Gambler claiming 250k from C0ral tells court bookie 'cheated' by claiming Rangers weren't relegated

akabula.

You are obviously a deluded Ranger supporter. As I pointed out FIFA and UEFA  class the RIFC as a new entity so therefore a new club.  3 Law Lords???.   Lord Nimmo Smith during the enquiry into the Rangers EBT/Dual Contract schemes came up with some nonsense that the company died and not the club.(This was Mr Greene Mantra as well)
Donald Findlay QC an ex Ranger vice chairman told you the truth Glasgow Rangers no longer existed

Think I will take the FIFA/UEFA stance on the matter, along with Mr Findlay, who incidentally is a fairly successful QC in this country and is well clued up on such issues.

Check the FIFA and UEFA websites. Same club but heh you keep trying to justify the Thousands you and yer fellow brigaders spent.
Res12

Even yer major shareholder agrees

It's beyond reason that Coral make a case about Kinloch being a pro punter, as if that was illegal or even somehow immoral. He went to a distant shop - so what ffs? As for making out £100 is big money and an unusual amount to carry around, did they mention that when they took his cash and stuffed it in the till?
I've said already though, that the punter (more so in this case with the guy being an ex bookmaker) should always be careful with his instructions, i.e, if his bet had read "Rangers NOT to be playing in Scottish top division next season", or similar, then Coral wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. As it is, even giving Kinloch his due for reading Rangers perilous financial situation correctly, he gave them a possible escape route with his poorly worded and in my opinion ambiguous instructions.

Kinloch is a former bookie, he knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote what he wrote.

Coral made the claim that he was a professional and acting in the course of a business after Kinloch tried to claim the protections of consumer law on the basis that he was acting as consumer. That's the only reason they went there, to refute that he was a consumer. They weren't trying to claim that there was something untoward about being a pro or trying to make money.

Kinloch is a former bookie, he knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote what he wrote.

I wouldn't argue that point but he should/could have given more thought to his instructions. As for the consumer bit, they didn't worry about that when they took his cash.

If he'd written "Rangers NOT to be playing in Scottish top division next season" or similar they wouldn't have taken the bet or at least he'd have expected them not to, that's why he wrote what he wrote imo, seeing as is he a former bookie. He knew it was ambiguous and that he'd have a half chance of winning the bet/case. Even at half a chance the odds were still worth the bet. If Rangers weren't in the SPL the next year and he has a half chance of winning the bet that makes the odds 1250/1, still a very good bet and I'd say he had it all calculated out.

Don't know what point you're making in the second sentence? It would be presumed that every punter is a consumer and if one later claims that he was a consumer but has a background of being a former bookie and a pro gambler and they now know this, they are entitled to make the court aware of that and claim to the contrary? Consumer law can impose terms into a contract which otherwise aren't there and he tried to claim the benefit of these and they claimed that he shouldn't be allowed to given his background. They would never consider whether he was a pro/bookie at the time of taking the bet, they would assume he is a pleb like 99.9% of punters.

has anyone mentioned ( or knows ) exactly how this bet was settled when he went to collect ???


if it was a loser and not void surely that must imply he had a chance to win.

If he'd written "Rangers not ...etc" they MIGHT have taken the bet but if I'd been him I think I'd have tried that first. So many things he could have done differently really. As for assuming he was a pleb when bet was struck, I don't think that's an argument against paying him, now that they know different. So what if he was a bookmaker? I mean, should we all produce a lifetime CV when placing a bet?

Good point GC.

if you want to take a price off a screen you write bet
to match market as it is framed by bookie, and even in
ibas disputes if a bet is written incorrectly they will look at
price taken as an indication of a punters intent

He had to ask for a price, as I understand it. Good luck to him anyway.

@GC

When you say "if it was a loser and not void surely that must imply he had a chance to win" are you relying on the old mantra that you have to have a chance to win for a bet to be a bet?  That's not been the case in this country since the Gambling Act 2005.  In particular:

"A transaction that relates to the likelihood of anything occurring or not
occurring may be a bet within the meaning of subsection (1) despite the facts
that—
(a) the thing has already occurred or failed to occur, and
(b) one party to the transaction knows that the thing has already occurred
or failed to occur."

