There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Daily mirror
Two Salford Red Devils fans have been left furious after believing they were £23,400 richer - only for bookies William Hill to refuse to pay out the bet.
Gary Smeaton and best pal, Kris Shenton, backed their team back in January when the odds were firmly against them.
The pair both stumped up £50 to place a single £100 "double" accumulator bet, backing Jackson Hastings at 25-1 to be named the Super League's "Man of Steel" and the Red Devils to finish in the top five at 8-1.
And to their delight, both bets came in after the Red Devils reached the Grand Final at Old Trafford, where they face St Helens this Saturday, and Hastings clinched the Steve Prescott Man of Steel award under this season’s new voting system.
The betting slip written out by a member of staff at William Hill for Salford Red Devils fan Gary (Image: Manchester Evening News)
However bookies William Hill say they will not pay out the £23,400 to the two friends due to "related contingency" - where two bets are directly linked as one has a direct influence on the other.
Gary, a company director, told Manchester Evening News : "I put the bet on nine months ago at the Swinton branch of William Hill. The guy in the bookie's wrote it out for me.
"My mate kept the betting slip. We never dreamed that it would ever come in.
"I never thought Salford would finish top five, but I did have an inkling about Hastings winning the Man of Steel. I am a massive Salford fan. I sponsor Tyrone McCarthy and the Devils' mascot.
"I was on holiday abroad when we beat Wigan to get to the Grand Final and then Jackson won his title. I was made up. Even Jackson's mum was pleased for me.
"Then she sent me a message after reading what William Hill had said and said she was gutted.
Jackson Hastings wins Super League Man of Steel after leading Salford to Grand Final
"William Hill have now said they regard our bet as two £50 bets and are prepared to pay out £1,700 to each of us.
"I am not settling for that. I will take it all the way, The Chief Executive of William Hill has refused to speak to me.
"Kris and I were so elated at the weekend. now we are so annoyed after coming down with a massive thud on Monday.
"I went back to the branch where I placed the bet and the person who wrote it out for me said he 'must have been half asleep' when he did it."
Jackson Hastings won Super League Man of Steel after leading Salford to Grand Final (Image: Corbis via Getty Images)
A spokesman for William Hill said: “As stated in our rules, a related contingency occurs when one or more parts of the bet placed affect the outcome of the bet.
"In this case, the prices of Jackson Hasting winning Man of Steel and Salford finishing in the top five are related. Were one outcome to happen, the other would be directly affected and as such the double price would be significantly smaller.
“This bet has been struck as a result of human error and as such has been corrected. At no point was the double on offer before the start of the season. Unfortunately, we realise this is disappointing for the customer and we can only apologise.
“In cases such as this, IBAS (Independent Betting Adjudication Service) offer an impartial adjudication on disputes between customers and licensed gambling operators.”
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
mirrorsport
Two Salford Red Devils fans have been left furious after believing they were £23,400 richer - only for bookies William Hill to refuse to pay out the bet.
Gary Smeaton and best pal, Kris Shenton, backed their team back in January when the odds were firmly against them.
The pair both stumped up £50 to place a single £100 "double" accumulator bet, backing Jackson Hastings at 25-1 to be named the Super League's "Man of Steel" and the Red Devils to finish in the top five at 8-1.
And to their delight, both bets came in after the Red Devils reached the Grand Final at Old Trafford, where they face St Helens this Saturday, and Hastings clinched the Steve Prescott Man of Steel award under this season’s new voting system.
The betting slip written out by a member of staff at William Hill for Salford Red Devils fan Gary (Image: Manchester Evening News)
However bookies William Hill say they will not pay out the £23,400 to the two friends due to "related contingency" - where two bets are directly linked as one has a direct influence on the other.
Gary, a company director, told Manchester Evening News : "I put the bet on nine months ago at the Swinton branch of William Hill. The guy in the bookie's wrote it out for me.
"My mate kept the betting slip. We never dreamed that it would ever come in.
"I never thought Salford would finish top five, but I did have an inkling about Hastings winning the Man of Steel. I am a massive Salford fan. I sponsor Tyrone McCarthy and the Devils' mascot.
