Skip to comments.
No $50K prize for 11-year-old who made 89-foot hockey shot
Yahoo! News ^
| 8/31/2011
| Sean Leahy
Posted on 09/01/2011 8:26:01 AM PDT by americanophile
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
To: americanophile
So this promotion company is like those Indian casinos that never pay out a jackpot?
"It was a malfunction."
To: Poison Pill
On the part of the company? Yep, sure sounds like it.
42
posted on
09/01/2011 9:48:41 AM PDT
by
BenKenobi
(Honkeys for Herman!)
To: Baynative
The father also made a wise move by teaching his boys it is not okay to cheat.
Explain to me just how this was cheating. The father paid for the ticket, what difference did it make which kid took the shot? There was no cheating involved, they paid their money and took the shot and made it and he made it fair and square, no cheating was involved. Only the most twisted minds could consider this cheating. The only cheating that went on here was by the insurance company.
43
posted on
09/01/2011 9:50:01 AM PDT
by
calex59
To: Baynative
Bullshit, the company made an offer they weren’t willing to stand behind.
They only ‘gave’ 20k instead of the 50k promised. If it’s not about the money they would have donated all of it.
As for the kids, they should have paid the kids what they won. A honourable company would have done so, instead of welshing.
44
posted on
09/01/2011 9:50:34 AM PDT
by
BenKenobi
(Honkeys for Herman!)
To: calex59
To start with what difference did it make who took the shot. $50,000.00
45
posted on
09/01/2011 9:51:04 AM PDT
by
Huck
(I don't believe there is just one God--humanity seems like the work of a committee to me.)
To: az_gila
I wonder if the kid had missed whether they would have ensured that the ‘right’ kid took the shot. Bueller, Bueller?
46
posted on
09/01/2011 9:52:00 AM PDT
by
BenKenobi
(Honkeys for Herman!)
To: BenKenobi
On the part of the company?The "participant".
To: gusty
If I had the winning ticket, would it be alright for me to let Mario Lemeieux take the shot for me. Who knows. The rules of the contest are not and cannot be known from this article. See #37.
48
posted on
09/01/2011 10:01:23 AM PDT
by
Will88
To: Ingtar
So, the family's mistake was writing a name on the tickets. If the father had just held onto the tickets and then when the number was announced given it to the child who was there by his side, none of this would have been an issue? All of this is because the father wrote names on the purchased tickets, not anyone connected with selling the ticket??
To: Poison Pill
Again, I sincerely doubt the company would have cared about getting the right kid had the kid missed.
50
posted on
09/01/2011 10:25:06 AM PDT
by
BenKenobi
(Honkeys for Herman!)
To: Poison Pill
IOW, fraud.
51
posted on
09/01/2011 10:25:59 AM PDT
by
Colonel_Flagg
(You're either in or in the way. "Primary" is a VERB.)
To: Cheetahcat
"How were the rules written: Ticket holder or Purchaser?From the article-"On Wednesday, the company decided against giving Nate the $50,000 and instead announced it will donate $20,000 to Minnesota youth hockey in the boys' names.
The exact reasoning for not awarding the money wasn't released,, but more than likely it was written into the policy that the winner of the $50,000 had to be the person who purchased the ticket.
The writer here seems to be speculating on rules that may or may not exist.
52
posted on
09/01/2011 10:28:43 AM PDT
by
Mila
To: 4yearlurker
53
posted on
09/01/2011 10:30:06 AM PDT
by
americanophile
("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
To: Balding_Eagle
No, they avoided a $50,000 liability and spent $20,000 on tax deductable public relations. See my post #20.
54
posted on
09/01/2011 10:31:52 AM PDT
by
americanophile
("this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives" - Ataturk)
To: Stosh
I think the would have been classier still if they gave something tangible to the kid who made the shot.
It's quite possible they did and the father was instructed not to reveal it.
The insurance company had to take a stand on the contest rules because if they hadn't then they would have set a precedence that could impact future similar contests........
55
posted on
09/01/2011 10:32:56 AM PDT
by
Hot Tabasco
(FREE YOUR BREASTS! FREE YOUR MIND!)
To: BenKenobi
Again, I sincerely doubt the company would have cared about getting the right kid had the kid missed.At least you admit that there is a right kid and a wrong kid.
To: americanophile
The father was right and honest to explain what happened, but the company could have handled it better.
The company could have saved itself a lot of bad will if they had just told the father “hey, thanks for the honesty but lets keep this between ourselves”
This is just my opinion and one (possibly better) solution for everyone involved
57
posted on
09/01/2011 10:34:47 AM PDT
by
Mr. K
(Physically unable to proofread....)
To: Poison Pill
All I know is what I would have done as a business owner.
That would be paying the family 50k. Think of all the *good* publicity.
Now I get known for being an indian giver.
58
posted on
09/01/2011 10:39:31 AM PDT
by
BenKenobi
(Honkeys for Herman!)
To: SES1066
I agree. I had posted a reply but the entire message was cut off.
It should read:
Thanks Dad...the right thing is always the right thing.
59
posted on
09/01/2011 10:45:00 AM PDT
by
Rumplemeyer
(The GOP should stand its ground - and fix Bayonets)
To: americanophile
That sux. Minnesooooota nice loses except in God’s eyes.
60
posted on
09/01/2011 10:54:30 AM PDT
by
luvie
(Obama is E V I L!!! RUN, SARAH---RUN!!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-71 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson