A favour to ask....

[Bont2Bruce]

If unsuitable or lesser qualified candidates were being undemocratically elected to the board over more qualified or better suited candidates, you might have a point. However, I've not seen any evidence that a more worthy candidate has been shut out of an election simply to maintain the status quo. Can you provide an example?

An election can still be considered "democratic" if eligible voters are given the chance to vote and their votes are all counted. But my definition of undemocratic isn't just based on whether all eligible voters had the chance to vote and whether all the votes have been counted. I include other elements of fairness as equally important and if these are not present then I consider the election to be undemocratic. These other elements include giving candidates an equal platform to contest the election and equal rights to present themselves to the voters. These elements are missing from the Club's approach to bresker in this current board election process and for this reason I consider this election to be undemocratic, even though I expect all eligible voters to be given the chance to vote and all the votes to be accurately counted.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

The chances of bresker being successfully elected as candidate who was not "endorsed" by the incumbent board have been further reduced by the following actions taken by club officials:
(i) putting bresker last on the slate
(ii) giving him 24 hours to prepare a submission
(ii) removing over 50% of the content of his submission
(iv) not giving bresker the option of editing his own submission to be "in line" with the preferred format of the current administration, once they found it to be significantly outside the format they were wanting

Bresker was only "censored" insofar as he tried to wedge several irrelevant paragraphs into a professional biography. Having insufficient relevant experience to fill out a one-page professional biography doesn't mean you can use the rest of the page to evangelise about your agenda. Read the professional biographies for Matthew Croft and Chris Nolan, the two other candidates, and note that neither contains a spiel about their respective agendas.

I agree that several of the removed sections of bresker's biography were not appropriate for the submission required. But I consider that some relevant information was removed which is why I maintain that he has been censored. bresker should in my opinion have been given the opportunity to resubmit a biography because (i) he was only given 24 hours to prepare it in the first place and (ii) the Club's officials deemed that more than 50% of it needed to be struck out. This unfortunately does not appear to have been the case.

As I posted earlier, the fact that bresker has been addicted to pokies is relevant personal information which is neither inappropriate nor irrelevant. Yet it was removed in an act of overzealous censorship by some unnamed Club official.

I also support the club attempting to mitigate the adverse impact (time wastage, cost, adverse publicity, etc) of a nomination by a single-issue candidate who appears to be under-qualified for a position on the board, is only nominating in order to be able to make a speech at the AGM (see below quote) and plainly hasn't exhausted the other options available to him. "Under-qualified" isn't a personal dig - I consider myself under-qualified for a role on the club's board.

I don't have a problem with the CEO making a recommendation for bresker not to run. I consider this to be part of the CEO's job description to get the best overall financial outcome for the club as a whole, because as you mention to avoid the cost of an election which may be potentially avoidable through some open discussion with the "one-issue" candidate.

The CEO of the club contacting Bresker directly indicates that it's likely Bresker would have been able to open up a dialogue with the club to ascertain its stance and (short/medium/long term) intentions with respect to poker machines, and put forth his views, well prior to taking the extraordinary step of nominating for election to the board.

Possibly true, but this is speculation and we have no details to confirm or deny this.

In short:

• I respect Bresker's passion to effect change on an issue that is important to him, and support him taking steps to do so;
• However, I think he's been rash and cursory in his approach, in a fashion that may be detrimental to both the club and his cause; and
• the club's response to Bresker has been proper, and doesn't warrant criticism.

I wholeheartedly agree with your first two points, but strongly disagree with your last point for the reasons I have outlined above. I haven't heard the club's side of this but what I have heard from bresker only suggests that he has not been treated fairly by the Club's officials in the way in which his biographical submission was edited and presented to the members. I can find no other suitable word to describe this process than censorship, which I consider to be unfair and this therefore taints my view of the fairness of the entire election process.

