You’ve basically just said you wouldn’t want to beat Collingwood in a GF.
Let’s get him!
Or, I dunno…respect that he has a moral stand against the destruction of lives over the success of his favourite sporting team (however tokenistic that may or may not be).
Realise that his view doesn’t actually affect you at all, and let it go.
Or not, I guess.
hand back the 2000 flag?
I’m honestly amazed at the tone of most responses in this thread!
The basic points that I (and others) have been making are:
- Pokies are not good
- Essendon shouldn’t be involved in not good stuff
I would have thought there would generally be pretty broad consensus on both of those points, but apparently not! Instead I got the “well why don’t you go barrack for someone else” whack in like the first 5 posts. Come oooonnnn
You’re surely not asking sympathy from me on that score?
Haha. No certainly not
Because ultimately you want a business to run on your view of morality, ehich is a dangerous slippery slope, cos where do you draw the line ?? And ultimately whos view of moral outrage is right and whos isnt ?
Would you bot accept sponsorship from say coles/safeway cos they try to euin small and local business’s ??
Like others have said, what about alcohol sponsorship ??
What about vw sponsorship ?? Theyve been found to be a pretty ■■■■■■ company on environmental issues.
Nike and all those companies that pay 20 cents to their asain workers ??
So where do you draw the line ??
Fwiw i agree with you about pokie venues , ive worked in a few and they are the pit of despair.
But at the end of the day it is their choice. They choose to be like that to a certain degree, and if you’re going to make business decisions on the basis of people choosing poorly, well you’re not going to be left with many options for revenue.
Ok. So why do you think other clubs are getting out of the pokie game then? Its not like what I’m proposing is in any way controversial or new. Other clubs are getting out already, some have already got out. I guess they’re all moral crusading nutbags though?
He draws the line where he draws the line!
We all draw it somewhere.
If you draw it at brothels then why can’t he draw it at pokies?
And you agree with him!
There are plenty of reasons to find pokies reprehensible, it really does not need defending.
And again, my position on this is that we shouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Essendon made its position clear, and then allowed it to be murky.
That’s what this is about.
Maybe it’s your slightly condescending tone. Maybe it’s that some people have a different view.
Then it becomes some one else’s responsibility. Nothing changes.
North as an example are probably getting out cos they know they can and will be propped up by the afl, so they can afford to have the luxury of cutting ties.
What if other clubs got into gambling agencies , should we do that, just cos others are doing it ?
But like i said whos view of morality do you ultimately end up following ?
And where do you draw the line ?
I would like to think the board’s.
And I don’t understand why people are attacking a poster for holding the same position as the EFC board.
I really would like that explained to me.
Yes those are the basic points.
You have made those however by saying
a) youd rather not win the premiership if it meant we are still in the pokie business
b) EFC may as well start selling munitions becuase we are already involved in a dirty business
and you wonder why you get a snooty response?
come off it.
Crown got done not so long ago. Of course no one had any ideas on how it could have happened. Crown were fined. No one charged, yet.
Apparently, there was a hand made wedge (not part of the machines) placed in the poker machines so that it prevented certain spins from happening. Who would have thought???
The alcohol comparison really is a poor one.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not going yay alcohol.
But the fact is that pokies make their money from addicts.
Not the weekly $40 flutterer.
They make their money, their profits, their margins, from the few people that get hooked.
The ones that pour everything they have into them, everything they don’t have too.
They could be just another form of gambling, but they’re not. They choose not to be that.
They’re set up to drain addicts.
That’s not how alcohol works.
It doesn’t make its money from people buying metho.
It has its own issues, plenty of them, but that is not one of them.
This is a product that is set up to destroy. Other people can play too.
But they don’t care if they don’t.
Gambling is a legitimate revenue source. If a person has an addiction, gambling is a problem. That people lose money to poker machines in itself is not a problem so long as people work to a budget. Let’s not forget, it’s a pastime or form of entertainment for many. EFC can’t control how people spend their money and shouldn’t cop negative flack because they’re earning a healthy collect. Morally, people are questioning EFC’s involvement in pokies. Until other long term revenue options become available they’re within their rights to pursue this option no matter how uncomfortable it makes people feel.
Lots of assumptions are made about people losing money on the pokies. There’s a large volume of people that go through the site and who’s to say the majority of those are losing lots of money? It’s more likely whatever money they are losing (remember, people are choosing to gamble) they’re still living within their means. Also, who’s to say the EFC is not initiating or being involved in programs for people with an addiction problem? I would expect they are giving back to the community in some meaningful capacity.
The companies that make them spend millions employing people to make them
as addictive as possible. It’s a pretty evil business.
I think I’d be fine with pokies if they just banned free spins.
That’s what gets people, imo.
Yes, I get that the flashing lights and the music and the ‘credits’ rather than dollars are all designed to suck every last dollar out of people, and then some more.
But if Essendon banned free spins at any of their venues…I’d be kind of okay with them keeping them.
Then the ‘casual flutterers’ could still have their fun.
If that’s what this is about.
It’s not, though, really, is it.