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:
Don't be so fkin Shrewd ya smart arsed ****, i didn't think it would take weeks though, not like there has been that much said the last few days to take in and make a decision
|
|
By:
One month of Coral Lowballing and Albert and his team hitting back
They will come to an agreement no doubt |
|
By:
Not getting paid IMO, they weren't relegated in the traditional way, it's reasonable to assume that that is what they were laying, I'd argue that the bet falls into the obvious error category, and the manner that they lost their position would not be defined as relegation in the accepted manner.
|
|
By:
Don't be so fkin Shrewd ya smart arsed ****, i didn't think it would take weeks though, not like there has been that much said the last few days to take in and make a decision
Don't be so naive and precious. |
|
By:
fck off ya sanctimonious cant
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
"I read some guys twitter once about a court hearing and presumed he tweeted everything that was said".
|
|
By:
He hit the bullet points i think
PAY THE MAN |
|
By:
i am not saying he is correct and should win but coral need to take some blame here,they phoned it through then took the bet and just assumed hes a mug and its another 100 in the bank ,then when he wants paid they then start looking for the rule book and terms of the bet ,yuo cant just void every bet because you made an error and dont want to pay out,its a 2 way contract between punter and bookie not a 1 way contract but bookmakers think it is and abuse winning punters ,all this lawyer talk saying he was a pro punter and knew what he was doing has nothing to do with it ,they just dont want to pay anybody pro or mug
I agree with what you are saying about bookmakers but I don't think this is a case where the guy has a leg to stand on and when it's a court dispute if both parties didn't clarify the conditions of the bet which is what I think you are saying then they are both equally at fault. |
|
By:
if this case was as cut and dried ( against albert ) could the judge have made a decision today ??
alberts gone from 6/4 against to 4/5 imo.   |
|
By:
there is nothing to clarify
he bet on rangers being relegated and they weren't the only way you can argue for payment is if you argue that relegation covers liquidation any lawyer worth their salt would have that categorically dismissed |
|
By:
if this case was as cut and dried ( against albert ) could the judge have made a decision today ??
No |
|
By:
Surely there must have been other punters dotted about with the same bet to varying stakes struck also.
|
|
By:
they will be waiting in the wings duffy
 hope they kept the tickets or if online all good |
|
By:
Maybe should have asked Simon Clare why Corals have a policy of not telling their known punters that they have sleeper bets that are rightfully theirs and keeping the money themselves? Just to put it into perspective of what they do as a company to avoid paying out on more than this one case.
I could have sent them a few screenshots of live chats of being blatantly lied to as well by them.... |
|
By:
a few celtic fans having "best day of my life" fivers etc
|
|
By:
intresting what chaser said earlier, has albert said what he was offered when he went to the shop ( with his wheelbarrow )
was he told the bet was void and offered his stake back ? or was he told the bets lost your getting nothing. ? |
|
By:
or was he told the bets lost your getting nothing. ?
1.01 and that's value |
|
By:
premier, if as you say he was told your bets lost you are getting nothing, surely that in itself means he had a chance to win.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
In the majority of disputes there are rules to refer to,and they are the crux of disputes,as rules are there for a reason,safeguards for BOTH sides.
However in this case there are no specific rules to refer to,apart from the dictionary meaning of "RELEGATION". This is certainly not an easy case to define,and judge,that is why it has taken up so much time,and probably puzzling the judge. Yes,Rangers were demoted to a lower rank,as defined by the Oxford dictionary,but because it wasn't a low points won issue,which is the norm. for relegation,the waters become muddied. The price at the time the bet was struck was given assuming the outcome was extremely unlikely,yet it still happened. Trying to question the punter's character is a red herring,and has nothing whatsoever to do with the odds compiler's evaluation of the chances of the bet winning.It is a major fault of the bookmaker not having rules in place to cover any event that wagers are accepted on.So it becomes difficult for them to argue that the bet shouldn't be a winner,and for me,that is a huge point in the punter's favour. Interesting case,we will see. |
|
By:
Did they not apply for the Championship/Division on at the time maybe and where rejected ?
|
|
By:
Championship/Division one*
|
|
By:
Dundee that year where 24 points of top and gt promoted i wonder if they bets where paid out
Same for all divisions more teams changed places than normal Someone must have had a bet on one of them teams |
|
By:
|
|
By:
When all is said and done why did this case take so long to go to court?
|
|
By:
Did the defence argue that they were not relegated as that would have rendered them in the division immediately lower than the one they had been in.
|
|
By:
They only decided to go busto when Celtic caught them
They where about 15 clear at one time if i remember correctly , Gap got closed then they went busto as they knew 2nd place was no good for the bank. |
|
By:
stewarty b
Date Joined: 02 Aug 02 Add contact | Send message 19 Jan 17 17:03 Joined: 02 Aug 02 | Topic/replies: 11,123 | Blogger: stewarty b's blog When all is said and done why did this case take so long to go to court? Albert says they thought he would give up But Albert don't give up he says as he is like a dog with a bone |
|
By:
relegation /the action of assigning to an inferior rank or position.
|
|
By:
The judge is going to come to the decision that they were laying the bet against relegation in the usual way...you could argue that if you had to stipulate every possible means of a side leaving the division in the t &c's the list could be endless and arguably impossible to cover all eventualities with utter ridiculous "but possible" outcomes needing to be quoted.
|
|
By:
IMO
 |
|
By:
correct
but the rangers that played in the 2011/12 was not assigned to play in div 3 it was liquidated and a new company formed and then invited to play in div after a vote by SFL clubs I 100% get what you and others are saying garry but to a credible lawyer with some subject knowledge this is 1st day basics some of this stuff mate |
|
By:
bit like the new wimbledon and the old wimbledon which became mk dons
they talk about coming back to plough lane but this is bollox, afc wimbledon has never ever played at plough lane, the old wimbledon did incredibly pedantic but in a court of law there isn't a case to answer, no relegation took place for the rangers team in 2011/12 |
|
By:
its a hard call wonders ,i am a celtic fan and the rangers just now is still the same rangers liquidated or not,
|
|
By:
But there isn't 2 rangers playing at 2 different grounds is there?
He placed a bet on Rangers to get relegated in that season, and the season after that Rangers were not in the league he had them to get relegated from. All this new company/old company/different team is b0llocks and has nothing to do with anything imo. |
|
By:
from a football point of view yes garry I agree with you, from a legal point of view they are 2 different companies/clubs/whatever
theoretical question assume this had to a team in say division 2 they are liquidated having finished won div 2 in the regular season a new company either doesn't form or it forms and they are not invited into the SFL the history of this club is over (or forms a year or 2 later, similar to wimbledon) to the people who want a payout for the rangers bet...what happens to bets on this club? paid out on promotion? if so, why? and if not, why? |
|
By:
*assuming this had happened to a team in say div 2
they are liquidated having won div 2 in the regular season ffs |
|
By:
I would say they haven't been promoted because they are not playing in a higher league the next season. But I would say most books would payout as "discretionary", just for the good publicity and to shaft the ones who don't payout.
The Rangers bet is different imo, he bet THAT team to be relegated, they get booted out of that league. Liquidated or not they were not in the same league the next season so it comes down to what is classed as relegation, NOT what new company has been formed etc after and where they started from, as they are nothing whatsoever to do with his bet. |
|
By:
my own view is even though that div 2 team is not playing in a higher league next season, they have still been promoted for betting purposes as the league standings at the end of the season are final...they won the division fair and square, bets are winners
I can see why this is a nightmare tho |