And what happens when that regulation begins to impact our ability to generate revenue from the machines? We could try selling them, but it would be at significantly reduced value if we wait until then.
I think there a strong moral argument as well, but even if we exclude that, relying on pokies as much as we do is not smart business in the long term, and it would be prudent to sell asap and put that money into something more sustainable.
Thatās a legitimate debate but thatās not the premise of the constitution amendment put to members.
The world is moving too fast for me. Iām still fighting for a personās rights to wear a mink coat.
I agree and my frustration is the Club have been suffering prolonged inertia dithering on the issue. Granted, I think it has stepped up its focus the last 12-18 months but until we see action I will be sceptical. Like all things on fieldā¦
NoPE have been running for 18 months, coincidence? I donāt think so. Itās interesting that focusing on a social and health issue has also showed up a pending financial weakness. Who ever have thought that? Welcome to the modern age where clubs and companies have to be right on top and in control of their ESG.
Barham admitted on the Don the Stat podcast that communication with NOPE had been pretty poor initially if I recall correctly.
I understand it might take time to find alternative revenue sources; but canāt tell if the comments from the club are genuine.
From my perspective, the current Board have at least recognised the issues in front of them and are moving on the poker machine issue. Timing and markets are going to be interesting to watch. Itās complicated but I feel there is a genuine change in attitude. It is showing in just about every area that the club operates. Maybe a few rays of sunshine?
But it is apparently Ok for you to impose your morality on us ! Get some perspective !
Wasnāt me, think you have me confused with another poster
The issue for AFL clubs, particularly Melbourne clubs is that there just isnāt the population to make footy stand alone sustainable, hence they need to find alternative sources for funding.
There are too many clubs in Melbourne. If they halved the clubs and merged them with the bigger clubs, they would probably be self sustainable without having to go to Pokies for funding.
75% was always a tall order.
I think 36.2% sends a strong message to the club about the strength of opposition among members to Essendon holding pokies licences.
I donāt think so had it been 50 percent then yeah sure it would have but 36 percent show most donāt care and would prefer we are commercially viable
When you consider that less than 25% of the members even voted for the board positions its an extremely long bow to draw on that 36% as any type of victory. Even if you assume every members voted on both (which in itself is a long bow) the yes vote got around 8% of the clubs members. Its a resounding defeat for NoPE & hopefully the message is to move on & let the club make the best financial decisions it can without groups trying to leverage them into acting before its fully appropriate.
Bang on mate, itās time for people personal problems with them to be left at that and not trying to undermine the club
Iām not sure you can draw any conclusions either way as to whether members want pokies or not.
You can draw the conclusion that most who voted didnāt want the constitution changed.
I voted NO for a change to the constitution as I thought it was not appropriate and legally dangerous.
I do however think the club should move away from pokies.
In fact, had it been some general resolution for the club to deliver a plan to move away from pokies within 3 years and then implement that plan within another 2 years, I would have voted for that.
Credit to those who cared and put so much effort into the petition.
Thanks to those who supported the resolution or otherwise came to it with an open mind.
Itās a lot of work, so it genuinely is appreciated when people do take the time to actually engage with it and consider the question and material regardless of how they vote.
On the other hand, you pull your hair out when you hear it framed as somehow demanding an immediate exit after going to pains to ensure itās clear that the resolution does no such thing! 
I know Fairybread wasnāt the only one who expressed general support for the cause but not for constitutional change. Unfortunately any prospect of raising a general resolution had much more room for the club to prevent putting it to a vote, so we couldnāt put forward some kind of non-binding resolution that could have acted as a defacto referendum on Essendonās pokies.
Thereās no precedent for a member initiated constitutional amendment, particularly where the club recommends a vote against it, so I had found it really difficult over the past week to get a feel for what number would constitute a good result. Itās much clearer what a bad result looks like, and this isnāt one.
Actually JBomba, about 10,300 voted in Board election, and there were over 60,000 eligible voters so about 16% voted, so about 6% supported the Pokies motion.
Reckon that is a fail.
I counted the votes, forgetting we had 2 positions. 
As you point out an even worse result than I calculated.
