boabie 230 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. Within a couple of days of Whyte taking over, the mank sites, and to be fair, one or two bears were warning what was coming. The billionaire garbage had been debunked. Unfortunately nobody within the Rangers support was listening. I found myself thrown off two Rangers sites for refusing to join in on the back-slapping and cheers. To your point though - I don't think even Whyte looked towards liquidation. Something which dumped the debts / potential debts while leaving him to sell the assets is more his modus operandi. The bet the guy placed really wasn't that long a shot given the history of those sniffing around our club. I still think he's onto plums though. Relegation didn't come into it . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) 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 Well that would be wrong as well, wouldn't it? Strictly speaking "relegation" is To assign to an obscure place, position, or condition." which is certainly what happened to us. In football terms, of course, promotion and relegation ordinarily mean going up or down one division at a time on merit but that is not always the case. Consider the strange case of Fiorentina who went into judicially-controlled administration in June 2002: The club was promptly re-established in August 2002 as Associazione Calcio Fiorentina e Florentia Viola with shoe and leather entrepreneur Diego Della Valle as new owner and the club was admitted into Serie C2, the fourth tier of Italian football. The only player to remain at the club in its new incarnation was Angelo Di Livio, whose commitment to the club's cause further endeared him to the fans. Helped by Di Livio and 30-goal striker Christian Riganò, the club won its Serie C2 group with considerable ease, which would normally have led to a promotion to Serie C1. Due to the bizarre Caso Catania (Catania Case), however, the club skipped Serie C1 and was admitted into Serie B, something that was only made possible by the Italian Football Federation (FIGC)'s decision to resolve the Catania situation by increasing the number of teams in Serie B from 20 to 24 and promoting Fiorentina for "sports merits." In the 2003 off-season, the club also bought back the right to use the Fiorentina name and the famous shirt design, and re-incorporated itself as ACF Fiorentina. The club finished the 2003–04 season in sixth place and won the playoff against Perugia to return to top-flight football. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACF_Fiorentina I don't know if there's ever been a case of a club being "relegated" two or more divisions as some form of punishment; but even if there is that kind of precedent it still wouldn't prove Mr Kinloch's case because that is not what happened. Still if that is the defence rather than the newco/oldco argument, Coral need new lawyers. Edited January 19, 2017 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 " A lawyer has told a court that a leading bookmaker didn't need to pay a punter £250,000 as Rangers were expelled from top-flight football rather than relegated in 2012. " http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/250000-rangers-bet-hearing-told-9655073 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 20, 2017 Share Posted January 20, 2017 " A lawyer has told a court that a leading bookmaker didn't need to pay a punter £250,000 as Rangers were expelled from top-flight football rather than relegated in 2012. " http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/250000-rangers-bet-hearing-told-9655073 That's a bit closer to the truth of the matter. Impossible to see how Mr Kinloch can win this case. He must have deep pockets to pay the lawyers for 5 years plus the court case. 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.