$3 Million Bet On Saints

[saintsRrising]

I can't believe we are $1.20 this week.

Yeah I though that was a bit short for us to, even though I think we will win.

Odds are probably affected by PA supporters not being that financial a group...so probably is little money being placed on them....meaning that the bookie's odds on the Saints are lower than they probably should be.

[ChicagoSaint]

I'll give you a clue...it wasn't a Victorian

kerry stokes?

[Mr Magic]

All I'm saying is that Pratt whilst guilty of many sins also did some good and was not the devil incarnate some would like to paint him.

To be fair, he was already a wildly successful businessman well before the price-fixing cartel was formed. And to all extents he is an easy target because of his success, but we are also entitled to ask of such men, Did he leave the world a better place?

BTW, would you concede that Amcor is lucky they weren't the sponsors of Carlscum otherwise they'd be universally villified as the corrupt organization Visy is/was and they aren't/weren't?
Especially considering it would seem from the evidence submitted, that they were the instigators of the price-fixing scheme.

You make price-fixing sound complicated. Does it require an agreement or understanding between competitors, or not?

Of course it requires an agreement between at least 2 parties.
Yet from the reporting and subsequent comments one could be forgiven for thinking Visy did it all on their own.
Why is that?
Surely Amcor is at least as much to blame as Visy?

[Bernard Shakey]

All I'm saying is that Pratt whilst guilty of many sins also did some good and was not the devil incarnate some would like to paint him.

To be fair, he was already a wildly successful businessman well before the price-fixing cartel was formed. And to all extents he is an easy target because of his success, but we are also entitled to ask of such men, Did he leave the world a better place?

BTW, would you concede that Amcor is lucky they weren't the sponsors of Carlscum otherwise they'd be universally villified as the corrupt organization Visy is/was and they aren't/weren't?
Especially considering it would seem from the evidence submitted, that they were the instigators of the price-fixing scheme.

You make price-fixing sound complicated. Does it require an agreement or understanding between competitors, or not?

Of course it requires an agreement between at least 2 parties.
Yet from the reporting and subsequent comments one could be forgiven for thinking Visy did it all on their own.
Why is that?
Surely Amcor is at least as much to blame as Visy?

Amcor offered to testify against Visy for immunity from prosecution. I believe they copped a fine. Without Amcor's testimony there was no case.

[Mr Magic]

All I'm saying is that Pratt whilst guilty of many sins also did some good and was not the devil incarnate some would like to paint him.

To be fair, he was already a wildly successful businessman well before the price-fixing cartel was formed. And to all extents he is an easy target because of his success, but we are also entitled to ask of such men, Did he leave the world a better place?

BTW, would you concede that Amcor is lucky they weren't the sponsors of Carlscum otherwise they'd be universally villified as the corrupt organization Visy is/was and they aren't/weren't?
Especially considering it would seem from the evidence submitted, that they were the instigators of the price-fixing scheme.

You make price-fixing sound complicated. Does it require an agreement or understanding between competitors, or not?

Of course it requires an agreement between at least 2 parties.
Yet from the reporting and subsequent comments one could be forgiven for thinking Visy did it all on their own.
Why is that?
Surely Amcor is at least as much to blame as Visy?

Amcor offered to testify against Visy for immunity from prosecution. I believe they copped a fine. Without Amcor's testimony there was no case.

So if Visy had offered to testify against Amcor, then Visy wouldn't be a party to the crooked deal and Amcor would singularly be to blame?

If only life was as simple as that.
Maybe you should read some of the history as to why Amcor chose to 'blow the whistle' on the deal?
Like so much that goes on in the corporate world, a pretty simple case of a current executive trying to 'screw over' previous executives to make himself/themselves look better.
Very little thought of 'good corporate citizenship' seemed to be a driving force.
And given that the Amcor testimony confirmed that they approached Visy about the deal and were the ones who instigated it.

All I'm asking is why one side of a 2-party agreement seems to be villified whilst the other is viewed as a 'good corporate citizen' when both were equal parties in that agreement?

[Thinline]

f*** em both then.

