When you open the official ap of the game’s governing body to see the weekend’s fixtures and the betting odds are positioned next to team names, you’d think then that it’s gone too far.
The point seems to be, that pokies are legal, therefore it’s ok and certainly not inappropriate for the club to own them, and by asking the club to not own pokies I’m arbitrarily asking the club to draw a moral line, and that the drawing of such a line is not on.
So in response, I’ll ask the same question I’ve already asked a few times but received no response on.
Would you be ok with the club selling weapons? Would you be fine with EFC branded guns being sold out at Tulla, so you can grab your pistol when you go out to buy your polo shirt? Remember, selling and buying guns is perfectly legal and regulated.
If you say you are ok with that, then I think that’s a crazy view but at least you’re being consistent.
If you say that you don’t agree with that, then you can’t have a problem with the drawing of a moral line because you’re drawing your own. The only difference in our view is precisely where the line is drawn.
You know this, I know this, everyone knows this.
If you elect to play pokies that’s on YOU. YOU are allowing that machine to rip you off. People need to take some god damn responsibility!
I wish this were true. In fact, sadly it’s a million miles from true.
Well for the vast majority it is true.
The point being?
That if only a very small segment of society are getting cleaned out by machines then it’s ok to own them? Is that the point? Genuinely asking
I was responding to the post above mine.
It is true.
There is nothing more to it than that.
There is no moral element to it at all.
If the club invested in a gun shop, i’d have no problem with that. There’d be a shiteload of outrage from many though, lol.
But it’s not about that.
If getting the new licence allows the club to then subsequently sell the asset at a much higher price, then I actually want us to get that licence even though I personally cannot stand pokies.
I don’t demand that the club cuts off its nose for my moral satisfaction, or engage in some sort of financially nihilistic martyrdom.
And if I read between the lines, particularly around Katherine’s comment, I’d say the plan is to maximise the sale value of the venue and say nothing official that may hint at a predetermined fire sale.
I certainly think it’s absurd to decide that a 24 year licence equates to a determination to run the venue for 24 years when it’s purely an investment.
But to each their own on how they choose to express their indignation at various aspects of all this.
Football is entirely a form of entertainment for me, as I have no employment or family connections to AFL. Others shouldn’t suffer just so I can be entertained, therefore I want my club and the AFL to reduce as much as possible the risk of that suffering to others.
This includes protecting players from serious injury and from their own willingness to risk serious injury ‘for the team’. I don’t want the AFL using footballs that are made by kids in factories who work 12 hours per day 6 days per week for $2/day when they should be at school; and I don’t want my club or the AFL promoting activities which cause widespread social harm such as gambling, excessive drinking, smoking etc.
I accept that consumers have the right to choose to engage in these activities but I don’t want the consumption of these products to be increased via AFL-connected advertising or connection to the club brand. That will increase revenue and potentially my entertainment, but also increase the suffering that consumption of these products is connected with. Consumers already know these products exist. They don’t need further inducement through the promotion of a footy club’s brand of cigarettes with their captain’s endorsement and face on the packet. That used to be legal, but it was never ethical.
As stakeholders in our footy club we have every right to let the club decision makers know what issues matter to us. And if an issue matters to us, it matters to the club because their job is to represent the key stakeholders, which includes the players, their families and us. Hence I agree with SMJ on this.
Seriously that is a bullshite argument.
I don’t care what legal activity the Club gets into as long as it helps us win an AFL flag.
Saying you’re a good corporate citizen is whats important. Not actually being a good corporate citizen. Smoke and mirrors. Like this bloke…
It may be legal, but that don’t make it right. You have mentioned how much the government gets from gambling revenue.
(Comment withdrawn due to unfairly making reference to an old Bacchus incident)
Understand your view, and appreciate there are alternative viewpoints.
You were a little bit cheeky though in one aspect. You said you’d be ok if the club “invested in a gun shop”, presumably being different to my suggestion of selling guns at the Hangar.
The Melton club is branded and advertised as an Essendon venue. The sign out the front is black with a red sash, for instance.
So would your view change if we sold guns at Tulla, or established an Essendon branded gun shop?
NB - if you weren’t trying to be cheeky then I apologise
I think you should delete that comment SMJ because he admitted he was wrong and we can’t determine what we think is ethical unless we hear the views of others with different opinions.
Why don’t we apply for a Hillsong licence ? Or better still open a branch of Scientology.
Yep alright, fair enough, consider it withdrawn.
Nope. I’d have no problem with an EFC branded gunshop. Genuinely.
Business wise it’d make no sense, but whatever.
Not even @IceTemple would approve of the EFC opening a branch of Hillsong. No matter how much tax free loot it can extract from its well meaning followers.
Fair enough and thanks for the honest response