You too. If anyone you know ever has problems, I hope you don't give up on them so easily.

To be quite honest no one I know plays the pokies, I did have a mate that did but he gave it up and swore off it a long time ago. On the other hand I wouldn't presume to tell someone how to live their life.

What you say may be true, I don't spend any time in pokies venues but I did have a client down at Flinders who owned the pub there. I went down to see him one morning and got there just about 9.00am and the place was chockers with housewives putting the family budget through them. He said the men go to work at Lysaghts (?spell) and the wives take the kids to school and go straight there. They all have that distant look that you see with most gamblers, it's not about the winning its about having more money to put through.

However these people will put money through the machines whether they are football owned or Woolworth owned so what do we do?

As I said if we want to be the moral police we should stop sales of grog, cigarettes and any fatty foods at our venues, also ban grog at the Presidents lunch etc. etc. it's not our job to push our opinions on to others they should be able to make their own decisions whether we think they are right or not.

But we don't make $4.7million from cigarettes or the other examples you quote, do we? Following your logic, we shouldn't buy the non-FSC footy record (google it) or turn the coal-fired electric tower lights on. They are all arguably not good, per se, but MFC are not becoming increasingly dependant upon raising revenue from them, as we are with pokies. I do not buy the line of 'if we don't do it someone else will'. It's too easy to make cash out of someone else's misery. The bigger the amount, the greater the lie.

Mate if you want to stand outside pokies venues handing out pamphlets that explain the problems with gambling then go ahead. Gambling is rampant and the only way it will or can be controlled is if Governments ban it and you and I know that wont happen.

The world is full of people that have problems and I learnt a long time ago that you can't help/fix them all and in some cases the reaction you may get is not what you were expecting, people generally don't like do-gooders telling them what to do.

It's like drugs if those that want to take the can get them they will, same with gambling.

Again, should we make a comparatively large amount of money out of other people's misery? Sure, governments will not control it, especially since a very large % of the gov'ernment revenue comes from gambling taxes/losses (Vic state gov't, it counted for $1.6billion in 2009, probably much more now. That figure does not include Crown's pokie gluttony). No, you can't fix everyone's problems, but we can make a conscious decision not to profit significantly from the misery of others, especially by positioning them in areas where low-income or vulnerable people are more susceptible. It's not about being a do-gooder activist, it's simply about doing what's right, given our level of investment.

The elderly pensioners who lived next to me used to go down to the local pokie den on pension day and more often than not throw their pension into the machines. They had little $ to spare before they went there, typical frugal depression generation. She used to tell me over the fence that they lost the lot and were eating jam sandwiches until the next pension. Credit was easy. In the end, they had to sell the house, which her mother had left her 40 yrs earlier. They were hooked, lost the lot. Died a couple of years ago, son had to pay for funeral. Combination of easy access to credit and an addiction to pokies. Pathetic and sad.

edit: stat correction.

Sorry Macca, i don't agree. The worst part of it is that people lose money, a lot of money, to a machine where the odds are stacked massively against them.

It's legal, but it's not right.

They're idiots, serves them right. What's that saying about a fool and his money???

But we don't make $4.7million from cigarettes or the other examples you quote, do we? Following your logic, we shouldn't buy the non-FSC footy record (google it) or turn the coal-fired electric tower lights on. They are all arguably not good, per se, but MFC are not becoming increasingly dependant upon raising revenue from them, as we are with pokies. I do not buy the line of 'if we don't do it someone else will'. It's too easy to make cash out of someone else's misery. The bigger the amount, the greater the lie.

Again, should we make a comparatively large amount of money out of other people's misery? Sure, governments will not control it, especially since a very large % of the gov'ernment revenue comes from gambling taxes/losses (Vic state gov't, it counted for $1.6billion in 2009, probably much more now. That figure does not include Crown's pokie gluttony). No, you can't fix everyone's problems, but we can make a conscious decision not to profit significantly from the misery of others, especially by positioning them in areas where low-income or vulnerable people are more susceptible. It's not about being a do-gooder activist, it's simply about doing what's right, given our level of investment.

