A favour to ask....

[bresker]

Actually Peter Gordon said tonight that I reminded him of himself in 1988 and that he was ‘ambivalent’ about my stance. When he became determined that our club should stay at the Whitten Oval, he was a single-issue campaigner himself, and even though he didn’t know how to change things he just formed a grass roots campaign. I get the impression that even though I’m a pain on the arse he respects me.

I don’t care that I ‘hijacked’ the process. That’s democracy for you. Celebrate our freedoms. I also don’t care if it cost $25,000. They could have got someone cheaper than Ernst & bloody expensive Young, and democracy costs money. Should we ring up old mate Turnbull and get him to cancel the next federal election because it costs $$$?

And I know I’m not experienced but there is no-one out there with more passion about this issue. Very few people care . If I don’t do this shit it doesn’t get done. There aren’t any mystery experienced anti-pokie campaigners with board talents who are Bulldogs fans that I know of. If you can find them hiding under a rock somewhere send them my way.

As I’ve said before I know I won’t get elected. I know I’m annoying the club. I don’t care. I’ve learnt you don’t change things by being nice. Poker machines aren’t nice anyway. They’re disgusting. So I stuck it right up them.

 

[bresker]

Also if I did elected I would stand on the board, somehow. The only reason I would find it difficult to be on the board is because I have a full time job, three kids (two under three) a wife who always has a list of things for me to do....

If I stood on the board I’d be a voice for the fans. Before every board meeting I would make a thread on bigfooty bulldogs and we could voice our concerns and I’d bring one or two to the board. I found it patronising that Chris Nolan said I couldn’t be a good board member. I have lots of life experience and without blowing my own trumpet, I’m smart. I’m intelligent. I pick things up quickly. Just because I’m not some MBA big shot advertising exec doesn’t mean I can’t be a good board member.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Actually Peter Gordon said tonight that I reminded him of himself in 1988 and that he was ‘ambivalent’ about my stance. When he became determined that our club should stay at the Whitten Oval, he was a single-issue campaigner himself, and even though he didn’t know how to change things he just formed a grass roots campaign. I get the impression that even though I’m a pain on the arse he respects me.

I don’t care that I ‘hijacked’ the process. That’s democracy for you. Celebrate our freedoms. I also don’t care if it cost $25,000. They could have got someone cheaper than Ernst & bloody expensive Young, and democracy costs money. Should we ring up old mate Turnbull and get him to cancel the next federal election because it costs $$$?

And I know I’m not experienced but there is no-one out there with more passion about this issue. Very few people care . If I don’t do this shit it doesn’t get done. There aren’t any mystery experienced anti-pokie campaigners with board talents who are Bulldogs fans that I know of. If you can find them hiding under a rock somewhere send them my way.

As I’ve said before I know I won’t get elected. I know I’m annoying the club. I don’t care. I’ve learnt you don’t change things by being nice. Poker machines aren’t nice anyway. They’re disgusting. So I stuck it right up them.

With all due respect bresker, Peter Gordon was one of Australia's finest young lawyers at the time, including a few years before that becoming the first successful litigator in Australian history to successfully sue over asbestos. When he campaigned not only was he clearly qualified, he had every intent to serve time supporting the bulldogs. I get that democracy takes money, and again, with all due respect, you can't claim that you were part of the functions of democracy and that as such it costs money, when you aren't taking part of a democratic process when you say you're only running as a candidate "technically". Federal elections cost money, but they also deter independent candidates from hijacking the process by making it expensive to nominate, and then you get your money back if you get 1% or 2% of the vote or whatever, deterring people who have no intent to sit in parliament, because they wouldn't get the votes and it would be a waste of their money. It's not a fair comparison when the Dogs clearly haven't got a similar system.

