aimed to bring in new sources of revenue to remove reliance on pokies. I'd settle for moving the pokies out of the West and into areas where the social determinants are such that their presence is less harmful.

 

[Chicago1]

Sorry but I will be voting against you. I just won over $5600 on a pokie after Christmas dinner on a $1 bet 5c machine at Taylors Lakes. Bigger than anything I ever won in Vegas on a single machine. And it's tax free here!

 

[AJARWA]

There's two separate but related issues here that are potentially being confused by some...

1. The well documented detrimental effects that pokies, and gambling in general, can have on people's lives, families and communities.

2. The inconsistency between the Club's branding as the "community club" and it's reliance on a revenue stream that takes advantage of those most vulnerable in the community. http://m.westernbulldogs.com.au/foundation/about-us

Not sure that anyone here condones actions that would place the Club's currently strong financial position at risk. However, this very position provides an opportunity to decrease the Club's reliance on this ethically questionable revenue stream. I'm not satisfied that a random statement from the president demonstrates a strong intent to achieve this. Rather, I'd like to see a plan or strategy that both decreases the Club's direct reliance on pokies, as well as, leverage it's position as a nearly 50,000 member organisation to help address the broader issue of pokies and gambling in our communities, whether that's through the afl, the state or other avenues. That to me is what a club who has aspirations of being recognised as the "community club" would do.

 

[AJARWA]

Sorry but I will be voting against you. I just won over $5600 on a pokie after Christmas dinner on a $1 bet 5c machine at Taylors Lakes. Bigger than anything I ever won in Vegas on a single machine. And it's tax free here!

And none of it came from families with gambling problems that can least afford it... enjoy!

 

[bontshow]

Read the start of this thread a couple weeks back, just came back and saw the club's response

This has gone from a well intentioned single issue campaigner wanting a voice, to a big problem with the democratic process at our club

 

[Chicago1]

And none of it came from families with gambling problems that can least afford it... enjoy!

I will! Thanks for telling me how I should live my life. You are so noble trying to make me feel guilty. Sorry. Didn't work.

I've never attended the AGM. I think I will now. I'll be the old guy with the cane wearing a Las Vegas Caesars Palace polo.

 

[ScragCity]

I will! Thanks for telling me how I should live my life. You are so noble trying to make me feel guilty. Sorry. Didn't work.

I've never attended the AGM. I think I will now. I'll be the old guy with the cane wearing a Las Vegas Caesars Palace polo.

Seems like you're being overly defensive. I don't recall him telling you how to live your precious life. You go ahead and wear whatever you like, no one here cares what you do.

 

[Chicago1]

Seems like you're being overly defensive. I don't recall him telling you how to live your precious life. You go ahead and wear whatever you like, no one here cares what you do.

I guess understanding nuance isn't your forte.

Perhaps the club should also ban alcohol at matches since alcohol ruins families. That's what a true community club would do.

I'd argue that we should be setting standards in the hope that eventually alcohol is no longer supported within our society. It's not like there aren't millions of ethically responsible ways to make money/invest. Even if alcohol continues to be sold, I'd feel more comfortable if the football team I choose to follow aren't participating in selling it. (Sound familiar?)

I wonder how many who have posted in this thread drink excessively at the footy, then drive home afterwards.

 

[ScragCity]

I guess understanding nuance isn't your forte.

Perhaps the club should also ban alcohol at matches since alcohol ruins families. That's what a true community club would do.

I'd argue that we should be setting standards in the hope that eventually alcohol is no longer supported within our society. It's not like there aren't millions of ethically responsible ways to make money/invest. Even if alcohol continues to be sold, I'd feel more comfortable if the football team I choose to follow aren't participating in selling it. (Sound familiar?)

I wonder how many who have posted in this thread drink excessively at the footy, then drive home afterwards.

Good for you. I hate alcohol. What was your point? That everything the club does is morally grey so we should just accept all of it? If you'd feel more comfortable supporting a club who doesn't profit from alcohol then I wholeheartedly support your right to protest against it.

Sorry if you were trying to trap me in some kind of imagined hypocrisy. The last part of your post is a logical fallacy called Ad hominem. Rather than try to counter the argument of those against pokies you're desperately slinging mud in our direction in the hope that something sticks. I can't speak for everyone but I use public transport and I don't drink. Maybe take a few more stabs in the dark so you can imagine we're all hypocrites if it helps you sleep at night.

 

[Chicago1]

Good for you. I hate alcohol. What was your point? That everything the club does is morally grey so we should just accept all of it? If you'd feel more comfortable supporting a club who doesn't profit from alcohol then I wholeheartedly support your right to protest against it.

Sorry if you were trying to trap me in some kind of imagined hypocrisy. The last part of your post is a logical fallacy called Ad hominem. Rather than try to counter the argument of those against pokies you're desperately slinging mud in our direction in the hope that something sticks. I can't speak for everyone but I use public transport and I don't drink. Maybe take a few more stabs in the dark so you can imagine we're all hypocrites if it helps you sleep at night.

My point was exactly the one you used about poker machines:

I think these appeal-to-futility type arguments are a bit defeatist. You're making the assumption that there's only two options: either we prey on problem gamblers or someone else does. I'd argue that we should be setting standards in the hope that eventually poker machines are no longer supported within our society. It's not like there aren't millions of ethically responsible ways to make money/invest. Even if poker machines continue to run, I'd feel more comfortable if the football team I choose to follow aren't participating in it.

The last part wasn't meant about you personally, however, it sure does regarding some who go to the footy. And yes, I do find some SJWs hypocrites, though they doesn't keep me up at night. I just take a wee snip of brandy...

 

[Fossie 32]

Read the start of this thread a couple weeks back, just came back and saw the club's response

This has gone from a well intentioned single issue campaigner wanting a voice, to a big problem with the democratic process at our club

Where is the clubs response