Pokie Machines: The only thing in the known universe with a poorer* winning record this decade than Essendon in the finals.
*I’m assuming ** if we played 9.8 million finals series this decade, we’d win more than once. Which is roughly the odds of a maximum payout from a standard pokie machine.
**This assumption may be flawed after our last 5 finals games. But this isn’t peer review, so flawed assumptions are fine right?
Isn’t that how Enron started
I’m not really concerned with the morality argument, or whatever you want to call it, because the club has already had it.
It’s been reinforced in the media several times in the last few years.
It’s a position I happen to be supportive of, but that’s neither here nor there.
I am confused about this response though.
I hope this doesn’t come across as personal or too harsh.
But I have a couple of questions.
Firstly, why wasn’t this announced, and therefore managed, by the club?
And secondly, if a decision was made not to do that, why wasn’t a holding statement prepared?
I mean…okay, maybe I shouldn’t assume. Maybe one was.
It just seems really odd that a piece of Essendon business like this that appears to go against policy is…not managed or explained.
I think a bit of confusion and angst could and should have been avoided.
ESPORTS
I’m glad you used a p and not a c on that last word…
Which one?
EFC should get the licence… and then not use it, that would be a good principled stand. still keep the venue operating as pubs/clubs. That way no one else could provide those machines as they are limited and keep renewing it and not using it.
This would stop the exploitation, we would look angelic, and would have to tell the boys they only get 1 jumper for the season and they have to wash it them selves.
It’s an extremely vexed question, isn’t it? 
And JFTR,… it has been the last 3 times it’s been discussed here over the past 6 years or so, … and I’ve likely already posted everything I’m posting now before, … so wasn’t going to bother, … but …
As far as Pokies go, I loathe them, but mainly for what they did to Music Venues, and the Music Scene in Vic. I wouldn’t mind if they were just blanket banned, … but that isn’t going to happen.
If we get out of these Pokies, … do they then cease to exist, … or will they remain and continue to bilk people & harm the community anyway?
People carry on about not winning a flag for X years, … but as we know, sadly in todays AFL, those with money, will have a better chance at it, … do we want to get out before we can replace that income given the fact that they will still be there doing damage?
Will the next owner of the license to operate be worse as regards return levels, giving back to the Community etc??
The argument about Alcohol being far more damaging, and yet remaining legal because we don’t want to penalise the many that use it responsibly, simply because of the few that abuse it, has merit, why should we completely ban them on that basis? Lot’s of folk are problem Gamblers, and go nowhere near Pokies, … do we ban all Gambling?
I think the answer to it lies somewhere in the middle, … we need licenses to drive Cars, I’ve often wondered if we should have them for other things?
Like access to buy Alcohol, … you need to study and pass so you’re educated in it’s effects, and damage it can cause, and you lose points for any Alcohol related offence, and eventually lose your brief, and are then not allowed on Licensed premises without one or able to purchase etc.
They check ID’s for age already, so it wouldn’t add that much burden.
Similar with a “Pokies Pass”, that then has to be plugged into the machine to play.
Education and pass a test to qualify, just as with a Car (how to recognise problem signs, where to get help, the figures of diminishing returns etc), and it recognises how much you’ve lost already and tells you, won’t let you play too much if you’re on Gov’t funds, or if you’ve set a cut off yourself, or if a Family member or friend or agency has reported you have issues, (checked and verified somehow of course) and you can’t get one if you’re on the dole etc.
They could also regulate the barstard things to stop the deliberate addiction tactics too. (Think there was some attempt at this recently??)
Bacchus has a point, I don’t use them, but if he wants to play a corrupted, designed to rob you eventually, computerised Shell Game and blow money, do you deny the many, because of the few that lack self control?
You can’t save everybody from themselves, but you can perhaps ensure they’re aware of the dangers, and stop them going overboard or even playing at all if they are Low Income with Kids to feed etc, … and thereby ameliorate the damage.
