ADVERTISER V JOHN THORNTON

[mal]

We had that article in the press on Monday 8/9/08.
The article made Thornton look stupid about betting $61 Byron Pickett to win the Magarey Medal
We all know that Pickett didnt play a game this year.
The headlines were
60/1 BET FOR A CERTAIN LOSER

Lets get one thing straight Thornton has made an obvious boo boo in placing Pickett in his market
It was just an oversight by his Medal assessor/assessors to leave Pickett in the betting
We all realise this embarrasing boo boo.
There is no way Thornton would deliberately defraud the punters.
Without any shadow of doubt Thornton will refund any punter who has placed bets on Pickett.

However I dont think the Advertiser should have put this in the paper on page 2
John Thornton is thier customer
John Thornton has been paying the Advertiser $$$ for about a decade now to put up his SANFL markets every Friday.
Therefore Thornton promotes the SANFL and is a paying customer.

If I was Thornton I would be voicing my disapproval to the Advertiser.

[overloaded]

I thought it was a very interesting story about incompitent bookies.

[Zelezny Chucks]

I just think it emphasises that more onus should be put on Bookies to make sure what they offer is correct. Any stuff ups made by them that advantage the punter they are quick to cancel but when the mistake advantages them its a completely different story!

Would it be too much to ask that if they pick up on an error in the 1st half hour after the odds are lodged then fair enough cancel it, if its on their longer than that they should be able to change it but have to honour any bets made thus far.

[Dogwatcher]

Mal, advertising should not effect editorial decisions. Both should be entirely independent of the other.
For mine, the article was worth printing.
I think there was conversation here prior to that story being printed - meaning there was community interest.
If someone was made to look stupid - it wasn't the Advertiser who made that happen.

[Mulligain]

If anything the Advertiser should be praised for putting commerical pressures aside to report a story the public had a right to know about.

[mal]

Disagree
John pays the advertiser for advertising for 10-15 years now
A staff member would be doing his odds for the medal
The staff member would be at fault
No use saying John should check all the odds
There isint a sports bookie that would check all the odds all the time for every portfolio

John Thornton has been humiliated for something he is not at fault for

Whatever happened to the customer is always right

[Punk Rooster]

Disagree
John pays the advertiser for advertising for 10-15 years now
A staff member would be doing his odds for the medal
The staff member would be at fault
No use saying John should check all the odds
There isint a sports bookie that would check all the odds all the time for every portfolio

John Thornton has been humiliated for something he is not at fault for

Whatever happened to the customer is always right

Mal,
The Head of any organisation takes responsibilty for the actions of those below themselves.
That's why they are in charge.
It's his responsibilty to ensure those below him are performing their duties in a professional manner.

[Dogwatcher]

Thornton wasn't humiliated by the Advertiser, if he was at all.
He was humiliated by the inadequacies of the staff member who left Pickett in the medal race.
Why are you so disappointed about this Mal?

[mal]

DOG
I like the Advertiser , I think its a darn good read
BUT
Even the papers writers/editors make boo boos
RUCCI did an article on Bob Quinn yesterday
BUT let me quote the following
RUCCI reports

_________________________________
QUINN was 83
to win a Magarey Medal in 1938
_________________________________

IF QUINN is 83
he was born at about 1924/ 1925
he wins his first medal in 1938 at about 13 years old ?

Now who de we blame ?
Rucci ?
Editor?
Printer ?
OR shall we blame the boss who might not have checked the article.

Mistakes are made in the workplace
BUT when you have a paying customer who makes a mistake you should tell him not shaft him

[Punk Rooster]

the Editor accepts the blame, & gives Rucci a roast!

[Mulligain]

Mal - why are u so upset by this?

[overloaded]

mal has a personal interest

[mal]

mal has a personal interest

On behalf off all good SANFL punters
We dont want Johnny to go broke, he is our meal ticket.

As for defending JT
Only if its warranted

[Dogwatcher]

I still can't tell how you blame The Advertiser for running a general interest story.
Plus, if JT was humiliated, it's only been continued by this thread...