It would not have been particularly difficult for the incumbent board and the officials who work directly for them to have acted in a more fair manner on this issue without decreasing the likelihood that the endorsed candidates would still ultimately be successful in the election.

 

[TiAn_]

An election can still be considered "democratic" if eligible voters are given the chance to vote and their votes are all counted. But my definition of undemocratic isn't just based on whether all eligible voters had the chance to vote and whether all the votes have been counted. I include other elements of fairness as equally important and if these are not present then I consider the election to be undemocratic. These other elements include giving candidates an equal platform to contest the election and equal rights to present themselves to the voters. These elements are missing from the Club's approach to bresker in this current board election process and for this reason I consider this election to be undemocratic, even though I expect all eligible voters to be given the chance to vote and all the votes to be accurately counted.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

The chances of bresker being successfully elected as candidate who was not "endorsed" by the incumbent board have been further reduced by the following actions taken by club officials:
(i) putting bresker last on the slate
(ii) giving him 24 hours to prepare a submission
(ii) removing over 50% of the content of his submission
(iv) not giving bresker the option of editing his own submission to be "in line" with the preferred format of the current administration, once they found it to be significantly outside the format they were wanting


I agree that several of the removed sections of bresker's biography were not appropriate for the submission required. But I consider that some relevant information was removed which is why I maintain that he has been censored. bresker should in my opinion have been given the opportunity to resubmit a biography because (i) he was only given 24 hours to prepare it in the first place and (ii) the Club's officials deemed that more than 50% of it needed to be struck out. This unfortunately does not appear to have been the case.

As I posted earlier, the fact that bresker has been addicted to pokies is relevant personal information which is neither inappropriate nor irrelevant. Yet it was removed in an act of overzealous censorship by some unnamed Club official.


I don't have a problem with the CEO making a recommendation for bresker not to run. I consider this to be part of the CEO's job description to get the best overall financial outcome for the club as a whole, because as you mention to avoid the cost of an election which may be potentially avoidable through some open discussion with the "one-issue" candidate.

Possibly true, but this is speculation and we have no details to confirm or deny this.


I wholeheartedly agree with your first two points, but strongly disagree with your last point for the reasons I have outlined above. I haven't heard the club's side of this but what I have heard from bresker only suggests that he has not been treated fairly by the Club's officials in the way in which his biographical submission was edited and presented to the members. I can find no other suitable word to describe this process than censorship, which I consider to be unfair and this therefore taints my view of the fairness of the entire election process.

It would not have been particularly difficult for the incumbent board and the officials who work directly for them to have acted in a more fair manner on this issue without decreasing the likelihood that the endorsed candidates would still ultimately be successful in the election.

The answer to almost the entirety of your post is that Bresker submitted his nomination on the last possible day.

- He wasn’t limited to 24 hours to draft his submission, he was allowed 24 hours more than the other candidates to submit a compliant biography because he hadn’t done so. The club had to publish notice of the AGM to members and Bresker’s last minute nomination was delaying that.

- He’s “last on the slate” because he’s the last nominee and they’re listed in chronological order.

- The other candidates have been endorsed because their nominations have obviously been in the works for a number of months and they’ve been vetted.

- Bresker’s gambling addiction simply isn’t professional experience that warrants inclusion on his professional biography. It is personal information that, if anything, diminishes his suitability for a position on the board.

You’re absolutely chasing shadows on this one, mate. Everything you’ve referred to as demonstrating an “undemocratic” process is in fact the result of Bresker devising this course of action at the last minute without any prior consultation with the club. The club has handled the situation appropriately.

 

[dogsbody]

.... The club has handled the situation appropriately.

I couldn't agree more. An undemocratic, censorious FFC wouldn't have granted those indulgences. A well run club has directors who have particular skill sets, a succession plan and engage with those who wish to influence it. Well run clubs enjoy finals appearances and Premierships.

