PDA

View Full Version : Auctioneer scumbag



Zippity
31-03-2011, 11:36 AM
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4829586/Auctioneer-takes-cut-from-Christchurch-earthquake-fundraiser

The man who donated a Don Binney painting for sale to raise funds for Christchurch earthquake relief is disappointed the auction house took a $16,200 commission from the sale

Erayd
31-03-2011, 11:49 AM
I don't personally have a problem with that - did you even read the story you just linked?

The man who donated the painting can do what he likes with the proceeds - he chose to donate them to Christchurch.

The auction house has a standard fee, and can do what they like with that - in this case, noting what the proceeds were going towards, they opted to charge only 6% instead of their usual 10%.

What this effectively means is that the auction house has decided, even though they have no obligation to do so, to donate $10,800 to Christchurch.

Therefore... what you've just done is call somebody a scumbag for donating over $10k to the Christchurch relief fund.

Zippity
31-03-2011, 12:08 PM
No. I called them a scumbag for pocketing 6% :(

I, along with many others was under the (mis)impression that the Auction House was giving its services free of charge.

Charity begins at home - what a joke :( :(

Erayd
31-03-2011, 12:18 PM
No. I called them a scumbag for pocketing 6% :(And what's wrong with that? They are an auction house, and work on a percentage commission - this is normal.

Do you similarly vilify your local dairy for not donating 100% of their revenue to Christchurch? What about the company you yourself are employed by? If they donated 100% of their revenue to Christchurch, where do you think your next paycheck would come from?

Taking this to an extreme, why have you not donated 100% of your own income?


I, along with many others was under the (mis)impression that the Auction House was giving its services free of charge.What gave you this impression?


Charity begins at home - what a joke :( :(Indeed... a very generous man has auctioned a painting and donated all the proceeds. The auction house was also generous, and donated almost half their commission.

Maybe start appreciating that they donated something at all rather than complaining about the amount.

inphinity
31-03-2011, 12:25 PM
Not sure I see the problem here... guy wants to sell painting so he can donate the funds raised to charity, auction house likes the idea so reduce their fee by 40%. Done.

Everyone seemed to love the idea when Air NZ was letting people fly out of Chch for $50 or whatever - are they scumbags for not doing that for free, too?

Zippity
31-03-2011, 02:11 PM
FOR THE SLOW READERS ON PF1:

Some people at my place of work were under the impression that the auctioneers were giving their services freely - nothing more, nothing less.

Please don't shoot the messenger.

Snorkbox
31-03-2011, 03:46 PM
FOR THE SLOW READERS ON PF1:

Some people at my place of work were under the impression that the auctioneers were giving their services freely - nothing more, nothing less.

Please don't shoot the messenger.

So some people had jumped to a conclusion and you passed the conclusion on as fact?

Consider yourself shot with due cause!

Bozo
31-03-2011, 03:55 PM
The man who donated a Don Binney painting for sale to raise funds for Christchurch earthquake relief is disappointed the auction house took a $16,200 commission from the sale

I don't see where Zippity was disappointed at the auctioneer, though creating a thread with the title you did, would imply you thought he was a scumbag and therefore..... :xmouth:

plod
31-03-2011, 04:00 PM
I don't see where Zippity was disappointed at the auctioneer, though creating a thread with the title you did, would imply you thought he was a scumbag and therefore..... :xmouth:

These are questions he should have asked before hand, I didn't donate any money through txt untill I found out that the telcos were giving 100% to the appeal.

robbyp
31-03-2011, 04:14 PM
That story has disappeared off the stuff website, as that link doesn't link up so can't comment.

However generally speaking, often when something is being auctioned for charity, the auctioner will waive their fees. I think trademe does. Also if you watch the auction programs on TV they too often do.

Zippity
31-03-2011, 04:40 PM
Gee. I wonder why Stuff pulled that story.

Maybe there is some truth in my original comments after all :)

Agent_24
31-03-2011, 04:48 PM
This is the problem with online stuff, they can delete it at a moment's notice

Can't do that with a real newspaper

robbyp
31-03-2011, 04:51 PM
This is the problem with online stuff, they can delete it at a moment's notice

Can't do that with a real newspaper

It isn't cached anywhere is it?

pctek
31-03-2011, 05:01 PM
I saw it on the news last night and I had that impression too. Must have been the way they worded it.
Still, they took some commission, whatever, doesn't make them scum.