Jan 23, 2017 -- 2:55PM, Alias wrote:

If he'd written "Rangers not ...etc" they MIGHT have taken the bet but if I'd been him I think I'd have tried that first. So many things he could have done differently really. As for assuming he was a pleb when bet was struck, I don't think that's an argument against paying him, now that they know different. So what if he was a bookmaker? I mean, should we all produce a lifetime CV when placing a bet?

Yes they might, but as a bookie he obviously thought they'd cop on to what he was trying and either refuse it or give a different price imo, so he did it the way he did it.

If you place a bet the terms are the terms. It's the same for everyone. But if you are a consumer and those terms are deemed unfair, and that will only ever be determined if the matter goes to court, certain terms might be struck down or altered to make them fair. Kinloch claimed that the terms were unfair or ambiguous and should be construed in his favour, as he was a consumer. Coral's tried to rebut his claim by introducing evidence of his experience as a bookmaker and that he was a pro gambler. They did not claim that he should have told them he was a pro at the time and nobody is suggesting that.

So, to answer your question 'so what if he was a bookmaker?', the only relevance is that he claimed that he was a consumer in court and they claimed he wasn't. It is irrelevant to any other case where the person placing the bet does not take the matter to court or takes the matter to court and does not claim to be a consumer, ie 99.9999999% of bets. It is only relevant to his claim in court that he was a consumer. People were giving out saying Corals had something against people trying to make money or being a pro but they were completely missing the point of why they made an issue out of it - it was purely to rebut his claim that he was a consumer, for no other reason.

I don't see how the bet could have been voided. As far as Corals are concerned, Rangers got too many points to be relegated and therefore weren't relegated so the bet was a loser. They still could have been relegated if they didn't get enough points. They finished the season.

I wonder if any punters backed Dundee to be promoted that season ? Did Coral pay out on these bets , I would expect not . Remember the old scenario of " Club 12 " . The whole affair dragged on for ages that summer .

Maybe the fella shouldve just backed celtic to do ten in a row and trade accordingly when rangers went up thru the ranks

CHEERS longbridge, not sure i am that much wiser, i was just curious how the bet was treated when the owner went to collect,? was he offered

his stake back or not . it will all be revealed soon no doubt.

dont think he did try and collect ,at least he was asked why he never presented his slip i think

the implied contract was exhibited in the odds offered imo

he knew what he was betting on ,Rangers to be relegated and it simply never happened

I was ahead of Albert and had Motherwell to finish second at fancy prices so if he does cop i am off to the books .

some right teapots  howling at moon  on this thread

Is this one over yet? Seems to be going on and on

extra time n replay

How did Betfair settle the bet?

when's the result

Judge had a while now FFS

Judge had a while now FFS

Longer than the Nuremberg trials

Any update on when a judgement might be made? I go 10/11 your pick by the way.

No doubt the judge is negotiating with corals to what they will pay him to rule in their favour.

he'll get a no lose fiver Saturday lucky 15 for life.

Personally the longer it's takes for the judge to decide the more it favours the punter. (hopefully)

^agreed. If there is any ambiguity it may come down to the old statute that it favours the one that did not write the contract.

Judge making his decision from khorals 5 star Mediterranean execs retreat

Corals could have worded the bet in several unambiguous ways (e.g. "to finish bottom two" or "to be relegated to the Championship") but chose not to.  So they are relying on the twin points of what relegation means (in the absence of a concrete definition, it just means "put into a different league") and whether Rangers actually existed as an entity when the new club started in a different division.  For the second to have any merit, Corals would have to demonstrate that they had consistently applied the same settlement methodology for all other similar scenarios.  I have a feeling they would not be able to do that convincingly.

Alternatively, if Corals or any other bookmaker was offering (shorter) odds for Rangers insolvency at the time the bet was struck, they could settle at those odds on the basis of palpable error

I hope he wins just for thinking outside the box

To be relegated, Rangers would have to play out the season and finish in the bottom 3.
One question though, what happened to the team that finished fourth to bottom ? Did they remain in the same league ?
.

The point being, did one of the SPL teams avoid relegation because of Rangers' demise ?

I should know but I don't. Aka will be along shortly. He is well up to speed with these kind of disputes.

jamilla14
The point being, did one of the SPL teams avoid relegation because of Rangers' demise ?

No, the relegation went ahead as normal with Dundee, who finished RU in Div1, chosen to replace Rangers.

F/F sake how long does it take for the judge to come up with a ruling on this?

I think this is a classic case of definition and interpretation of the term "relegation"; Rangers did get relegated, not on footballing term eg inferior football field performances, but financial irregularities off the field.

