StuGers 477 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Jeez, Coral have shot themselves in the foot if they are trying to use that as their defence rather than just simply stating the fact that Rangers were placed in the bottom division, not relegated. Have they been researching Celtic blogs as the case for their defence? That would easily get blown out of court with a quick search on UEFA and the SFA's site! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Jeez, Coral have shot themselves in the foot if they are trying to use that as their defence rather than just simply stating the fact that Rangers were placed in the bottom division, not relegated. Have they been researching Celtic blogs as the case for their defence? That would easily get blown out of court with a quick search on UEFA and the SFA's site! As said earlier Stu - Rangers weren't "placed" anywhere. We were thrown out of the SPL and to all intents and purposes, out of football altogether . We then had to apply to join another tier of Scottish football. At that point we were "placed" into the bottom division. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Relegated would have meant playing in the 2nd tier. Exactly Gribz. I wonder who Coral's lawyer is - whoever it is they are shite at their job. All they need to do is look at the SPFL rulebook and determine what "relegation" means. Relegation means that, through achieving fewer points than anyone else (including docked points) you are "relegated" to the division below your current division. We weren't relegated, we were ejected. And THAT is what Coral's should be defending themselves based upon as it would be a shoe-in victory for them. Using the "it's a different club" argument actually muddies the water for their defense rather than strengthen it. Fools. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 As said earlier Stu - Rangers weren't "placed" anywhere. We were thrown out of the SPL and to all intents and purposes, out of football altogether .We then had to apply to join another tier of Scottish football. At that point we were "placed" into the bottom division. Agreed, and neither situation means "relegated". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) Craig had already covered my main point..............."look before answering" I keep telling myself that but I never listen. Edited January 18, 2017 by SteveC 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 (edited) It seems it's all about the interpretation of the word, "relegated". I predict the court will throw it out because the odds given were obviously for the normal meaning of the word where a team is relegated due to having the least points. The chances of that happening to Rangers or Celtic, even with points deductions was pretty minuscule in that season, hence the high odds. The parent company going into administration and liquidation, forming a new company, transferring the assets, being voted to not be able to transfer the SPL share and losing membership, applying to the SFL and joining in the lowest league, while also sounding incredibly unlikely, is a different thing. Due to the extreme nature of Scottish football's hatred totally overshadowing what would be prudent for the game and respect for fellow clubs, the latter was still far more likely than the former, and would have probably attracted much lower odds, especially in the context of the the Whyte takeover and the spectre of the BTC. It seems likely the guy will lose. However, with the defence of new club as a red herring, the case for the defence could look based on falsehood and so distract the court from their winning position. Edited January 18, 2017 by calscot 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,590 Posted January 18, 2017 Author Share Posted January 18, 2017 OWN GOAL Coral refused to pay punter £250,000 because ‘Rangers weren’t relegated’ — but bookies’ OWN WEBSITE said they were The firm refused to stump up the cash on Albert Kinloch's 2,500/1 wager saying Rangers had not technically been "relegated" —*but a report on their own website said they were BETTING giant Coral published a news report on their website saying Rangers had been relegated – despite snubbing a punter’s 2,500/1 wager, a court heard. Former bookie Albert Kinloch, 72, placed a £100 bet that Rangers would be dumped out of Scotland’s top footie division. He placed the bet in September 2011 and Rangers ended up playing in the third division the following season after the oldco club went into liquidation. At the Court of Session Anna Poole, QC, asked Coral’s PR Director, Simon Clare why the report on the Coral website last September stated that Rangers “had been relegated in 2012″. Mr Clare replied: “Yes the article does state that but it was written by a freelance journalist and placed on our website.“These articles don’t form part of our company policy. “Our shops display the rules of the shop but we don’t hold copies of leagues rules for the SFA or the SFL.” Ms Poole then asked if Coral has the ability to remove the post and Mr Clare replied: “We would only remove articles if they caused offence to our customers.” Just hours after his appearance in court the article was removed. The hearing was also told by expert witness John Fox, Presidents of the Scottish Bookmakers Protection Assocaition, that the bet should stand should be paid. Mr Fox, who has over 50 years’ experience in the industry, said “It’s my opinion that the bet placed stands and should be paid.“If someone came into my shop and asked for a bet and I took it I would pay them out.“Coral didn’t stipulate to Mr Kinloch exactly what they meant by relegation.“The gambling industry in the country regards Rangers as the same club prior to 2012. “Coral should have stipulated when the bet was placed that relegation means by finishing with the lowest points and they didn’t.“The bet would be bound by the rules of the bookmakers and they should have shown Mr Kinloch the league rules if that’s the case.“I don’t see how they cannot pay out on this bet.” The hearing before Lord Bannatyne is due to finish on Thursday. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/454771/corals-own-website-admiited-rangers-were-relegated/?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-scotsunsport-_-20170118-_-781729421 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman 9 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 The Sun Former bookie Albert Kinloch, 72, placed a £100 bet that Rangers would be dumped out of Scotland’s top footie division. https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/454771/corals-own-website-admiited-rangers-were-relegated/?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-scotsunsport-_-20170118-_-781729421 The guy didn't actually place a bet that Rangers would be 'dumped out', his bet was Rangers would be relegated - a totally different thing altogether. Auld guy onto plums. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 I honestly feel if Coral win this the Celtic fans will hold it up to say they were right along. "we're a different club" Never mind what everyone else says. It's the bookies that are right! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuGers 477 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Being a bit cynical here but where exactly have Coral stated that? I know It is said in the article but I tend not to believe something unless there is a direct quote. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.