Erayd
31-03-2011, 05:24 PM
Gee. I wonder why Stuff pulled that story.I was curious when it vanished, so I called them around 2pm to find out.

They said that it hadn't been pulled (and assured me that they don't do things like that), and should still be live on the web, but that the article was being updated to more accurately take the facts into account. I assume the link changed when the story was updated, hence why it appears to be missing.

My interpretation of that was "We're rewriting it, because we felt it was not sufficiently objective and that it pushed the writer's own opinions."


Gee. I wonder why Stuff pulled that story.

Maybe there is some truth in my original comments after all :)Hang on... so you're now implying that Stuff is in collusion with the auction house, and pulled the story to help the auction house avoid the bad press? That's the only scenario I can come up with that fits your comment above.

I'm also quite curious what your position on this actually is... you seem to have changed it a few times. Your original post labels the auction house a 'scumbag auctioneer'.
Your follow-up post clarifies this, and implies that they are scumbags for charging any fee at all.
Next, you claim that you were simply passing on your workmates' views, and had not stated any opinion of your own. You also implied that anyone not understanding your earlier posts to mean this was a "slow reader", despite never mentioning earlier that you were simply passing on somebody else's views rather than your own.
Your latest post combines a sarcastic comment denigrating Stuff's journalistic integrity, followed by an assertion that you agree with your original post (namely that the auction house is a scumbag).
I'm sure I'm not the only one who is confused...

Zippity
31-03-2011, 06:05 PM
Wow - trial by Erayd.

Who cares what you think? I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it :)

Snorkbox
31-03-2011, 06:15 PM
Wow - trial by Erayd.

Who cares what you think? I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it :)

I'm reasonably sure that that the Auction house won't worry that you have already posted a baseless opinion and tried them all by yourself and also they were found guilty as your title says they are scumbags in your opinion.

Wait. You only posted what your workmates said so therefore they were found guilty by them. And you were elected to be foreman of the Kangaroo Court and so therefore announced the verdict.

plod
31-03-2011, 06:33 PM
I was curious when it vanished, so I called them around 2pm to find out.

They said that it hadn't been pulled (and assured me that they don't do things like that), and should still be live on the web, but that the article was being updated to more accurately take the facts into account. I assume the link changed when the story was updated, hence why it appears to be missing.

My interpretation of that was "We're rewriting it, because we felt it was not sufficiently objective and that it pushed the writer's own opinions."

Hang on... so you're now implying that Stuff is in collusion with the auction house, and pulled the story to help the auction house avoid the bad press? That's the only scenario I can come up with that fits your comment above.

I'm also quite curious what your position on this actually is... you seem to have changed it a few times. Your original post labels the auction house a 'scumbag auctioneer'.
Your follow-up post clarifies this, and implies that they are scumbags for charging any fee at all.
Next, you claim that you were simply passing on your workmates' views, and had not stated any opinion of your own. You also implied that anyone not understanding your earlier posts to mean this was a "slow reader", despite never mentioning earlier that you were simply passing on somebody else's views rather than your own.
Your latest post combines a sarcastic comment denigrating Stuff's journalistic integrity, followed by an assertion that you agree with your original post (namely that the auction house is a scumbag).
I'm sure I'm not the only one who is confused...

:thumbs:

Metla
31-03-2011, 07:10 PM
Thumped.:lol:

GameJunkie
31-03-2011, 08:14 PM
they reduced their commission, therefore they contributed to the earthquake fund, or whatever it is.

end of story

mikebartnz
31-03-2011, 09:10 PM
Wow - trial by Erayd.

Who cares what you think? I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it :)
Well please go to sleep then.:rolleyes:

Twelvevolts
01-04-2011, 07:05 AM
Wow - trial by Erayd.

Who cares what you think? I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it :)
You know your post is taking a hammering when Snorkster's open mind has seen through it.

Zippity
01-04-2011, 10:06 AM
LOL

mikebartnz
01-04-2011, 08:24 PM
You know your post is taking a hammering when Snorkster's open mind has seen through it.
Keep digging.:(

robbyp
01-04-2011, 10:50 PM
I think this is the updated story, but can't see any mention of the commission. Looks like someone however made a comment to it at the bottom of the page, reacting to the old story. http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4824317/270k-painting-boosts-Christchurch-earthquake-relief