Having a black & white viewpoint on this is dangerously simplistic.

Obviously it's a complex issue, and blame (or perhaps responsibility is a better term) can be apportioned across all groups:

Governments have to take much of the blame for allowing pokie numbers to escalate so rapidly.
Owners of machines have to accept that in the chase for profits, they are actually preying on the most vulnerable members of society.
And gamblers should exercise greater self-control, and take more responsibility for their own actions. But not so easy when you are emotionally vulnerable and presented with a 'leisure' activity that is at once very addictive and very harmful.

For me, this is a classic example of what happens when you get a failure of genuine leadership at a Government level. These people are elected to create sensible policy that serves the greater good... and in the State of Victoria, successive Governments from Kirner to Kennett to Bracks to Brumby have failed to do so in this instance.

Either through a lack of understanding, a lack of will, actual malicious intent or sheer incompetence they've allowed pokies to gain a very large hold over the State finances, over our pub culture, and over the lives of the economically vulnerable.

You can't expect Carlton Football Club or Woolworths or the guy who owns the pub to willingly give up an easy profit stream that is perfectly legal: that's why we have Governments, who can enact policies, and regulate these things for the good of all - businesses, individuals and the Government coffers.

It's a failure of Governance, pure and simple.

Surely there are other ways to increase revenue ? *sigh*

Sure. But none of them are this easy.

Screw it. It's the Government's job to limit the number of poker machines. If they won't do what's right for the people they're elected to represent, why should a professional sporting organisation be expected to do their job for them?

While the Government is happy to have pokies, I'd rather football clubs got the revenue from them than Woolworths or James Packer.

According to modelling by Clubs Australia, Hawthorn would have to spend $1.125 million to upgrade its 75 machines to adopt a mandatory pre-commitment system. It found the Western Bulldogs would have to spend about $2.85 million on its 190 machines, while Carlton would face a bill of $4.35 million for 290 machines.

So, North Melbourne have sat out of these pokie feasts enjoyed by all other clubs for reasons of conscience? Is that right?

Huge respect to North if so.

Guys this isn't a political thread. If you want to talk about policy matters, find or start a thread in TalkingStuff. Obviously there is a political flavour to all of this, but it relates back to the social responsibilities of Carlton, and the effect of incoming and floated policies to the club's revenue.

If anyone wants to continue down this line of discussion in this thread, I'll just split out the posts and make the thread in TalkingStuff for you, and you won't be in my good graces. Your choice.

Remember, it's about pokies AND the club.

During grand final week the AFL and NRL are planning to run television advertisements against mandatory pre-commitment technology for high-intensity pokies.

Sure. But none of them are this easy.

Screw it. It's the Government's job to limit the number of poker machines. If they won't do what's right for the people they're elected to represent, why should a professional sporting organisation be expected to do their job for them?

While the Government is happy to have pokies, I'd rather football clubs got the revenue from them than Woolworths or James Packer.