The 0-0 argument only goes to the extent that BJM is saying that IF there were a team leading they would not have cancelled the bets. In other words with the score being nil they still felt there was SOME fairness involved to the players who bet the game (as if the game had not started).. We all understand that 0-0 IS a score but not one where anyone laying the half goal was taken advantage of by the cancelling. By laying the half goal I mean with 3 way betting players betting PSG or Marseilles had to win outright or lose.
Sure this would be much messier if PSG had won, but I will go on record here based on past experience with Scotty -- all players would have been paid.
Again a most unfortunate occurance and one I am certain everyone at BJM regrets.
Let's not get ridiculous, shall we? Football is not NFL. A tied game at the end of a regular time is exactly that, a tied game. 0:0 IS a result. The book is wrong, as there are no players harmed, you can leave it at that. Still, they better not pull this shit again in the future. As said about 10 times on the thread - soccer is an action wager. You don't back Listed 11, you back a TEAM.
Zee, take a look at the new thread I just posted on the matter. BJM understands this, an error was made. These things can happen from time to time. The match had some very unusual circumstances (like all wagers on one side - go figure)..