"I was on holiday abroad when we beat Wigan to get to the Grand Final and then Jackson won his title. I was made up. Even Jackson's mum was pleased for me.
"Then she sent me a message after reading what William Hill had said and said she was gutted.
Jackson Hastings wins Super League Man of Steel after leading Salford to Grand Final
"William Hill have now said they regard our bet as two £50 bets and are prepared to pay out £1,700 to each of us.
"I am not settling for that. I will take it all the way, The Chief Executive of William Hill has refused to speak to me.
"Kris and I were so elated at the weekend. now we are so annoyed after coming down with a massive thud on Monday.
"I went back to the branch where I placed the bet and the person who wrote it out for me said he 'must have been half asleep' when he did it."
Jackson Hastings won Super League Man of Steel after leading Salford to Grand Final (Image: Corbis via Getty Images)
A spokesman for William Hill said: “As stated in our rules, a related contingency occurs when one or more parts of the bet placed affect the outcome of the bet.
"In this case, the prices of Jackson Hasting winning Man of Steel and Salford finishing in the top five are related. Were one outcome to happen, the other would be directly affected and as such the double price would be significantly smaller.
“This bet has been struck as a result of human error and as such has been corrected. At no point was the double on offer before the start of the season. Unfortunately, we realise this is disappointing for the customer and we can only apologise.
“In cases such as this, IBAS (Independent Betting Adjudication Service) offer an impartial adjudication on disputes between customers and licensed gambling operators.”
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
mirrorsport
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 294
|
By:
Its not like a normal linked bet him winning a award had no direct link to finish in the top 5 ?
|
|
By:
IBAS ruling will be interesting, the staff wrote the bet out!!!
 Can't believe that they haven't just paid the full amount using their discretion, as it looks awful on the firm and more damaging than the money they could potentially save if IBAS goes their way. |
|
By:
As a (goodwill) gesture can it not be settled using a chart similar to football eg a player to score 7/1, and the team winning 3-0?
|
|
By:
So if someone won the golden boot or say the seasons top scorer and a top 5 team they played for they wont pay out as the link is football lol
|
|
By:
It's probably an indirectly related contingency (in that success in one component has a small influence on the other component) but to settle as 2 singles is taking the p!ss. It should be feasible to work out a fair price for the double and settle at that price imo.
|
|
By:
Yes, it would appear so.
Problem is, as we all know, if just one of the events had "won" we all know they would claim it was a losing bet - not two singles. Staff member writes it out for customer and it's heads you win, tails we win. |
|
By:
How can this be related, If i back Jack Grealish to win PFA footballer of the year award and Villa to win the FA Cup, are they related, one voted for by footballers themselves, are they suggesting that footballers let villa win the cup, absolutely ridiculous. Force them to pay back as void every bet they have taken on a player to win an award who has happened to play for a team that has won a competition, should keep them busy for a while, what a joke!
|
|
By:
def related, doesn't matter if the staff member wrote it out. You could walk into any bookmakers and easily contrive to get staff to write out a bet and easily get them to take a related double,
|
|
By:
Bet they take thousands of these so called related bets every year, and doubt very much if these were voided!
|
|
By:
Exactly, because most are losers.
|
|
By:
So if Frankie wins the jockeys title and he wins the derby, and you do double they wont pay out its ridiculous
|
|
By:
Bookies only squeal on the winning bets, the losing ones are conveniently forgotten. The two components of the aforementioned bet are related (only to a small extent), but to settle it as 2 individual singles is unprofessional, and hiding behind the terms and conditions/rules; a one-time gesture would be settling it as a football bet or similar, and civilised way forward, I believe.
|
|
By:
I’m normally firmly on the side of the punter but I’m not here.
