Bacchusfox, my suggestion was not to close down the Melton CC but to float it off and hand it back to the local community. The local community can then make a decision on whether it provides Elec Gaming Machines to the public. I don’t believe the EFC should be involved in the gaming industry (in any format).
So how do you feel about the Windy Hill venue? That also has pokies, doesn’t it? Should we be selling that off too?
1 Like
Also to note that the EFC was one of the first clubs to sign on to the Responsible Gambling Charter under which it does not accept gambling sponsorship and controls venues.
I also thought that for home games we have a measure of control over ground advertising of betting.
2 Likes
And, as a club, made the decision to not renew our online gambling sponsorship in 2015.
10 Likes
Best we secede from the AFL then.
2 Likes
I couldn’t think of a more soul destroying place than a pokies venue. Even the knifepoint food court has more charm.
1 Like
which one? theres like 20 of those scattered around the place now.
I’d rather pokies be in the hands of football clubs than pokie barons. Over here in SA there are about 3-4 multi millionaires that own about 70% of the pokies (excluding the casino).
I’m not a big pokie player but usually call into one the SANFL clubs’ venues once a week and pop $100 through it, have a quick pint or two and get out. Probably there for 15-20 minutes tops. With the boom of online betting I can definitely see the drop off in patronage at the venues though
1 Like
Some of the discussion in here is totally ridiculous.
Nobody is suggesting that Essendon ‘stop people from gambling’, or shut down venues. Literally nobody is suggesting this.
What is being asked (by me, and others) is whether or not it’s appropriate for Essendon, as a prominent sporting and community organisation, to be involved in, and garner profit from, an industry that actively destroys lives.
My view is that Essendon’s business is football, not gambling. We should be adding to our community, not taking away from it. If this means there’s a financial shortfall - so be it. Either the principle is important, or it isn’t, and if it is, then the money shouldn’t matter.
We also don’t control the flow of alcohol at venues we play at, so of course nobody is suggesting that alcohol consumption ceases.
Really not that hard to understand folks.
6 Likes
It’s Bomberblitz, everything is hard to understand in here.
3 Likes
I don’t understand you
wat?
1 Like
We do have the option to change the payout rate of our machines. That would minimise harm, attract patrons and support the non-gambling side of that business.
3 Likes
To nitpick, don’t we have two alcohol vendors sponsoring the club?
I agree with the sentiment but transferring the end result elsewhere where only profits is the main driver doesn’t really help either.
If we wanted to help the best way would be to keep the licences and the machines, but don’t plug them in taking machines off the market.
1 Like
All excellent points.
What you got against knifepoint.
2 Likes
So the club shouldn’t do what’s right because someone else might do the wrong thing? What a terrible argument.
I was going to quit selling heroin to kids, but now I’ve realised that I’m not fixing anything so why minimise my own profits?
Yes, but the club hasn’t made years worth of profits from selling to drug and alcohol addicts. The only reason I suggested gambling programs was to rectify issues of our own doing.
1 Like
Just becasue it is not a line item doesn’t mean to say we dont profit from it,
The one near David Jones and that Donut place. Had a waterfall that was switched off for about 15 years.
EVERYTHING.