 

[D Mitchell]

Who's trying to derail this thread? OK. I'll put it simply. I object to the candidate's one issue quest to become a member of the club's board. I do not believe that poker machines are a "scourge" nor "reprehensible".


The ultimate goal of the candidate is to make poker machines illegal. I object to that. I enjoy playing the pokies. They are legal in the state of Victoria. I have empathy for anyone "addicted" to pokies. However, I am quite content for the club to receive revenue from the use of pokies by the public at this time.

And on another note, the candidate has not communicated his qualifications in his biography e.g. education, any business background, experience in football administration, etc. that would convince me to vote for him to help make decisions regarding a multi million dollar business. And could I vote for him instead of Matthew Croft? I think not.

I'm finished.

 

[D Mitchell]

Who's....I'm finished.

G'day, former Yank Chalkie,

You are too hard on Trumpie in your profile. He's thrown a cat among the pigeons, love it. He's shaking up a world order, love it. He's a d......d, love it. Bevo did that, too, leaving out the d......d part, love it.

As teachers in that era, you Yanks were a breath of fresh air. Lots of you stayed, pity you didn't.

 

[bresker]

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 already do that. $5 million dollars a year is not a small amount of money.

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.

60% of the money raised by poker machines comes from problem gamblers, and I think that's an underestimate as many addicts are too ashamed to admit the full extent of their dependency.

A lot of people do have problems eating too many hamburgers. I've noticed plenty of overweight folk walking around Australia.
You might not think it's a problem but other people do.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...tax-on-sugary-drinks-and-ban-on-junk-food-ads

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y/news-story/68cd620638448b1855b55775cea0fa6d

 

[bresker]

The ultimate goal of the candidate is to make poker machines illegal. I object to that. I enjoy playing the pokies. They are legal in the state of Victoria. I have empathy for anyone "addicted" to pokies. However, I am quite content for the club to receive revenue from the use of pokies by the public at this time.

I've never said that. I want them confined to casinos, not in pubs on every street corner.

 

[bresker]

Personally my take on this thread is not the pokies issue but the issue of who and how someone cements a place on the board.

I have a simplistic view based on my time on numerous roles in committees on footy clubs etc. I know that this is miles away from being on an Afl board but the basic principle is the same.

I always hated people coming to the committee with problems or issues that they felt needed addressing and made that their sales pitch. Many times existing committee members agreed with the problem and had been trying to address the issues at hand but it was not a simple fix.

What I really wanted was someone to come to the committee not just with the problem but with achievable, well thought out solutions to the problem.

In this case if you want to be rid of pokies then you need to have a feasible plan as to how this is achievable and documented revenue streams that are sustainable.

If you bring something to the club that helps solve problems and can be readily understood you will be a greater chance to get a board seat.

The club's poker machine licenses are up for renewal in February. They're almost certainly going to sign up again. The licenses run for five years. Five more years at current rates mean another $30 million dollars coming into our club from poker machines; at least $18 million of that will come from problem gamblers.

During our conversation Ameet Bains told me that the club has 'aspirations' to get rid of poker machines. If he had come up with something more concrete, I would have withdrawn my nomination. Aspirations are for primary school kids. The club has had years do something about this.

No, I don't have feasible and documented alternative revenue streams. Maybe that's something I will come with when I stand for the board again next year. I can imagine that Maribyrnong and Brimbank councils would be really pleased if we got rid of our machines. I imagine that we could attract new sponsors and new members if we go pokie free.

Speaking of Maribyrnong council, it would great if us members were told the full story of the Edgewater Hotel debacle. What exactly happened there? Ameet Bains told me on the phone 'at least we reduced the number of pokie licenses when we abandoned Edgewater,' but was this by accident than design? Were we meant to move the pokie licences that used to exist at Whitten Oval and relocate them to Edgewater? Why did it fall through? Did Maribyrnong council decide it didn't need more vampire poker machines in the suburb?