The elderly pensioners who lived next to me used to go down to the local pokie den on pension day and more often than not throw their pension into the machines. They had little $ to spare before they went there, typical frugal depression generation. She used to tell me over the fence that they lost the lot and were eating jam sandwiches until the next pension. Credit was easy. In the end, they had to sell the house, which her mother had left her 40 yrs earlier. They were hooked, lost the lot. Died a couple of years ago, son had to pay for funeral. Combination of easy access to credit and an addiction to pokies. Pathetic and sad.

edit: stat correction.

What an absurd statement, if our pensioners below developed Lung Cancer or both became alcoholics is that ok; according to you it's not as bad as gambling so it must?

If the husband was an alcoholic and beat his wife; that's ok too is it? Not as bad as gambling.

Maybe, just maybe, they enjoyed being together with their friends and playing the pokies for a while, that was a choice that perhaps two lonely people made and they may have understood the ramifications and were prepared to accept them. I have doubts about the validity of your, blowing their pension to selling the house storey; that would seem to me to be a bridge to far.

I'm not in favour of pokies and don't use them, but they are legal, like smoking and alcohol and in my opinion there is no good choice among the three; you obviously disagree.

They were introduced by a Labor Government desperate for cash so take it up with them if you have a problem.

But it's ok to sell grog and cigarettes cause they don't do any harm; hypocrite.

No. You missed the point Robbie and misunderstood what i said. They are all unpleasant, not saying they aren't. But we make a large amount of our income from this one, and only in the last few years. Put in perspective, pokie profits have us by the short n curlies. We have become addicted to their money. Plenty of things are legal, doesn't make it a good idea for a family orientated spectator sport to invest heavily in other people's losses. You can have your doubts, as you choose, but pokies cause big damage to a lot of people, more than most of us realise. But it's legal, and if we don't fleece their cash another club will, so lets do it, eh?

Pokies don't cause the damage, the people who play them do. It's pretty simple if people don't play them they'll cease to be profitable and will disappear and we can have our pubs back and maybe some bands playing there as well.

There's a whole lot of moralising going on here.

Straight forward question for those who are against our pokies investment - how many of you have your Super and other investments in only "ethical" or "sustainable" investment options (funds).?

Would you choose not to buy shares in Woolworths as they own over 14000 poker machines?

My guess is very few on here choose their own investments based on ethical concerns.

(For those who do - good for you. You are almost certainly sacrificing some of your own money -via lower returns- to make this stance. )

So why should we hold MFC to a higher standard than ourselves? As long as pokies are a legal and profitable investment option, the MFC would be negligent if it did not consider this option.

Note: North is not necessarily negligent for not investing in pokies. They have made the business decision that the non-investment in pokies will open up other revenue streams and goodwill that long-term will provide a superior return to a pokies investment. Let's not pretend they are morally superior - they have made a business decision.

Note2: Many "ethical" investment options do still invest in gambling. http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/money/investing/products/ethical-investing.aspx

I'm not sure that pokies necessarily killed off live music in pubs - though it seems to be the standard excuse offered. There are 1,200 licensed pubs in Victoria and only about 250 have pokies. So what are the other 950 doing?

I'm not sure that pokies necessarily killed off live music in pubs - though it seems to be the standard excuse offered. There are 1,200 licensed pubs in Victoria and only about 250 have pokies. So what are the other 950 doing?

In the suburbs they definitely did probably not so much the inner city and country pubs.

In the suburbs they definitely did probably not so much the inner city and country pubs.

Or perhaps the entrepreneurial suburban hoteliers swapped music for pokies because of the better returns. That still doesn't prevent the other 950 from taking over the live music business. My point is that I suspect poor hotel management (lack of entrepreneurship) in the 950 killed live music in pubs. They were gifted the opportunity to take it up when the ones that previously offered it turned to pokies.

There is another alternative, of course. Maybe people who used to attend live music no longer like the style or quality of music being offered.

Or perhaps the entrepreneurial suburban hoteliers swapped music for pokies because of the better returns. That still doesn't prevent the other 950 from taking over the live music business. My point is that I suspect poor hotel management (lack of entrepreneurship) in the 950 killed live music in pubs. They were gifted the opportunity to take it up when the ones that previously offered it turned to pokies.