And of course you wouldn't be aware of experienced anti-pokie campaigners with board talents that are Bulldogs fans. But at the same time, it doesn't seem like you've made any effort to try and find one. The very first post on this thread, instead of declaring your nomination, could have easily been asking the BigFooty community if they or anyone they know could have been that person. In your anti-gambling community you could have asked around or networked. And even if that person is not quite as qualified to be on a board as you would hope, if that person had a similar backstory or could translate your passion effectively, it would have made a greater impact through virtue of greater, if not perfect, business qualifications/history.

I understand (and for what it's worth, agree with) your passion, and again again with all due respect, but you come across as someone who is venting frustrations, rather than rationally thinking about the most effective ways of initiating change.

And nobody's saying you have to be nice. There's no reason that alternative courses of action can equally be not-nice.

Please don't take this the wrong way, as I agree with what you're saying about the harmful effect of pokies and that our club should not be reliant on them. I also admire and commend you for the effort and stance that you've put here. I just don't think that you've taken the most effective steps to initiate real change, nor is that the club's response is nefarious instead of simply acting out of frustration.

 

[bresker]

I always respect your opinions threenewpadlocks and I think you’re the smartest person on this board.

Look, this was just something I absolutely felt I had to do. And it had to be me. I don’t know if I followed the most appropriate course of action. It’s been a very difficult process for me to wrestle with. But I honestly believe I can make the Bulldogs go pokie free quicker than they otherwise would. I know in my heart I am doing the right thing.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I always respect your opinions threenewpadlocks and I think you’re the smartest person on this board.

Look, this was just something I absolutely felt I had to do. And it had to be me. I don’t know if I followed the most appropriate course of action. It’s been a very difficult process for me to wrestle with. But I honestly believe I can make the Bulldogs go pokie free quicker than they otherwise would. I know in my heart I am doing the right thing.

Of course, and thanks for that. And I can't speak from your experience as I personally am not a recovering pokies addict, so I also understand if I'm a bit presumptuous as I can't fully understand what you're saying.

Even given what I have said about the methods/steps here, I am crossing my fingers for you that you get elected, or that you've otherwise make an impact at the club regarding pokies.

And of course, doing what you've done is very commendable, and clearly better than doing nothing. I don't want you to think that you could have done things differently if it takes away from the fact that you've done something at all.

 

[ScragCity]

I always respect your opinions threenewpadlocks and I think you’re the smartest person on this board.

Look, this was just something I absolutely felt I had to do. And it had to be me. I don’t know if I followed the most appropriate course of action. It’s been a very difficult process for me to wrestle with. But I honestly believe I can make the Bulldogs go pokie free quicker than they otherwise would. I know in my heart I am doing the right thing.

 

[DelRe]

With all due respect bresker, Peter Gordon was one of Australia's finest young lawyers at the time, including a few years before that becoming the first successful litigator in Australian history to successfully sue over asbestos. When he campaigned not only was he clearly qualified, he had every intent to serve time supporting the bulldogs. I get that democracy takes money, and again, with all due respect, you can't claim that you were part of the functions of democracy and that as such it costs money, when you aren't taking part of a democratic process when you say you're only running as a candidate "technically". Federal elections cost money, but they also deter independent candidates from hijacking the process by making it expensive to nominate, and then you get your money back if you get 1% or 2% of the vote or whatever, deterring people who have no intent to sit in parliament, because they wouldn't get the votes and it would be a waste of their money. It's not a fair comparison when the Dogs clearly haven't got a similar system.

And of course you wouldn't be aware of experienced anti-pokie campaigners with board talents that are Bulldogs fans. But at the same time, it doesn't seem like you've made any effort to try and find one. The very first post on this thread, instead of declaring your nomination, could have easily been asking the BigFooty community if they or anyone they know could have been that person. In your anti-gambling community you could have asked around or networked. And even if that person is not quite as qualified to be on a board as you would hope, if that person had a similar backstory or could translate your passion effectively, it would have made a greater impact through virtue of greater, if not perfect, business qualifications/history.

I understand (and for what it's worth, agree with) your passion, and again again with all due respect, but you come across as someone who is venting frustrations, rather than rationally thinking about the most effective ways of initiating change.