The AFL is all about equalisation. How can the competition be equal when four clubs - Sydney, Freo, the Eagles and brave little North Melbourne get no money from poker machines? Four clubs get less than $6 million a year. And then we have four clubs - 'big' clubs with 'big' supporter bases - who have no shame about fleecing money from those who can often least afford to lose it.

I hear whispers that the Tigers want to do away with their pokies revenues. Geelong are scaling back. We can bring Freo, West Coast and Sydney on board. I imagine St Kilda could be easily swayed too. We could form an alliance to bring down the big players and do away with these evil machines from our beautiful game. Our paltry $6 million per annum will never compete with Hawk's $23 million. Why should we start off $17 million dollars less than the Hawks every bloody year because they shamelessly operate mini csainos? So let's pressure them to get rid of it. I fear we will have to prise the pokies licenses from the cold, dead hands of Bruce Mathieson, the Carlton bigwig who has made billions from gambling revenues - http://www.smh.com.au/business/math...ys-out-a-win-with-woolies-20140411-36igc.html.

We need to be brave and take a leadership role here. What does this club stand for? Are we really for community, for health, for a new West?



How do else could we replace the revenue? Oh that's right I forgot, in 2015 the AFL signed a whopping $2.508 billion TV rights deal. $2508,000,000. Not to mention all the gate receipts, merchandise, sponsorships etc that go with it. Why the hell do we need to prey on problem gamblers? This is a fabulously wealthy sport in a fabulously wealthy country. Pokies revenues are a drop in the ocean. The AFL can support all its clubs.

Pokies revenues by club (source: Fairfax)

I know I don't have a hope in hell of getting elected to the board. I'm doing this because I don't see anyone else doing much about it. I'm doing it to be a pain in the arse and keep the bastards honest.

 

[bresker]

I've battled a lot of demons in my life and I've kicked most of them. But the pokies have been one of the hardest of all.

I take full responsibility for my addiction. I go and see a counsellor from Gambler's Help once a week. Once a fortnight an ex-gambler called Dan from the Peer Connect program calls me and we offer each other mutual support. I've gone to the Australian Hotels Association and had myself banned from all my local venues, not that it often works. Apparently the staff are just to busy too challenge me.

I've only gambled four times in the last year, mostly because of a horrendous life changing event I went through last year which you may hear more about in future.

I usually gamble late at night when I'm a bit worse for wear. I'd rather go to one of the many happening hipster bars that have popped up around Preston, but their licenses close at 1am. Meanwhile the pokies are open till four or six am. I wonder why that is?

I'm deeply, deeply ashamed of my gambling addiction. I lie about it to myself, I lie about to my family. I hate it.

A while ago I thought to myself 'Why should I bear all the shame? Why should the manufacturers and providers of these machines not bear some of the shame too?'

The Western Bulldogs should be ashamed of their involvement with poker machines. All AFL clubs should.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread, and an especial thank you to everyone who has offered supportive messages. I've been off on holiday and then laid low by a virus for a while and I've done a lot of thinking and soul searching about my nomination. I'm very uneasy with my decision. It's a lonely and difficult road being an anti-pokies campaigner. A lot of people vaguely know that theres a problem but aren't fully aware of the extent of the harm these venues do. Not many people come to our meetings. But from little things big things grow.

I'm not sure if I'm raising the issue in the most appropriate way. However, my conscience is clear and my conscience tells me I'm going in the right direction, whatever my methods.

 

[bresker]

The answer to almost the entirety of your post is that Bresker submitted his nomination on the last possible day.

- He wasn’t limited to 24 hours to draft his submission, he was allowed 24 hours more than the other candidates to submit a compliant biography because he hadn’t done so. The club had to publish notice of the AGM to members and Bresker’s last minute nomination was delaying that.

- He’s “last on the slate” because he’s the last nominee and they’re listed in chronological order.

- The other candidates have been endorsed because their nominations have obviously been in the works for a number of months and they’ve been vetted.