There is another alternative, of course. Maybe people who used to attend live music no longer like the style or quality of music being offered.

This whole issue is enough for a forum of it's own but part of what you say is true.

Some of the pokie pubs are struggling because of poor management and some poor management has been covered up by pokie returns.

The quality of music and production of live music has in a lot of cases dropped, partly because the money is not available to fund production costs. Free gigs, you get what you pay for....however your expectation is greater than that. Another part of the problem is that many musicians don't rehearse and turn up to shows with the wrong attitude.

Many venues put on a band, do a door deal (excuse for not paying the band... band not getting paid usually poor quality) and expect them to bring the crowd, this is just passing on the responsibility. These are usually poor performing venues where the management has no idea or creative spark to build a crowd. The good venues know how to promote and run their operations.

Just a few thoughts but you are right that everything can't be blamed on the pokies, I would say though that they have had a significant negative impact on the live music scene...pity, the real entrepreneurial operators could have built up some well performing entertainment venues. Some have been pushed that way now with diminishing returns from pokies and people wanting a more rounded entertainment experience.

This whole issue is enough for a forum of it's own but part of what you say is true.

Some of the pokie pubs are struggling because of poor management and some poor management has been covered up by pokie returns.

The quality of music and production of live music has in a lot of cases dropped, partly because the money is not available to fund production costs. Free gigs, you get what you pay for....however your expectation is greater than that. Another part of the problem is that many musicians don't rehearse and turn up to shows with the wrong attitude.

Many venues put on a band, do a door deal (excuse for not paying the band... band not getting paid usually poor quality) and expect them to bring the crowd, this is just passing on the responsibility. These are usually poor performing venues where the management has no idea or creative spark to build a crowd. The good venues know how to promote and run their operations.

Just a few thoughts but you are right that everything can't be blamed on the pokies, I would say though that they have had a significant negative impact on the live music scene...pity, the real entrepreneurial operators could have built up some well performing entertainment venues. Some have been pushed that way now with diminishing returns from pokies and people wanting a more rounded entertainment experience.

I would imagine the drink driving laws have created a lot of the problems Pubs have, those that used to drink at pubs and drive home no longer do it for fear of getting caught. When I was a youngster all the guys would listen to the band whilst downing a million pots then drive home; that doesn't happen now so the pubs don't have the same turnover at the bar they once had.

We didn't have .05 then so it was only a problem if you got done for driving under the influence, whatever that was. Of course in those days it was ok to smoke too and pubs were full of toxic fumes most of the time they were open.

Now instead of drink driving we have gambling and soulless pubs with cha-ching instead of Khe Sanh.

What is worse; I'll go the drink driving?

There you go, we should ban alcohol as well as gambling if you want to be serious.

After we do that, we should tackle the obesity problem, God knows we got one and it's getting worse. There are so many obesely fat people around it's frightening, we're not at the same stage as the Americans at the moment but we're getting there. No fast food sold at any of our games, only salad and tofu.

We could become the Crusader club and take up every cause, we'd run out of money and go broke but at least we'd be doing the right thing

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/call-to-ban-alcohol-ads-in-tv-sports-20130307-2fof1.html

A Greens senator pushing for gambling advertising to be banned in the AFL, also wants the promotion of alcohol tbe outlawed in sports broadcasts.

He said alcohol was a ''much, much bigger problem than illicit drug use in the community''.

There you go, we should ban alcohol as well as gambling if you want to be serious.

After we do that, we should tackle the obesity problem, God knows we got one and it's getting worse. There are so many obesely fat people around it's frightening, we're not at the same stage as the Americans at the moment but we're getting there. No fast food sold at any of our games, only salad and tofu.

We could become the Crusader club and take up every cause, we'd run out of money and go broke but at least we'd be doing the right thing

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/call-to-ban-alcohol-ads-in-tv-sports-20130307-2fof1.html

A Greens senator pushing for gambling advertising to be banned in the AFL, also wants the promotion of alcohol tbe outlawed in sports broadcasts.

