A favour to ask....

[mambavino]

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

Sitting board members would be consulted obviously, but not those who are new nominees.

 

[bresker]

Sitting board members would be consulted obviously, but not those who are new nominees.

Maybe. I imagine it depends on who is running, how powerful they are and what connections they have with the club. I think there might be different rules for different candidates

 

[mambavino]

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.

Oh good, you can do a google search and come up with an example of pro-bono support.

The point I am making is that you couldn't have someone provide this support who has any direct affiliation with any of the candidates. Given the short notice period that led to the requirement for the consultants, it's also highly unlikely you would find any reputable independent firm that would have overseen this process for free. The boards hands were tied without adequate time to negotiate.

 

[mambavino]

Maybe. I imagine it depends on who is running, how powerful they are and what connections they have with the club. I think there might be different rules for different candidates

Ok think what you want then. I have a different opinion that's been expressed.

 

[Woof]

I admire what bresker has done to raise this issue, whilst agreeing with what Tian has said several pages back about taking alternative steps and only nominating for the board if he was unsatisfied with the club's response to those alternative steps.

I also think that the club's response as part of the AGM (not that I was there) and the bio on the .pdf, whilst not exactly great or fully defendable, is somewhat understandable given the club had to go to some expense and effort to accommodate someone for the formalities of someone technically nominating for the board without having any desire to run for the board. The club could have the very understandable and reasonable gripe with bresker that if steps are going to be made to have an anti-pokies candidate to run for the board, even ignoring the fact that that person hadn't attempted to engage with the club in any way beforehand, at least have someone nominate who has professional qualifications and the willingness to actually spend time on the board.

In other words, whilst there are some valid frustrations around the pokies campaign, the club could be upset, aside from the cost, that the respected and democratic tradition of an election has been hijacked by someone who is admitting they don't even want to be elected - which could easily be interpreted as showing disrespect to the processes involved in running the club, and the constitution of the club, as it's being abused for an individual to get on a soapbox and raise single issue (however noble that issue might be). You might have done yourselves a disservice, because the club may have acted differently if you had found someone equally anti-pokies but with the requisite professional background and actual willingness to work on the board to represent your viewpoint to nominate for the board.

If you think what bresker did is hijacking democracy I would urge you to read a book. What he did is beautifully democratic, whether you agree or not with his stance. What he did is literally how it works under the constitution of the club. Democracy is always frustrating for the incumbents and elections are a perfectly good way to make a point in a way that never would have gained traction under your suggestions of working with the club.

 

[bresker]

Ok think what you want then. I have a different opinion that's been expressed.

Thanks for your permission to think

 

[total football]

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

Right, but in order to take that sponsorship from VRGF, what have we actually done?

Canning Edgewater? I thought that was to do with development issues and lack of local support rather than a moral decision to abandon it.

What does the responsible gaming charter actually mean? I'm hoping for some concrete evidence of what the club actually does in order to receive this sponsorship.

 

[mambavino]

Thanks for your permission to think

I'm not playing this game. Thanks.

 

[TiAn_]

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.

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

Maybe. I imagine it depends on who is running, how powerful they are and what connections they have with the club. I think there might be different rules for different candidates

I'm struggling to work out what you're getting at here? Appointing Ernst & Young is uncontroversial (save that it's a cost the club wanted to avoid) and I doubt Nolan or Croft would have had much, if anything, to do with that.

As for going on your own frolic to find a cheaper alternative... mate, there is simply no way the club could conceivably mandate some random bloke hitting up third parties on the club's behalf, looking for cheap short-notice oversight for its Annual General Meeting. Keep in mind you're talking about the AGM for a high profile entity with ~$50M in annual revenue.

I support you pushing you agenda and using the means available to you, but you admittedly arrived at this tactic without much forethought or any prior engagement with the club. You haven't been dudded by favouritism or a conspiracy, you're just reaping what you sewed. I do hope with some more time and thought you'll come up with other ways to engage the club and promote your cause, even if I don't share your viewpoint.

 

[bresker]

Fair enough. I shouldn’t bother arguing about this point because the reality is I don’t care about the $25,000 or Ernst & Young. That’s just the cost of democracy. I’m just debating the nuances.

 

[bresker]

Right, but in order to take that sponsorship from VRGF, what have we actually done?

Canning Edgewater? I thought that was to do with development issues and lack of local support rather than a moral decision to abandon it.

