Owner of cafe behind 'viral' sandwich responds to backlash over shock move: 'It could have been worse'
MLK Deli owner Myra Karakelle said she made the difficult decision to pull Risky Brisket off the menu on Saturday after it failed to meet her high standards.
The Surry Hills cafe, which opened in March 2024, has been attracting huge crowds daily, with many travelling far and wide for its signature sandwich - The Risky Brisket, which consistently sells out.
The rye ciabatta is packed with lashings of six-hour slow-cooked smoked brisket, sauerkraut, Swiss cheese and the deli's signature MLK House sauce - served with a side of pickles and salt and vinegar chips.
Despite offering eight different sandwiches on the menu, customers were furious after visiting the cafe on Saturday - only to find that the fan favourite Risky Brisket was unavailable.
'The reason for that was because the brisket that we had prepared did not pass our quality test,' the owner said in a video.
'It was not good enough to serve to you. It was not good enough to take your money for and it was not good enough to put our name to... But I promise you it would have been worse if we served you a cr*p meal.'
Myra said she wasn't aware of the poor quality meat until after completing the full seven-day preparation process - brining, cooking and then smoking it.
'It generally takes up to six hours every day to slow cook it. Our mornings start from 5am - this consists of smoking the brisket then transferring it to cook,' Myra told Daily Mail Australia.
'On average we sell three slabs of brisket a day, which equates to approximately 15-20kg. We keep each slab of brisket in brine for six to seven days before the day of cooking so it's a lengthy process.'
When it came time to serve on Saturday, the employees realised the meat was 'not tender enough' and Myra said she couldn't risk letting customers eat something she thought felt like 'chewing rubber'.
'I asked the team to not sell three slabs of brisket that we had prepared that day. It was very difficult and I'm sure we disappointed a lot of people,' she said.
'I am really sorry for that, but I think I would have been much more sorrier if we had taken your money and served you a meal that was not good enough.
'We put our integrity to it and we also wouldn't want to do that just in general. I understand it was very frustrating and I'm very sorry, but I think I would have been much more sorry if you had a s*** meal.'
Despite her reasonable explanation, some customers took their frustration online - leaving one-star reviews for her cafe on Google.
'The customer reactions were wild and not what I expected at all. One person even heavily criticised us on multiple platforms, comparing us to KFC running out of chicken,' Myra told Daily Mail Australia.
'We received one-star Google reviews for not having it. Albeit we are susceptible to one-star reviews even when we sell out.
'It's incredible how much our customers love our brisket, but their frustrations when they can't have it are just as intense. We will always strive for quality over quantity/sales.
'That is out of respect to our brand and also out of respect to our customers. I really hope that can be understood.'
Myra said she felt it was important to address the issue as she didn't want to disappoint her customers, especially those who had travelled far for the sought-after sandwich.
'Everyone deals with frustration differently and I completely understand why it would have been annoying to come all the way to Surry Hills and not get something that you were hoping to have,' she said.
The owner said they run their business out of a 90-square metre shop with limited space so they don't have a central kitchen or a cool room.
'We are only able to brine, smoke and cook certain amounts of brisket every day,' she explained.
'I wish we had a bigger space... It would mean that we would be able to produce bigger volumes, but we are not a big fast food chain. We are a very small shop in Surry Hills and we are a family business, so please bear with us.'
Myra said the issue arose after her cafe received a 'cut of meat that was a different brand' than what they usually get from their supplier.
'It wasn't flagged as a problem but unfortunately it did not behave the same way that our usual cuts of brisket does,' she explained.
However, she confirmed the venue has since switched back to its usual high-quality meat so she expects the problem won't happen again.
She said The Risky Brisket sandwiches are constantly selling out so she urged customers to arrive early to avoid missing out again.
'Thank you for selling it out, but we cannot produce more. We physically from a logistics point of view, we cannot produce more,' she said.
'We do not have the space, we do not have the means and we just don't have the possibility. So we cook as much as we can every single morning.
She added: 'I just needed to jump on and to clear the air for anyone who came in and couldn't have the Risky Brisket or was frustrated or dealt with it differently, I am sorry, I am sorry, but I would have been sorrier if you had a cr*p meal.'
Dozens of loyal customers jumped to the cafe's defence, with one saying: 'Thank you for taking pride in quality of the food you serve. Sorry you felt the need to explain it. People need to chill and come back another day.'
'You are the best of the best on the sandwich game! I'm so sorry for any hate or negativity you got. You don't deserve it! Can't wait to see you soon,' another said.
'You owned it. You dealt with it. Beautifully handled, you'll always have our business,' one shared.