And nobody's saying you have to be nice. There's no reason that alternative courses of action can equally be not-nice.

Please don't take this the wrong way, as I agree with what you're saying about the harmful effect of pokies and that our club should not be reliant on them. I also admire and commend you for the effort and stance that you've put here. I just don't think that you've taken the most effective steps to initiate real change, nor is that the club's response is nefarious instead of simply acting out of frustration.

Disagree with this also. You ‘challenge’ for a board position you don’t ‘ask permission’. There are no minimum qualification requirements or obligation to find out whether others are running the same platform. If you’re passionate enough and want to run you do and you win or lose on your candidacy and strategy. Just because you’re not expecting to become a board member doesn’t mean you won’t if you do.

 

[Allan Shorty]

He's a damn sight braver than a lot of you anonymous armchair critics. More power to you bresker. You are on the right side of history. I reckon Gordon et al will join you there one day.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Disagree with this also. You ‘challenge’ for a board position you don’t ‘ask permission’. There are no minimum qualification requirements or obligation to find out whether others are running the same platform. If you’re passionate enough and want to run you do and you win or lose on your candidacy and strategy. Just because you’re not expecting to become a board member doesn’t mean you won’t if you do.

Of course. I'm not denying any of that. My (main) point is that his efforts for change could have been more effective had someone more qualified made that challenge, provided they had the ability to translate the same passion and/or also had a backstory regarding pokies

Re my points about being a "genuine" challenger and about the Dogs having to go through the processes of an election, I'm referring to this as part of The Age article:

Technically, McDonald is running for a position on the Bulldogs' board of directors at their AGM on Tuesday night, but in reality hopes he doesn't get elected because he admits he doesn't have the time to fulfil the role.

 

[bresker]

The Age journalist took a few liberties with my words. I'm not sure if it's my thick Irish accent leading to a breakdown in communication, as I think he found it hard to understand me over the phone, but I definitely didn't say some of the things he wrote in the article! I'm not too bothered because I'm happy about the publicity, but he took some of my statements and put his own spin on them. Though mind you I may have said I hope not to get elected.I had no realistic chance.

 

[the bee sharps]

So they they claimed you running cost them 25,000 what a load of BS. Sounds like they don’t want any future candidates to challenge the endorsed candidates

 

[bresker]

You do realise that without Peter Gordon and others, our club would have ceased to exist in 1989? But by all means keep criticizing.

I know this comment was addressed to someone else, but I have enormous respect for Peter Gordon and I told him this at the AGM. He's a wonderful man. It doesn't mean I can't criticise the club.

 

[DelRe]

Of course. I'm not denying any of that. My (main) point is that his efforts for change could have been more effective had someone more qualified made that challenge, provided they had the ability to translate the same passion and/or also had a backstory regarding pokies

Re my points about being a "genuine" challenger and about the Dogs having to go through the processes of an election, I'm referring to this as part of The Age article:

We should end this now in case we start agreeing.

Funnily enough lots of theories/articles around at the moment (mainly inspired by the Wolff book) that Trump wasn’t running to win.

Well done to Bresker though - you were passionate about something and had a crack which takes a lot of guts really (far more than me on an anonymous forum). Maybe other ways would have been more effective but you got some attention to your issue.

 

[total football]

I read above that the club takes money from the anti-gambling commission, so bresker can you explain to me what the club actually does to promote anti-gambling measures in the community?

 

[mambavino]

So they they claimed you running cost them 25,000 what a load of BS. Sounds like they don’t want any future candidates to challenge the endorsed candidates

You've clearly never had any dealings with the major consultancy firms then.

 

[bresker]

You've clearly never had any dealings with the major consultancy firms then.

If the Bulldogs had come to me and said ‘we’re spending $25,000 on Ernst & Young,’ I would have actively tried to find a cheaper solution. I would have told my story to other consultancy firms, even the Australian Electoral Commision and talked to my colleagues such as Stephen Mayne who have vast experience re: AGMs. But Ameet Bain’s chose to just tell me off and chide me about his $25,000. Boo f**king hoo.

