boabie 230 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! Mate, it doesn't matter what happens with this case. It doesn't matter what anybody in the whole wide world says. The manks have a wee idea in their tiny brains and nothing will ever change that. It's what they do. Diseased and obsessed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 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. Bosses insisted the Ibrox side’s ejection from the top flight was not relegation. The Court of Session heard Coral’s lawyers sent Albert, 72, a letter stating: “They are not the same as the old Rangers”, along with a copy of the SFA rulebook. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,617 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Bosses insisted the Ibrox side’s ejection from the top flight was not relegation. The Court of Session heard Coral’s lawyers sent Albert, 72, a letter stating: “They are not the same as the old Rangers”, along with a copy of the SFA rulebook. What 'old Rangers' is this ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 What 'old Rangers' is this ? I'm merely posting where it was said by Corals for Stugers edification. That was the Corals defense in not paying out the bet. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuGers 477 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Bosses insisted the Ibrox side’s ejection from the top flight was not relegation. The Court of Session heard Coral’s lawyers sent Albert, 72, a letter stating: “They are not the same as the old Rangers”, along with a copy of the SFA rulebook. Absolute Buffoons. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) I'm merely posting where it was said by Corals for Stugers edification. That was the Corals defense in not paying out the bet. We all know that this is not correct and it seems an odd defence when the truth is a complete answer to the false claim. Is it possible that Coral's lawyers simply don't understand what happened? It's hard to believe that if they know the facts that is their entire defence. I said earlier that "I can't see how the bet was void, since it is provable through FIFA, UEFA and even the SFA and the SPFL that Rangers are the same Club. So the defence that the Club ceased to exist ergo they weren't relegated is false." But if Coral truly believe that to be true, I can see that that would void the bet in their eyes and thereby the punter should get his stake returned; perhaps that's what they have done? They should just have called Doncaster as a witness, he confirms Rangers were not relegated, bet lost, end of story. Edited January 19, 2017 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Coral's defence was that the club were not relegated because they went 3 divisions down and that's not relegation. Don't think the new club/old club question has arisen 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Coral's defence was that the club were not relegated because they went 3 divisions down and that's not relegation. Don't think the new club/old club question has arisen You should take a look on the mank sites mate. There is even one clown there who started a huge debate by proposing that this action could lead to a "stated case" whereby it would be proven that Rangers are a new club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Coral's defence was that the club were not relegated because they went 3 divisions down and that's not relegation. Don't think the new club/old club question has arisen Do you have any quotes for that ? I haven't seen Corals use that as a defense, though I have seen plenty of that on this thread. All I have seen from Corals is the idiotic "not the same club" defense 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 The funny thing is that you have to conclude the punter knew something about where Whyte was going, and when he put down £100, he must have been thinking along the lines of what happened. It seems he just chose the wrong bet. You have to wonder what the odds would have been for what happened. I'm pretty sure they would have been much lower than relegation - as in the end we finished in second place despite a 10 point penalty, and the negative results that came our way from the administration problems - and according to some, with the worst manager in football history, so it's not surprising the odds were high for the standard definition of relegation. But what actually transpired was, to me, something that seemed incredibly unlikely when looked at through a (somewhat idealistic) filter of everyone acting rationally, due to its level of self-harm. 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.