'These things happen, you don't owe people an explanation yet you still gave it.. Just shows the type of person you are. Love your business, love your food and love you! Keep pushing, there is always going to be people that complain about something, can't always please everyone,' another added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE I ordered an everyday item of clothing from overseas when it was seized at the Australian border... then came the $2,500 bill to get it back
An Australian business owner has lashed out after his clothing shipment was seized at the border and he was forced to pay more than $2,500 before he could get it back. Andy Lowry, who runs clothing store Pamboes, had ordered a shipment of 'blanket hoodies' from China before they were withheld by the Australian Border Force. Authorities had searched the clothing for illegal materials, however they found nothing suspicious inside of them. Mr Lowry was slugged with a $2,524 bill for airport storage fees and informed he would not be able to collect the items until he settled it. 'Apparently because I'm the importer on record, I had to pay that $2,524 bill and they pretty much told me to get stuffed,' he said. 'This is like the cost of doing business essentially.' Mr Lowry claimed the seizure put him behind schedule for marketing the new clothes. 'I can confirm that [Master Air Waybill number] is subject to border processing and we're unable to provide a timeframe as to when it may be available,' an official advised in an email. 'At this point I'm getting stressed cause they like can't give me a timeframe. I'm like how long are they going to keep it for?' Mr Lowry said. In correspondence from the ABF, Mr Lowry was told he could not collect his items until he paid to lift the storage fees. He believed it would cost a few hundred dollars. 'After I wait a week and a half, I get my storage charges and it's storage for $2,524. For what? A hoodie?' Mr Lowry said. 'Then I sort of had this huge back and forth on why I'm having to pay for this, and lo and behold, it is legal. 'The Australian Border Force can do that to any person who is importing.' Mr Lowry said to chase a reimbursement he was deferred to the Department of Home Affairs. He was told he would have to lodge an investigation and complain. Mr Lowry told Daily Mail Australia any fee 'coming out of nowhere' makes it 'tough' to do business. He said the 'seasonal' business relies on customers purchasing his products at the beginning of winter, and estimates the border mishap in June cost him dearly. Mr Lowry began selling the loungewear during the Covid pandemic before realising there was a market for 'blanket'-style clothes. 'This delay cost us two weeks in June, which would be above a six-figure loss in lost sales,' he said. 'Understandably customers do their winter shopping at the beginning of winter so they can get full use out of whatever they have bought.' When he tried to chase an investigation, Mr Lowry found there was no way around paying the fees, as the importer on record is liable for the costs. 'In the time Australian Border Force is checking your goods, your shipping company is forced to hold the goods at their warehouses until Australian Border Force is finished and storage charges are imposed,' he said. 'Some companies may be kind enough to waive these charges, but understandably they are a business too.' Mr Lowry said the costs around occupying commercial real estate are expensive as port space is in high demand. In general, importing can be 'quite difficult' he said. He added Pamboes has thankfully had few issues but acknowledged he had heard 'horror stories'. 'Border holds cost companies millions each year and it's not something you can really prepare for, it's almost a random check,' he said. 'We understand they have to keep our borders safe, but we pay taxes at the border. You would think part of those taxes we pay would cover ABF's work.' He said it hasn't put him off doing business as Pamboes moves into more fashionable blanket-wear and tries to sell off remaining stock in a winter sale.
Daily Mail
3 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Huge '$25 cap' cost of living change to help millions of Aussies pay for an everyday staple
Australians will pay no more than $25 for selected medicines for the first time in more than 20 years under a proposal to be brought before parliament. It will be the second cap on medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) introduced by the Albanese government in three years, after it cut the maximum price of PBS prescriptions from $42.50 to $30. 'The size of your bank balance shouldn't determine the quality of your health care,' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said. 'My government will continue to deliver cost-of-living relief for all Australians.' PBS medicines would be capped at $7.70 for pensioners and concession card holders until 2030. The bill's introduction is largely a formality, with its passage through the lower house all but assured thanks to Labor's massive 94-seat majority in the 150-seat House of Representatives. The election promise is the Albanese government's next priority after it introduced childcare safety and HECS debt reduction legislation. Federal Labor has been talking up plans to strengthen the PBS amid concerns the scheme will be targeted as a bargaining chip in US trade negotiations to ward off threatened pharmaceutical tariffs. Albanese has repeatedly said the scheme was not up for negotiation. Australia eased its biosecurity restrictions on US beef imports last week, but the prime minister has denied the move was linked to US trade talks. He noted the decision followed a 10-year review of Australian biosecurity rules. Beyond new legislation, conflict in the Middle East will likely prompt fierce debate on the parliamentary floor after Albanese said Israel had breached international law by blocking the flow of food aid into Gaza. 'Quite clearly, it is a breach of international law to stop food being delivered, which was a decision that Israel made in March,' Albanese told ABC's Insiders on Sunday. He stopped short of saying Australia would join France in recognising a Palestinian state, but said his government would decide at 'an appropriate time'. 'Hamas can have no role in a future state,' he said. 'Hamas are a terrorist organisation who I find, their actions are abhorrent.' Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Michaelia Cash said Albanese failed to adequately condemn the role of the group in the ongoing conflict. The government is also likely to come under pressure regarding transparency when parliament resumes, after a Centre for Public Integrity probe revealed only a quarter of freedom of information request responses returned by the government in 2023-24 were un-redacted. By comparison, the Morrison government returned almost half of its FOI requests as complete documents in 2021/22.