I think the judge will rule in the favour of the bookie but the bookie will be asked to pay costs of plaintiff; this case only materialises out of the ambiguity of the term "relegation", and acceptance of the bet after authorisation from bookie has been obtained.

A definition and clarification of the term "relegation" should have been offered by the bookie prior or at the time when the bet was struck, I believe.

pretty sure the Judge said he would give a written judgment in a month,its not unusual in Scotland.

As for relegation in Scotland jamilla14, it was  pretty ambiguous  as they just shuffled the cards and said the team that was to be promoted did not have a ground that fitted the criteria and there was no relegation/promotion .

This suited when it was Aberdeen ect  but the same rule was ignored when Rangers were demoted to the 3rd Division ,some of the grounds were borderline but very small so manageable but the  2nd were  worse, crumbling dilapidated  death traps that were used to crowds in the hundreds .They were now  crammed to the rafters ,literally, and sometimes the roofs ,walls ,floodlights ect as well .

Was at many a ground and the H+S was non existent,scary potatoes  ,grounds designed to keep people from getting in with zero capacity to get people out  quickly or emergency workers in,make no mistake this was a punishment ,a demotion ,dumped into the 3rd ,you cant be relegated 3 divisions in one season.

Albert has had a punt ,knew what he was betting on ,but Coral have made a huge mistake declaring themselves that Rangers were relegated ,i just hope he is not too deep with lawyers fees if it goes against him ,he is gambling 10k+ on a getting paid on a loser ,now on at 25/1 not 2500/1.

Its seems pretty clearcut to me.Rangers finished the season got points deducted and finished the campaign with the points deduction well clear of relegation.
They subsequently went bust and had to hand their licence to play in senior football back. Attempts to put Sevco into D1 were thwarted by the majority of the senior Scottish clubs so they were fastracked into D3.
Now this is where Corals have been wrong because they have tried to call Rangers the same club, as I suppose the aggro their staff would get would cost far more, instead of calling them Rangers2012.

Res12 donater (nap)

Flasharry


Bang on the money.

The support of the late old club think that sevco are the same club.

Obviously easily led    or not the brightest.

Got to accept that the worlds greatest and most successful club will attract attention from jealous individuals.

hope the judge does his homework on how joe's have treated other customers and reads out there list of shame before awarding a victory to the old feller.

,i just hope he is not too deep with lawyers fees if it




As far as I'm aware he is on a no win no fee basis so there will be no financial hit if he loses.

Is my local MP, Tasmina Ahmed Shake Ya-booty on the case?

Terminology is terminology...

same as the 'sack race'...

if Eddie Howe for instance resigned, left by mutual consent or let his contract to run-out to be the next england manager...would that be paid out as a winning bet?

I don't think so.


Come to think of it....is leaving by mutual consent the same as being sacked?

£50k award incoming, imo.

has this case been settled yet ..  went very quiet

cardenden, Expected to be at least 4 weeks before judge decides.

Lets hope if its a positive outcome for the punter, the news doesn't get buried by Cheltenham and Coral get all the negative press possible

Seems to be dragging on this decision.

Dare I say it ... could a Judge of the law possibly be paid to favour a multi-millionaire betting company.... Sadly for the punter even in the courts of law we are the underdogs.

Seems to be dragging on this decision.

Dare I say it ... could a Judge of the law possibly be paid to favour a multi-millionaire betting company.... Sadly for the punter even in the courts of law we are the underdogs.

Oh yes absolutely. A judge who is on over 170k a year would most likely be champing at the bit to risk their 170k a year salary and a chance to spend the next 5 years in the jail for  whatever pocket change Corals would give him so they could save 250k.

Oh yes absolutely. A judge who is on over 170k a year would most likely be champing at the bit to risk their 170k a year salary and a chance to spend the next 5 years in the jail for  whatever pocket change Corals would give him so they could save 250k.

Expected to be at least 4 weeks before judge decides.

Nice work if you can get it

is albert a REAL gambler.???  may well be tested with an out of court settlement... this isnt as clear cut as some thought and for

my tuppence worth the longer it goes on the more chance albert has. 

Judge must be waiting for the next 9/11 to bury the announcement of his decision.