[Mr Magic]

f*** em both then.

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

Visy got whacked,
Amcor seemd to get off pretty lightly (at least publicly).

Now does anybody want to discuss the notion that we were 'ripped off' by these 2 companies......?

I believe it to be errant nonsense.
And I am happy to discuss/argue/debate my pov.

especially since this appears to be a 'slow day' on saintsational.

[sunsaint]

whilst this has been an amusing tangent to the OP
now replace
Visy vs Amcor
with
StKilda vs Ball



I can't wait for the book

[Mr Magic]

whilst this has been an amusing tangent to the OP
now replace
Visy vs Amcor
with
StKilda vs Ball



Im can't wait for the book

I'm not sure I can see the analogy?

How/why would you compare Ball vs StKilda with Visy vs Amcor?

As for the book, you'll only ever get the perspective of the person writing it.
And if you have a predetermined view one way or the other you will either enjoy it or think it's garbage.

[stinger]

whilst this has been an amusing tangent to the OP
now replace
Visy vs Amcor
with
StKilda vs Ball



Im can't wait for the book

I'm not sure I can see the analogy?

How/why would you compare Ball vs StKilda with Visy vs Amcor?

As for the book, you'll only ever get the perspective of the person writing it.
And if you have a predetermined view one way or the other you will either enjoy it or think it's garbage.

dick "the rat" pratt was one of the more despicable corrupt and just plain evil men that this country has had the misfortune to embrace from overseas.....

[Mr Magic]

whilst this has been an amusing tangent to the OP
now replace
Visy vs Amcor
with
StKilda vs Ball



Im can't wait for the book

I'm not sure I can see the analogy?

How/why would you compare Ball vs StKilda with Visy vs Amcor?

As for the book, you'll only ever get the perspective of the person writing it.
And if you have a predetermined view one way or the other you will either enjoy it or think it's garbage.

dick "the rat" pratt was one of the more despicable corrupt and just plain evil men that this country has had the misfortune to embrace from overseas.....

As distinct from 'homegrown' ones?

Stinger, that's your opinion - I'm sure you've got valid reasons why you think that.

Others saw him in a different light.
Like the cancer researchers at Monash Uni who got a 2 million dollar grant from him when they had nowhere else to turn to.

It's all relative to one's perspective.
Should these researchers make the 'scientific breakthrough' they are looking for, will those who benefit from that research view the person who funded their cure in the same light?

It all depends on one's perspective.
Glass half full / half empty

[linz]

I suppose it's a bit like getting 1 Billion dollars dishonestly in one hand and then handing out 2 million dollars to a good cause with the other hand.
It makes you LOOK like a good bloke even though you're a crook.

Anyway back to the topic.
I hope whoever put this bet on is right.

[matrix]

i won div one.
speculation over.

[ChicagoSaint]

pot the dead guy why dont yas.
would having his widow around the sheds with her face pulled tighter than a bear over a barrel have anything to do with the fact that carlton are crap?

[saintnick12]

I can't believe we are $1.20 this week.

Yeah I though that was a bit short for us to, even though I think we will win.

Yeah me too. I think we'll win, but you wouldn't find me betting on it. I'm not a gambler anyway, but I wouldn't even bet on us today with someone elses money .

We were around 1.20 last week too and they were about 5.60...and smashed us. That's why betting is a mugs game.

[plugger66]

I can't believe we are $1.20 this week.

Yeah I though that was a bit short for us to, even though I think we will win.

Yeah me too. I think we'll win, but you wouldn't find me betting on it. I'm not a gambler anyway, but I wouldn't even bet on us today with someone elses money .

We were around 1.20 last week too and they were about 5.60...and smashed us. That's why betting is a mugs game.

Not if you backed Essendon.

[saintnick12]

True.

1.20 would usually indicate a very good chance of winning. Anyone who backed Dons last week would have made good money. However, if they continued to pick teams at over $5 they would lose a lot of money fast.

I heard on the radio yesterday that the punters also think we are too short today at $1.20 and a lot have port in the line betting - I think the line was about 30 points. Probably a good bet for them.