Plenty of people have had their say after two rugby fans were left fuming when a bookie refused to pay out the £23,400 they were expecting after a double bet came in.
Pals Gary Smeaton and Kris Shenton placed two bets at William Hill back in January, when nobody thought Salford Red Devils had any chance of success.
The put their money on the team to finish in the top five, with odds of 8-1.
They also both paid £50 to place a single £100 'double' accumulator bet on Jackson Hastings to be named the Super League's 'Man of Steel' - at 25-1.
When both bets came in the friends thought they'd landed £23,400.
But bookies William Hill have said the bet should never have been taken and was a result of human error.
The betting shop has offered Gary and Kris £1,700 apiece.
Bosses say they could not pay out due to 'related contingency', as the pair placed bets on two events that have a direct influence on each other.
Manchester Evening news readers have mixed views on whether the bet should be honoured.
Many said William Hill should honour the bet - and offer their staff better training.
Martin Bashforth posted on Facebook: "The bet was allowed so they should pay out! I wish them every luck getting what's rightly theirs!"
Read more of today's top stories
Clive Brazendale wrote: "It should be honoured as it was their employee's mistake and theirs as the employer.
"No mistake made by the purchaser. Take it on the chin, pay up, and book more training for your staff."
Alyson Fletcher posted: "The bet was taken and the stake, if thats the case William Hill should pay up after all it's their fault for taking the bet."
Dave Coulthard said: "The betting board should overrule this and insist William Hill pay out."
Some readers have sided with William Hill.
One Facebook user posted: "I wouldn't pay it out. It's a related bet!
"There will be shop rules stipulating that when one selection in a bet has an impact on the rest of the bet there will be a 'special' smaller price."
Karen Cryer posted: "William Hill are right, both bets are related and the cashier shouldn't have accepted the bet."
Andrew Welsh wrote: "You can’t back two things in a double which are related.
"It should have been flagged to them by the member of staff, granted, but this will certainly be stated in Will Hill’s Ts and Cs."
Gary, a company director, from Swinton, told the M.E.N: "We 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."
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.”