Corals star witness Simon Clare not been on Twitter for 4 days, not seen him on the racing channels either recently. Doesn't usually keep a low profile.

is the judge gonna pay interest to the winner

Still no decision, you have to wonder if Corals are looking to cut a deal with Albert to save face

not at all unusual for it to take this long, the judge has to consider the case/evidence and write up a judgment while hearing other cases in the meantime. Not saying they are Trojan workers or anything but quite normal for it to take 3 months + for a reserved judgment to issue

any update on the case?

Result expected today around lunchtime. I reckon it's 50/50 as Coral could of walked the case but wouldn't utter the liquidation word.

surprised this not settled " out of court " . ??

  good luck ALBERT. 

Looks like Albert lost

link?

https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctw...

This must be one of the worst reasons given, absolutely ridiculous

Judge also ruled that Mr Kinloch was a "professional gambler" and hence not entitled to the protection of consumer law


Disgusting. Only mugs allowed to win then

Absolute joke about the pro gambler bit, that's ridiculous, so if you are good at picking horses but buy a car that doesn't go you have no rights.!!

When placing the bet he was entering a contract for the purpose of his trade, business or profession as a professional gambler.

The legal precedent that allows tax free income from betting specifically states that a professional gambler is not a "trade profession or vocation".

I think this chap will be extremely lucky if he gets paid out.
Like everybody else on here, I hope he does, but being fair, Rangers played the season out and did NOT finish bottom. That honour belonged to Dundee and they were duly relegated.

The relevant legal precedent

Now we come to the other side, the man who bets with the bookmaker, and that is this case. These are mere bets. Each time he puts on his money, at whatever may be the starting price. I do not think he could be said to organise his effort in the same way as a bookmaker organises his. I do not think the subject matter from his point of view is susceptible of it. In effect all he is doing is just what a man does who is a skilful player at cards, who plays every day. He plays to-day and he plays tomorrow and he plays the next day and he is skilful on each of the three days, more skilful on the whole than the people with whom he plays, and he wins. But I do not think that you can find, in his case, any conception arising in which his individual operations can be said to be merged in the way that particular operations are merged in the conception of a trade. I think all you can say of that man ... is that he is addicted to betting. ...There is no tax on a habit. I do not think ``habitual'' or even ``systematic'' fully describes what is essential in the phrase ``trade, adventure, profession or vocation.''."

http://www.thehendonmob.com/articles/poker_and_the_taxman.html

Right decision and no surprise.

Mar 15, 2017 -- 3:51PM, jamilla14 wrote:

I think this chap will be extremely lucky if he gets paid out.Like everybody else on here, I hope he does, but being fair, Rangers played the season out and did NOT finish bottom. That honour belonged to Dundee and they were duly relegated.

Dunfermline were relegated

Mar 15, 2017 -- 4:31PM, Shrewd_dude wrote:

Right decision and no surprise.

You won't be saying that when a bookie knocks you, claiming you're a professional gambler and don't get consumer protection.

Pro Gamblers do exist many people have come and come on here but the pros remain

What a joke does Albert get ZERO

The bookie never knocked him based on that. They were never relegated.  He tried to take them to court and tried to bring the ambiguity of the "relegation"  in to his favour by claiming he should be subject to consumer protection law. The court decided he wasn't because he was a professional gambler. The guy was chancing it. He knew Rangers were never relegated and when he placed the bet he knew a bookie would never lay those odds for the club to go bust.

Did he get stakes back

If he does it makes it worse

As the bet just void not wrong

Read my post at 3.04

Until Lord Clown gave his judgement there was no legal standing for the trade of professional gambler

and therefore no tax

They will be taxing the wins soon again

They are after the white van man for tax and ebayers so betting is next

@shrewd dude

It is still part of his judgement and bookies will now be able to effectively cheat anyone they consider to be a professional gambler.  This is what he said:

I am persuaded that having regard to the evidence of the pursuer himself he was not a consumer as defined by Article 3 of the 1999 Regulations.  When placing the bet he was entering a contract for the purpose of his trade, business or profession as a professional gambler.  In reaching that conclusion I accepted all of the arguments put forward by Mr Sandison which clearly pointed to him, being at the material time, a professional gambler; that was his business.

Read my post at 3.04

Until Lord Clown gave his judgement there was no legal standing for the trade of professional gambler

Do you want to post the case you are referring to?

I presume the case you are referring to is an English case? If it is it's almost as relevant as posting a Polish case. England and Scotland are two different legal systems so what relevance does it have? It's also almost a hundred years old. The Consumer Protection Acts didn't even exist then and the case relates to tax law.