What does the responsible gaming charter actually mean? I'm hoping for some concrete evidence of what the club actually does in order to receive this sponsorship.

Email the club and ask. Seriously. Get involved.

 

[Arkangel]

Plot twist: The $25,000 paid to “Ernst and Young” was actually a secret under-the-table payment to up-and-coming superstars Tiarna Ernst and Lewis Young, both of whom have surprising expertise in election administration.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

If you think what bresker did is hijacking democracy I would urge you to read a book. What he did is beautifully democratic, whether you agree or not with his stance. What he did is literally how it works under the constitution of the club. Democracy is always frustrating for the incumbents and elections are a perfectly good way to make a point in a way that never would have gained traction under your suggestions of working with the club.

Probably a bit strong language to use, but what I was referring to was the fact that he had taken a process that was for one intention (to elect people to the board) for another purpose (to mainly raise the issue at the AGM), as per The Age article, he is admitting that he doesn't want to get elected. As I've said numerous times on this board, an alternative course of action would to find someone who is just as determined/passionate/single-issue about the pokies, who has the time/willingness to sit on the board, and have him/her represent the same viewpoint.

In terms of not having the willingness to sit on the board, given bresker's comments in this thread since I probably came down too hard (given he would have found the time to sit on the board), but at the same time I think what I'm trying to say (albeit with strong language) is that the processes of a board election should be respected as something to elect from a pool who genuinely want to sit on the board, and not as an opportunity to raise a single issue before an AGM.

In terms of it being a "perfectly good way to make a point", I'm not denying that, but it's also not the only course of action, and as I've said before, if the challenge was done so with someone with more professional experience or had come up with more concrete plans/demands, it could have gotten even more media attention than it already did. The Focus on Footy at Richmond people last year got a fair bit of media attention, because whilst their board challenge was quite ridiculous, the simple fact that it was more than 1 person behind the challenge meant that there was more depth to the challenge and more media coverage.

And FWIW I do 100% support bresker's efforts and hope that we can remove ourselves from pokies.

 

[Poke The Bear]

Fair enough. I shouldn’t bother arguing about this point because the reality is I don’t care about the $25,000 or Ernst & Young. That’s just the cost of democracy. I’m just debating the nuances.

Just a query for you Bresker . What happens to the licenses for our poker machines if we remove them from our licensed venues.

 

[bresker]

Just a query for you Bresker . What happens to the licenses for our poker machines if we remove them from our licensed venues.

I’ll have to phone a friend on that one. I’ll get back to you.

 

[TiAn_]

Just a query for you Bresker . What happens to the licenses for our poker machines if we remove them from our licensed venues.

Generally, we remain bound by the license agreement unless it expires or is mutually terminated. If the licensor derives income from the use of the machines, I would guarantee removing them from the venue would be a breach of the licence and open the club up to a claim for damages.

If the licensor doesn't derive income from the machines, then the club could shut them down, but would still be on the hook for the licence fee.

 

[bresker]

I believe the current licenses expire in 2022 don’t they? Now would be a great time for the Bulldogs to publicly commit to not continuing the licenses after that date.

The club will be deciding at the moment whether to further commit to their pokie licenses, as will the other AFL clubs who operate them. I believe the next licenses go for 20 years - from 2022 to 2042. A long commitment to a harmful industry.

If you don’t want the club signing up for pokies from 2022 - 2042, please email or ring the Bulldogs and let them know. The process is happening now & the club will be signing up at the end of February

 

[Beasley]

Fair enough. I shouldn’t bother arguing about this point because the reality is I don’t care about the $25,000 or Ernst & Young. That’s just the cost of democracy. I’m just debating the nuances.

Well, I am a loyal member and I DO care about the $25,000. That is the revenue from 100 plus memberships flushed down the drain ....... all for you to prove a point!
FFS, instead of putting the guilts on the football club with your moral crusade, how about using the correct approach and have your beef with the authorities who legalise gambling. The club is simply doing what it, and other clubs are legally permitted to do.
While you are at it, get online gambling shut down too and the racing industry also.
You call yourself a member ..... but you are quite happy to bring negative media publicity upon the club, plus cost the club valuable dollars in your ridiculous nomination which you admit was never going to succeed.
You may have a few posters on here giving you moral support to pump up your tyres ..... but not me buddy. Club people don’t do this to their own.

 

[wayniac]

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.

Arthur Andersen were also "reputable" until the Enron debacle. Too often people equate price with value and leap to the conclusion that you have to pay big bucks to ensure professional service or ethical outcomes.

 

[wayniac]

Fast forward 6 ½ years and finally the lawsuit filed against Lehman’s auditor, Ernst & Young LLP (EY), has been settled. On April 15 it was announced that EY will pay $10 million to settle a New York lawsuit accusing the accounting firm of helping Lehman deceive investors in the years leading up to its 2008 collapse.

The 2010 lawsuit claimed Ernst & Young's auditing facilitated a "massive accounting fraud" and sought $150 million in fees that the firm earned from Lehman between 2001 and 2008, plus investor damages and equitable relief. While the $10 million was much smaller than what the attorney general's office had sought, EY agreed to pay $99 million in damages to investors in a class action settlement approved a year ago.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Well, I am a loyal member and I DO care about the $25,000. That is the revenue from 100 plus memberships flushed down the drain ....... all for you to prove a point!
FFS, instead of putting the guilts on the football club with your moral crusade, how about using the correct approach and have your beef with the authorities who legalise gambling. The club is simply doing what it, and other clubs are legally permitted to do.
While you are at it, get online gambling shut down too and the racing industry also.
You call yourself a member ..... but you are quite happy to bring negative media publicity upon the club, plus cost the club valuable dollars in your ridiculous nomination which you admit was never going to succeed.
You may have a few posters on here giving you moral support to pump up your tyres ..... but not me buddy. Club people don’t do this to their own.

This isn't the angle to go.

Firstly, its not your position to tell someone else how they should attempt to make change in society. If bresker believes that going through the footy club he is a member of is one way that he can initiate change (even if I haven't agreed with this methodology), as opposed to trying to go through government or something different, that's his prerogative

The harmful effects of pokies are scientifically, objectively true and it's also not ridiculous to say that a non-profit community institution that is a football club should go above and beyond what is legally required in how it operates. Beyond that, the club, through a stance of not owning pokies, has significant public clout in influencing public perception, and potentially can influence longer-term government policy and so forth. If the club didn't consider moralistic activities, why would it run programs like the Sons of the West?

And it's not equal moral equivalency to consider sports gambling and racing in the same vein as pokies: not only is pokies more addictive, it cannot claim to serve any other purpose other than to have people gamble money in something that's not profitable and inherently designed to be as addictive as possible. Sports gambling and racing, whilst nobody is saying are morally great things or don't have a negative impact on society, are at least things that are designed around another competition of sorts, and with enough expertise you can be better than the bookies in, pokies are internally a loss-making machine that's just a random number generated designed to take money from addicts. And the Western Bulldogs doesn't take money as directly from sports gambling or racing through direct ownership as they do pokies (though I will admit they benefit indirectly).

 

[Doggy Dan]

Saw the Age article and thought this was a reasonable debate so came on to try and read some opinions. Unfortunately the thread seems to have been hijacked by year 9 boarding school girls.

For what it’s worth whether you like his means or not I think Bresker should be applauded for how much publicity and traction he has drummed up for his cause. Nothing he’s done is illegal, immature or immoral. Well done sir, without freedom of speech and people brave enough to enact it power and corruption take over.

 

[TerryWallet]

8 pages in and i was enjoying an intelligent range of points of view. Was great reading.

Next 2 pages, a nice lil shitfight to remind me i was actually on Bigfooty lol. Was good for a nice little chortle too.

Well done Bresker. I read the 1st 4 pages of this thread a few weeks ago and came back to read the rest after seeing The Age article. You come across really well here. Passionate but full of introspection and no wannabe tendacies. Also well done to most here who are conversing with him and challenging him in slight ways all in a good manner.

Bresker is doing his bit, his way. Let's hope Richard Goyder can do his bit, his way.

Pokies are just no good.

 

[Golden_6]

If the Bulldogs choose not to renew those licenses, won’t some other profit making organisation just swoop in and continue on their merry way?

I understand the Bulldogs are a community organisation and have societal values to uphold but I just don’t feel this is tackling the wider issue of pokies as a whole. I admire your courage and certainly agree that pokies shouldn’t exist at all. In saying that, purely from a business point of view, I simply don’t think the club would even be interested in the thought of losing millions in revenue and putting us at an even greater disadvantage financially compared to other clubs than we already are.

 

[bresker]

I’m ok about it. Little bit sad. In real life I’m used to people liking me, I suppose people talk about me behind my back, but I don’t have many enemies.

The AGM and this stuff have just been a reminder that not everyone is as open and genuine as me.