GAA Betting Issue - Who was in the right?

Smokin Joe · June 21, 2007, 09:19:27 PM

Just where is Bombidal when you need him? Come on lad stand up for your firm, it's not like you not to get a free bit of advertising (or is that only when PP are seen as the punter's white knight?).......

On the matter in question I do actually think that they meant to go 8/11 +1 if they were 1/1 in 70 mins. However, the fact that HO okayed the bet is the clincher - they should stand by it in that case.

It's very simple, they know that you can beat them and they aren't interested in your trade.

And as for the lads who keep mentioning about bets and the law, cut it out. Bets don't exist in law, they are only honoured due to gentleman's agreements.

ONeill · June 21, 2007, 09:34:46 PM

I voted 8/15 just to be awkward.

Bogball XV · June 21, 2007, 09:37:59 PM

Quote from: Smokin Joe on June 21, 2007, 09:19:27 PM
Just where is Bombidal when you need him? Come on lad stand up for your firm, it's not like you not to get a free bit of advertising (or is that only when PP are seen as the punter's white knight?).......

On the matter in question I do actually think that they meant to go 8/11 +1 if they were 1/1 in 70 mins. However, the fact that HO okayed the bet is the clincher - they should stand by it in that case.

It's very simple, they know that you can beat them and they aren't interested in your trade.

And as for the lads who keep mentioning about bets and the law, cut it out. Bets don't exist in law, they are only honoured due to gentleman's agreements.

Summed up perfectly Joe, they don't want the Loneshark's trade, and going on his recent results, any wonder!!
If it was me, I presume they'd pay out at 8/11 after it was okayed at head office, but they know who it is and aren't prepared to honour the bet - they have of course the auld 'palpable error rule' which backs them up - in this case it was the lad in head office who made the palpable error. Even if you went to IBAS there's no guarantee that you'd win and as you say, it's probably not worth it.
It's not fair, but that's life, I'm sure we've all had problems with pp 'the punters friend' - right!! For most people they'd take the hit just for PR purposes, but in this instance, they probably didn't expect it to end up being discussed on a gaaboard - good pr for one firm, bad for them.

Bogball XV · June 21, 2007, 09:45:06 PM

Quote from: ONeill on June 21, 2007, 09:34:46 PM
I voted 8/15 just to be awkward.

There's four votes for 8/15 - why did you not use all your aliases?

pintsofguinness · June 21, 2007, 10:02:49 PM

QuoteSupersarsfields - I heard some consumer law expert recently saying that's a myth about them having to sell the item at the marked price. Apparently they're entitled to refuse the sale. I.e they can't force you to pay the higher (proper) price, but you can't force them to sell it to you at the lower price. They can just say "no sale".

supersarsfields

QuoteBut I think there's a difference between a marked price and an advertised price. If it was advertised up on a board or such as a way to entice people in then I think it has to be honoured.

Hardy is right. A marked price is an invitation for you to make an offer and the other party can refuse if they want.

Lone Shark · June 21, 2007, 10:04:29 PM

Quote from: Bogball XV on June 21, 2007, 09:37:59 PM
For most people they'd take the hit just for PR purposes, but in this instance, they probably didn't expect it to end up being discussed on a gaaboard - good pr for one firm, bad for them.

For the record, I did actually ask if they had any objections to me doing this. I half anticipated a response actually (now that Smokin Joe has "outed" Bombidal, I can confess that I knew his secret identity!!". Like I said, everyone has only themselves to answer to when they go to sleep at night, so I wasn't really doing this to be confrontational - I genuinely just wanted to see if my own values of right/wrong when it comes to betting have become out of kilter with the common view over time.

supersarsfields · June 21, 2007, 10:13:09 PM

Well surely a supermarket cant advertise on the web or TV or somewere that their selling something for half price just to get people through the doors, then have the product on offer at a different price. I'm nearly sure there's some law against this. I can understand how a bookies might be different because of the gentleman's agreement thing tho.

pintsofguinness · June 21, 2007, 10:31:53 PM

Maybe false advertising supersarsfields but they are under no obligation to sell something to you at a marked price.

Contracts are formed when there is an offer, consideration (i.e. money passing) and an acceptance.

When you go into a shop it would be very easy for you to think that something on a shelf with a marked price is the shop owner making you an offer that you accept when you bring it to the till. In that case a refusal to sell it to you at that price would be a breach of contract.
That's wrong however.

You go into a shop, there's something on the shelf with a price, that's an invitation to for you to make an offer. You take it to the counter and offer the money, you are making the offer to enter into a contract. The shop owner can refuse at any time for any reason. It's only when they take your money a contract is made.

Muzz · June 21, 2007, 10:40:41 PM

Simple answer...If you had 8/11 on your docket then you are entitled to get those odds. If you didnt have anything on your docket truth is you could be paid out anything and you couldnt object.

Did you have anything wrote on the docket???

supersarsfields · June 21, 2007, 10:45:31 PM

Yeah I know, my first point on this was regarding the false advertising side of it. That was the bit that stuck out for me. Which is the point I was making about how a mistake in putting the correct price on a product was different than actually offering a promotion and changing the deal. Which to me is what this would seem to be the case for LS. However again mine is more based on the retail side of things rather than regarding bets.

pintsofguinness · June 21, 2007, 11:25:35 PM

my mistake then, I misread your post.

SimpleSimon · June 21, 2007, 11:38:54 PM

I personally think they have tried to shaft you on this one. And I think they should take the hit, its their mistake and its not your fault some trader has slipped up and may have to take a knock on his bonus!

Red Nose Red Hand · June 22, 2007, 12:01:20 AM

Having read all the posts, I would say Lone Shark is fully entitled to be paid as the check with head office gave them ample opportunity to discover any error that may have been made.
That said, I would have one little query which would satisfy me as to the validity or otherwise of their spineless argument that they would have offered the chance to cancel the bet had he been back in the shop. Did the girl who accepted the bet tell Lone Shark that they had specifically indicated to her in advance of the bet being successful that this was the case?

Jack Dempsey · June 22, 2007, 09:50:54 AM

Surely if you are correct here LS you should go to IBAS, give the money to charity if dont dont want the bad karma. Both sides would be happy with the outcome and you would have made your point

Smokin Joe · June 22, 2007, 10:01:16 AM

It's not as simple as that Jack. IBAS are funded by the bookies, so it's fair to say that you have the bookies tend to get the marginal calls in their favour.
Plus as it happens I think that IBAS would find in favour of Powers as I believe it was a mistake, the fact that the mistake was okayed by HO wouldn't be mitigating circumstances, they would still rule it as a palpable error (IMO).

gaaboard.com