He said alcohol was a ''much, much bigger problem than illicit drug use in the community''.

We don't have to be saints. We're Demons, after all.

Are we reaping $4.7mill from booze, or the other items you list? We are with pokies, and many want that to increase significantly. That's the point that you miss again Robbie. No one is wanting us to be the Crusaders on all issues, but becoming increasingly dependant upon the profit from pokies is ugly and goes against the idea of a sporting club being a positive role model to its followers. It's one significant thing that we could have taken a position on before we too, as a club, got hooked. $4.7mill...... and increasing. If we lost that (which has been mentioned during the 'tanking' affair) would we survive? Good on North for taking a stand.

Taken from: http://www.problemgambling.gov.au/

"Australians spend nearly $12 billion a year on poker machines and three quarters of people who have a serious problem with gambling are pokie players. As a community, we have a duty of care to make gambling on poker machines safer and protect people whose gambling is out of control. One in six people who play the pokies regularly has a severe gambling problem. People who have a problem with their gambling lose an average of $21,000 a year. That’s a third of the average annual salary. So extensive are the impacts that the social cost of problem gambling to the community is estimated to be at least $4.7 billion each year."

I'm guessing ill just agree to disagree with you.

Are we reaping $4.7mill from booze, or the other items you list? We are with pokies, and many want that to increase significantly. That's the point that you miss again Robbie. No one is wanting us to be the Crusaders on all issues, but becoming increasingly dependant upon the profit from pokies is ugly and goes against the idea of a sporting club being a positive role model to its followers. It's one significant thing that we could have taken a position on before we too, as a club, got hooked. $4.7mill...... and increasing. If we lost that (which has been mentioned during the 'tanking' affair) would we survive? Good on North for taking a stand.

Taken from: http://www.problemgambling.gov.au/

"Australians spend nearly $12 billion a year on poker machines and three quarters of people who have a serious problem with gambling are pokie players. As a community, we have a duty of care to make gambling on poker machines safer and protect people whose gambling is out of control. One in six people who play the pokies regularly has a severe gambling problem. People who have a problem with their gambling lose an average of $21,000 a year. That’s a third of the average annual salary. So extensive are the impacts that the social cost of problem gambling to the community is estimated to be at least $4.7 billion each year."

I'm guessing ill just agree to disagree with you.

What's your point; do you measure the problem in terms of money spent? I don't I look at the problem as a whole and in my view there is a much bigger problem with Alcohol and Cigarettes than there is with Gambling; it's not all about money and if you can understand that then you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Have a look at the statistics, how many problem gamblers are there and how many problem alcoholics are there?

Just look at the number of homeless men that wander the streets in a drunken haze and tell me that's not a bigger problem. Maybe visit a Women's shelter to see the battered wives of the drunken husbands.

Go to a cancer clinic and see the results of cigarette smoking.

Gambling is a problem but certainly not the biggest, yet you are blinkered to the others.

Are we reaping $4.7mill from booze, or the other items you list? We are with pokies, and many want that to increase significantly. That's the point that you miss again Robbie. No one is wanting us to be the Crusaders on all issues, but becoming increasingly dependant upon the profit from pokies is ugly and goes against the idea of a sporting club being a positive role model to its followers. It's one significant thing that we could have taken a position on before we too, as a club, got hooked. $4.7mill...... and increasing. If we lost that (which has been mentioned during the 'tanking' affair) would we survive? Good on North for taking a stand.

We are good role models - we show them how stupid it is to throw your money into machines which are computer programmed to only pay out 83% (or is it 87%?) of the time. Compare this to the Vegas machines which are programmed to pay out something like 97% of the time. We reap $4.7 million in revenue from them without raising a finger.

There you go, we should ban alcohol as well as gambling if you want to be serious.

After we do that, we should tackle the obesity problem, God knows we got one and it's getting worse. There are so many obesely fat people around it's frightening, we're not at the same stage as the Americans at the moment but we're getting there. No fast food sold at any of our games, only salad and tofu.