Blatantly related. |
|
By:
IMO
The member of staff has committed palpable error, so no comeback there. However is it a related dbl? If a team has the best player over the course of a season, is this likely to affect the teams finishing position. Almost certainly yes. starts rise comparison of Grealish and the FA Cup is not quite the same, as the cup competitions are not relevant to league performance or position (just ask Pochetinno). Should WH settle this as a related dbl, at reduced odds, yes ceretainly they should. It would be simple for them to calculate retrospectively the related dbl odds. |
|
By:
*stewarts not starts
|
|
By:
I'm tempted to put money on Scotland to win the Euros and Scott McTominay to be Sports Personality Of The Year 2020,
just to get into the argument of getting a refund. |
|
By:
I’ve got absolutely no stats to back up my claim
But put it the other way round When was the last time a team NOT top 5 had the man of steel? Related |
|
By:
To pay out as two singles is a blatant unfair term and should be removed from their T&C. The payout should be adjusted, but still paid as a double.
|
|
By:
its related
|
|
By:
Agree, it's definitely a related contingency but shouldn't be settled as two singles either. The fact that the staff member wrote it out makes it look very bad for Hills.
|
|
By:
its clearly related, albeit somewhat indirectly
what I have a problem with is the number of these bets that are accepted say 1 leg of the double wins & 1 leg loses the bet is settled as a losing double punter thinks no money to pick up 99%+ of the time either the bet is not re-settled as 2 singles or its settled as 2 singles & the punter never picks up the money owed because he/she assumes the bet is a double & therefore a loser shady practice at best imo |
|
By:
caveat emptor
|
|
By:
the "emptor" in this case was William Hill....
|
|
By:
how or who decides who wins the man of steel?
|
|
By:
as said previously, would hills have settled it as singles if only 1 of the selections had won ?
Surely this question must be asked. |
|
By:
dave 1357 - the punters "bought" the bet and WH "sold" it, I should think.
|
|
By:
don't agree with that, in any case the correct way to settle these bets is with an adjustment. WH can't so that because they don't have the staff, so put in place the "two singles rule" (which co-incidentally results in increased revenue from unsettled bets).
|
|
By:
These related bets are a nonsense and it's just a get out clause for the bookmaker.
|
|
By:
I've similar bets on horses accepted on 'sportsbook'. Of course the bets stood after 1st leg went down - no refund. Now, similar bets are no longer accepted with similar selection highlighted instead.
I think the Law on Contract does not apply fully to bookies as shop representative is not a 'learned' person thus subject to ignorance and human error. However, if someone higher up eg manager/trader with authorisation code then it's binding (legally), and the bet will be honoured in full. |
|
By:
impossible, wrt Contract Law, I think that is why bookies have the "palpable error" rule.
|
|
By:
Man of steel is long odds on to be part of a top 5 team, therefore the offer of £1700 each appears to be an offer correctly re-settled at the true re-calculated odds (100x26x1.31=3406). Not a bookie apologist but that seems fair to me.
|
|
By:
Yep. It's not unusual betting shop staff would just write down the price of a selection after being prompted. They are either dumb, too trustworthy or plain lazy.
|
|
By:
You get a double up and then have to wait until some person or other decides whether it's related or not.
Doesn't seem very fair to me at all. |
|
By:
no way this bet wouldnt have been passed to traders, they wouldnt take a 100£
|
|
By:
For instance, on saturday Pinatubo is 2/5 to win The Dewhurst, and only 'evens' to win 2000G - a combined odds (double) is 2.8 or just over 7/4 or nearly double his 2000G odds.
But, for Hills to settle the bet as two singles was harsh and unreasonable even though the staff responsible genuinely made a mistake. A conciliatory settlement ought to have been adopted. |
|
By:
On the side of the bookie still.
But sparrows point is good, it’s not very fair and no doubt you would get jack if 1st leg lost. Add to that if they employ min wage staff, surely they expect mistakes to be made and therefore have to accept revenue will be lost? Can have it both ways “get what you pay for” springs to mind |
|
By:
Can’t
|
|
By:
Average WH shop employee is too busy watching love island on their phone imo. All the good ones are gone (too expensive). Most of current WH shop employees probably think a related contingency is an incest storyline on Corrie.
|
|
By:
£10 double eg germany 1-0 7/1 and nabry to score 1st goal 5/1 = 47/1 of course thats what is really a related bet
but 635 have a special for that bet 22/1 , which is fair thats what hills should do here pay out on like say 100/1 . |