Reuters
3 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU's pledge for $250 billion of US energy imports is delusional
LAUNCESTON, Australia, July 28 (Reuters) - There are strong echoes of Donald Trump's failed trade deal with China from his first term as U.S. president in the framework agreement reached with the European Union. Trump and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the deal for a 15% tariff on U.S. imports of EU goods at the U.S. leader's golf course in Scotland on Sunday. But more important than the 15% tariff rate was the apparent commitment by the EU to massively ramp up energy imports from the United States. The agreement calls for EU imports of U.S. energy, which currently are mainly crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG), of $250 billion a year for three years. This is a delusional level of imports that the EU has virtually no chance of meeting, and one that U.S. producers would also struggle to supply. Even if the EU did manage somehow to boost its energy imports from the United States to the $250 billion a year mark, it would also prove massively disruptive for energy flows around the rest of the world. The numbers show the scale of the challenge. The 28 members of the EU imported 3.38 billion barrels of seaborne crude oil in 2024, according to data compiled by energy analysts Kpler. Assuming the 2025 volume stays the same and the price paid per barrel averages around $70, this means the EU will pay about $236.6 billion for its crude. The EU's imports from the United States were 573 million barrels in 2024, which if replicated this year would be valued at around $40.1 billion. For LNG, the EU imported 82.68 million metric tons in 2024, which would have cost around $51.26 billion assuming an average price of around $12 per million British thermal units (mmBtu). Imports of the super-chilled fuel from the United States were 35.13 million tons in 2024, worth about $21.78 billion. The EU also buys coal from the United States, the bulk being higher-value metallurgical coal used to make steel. Total EU imports of metallurgical coal in 2024 were worth $6.72 billion, assuming an average price of $200 per ton, with those from the United States valued at $2.67 billion. Putting together the value of EU imports of U.S. crude oil, LNG and metallurgical coal gives a 2024 total of around $64.55 billion. This is about 26% of the $250 billion the EU is supposed to spend on U.S. energy a year under the framework agreement. If the EU did ramp up its imports of U.S. crude, LNG and metallurgical coal to $250 billion, it would account for 85% of its total spending on those energy commodities. The United States exported 1.45 billion barrels of crude in 2024, according to Kpler, which would be worth $101.5 billion at a price of $70 a barrel. U.S. shipments of LNG were 87.05 million tons in 2024, which would be worth about $54 billion at an average price of $12 per mmBtu. The U.S. exported 51.53 million tons of metallurgical coal in 2024, worth $10.3 billion at an average price of $200 a ton. Putting together the value of all three energy commodities gives a total of $165.8 billion, meaning that even if the EU bought the entire volume it would still fall well short of the $250 billion. The scale of the delusion probably exceeds what Trump and China agreed in their so-called Phase 1 trade deal in December 2019, under which China was supposed to buy $200 billion of additional U.S. energy by the end of 2021. The reality is that China never even came close to buying that level, and its imports of U.S. energy didn't even reach what they were before Trump launched his first trade war in 2017. There are a few caveats when looking at the framework agreement between Trump and Von der Leyen. The first is that not all the details are known and the $250 billion of energy is also said to include nuclear fuel, although this will only be a small value even if included. The second is the deal will probably include refined fuels, with U.S. exports to the EU of products such as diesel, being almost 110 million barrels in 2024, worth about $10.9 billion assuming a price of $100 a barrel. But it's still clear that the commitment to buy $250 billion in U.S. energy is completely unrealistic and unachievable. The smart people in the room must know this, begging the question as to why agree to what is obviously a ridiculous number? What happens when the inevitable failure is realised? Perhaps the EU is hoping for the same outcome as China did with the first trade war with Trump in 2019. Run down the clock, talk nice, and hope the next U.S. president is easier to deal with. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab. The views expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.