- Bresker’s gambling addiction simply isn’t professional experience that warrants inclusion on his professional biography. It is personal information that, if anything, diminishes his suitability for a position on the board.

You’re absolutely chasing shadows on this one, mate. Everything you’ve referred to as demonstrating an “undemocratic” process is in fact the result of Bresker devising this course of action at the last minute without any prior consultation with the club. The club has handled the situation appropriately.

I agree with most of this. My decision to run at the last minute wasn't a stunt by the way. It was something I'd been considering, but I didn't realise I had so little time to get my nomination in.

- Bresker’s gambling addiction simply isn’t professional experience that warrants inclusion on his professional biography. It is personal information that, if anything, diminishes his suitability for a position on the board.

I didn't just talk about my gambling addiction - I highlighted the Bulldogs revenue streams from pokie machines. They make up a large part of the club's finances. We should talk about this as a club. And if the Bulldogs members don't want a pokies addict on the board, that's OK. At least they could be given the choice. I bet that other board members hide skeletons in their closets.

I didn't put my nomination in on the last possible day. I was at least a day early. The club could have asked me for a biography on the day they received my nomination. Instead they waited until the last day before they went on holiday, gave me eight hours to provide a bio, and provided no option of revision.

 

[immortalmike]

I already do that. $5 million dollars a year is not a small amount of money.



60% of the money raised by poker machines comes from problem gamblers, and I think that's an underestimate as many addicts are too ashamed to admit the full extent of their dependency.

A lot of people do have problems eating too many hamburgers. I've noticed plenty of overweight folk walking around Australia.
You might not think it's a problem but other people do.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...tax-on-sugary-drinks-and-ban-on-junk-food-ads

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y/news-story/68cd620638448b1855b55775cea0fa6d

5 million is close to last in the AFL (with the obvious exception of North). And absolutely a drop in the ocean compared to the Australian Government.

Source please? I could only find 40%. And even if true, I wouldn't be surprised if the same or at the least similar could be said for alcohol. Still don't think it's fair to ban either for the rest of us who are able to gamble or drink responsibly.

If you actually read my post you may have noticed that I didn't say it wasn't a problem nor that it wasn't a huge societal problem just that regulating what others can or cannot do based on my addiction made me uncomfortable. Those articles quite frankly are missing the point. Treat the addiction don't further regulate people's lives.
It is very hard to name one time banning or making laws against an established freedom hasn't made the problem worse. Prohibition is rarely the answer. Do we want Malcolm to tuck us in too?

 

[bresker]

5 million is close to last in the AFL (with the obvious exception of North). And absolutely a drop in the ocean compared to the Australian Government.

Source please? And even if true, I wouldn't be surprised if the same or at the least similar could be said for alcohol. Still don't think it's fair to ban either for the rest of us who are able to gamble or drink responsibly.

If you actually read my post you may have noticed that I didn't say it wasn't a problem nor that it wasn't a huge societal problem just that regulating what others can or cannot do based on my addiction made me uncomfortable. Those articles quite frankly are missing the point. Treat the addiction don't further regulate people's lives.
It is very hard to name one time banning or making laws against an established freedom hasn't made the problem worse. Prohibition is rarely the answer. Do we want Malcolm to tuck us in too?

Source please? I could only find 40%. And even if true, I wouldn't be surprised if the same or at the least similar could be said for alcohol. Still don't think it's fair to ban either for the rest of us who are able to gamble or drink responsibly.

