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:
As far as the league and Rangers are concerned, although the company was liquidated and died, the club never died and its membership of the SFA has been constant.
So from a footballing perspective, the same club played in the SPL one year and a lower league the next and the liquidation is irrelevant. The Judge might see it this way too, ie purely from a sporting perspective and see the fact of liquidation as irrelevant. I don't think either side has argued to the contrary. Or he might see the liquidation as an extraordinary event that changes it from relegation to something else. Still think the case could be settled, Corals have to see there is a risk of losing 250k and will try to buy off that risk imo. Don't know what the law is in Scotland but there's a general legal principle that when one party drafts the terms and conditions of a contract and the terms are ambiguous, they are construed against the drafting party. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
ty lurka, to think that two people can have the same bet at the same time in the same place and be subject to different terms is a nonsense.
|
|
By:
Totally untrue.
A lot of utter nonsense been spouted about Rangers and their demotion/re-entry into the football league. Glasgow Rangers went into administration in FEB 2012 subsequently into liquidation in JULY 2012. Upon liquidation it immediately triggered a resignation from the SPL. Subsequently their assets were sold to Charles Greene, who then formed a new football club The Rangers International football Club. Mr Greene thought that he could just saunter back into the SPL in place of the old Rangers but the existing clubs voted against this move aided by fan pressure. Mr Greene then turned to the SFL and the RIFC were admitted into the bottom tier of Scottish football at the beginning of the 2012/2013 season. This is when the plan was hatched to pretend that the new Rangers was the same as the old, with the assistance of Mr Doncaster and Mr Reagan.(To keep the supporters on side, Mr Greene had season tickets to sell and Doncaster/Reagan TV deals to renegotiate.) Re-entry in the bottom tier was the correct decision as they were a different football club, but the SFA/SPFL are trying to convince us that they are the same club. UEFA/FIFA see them as a new entity just like all football clubs that go into liquidation IE: if the company is liquidated so is the football club. (Parma in Italy the most recent) So were Rangers relegated No they finished runner up in the league 2011/2012 then liquidation which meant they automatically WITHDREW their membership from the SPL. Not thrown out or relegated/demoted etc. Why did Coral not bring up the liquidation??. Are we all to pretend it didn't occur??. As Coral are now merged with Ladbrokes/part of the Ladbroke group who sponsor the Scottish Premiership and make a handsome profit from football betting in this country it would probably be in their best interest (profit wise)to keep up the pretend that it is the same Rangers as pre liquidation, I and the vast majority are not zipped up the back and know that Glasgow Rangers no longer exist, we just have a tribute act. (And a poor one at that). Good luck to the gentleman in his quest in getting paid out has nothing to lose and as the media and bookmakers were describing Rangers re-emergence in the bottom tier of Scottish football as a RELAGATION a total lie that may now come back to bite them on the bum. |
|
By:
I placed a £2-50 each way bet on Rene Mathis at 250-1 at Meydan a few weeks ago online..only for the firm to cancel my bet the following day..the horse finished 2nd.
|
|
By:
I placed a £2-50 each way bet on Rene Mathis at 250-1 at Meydan a few weeks ago online..only for the firm to cancel my bet the following day..the horse finished 2nd.
|
|
By:
Good luck to the gentleman in his quest in getting paid out has nothing to lose and as the media and bookmakers were describing Rangers re-emergence in the bottom tier of Scottish football as a RELAGATION a total lie that may now come back to bite them on the bum.
WALOFS your entire post was but this really takes the biscuit. FIFA, UEFA, SFA, 3 Law Lords and even the ASA disagree with you. We've had idiots write to every one, place adverts in foreign newspaper (albeit printed in French in a paper aimed at English speakers, £5k well spent eh  ), made films and brought out Res12 T shirts.Obsessed maniacs. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Check the FIFA and UEFA websites. Same club but heh you keep trying to justify the Thousands you and yer fellow brigaders spent.
Res12 |
|
By:
Even yer major shareholder agrees
 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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?
|
|
By:
Good point GC.
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
He had to ask for a price, as I understand it. Good luck to him anyway.
|
|
By:
@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." |
|
By:
|
|
By:
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 .
|
|
By:
Maybe the fella shouldve just backed celtic to do ten in a row and trade accordingly when rangers went up thru the ranks
|
|
By:
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.  |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
Is this one over yet? Seems to be going on and on
|
|
By:
extra time n replay
|
|
By:
How did Betfair settle the bet?
|
|
By:
when's the result
|
|
By:
Judge had a while now FFS
|
|
By:
Judge had a while now FFS
|
|
By:
Longer than the Nuremberg trials
|
|
By:
Any update on when a judgement might be made? I go 10/11 your pick by the way.
|
|
By:
No doubt the judge is negotiating with corals to what they will pay him to rule in their favour.
|
|
By:
he'll get a no lose fiver Saturday lucky 15 for life.
|
|
By:
Personally the longer it's takes for the judge to decide the more it favours the punter. (hopefully)
|
|
By:
^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.
|
|
By:
Judge making his decision from khorals 5 star Mediterranean execs retreat
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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 ? . |