Claimant tells judge "he was very good at looking things up on the internet."

@shrewd dude It may be 100 years old, but it is the law that applies in Scotland - if you read the full judgement, non-Scottish precedents are quoted.

It is still part of his judgement and bookies will now be able to effectively cheat anyone they consider to be a professional gambler.  This is what he said:

I am persuaded that having regard to the evidence of the pursuer himself he was not a consumer as defined by Article 3 of the 1999 Regulations.  When placing the bet he was entering a contract for the purpose of his trade, business or profession as a professional gambler.  In reaching that conclusion I accepted all of the arguments put forward by Mr Sandison which clearly pointed to him, being at the material time, a professional gambler; that was his business.

No it doesn't. It simply means that anyone who is a professional gambler is not covered by 1999 regulations which place any ambiguity of a contract term in favour of the consumer instead of interpreting the contact under normal contract laws. It also confirms that anyone that isn't a pro gambler is covered by the 1999 regulations.

I think you are over dramatising the effect of this decision.

@shrewd dude It may be 100 years old, but it is the law that applies in Scotland - if you read the full judgement, non-Scottish precedents are quoted.

They can take in to account precedents outside of Scotland but that doesn't mean they are legally binding on them if they are from another jurisdiction or from a lower court so I'm not sure what you are saying. If they were and that is as you say the law  then expect to see Albert appeal.

Doubt he will win as there were other arguments about the actual bet itself.

The professional gambler issue applies in Scotland it is detailed in the HMRC manual

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/business-income-manual/bim22017

This shows that having expertise or being systematic (‘studying form’) is not enough to create a trade of being a ‘professional gambler’.

Did he get his stake back?

Is bet VOID or just DEAD

Accordingly, on this construction of the pursuer’s bet it is a losing bet.

he will be bale to auction that slip on ebay for  a few k

Framed with headline

When Albert Got Royally Fooked Over


Can't believe people wanted him to lose calling him a chancer etc like we all wouldn't like an extra few digits added to our odds by accident.

The professional gambler issue applies in Scotland it is detailed in the HMRC manual

In relation to tax law which, for obvious reasons, is unified between the two legal systems. It's not really relevant here.

dave1357
dave1357 15 Mar 17 16:46 Joined: 05 Sep 10 | Topic/replies: 5,157 | Blogger: dave1357's blog
Accordingly, on this construction of the pursuer’s bet it is a losing bet.

So money just in thin air

Bet was VOID surely as they say we would only offer impossible odds on this

So they scammed ALBERT

Chaser they clearly disagreed agreed that Rangers were relegated and therefore a losing bet.

[180]    However, as submitted by Mr Sandison that is not what happened to Rangers.  It was either unchallenged evidence or a matter of admission, that what happened to Rangers at the material time was this:  the Rangers Football Club Plc sold inter alia the one share in the SPL to Sevco Scotland Limited.  That sale required the approval of at least 8 of the members of the SPL.  That application was refused.  It was thus no longer eligible to play in the SPL.  It thereafter applied to the SFL and was permitted to join the lowest league of the SFL (the five part agreement). The foregoing process cannot be described as being moved by anyone to a lower division, or being moved down or demoted.  The dictionary definitions are not apt to cover what happened to Rangers.  I am satisfied that what did not happen was that the SPL moved or demoted Rangers to a lower division.  Rangers ended up in a lower division by the entry into a contract which allowed them to join the SFL in the third division.

@ shrewd dude we'll agree to disagree but imo saying that a subsection of gamblers are not:

“consumer” means any natural person who, in contracts covered by these Regulations, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession

When settled law states that there is no such thing as a gambler who conducts a "trade, business or profession".  Is a very dangerous judgement.

Heeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeee's Bertie!

isn't the settled law related to a 'trade, business or profession' for income tax purposes, ie as those terms are defined in the income tax code? This was not a tax case, so they weren't using the definitions from the income tax code and I don't see how you can say someone gambling for a living is a consumer. That goes against the meaning of the word 'consumer'.

I just wanted to have the judge ask Corals the question.

'What have you done to ensure this sort of problem does not occur again?'

'How have you altered your evidently vague, terms and conditions?

He if saw rangers plight coming then he should've backed the generous odds bookies were probably offering at for a celtic 'ten in a row'.

Prob end up with 20 in a row  and refuse to pay out