Are 40% of Aussies problem drinkers? Source please. And drinking has nothing to do with pokies, the two cannot be compared. Drinking alcohol is something deeply ingrained in our social history and culture and whilst it certainly has its problems it's not deliberately designed to addict and extract money from addicts. I know you don't believe me but the poker machine manufactures want as many addicts as possible : https://theconversation.com/bright-...hines-create-addicts-and-rob-them-blind-49143



Pokies aren't an established freedom. They were only introduced to to Victoria in 1991.Did we feel deprived before they arrived? They've been a massive failure of political conscience and an easy tax revenue for the state government, mostly on those who can least afford it. They've been a hugely profitable boon for Woolworths the Fresh Food people, the biggest operators of poker machines in Australia. Good old Coles own heaps of poker machines too. The gaming lobby puts massive money into the coffers of the libs and labour to ensure they can increase their market share.

Treat the addiction don't further regulate people's lives.

The best way to treat the addiction would be to confine pokies to casinos and have a self exclusion policy that actually works.

It is very hard to name one time banning or making laws against an established freedom hasn't made the problem worse. Prohibition is rarely the answer. Do we want Malcolm to tuck us in too?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/seiz...ed-australia-john-howard-20160424-godwg6.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gin_Craze

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement_in_Australia





http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...e/news-story/aaae7b457d21f420d4d5330ef73aa042

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=60%+of+pokies+revenue+problem&oq=60%+of+pokies+revenue+problem+&aqs=chrome..69i57.21814j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5...gambling-dollars-spent-on-pokies-201406060048

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ooked-how-pokies-are-designed-to-be-addictive

http://archive.maas.museum/gambling/common/pdf/did_you_know_pokies.pdf

 

[bresker]

Source please? I could only find 40%. And even if true, I wouldn't be surprised if the same or at the least similar could be said for alcohol. Still don't think it's fair to ban either for the rest of us who are able to gamble or drink responsibly.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ible-or-beautiful-deferred-in-the-gaming-room

"He tells me that, on average, 60% of club revenue in Australia comes from pokies, and the number is higher in NSW. Of this revenue, 42% comes from individuals with a serious pokies addiction, and another 20% from those with a moderate gambling problem. He also tells me that fewer than 5% of players take advantage of self-exclusion, a voluntary program which clubs recommend if a player is addicted. The feebleness of self-exclusion – the program allows individuals to specify places or online sites from which they wish to be banned – is compounded by NSW venues facing no consequences if they fail to remove a self-excluded patron from the gaming floor or venue."

Though immortmalmike, the best evidence would be your own eyes. Go into one of our grand pokie palaces on any afternoon or evening, stand behind the players and just watch what happens. Watch them put all that money through the machine and maybe when they're finished and all their money is gone, follow them outside and ask them if they had fun today.

 

[Pugz89]

The club's poker machine licenses are up for renewal in February. They're almost certainly going to sign up again. The licenses run for five years. Five more years at current rates mean another $30 million dollars coming into our club from poker machines; at least $18 million of that will come from problem gamblers.

During our conversation Ameet Bains told me that the club has 'aspirations' to get rid of poker machines. If he had come up with something more concrete, I would have withdrawn my nomination. Aspirations are for primary school kids. The club has had years do something about this.

No, I don't have feasible and documented alternative revenue streams. Maybe that's something I will come with when I stand for the board again next year. I can imagine that Maribyrnong and Brimbank councils would be really pleased if we got rid of our machines. I imagine that we could attract new sponsors and new members if we go pokie free.

Speaking of Maribyrnong council, it would great if us members were told the full story of the Edgewater Hotel debacle. What exactly happened there? Ameet Bains told me on the phone 'at least we reduced the number of pokie licenses when we abandoned Edgewater,' but was this by accident than design? Were we meant to move the pokie licences that used to exist at Whitten Oval and relocate them to Edgewater? Why did it fall through? Did Maribyrnong council decide it didn't need more vampire poker machines in the suburb?

The AFL is all about equalisation. How can the competition be equal when four clubs - Sydney, Freo, the Eagles and brave little North Melbourne get no money from poker machines? Four clubs get less than $6 million a year. And then we have four clubs - 'big' clubs with 'big' supporter bases - who have no shame about fleecing money from those who can often least afford to lose it.