Also, … perhaps they should make it that the only Orgs able to run Pokies are like the Salvos, or Anglicare, … that way the money will go back where it came from eventually, … along with Bacchus and his ilk’s donations to the struggling to boot!!, … 
As for new revenue streams to replace pokies… Toll Roads. Get involved in a toll road, east west link or something. i dont see why not.
Good to know moral outrage is alive and well in Australia 2018.
Club needs it, there’s a community demand for pokies and at least the money is being fed back into the community as opposed to going to a big corporations profit margins.
People getting upset over this are short-sighted
I’ll try to get outraged at this.
Here we go.
Nup, sorry, I can’t.
But hey, it’s early. Maybe my hyperbolic nonsense filter will be lower later today. Or, maybe, some actual info may come to light.
Yes, you’re right. This “4 goals up and you get your money back” works on the same principle the pokies use of making you feel like you’ve had a ‘win’ when you haven’t. The only thing missing is the flashing light and loud music.
I have no issue with them having pokies.
I personally am not a fan of pokies, and living in WA we have far less exposure to them than other states given that Crown has a monopoly on them. That doesn’t mean I haven’t thrown the lobster in one for ■■■■■’n’giggles. I agree that the club probably shouldn’t be in them, but in the short term, having that license does increase the value of the holdings.
The question I have for all those against them, because I honestly don’t know the situation in Vic, are holders of a pokies license required by law to put money back into the community? If not, from my perspective I would then prefer EFC to keep that license. How much does the club spend on the local community annually? Where does that money come from? Why not get the club to run community workshops targeting gambling addiction, using funding derived from pokies? I would much rather see that money coming into an organisation that gives back to the community rather than going to one that only gives back to its shareholders.
I understand the problems addiction can cause, as many of you know, but when we are talking a legal form of “recreation”, do we stop everyone from using them because a small percentage of people can’t stop themselves? We haven’t done it with alcohol. We haven’t done it with cigarettes. We haven’t done it with ■■■■■■■■■■■. We haven’t done it with violent films. We haven’t done it with horse, dog, car racing. We put restrictions in place and let people find their own level. Unfortunately for the few, addiction takes hold, and yes it is a terrible thing to witness, especially for the families of the addicts, but we can’t protect everyone from themselves all the time.
edit: who knew p o r n o g r a p h y didn’t pass the swear filter
I’ve seen people blow their fortnightly wages at the TAB on the greyhounds or the horses, will the AFL and clubs stop taking money from them?
Sure your name isn’t SJW?
In Victoria, Pubs and Clubs are required to put a percentage of gambling income into a community fund. How this is allocated is the issue as some Pubs have legally used these monies to refurbish their facilities, as a “community” benefit. Needs much tighter control.
Statistics show that about 40% of the adult population play pokies each year, and pokies acount for perhaps 80% of all monies gambled. “Problem gamblers” number about 1.5% of our adult population, which I could argue is just a small number. However they account for about 40% of gambling losses, which is massive and underlies the issue.
Good Clubs like Melton keep watch on “problem gambler” and all venues have a legal responsibility to ensure this type of gambler is supported. The issue for a place like Melton is that some people only need to lose a relative small amount to affect themselves and their families.
Studies show however that cutting off pokies mostly moves problem gamblers into other forms, like online, horses or just about anything. Identifying those addicted and getting them into programs is most effective way forward, and clubs like Melton do this well.
Note that under the DSM5 classification of problem gamblers, I fit the criteria. Now I do know when to stop and limit my losses each visit, but I still tick the box. My point is that the number of severely addicted gamblers with massive problems probably numbers much less than 1.5%, but these are still the people who lose the most. They are not hard to find and target for help.
By the way, if you look at what classifies alcoholics, many of you would tick the box as well.
?? For real?
Me too. How the fark do you think we are playing for that stupid esports team… By selling merchandise?
Good. The alternative is being Norff.