Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 426 comments are related to the topic:
Gambler claiming 250k from C0ral tells court bookie 'cheated' by claiming Rangers weren't relegated
Gambler claiming 250k from C0ral tells court bookie 'cheated' by claiming Rangers weren't relegated
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 426
|
By:
Pro Gamblers do exist many people have come and come on here but the pros remain
What a joke does Albert get ZERO |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
Did he get stakes back
|
|
By:
If he does it makes it worse
As the bet just void not wrong |
|
By:
Read my post at 3.04
Until Lord Clown gave his judgement there was no legal standing for the trade of professional gambler |
|
By:
and therefore no tax
|
|
By:
They will be taxing the wins soon again
They are after the white van man for tax and ebayers so betting is next |
|
By:
@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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Claimant tells judge "he was very good at looking things up on the internet."
 |
|
By:
@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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
@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. |
|
By:
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’. |
|
By:
Did he get his stake back?
Is bet VOID or just DEAD |
|
By:
Accordingly, on this construction of the pursuer’s bet it is a losing bet.
|
|
By:
he will be bale to auction that slip on ebay for a few k
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
@ 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. |
|
By:
Heeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeee's Bertie!
 |
|
By:
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'.
|
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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'.
|
|
By:
Prob end up with 20 in a row and refuse to pay out
|