I hear whispers that the Tigers want to do away with their pokies revenues. Geelong are scaling back. We can bring Freo, West Coast and Sydney on board. I imagine St Kilda could be easily swayed too. We could form an alliance to bring down the big players and do away with these evil machines from our beautiful game. Our paltry $6 million per annum will never compete with Hawk's $23 million. Why should we start off $17 million dollars less than the Hawks every bloody year because they shamelessly operate mini csainos? So let's pressure them to get rid of it. I fear we will have to prise the pokies licenses from the cold, dead hands of Bruce Mathieson, the Carlton bigwig who has made billions from gambling revenues - http://www.smh.com.au/business/math...ys-out-a-win-with-woolies-20140411-36igc.html.

We need to be brave and take a leadership role here. What does this club stand for? Are we really for community, for health, for a new West?



How do else could we replace the revenue? Oh that's right I forgot, in 2015 the AFL signed a whopping $2.508 billion TV rights deal. $2508,000,000. Not to mention all the gate receipts, merchandise, sponsorships etc that go with it. Why the hell do we need to prey on problem gamblers? This is a fabulously wealthy sport in a fabulously wealthy country. Pokies revenues are a drop in the ocean. The AFL can support all its clubs.

Pokies revenues by club (source: Fairfax)

I know I don't have a hope in hell of getting elected to the board. I'm doing this because I don't see anyone else doing much about it. I'm doing it to be a pain in the arse and keep the bastards honest.

This will be the first year in decades we are net debt free as a club, so from a purely financial point of view, this is the first time in the administration that they can realistically look at culling their licences, aspirations are not just for primary school kids but we all have plans we are working towards.

Staying afloat is the first priority for the club and if pokies assisted in doing that, after 1989 then it is what it is. I think now the club can look to be a little more proactive and I think you'll find it is certainly on the radar for the short term future.

 

[ScragCity]

 

[Mattdougie]

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ible-or-beautiful-deferred-in-the-gaming-room

"He tells me that, on average, 60% of club revenue in Australia comes from pokies, and the number is higher in NSW. Of this revenue, 42% comes from individuals with a serious pokies addiction, and another 20% from those with a moderate gambling problem. He also tells me that fewer than 5% of players take advantage of self-exclusion, a voluntary program which clubs recommend if a player is addicted. The feebleness of self-exclusion – the program allows individuals to specify places or online sites from which they wish to be banned – is compounded by NSW venues facing no consequences if they fail to remove a self-excluded patron from the gaming floor or venue."

Though immortmalmike, the best evidence would be your own eyes. Go into one of our grand pokie palaces on any afternoon or evening, stand behind the players and just watch what happens. Watch them put all that money through the machine and maybe when they're finished and all their money is gone, follow them outside and ask them if they had fun today.

I ponder a question that I myself think may be an issue and “excuse” why clubs continue to keep pokies.

As a preface I say I would be happy for all forms of gambling to go, I do not gamble myself, have never gambles but have seen the consequences of it in my life and previous employment.

Is it possible for clubs to walk away from their pokies but continue to accept and in fact promote gambling on the game itself? There is no way the AFL are walking away from the money they gain from gambling so how can clubs within that league attempt to do the same and do they really want to?

 

[bresker]

Update: the club management rang me today and told me that I'll be speaking first up at the AGM next Tuesday. Gulp. The compliance officer asked me to keep it brief and only speak for a few minutes as they want to get things done & dusted as quickly as possible.

Then she rang me back ten minutes later and told me I could speak for as long as I wanted. I thought that was very decent of her but I was happier with the earlier time limit. Slightly crapping my pants.

Come along if you are able to.

I've added a Facebook page to colour some detail alongside my rather bare club-sanctioned biography. Feel free to like and share -
https://www.facebook.com/WBFCboardnominee

 

[maddog37]

Update: the club management rang me today and told me that I'll be speaking first up at the AGM next Tuesday. Gulp. The compliance officer asked me to keep it brief and only speak for a few minutes as they want to get things done & dusted as quickly as possible.