 

[bresker]

I read above that the club takes money from the anti-gambling commission, so bresker can you explain to me what the club actually does to promote anti-gambling measures in the community?

They’ve signed up to a responsible gaming charter, they got rid of Edgewater, Easton Wood made that statement, we got sponsorship from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

All great initiatives which I support; but our continued operation of 63 poker machines is massive hypocrisy if the club wants to present itself as doing good work for gamblers

 

[Tommycash]

You do realise that without Peter Gordon and others, our club would have ceased to exist in 1989? But by all means keep criticizing.

What a surprising comeback. I would have thought you would have come to this issue with a more critical mind. Just because someone has done something good does not mean they should be idolised or free from reproach. No one on this page would be of the opinion that Gordon is a terrible person, but at the same time I think people are right to be worried about the lack of leadership or precise plan we have when it comes to leaving pokies in the past.

For people who are sensibly concerned about the ill effect of pokies they have every right to expect more from our club. To say so is not to attack the club or the people in charge, it is simply to hope, and perhaps agitate, for something better.

 

[Tommycash]

Shit bresker. I just can't understand the criticism you are copping from the other posters. I understand the club trying to undermine you, but why these posters seem to think what you've done is unreasonable is beyond me. Don't doubt you have chosen the right path. You have gotten media coverage, where a letter to the club would have got you none. You have also focused the mind of the club on the fact that this is a bad look, fans don't like it and they better do something otherwise they will face this type of thing in future.

I want to thank you for doing this on a very important issue. It is something that the club will do well to respect and hopefully build from. I reckon that if the club doesn't have a plan to ditch pokies (and it sounds like it is a pipe dream at the moment) then they will be at least thinking about developing one now.

You are a legend mate.

 

[Tommycash]

What a load of drivel. Keep sucking up to your "legend". And I'll keep chuckling to myself.

The remarkable thing is I don't think you see the irony in your post.

 

[mambavino]

If the Bulldogs had come to me and said ‘we’re spending $25,000 on Ernst & Young,’ I would have actively tried to find a cheaper solution. I would have told my story to other consultancy firms, even the Australian Electoral Commision and talked to my colleagues such as Stephen Mayne who have vast experience re: AGMs. But Ameet Bain’s chose to just tell me off and chide me about his $25,000. Boo f**king hoo.

They engaged Ernst & Young as they are an independant reputable firm that are capable of ensuring good governance practices. It appears this was a necessity sprung on the club at short notice once there was a candidate nominate who wasn't already endorsed by the board. I would be more disappointed if Ameet Bains hadn't raised this with you when discussing your nomination.

It wouldn't be good governance to ask any of the candidates if they had a mate that could help out on the cheap. In fact that would have been the antithesis of good governance.

 

[bresker]

It wouldn't be good governance to ask any of the candidates if they had a mate that could help out on the cheap. In fact that would have been the antithesis of good governance.

Peter Gordon works pro-bono for good causes on occasion. Is he a mate helping out friends on the cheap?

 

[bresker]

Also, I bet that Chris Nolan and Matthew Croft were aware of the Ernst & Young involvement and consulted on it. I wasn’t.

 

[mambavino]

Peter Gordon works pro-bono for good causes on occasion. Is he a mate helping out friends on the cheap?

That is a false equivalency. Is he providing them governance advice and directly involved in ensuring that a board election is conducted in a fair and democratic manner?

 

[bresker]

That is a false equivalency. Is he providing them governance advice and directly involved in ensuring that a board election is conducted in a fair and democratic manner?

https://wafta.com.au/2867-2/

“Thank you to our scrutineers Sarah Clutterbuck and Craig Hollett from Solomon Hollett Lawyers for their pro bono professional assistance with the ballot.”

Maybe he does. Other lawyers clearly do.