We could become the Crusader club and take up every cause, we'd run out of money and go broke but at least we'd be doing the right thing

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/call-to-ban-alcohol-ads-in-tv-sports-20130307-2fof1.html

A Greens senator pushing for gambling advertising to be banned in the AFL, also wants the promotion of alcohol tbe outlawed in sports broadcasts.

He said alcohol was a ''much, much bigger problem than illicit drug use in the community''.

being a green's senator he probably wants the lights turned off for night games too, or just ban them

being a green's senator he probably wants the lights turned off for night games too, or just ban them

I have wondered when that would get raised dc.

I agree, all games back to Saturday afternoon and VFL games on Sunday.

Channel 0 could televise them

Oops sorry channel 10

pure evil

being a green's senator he probably wants the lights turned off for night games too, or just ban them

Speaking of ban, I banned myself from posting on ology but when I made a rare visit the other day I couldn't help but notice I still cop a serve there even though I haven't posted on the site for 3 years plus.

Strange people there, some should be, if they are not already, on very strong medication. I reckon the Greens would love that site, it fits in with their logic.

Speaking of ban, I banned myself from posting on ology but when I made a rare visit the other day I couldn't help but notice I still cop a serve there even though I haven't posted on the site for 3 years plus.

Strange people there, some should be, if they are not already, on very strong medication. I reckon the Greens would love that site, it fits in with their logic.

You must have left a lasting impression RF.

You must have left a lasting impression RF.

I'm surprised some of them remember their own names let alone mine. The 60's were good to some.

What's your point; do you measure the problem in terms of money spent? I don't I look at the problem as a whole and in my view there is a much bigger problem with Alcohol and Cigarettes than there is with Gambling; it's not all about money and if you can understand that then you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Have a look at the statistics, how many problem gamblers are there and how many problem alcoholics are there?

Just look at the number of homeless men that wander the streets in a drunken haze and tell me that's not a bigger problem. Maybe visit a Women's shelter to see the battered wives of the drunken husbands.

Go to a cancer clinic and see the results of cigarette smoking.

Gambling is a problem but certainly not the biggest, yet you are blinkered to the others.

Do you read? In case you missed it, this thread is about how much we make from pokies. Sure, alcohol and cigarettes are big problems to society. No one is denying that. You are blinkered along the 'which is the biggest problem' line. I'm very happy for you name the biggest problem, if size is all important to you. They are all problems and minimising their damage is always good, of course. My beef is that we are DEPENDENT upon pokie income for survival, ugly money IMO. If they were making $4.7mill+ from cigarettes then I'd be disappointed as well. We could forego what we make from cigarettes, if anything, and survive, and I'd be happy with that too. We (arguably) could not give up pokies and survive.

It is impossible to rid society of all problems, big or small, but this is Demonland and this thread is about pokie profits. I'll leave you to argue about all the others by yourself. Good luck with that.

If you wish to globally crusade against booze or cigarettes, knock your socks off Robbie. Let me know where to sign your petition.

Do you read? In case you missed it, this thread is about how much we make from pokies. Sure, alcohol and cigarettes are big problems to society. No one is denying that. You are blinkered along the 'which is the biggest problem' line. I'm very happy for you name the biggest problem, if size is all important to you. They are all problems and minimising their damage is always good, of course. My beef is that we are DEPENDENT upon pokie income for survival, ugly money IMO. If they were making $4.7mill+ from cigarettes then I'd be disappointed as well. We could forego what we make from cigarettes, if anything, and survive, and I'd be happy with that too. We (arguably) could not give up pokies and survive.

It is impossible to rid society of all problems, big or small, but this is Demonland and this thread is about pokie profits. I'll leave you to argue about all the others by yourself. Good luck with that.

If you wish to globally crusade against booze or cigarettes, knock your socks off Robbie. Let me know where to sign your petition.

I won't be globally crusading against anything because they are all legal irrespective of what I think about them and if we make $4.7m per year on a legal enterprise then good for us. If you have a problem with that tough. As the thread suggests its about how much we make compared to other clubs not the moral and ethical matters behind it. Perhaps you should learn to read, especially the opening post that never raised the issue of morality.