Then she rang me back ten minutes later and told me I could speak for as long as I wanted. I thought that was very decent of her but I was happier with the earlier time limit. Slightly crapping my pants.

Come along if you are able to.

Good luck Bresker.

 

[TheFool]

Update: the club management rang me today and told me that I'll be speaking first up at the AGM next Tuesday. Gulp. The compliance officer asked me to keep it brief and only speak for a few minutes as they want to get things done & dusted as quickly as possible.

Then she rang me back ten minutes later and told me I could speak for as long as I wanted. I thought that was very decent of her but I was happier with the earlier time limit. Slightly crapping my pants.

Come along if you are able to.

Good luck mate, I can't be there but I'm with you in spirit.

 

[Mattdougie]

Update: the club management rang me today and told me that I'll be speaking first up at the AGM next Tuesday. Gulp. The compliance officer asked me to keep it brief and only speak for a few minutes as they want to get things done & dusted as quickly as possible.

Then she rang me back ten minutes later and told me I could speak for as long as I wanted. I thought that was very decent of her but I was happier with the earlier time limit. Slightly crapping my pants.

Come along if you are able to.

Get someone you know to stand at the back of the crowd and focus on them when you look up mate

I’ve done a bit of public speaking and I hate it but this little trick helps me

 

[fred cook]

Get someone you know to stand at the back of the crowd and focus on them when you look up mate

I’ve done a bit of public speaking and I hate it but this little trick helps me

Or go this theory which i have told my kids to do when public speaking at there Primary School

https://blog.slideshare.net/2015/02...public-speaking-advice-and-what-to-do-instead

 

[Mattdougie]

Or go this theory which i have told my kids to do when public speaking at there Primary School

https://blog.slideshare.net/2015/02...public-speaking-advice-and-what-to-do-instead

Lol yeah the problem with that is if I imagine everyone else naked that may mean I also imagine myself naked and that isn’t helping anyone or anything with confidence

 

[AJARWA]

I ponder a question that I myself think may be an issue and “excuse” why clubs continue to keep pokies.

As a preface I say I would be happy for all forms of gambling to go, I do not gamble myself, have never gambles but have seen the consequences of it in my life and previous employment.

Is it possible for clubs to walk away from their pokies but continue to accept and in fact promote gambling on the game itself? There is no way the AFL are walking away from the money they gain from gambling so how can clubs within that league attempt to do the same and do they really want to?

For me there's a difference between EGMs and having a punt on the game, which may justify why the afl might take more action on EGMs.

Having a punt, which I don't generally do, enhances the game of afl for some people. It's another element of the game that some people enjoy. Without afl there is no punt.

On the other hand, gambling on EGMs has no direct association with afl the game. EGMs don't directly enhance the experience of afl like punting on a game does for some people. EGMs don't add an extra element to afl the game.

Splitting hairs a bit. And both can cause serious social problems. But generally I have more issue with clubs and the afl taking revenue from an activity (EGMs) that does not in any way, that I can think of, directly enhance the game of afl, for some supporters.

 

[bresker]

Big day for me tomorrow. I’ve decided that this isn’t an Alliance for Gambling Reform campaign any more. They’re so tiny and everyone’s on holiday so it’s just me and the club I love. I’m going there completely on my Jack Jones and there won’t be any stunts or picketing. No media. Just me on the microphone, trying to raise a really important personal issue that our club can do something about, be leaders and game changers. I really believe that our club stands for love and togetherness - and the pokies are the antithesis of that.

 

[bresker]

Quick question - did anyone get ballot papers through the post for this election? I didn’t.

Ameet Bains told me that the election would cost $25,000 because I chose to stand. I can’t see how adding my name to a PDF document on the club website cost $25,000. I’ll ask him about it today