- This topic has 63 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I know it’s football, but it’s fascinating following the case of a punter trying to get Coral to pay out on a £100 bet at 2500/1 that Rangers would be relegated from the SPL. James Doleman on twitter is live tweeting from court. The case revolves around the meaning of the word “relegated” in the context of dropping out of a league through going bust rather than in the usual fashion of not scoring enough points.
Fascinating indeed. In some online corners, various folk are declaring precedent has been set on this in a few court cases already and Mr Kinloch, who placed the bet, seems long odds against.
But to the layman following the case, you might fancy Mr K’s chances as the Coral team slip from blunder to blunder. Yesterday, a copy of an article on the Coral website was produced: it talked about Rangers having suffered ‘relegation’. Simon Clare said that a freelance journalist had written that and “it was placed on the site” – quite what he was trying to convey, I don’t know.
Coral QC asked a witness, “What about when a league match goes into extra time?”
Witness: “There is no extra time in league matches.”Another from the QC was that “any reasonable man in your position would have complained to the Gambling Commission” showing little idea of how the GC works in reality.
Today should be entertaining. Given that QC bills can be £10k a day plus other costs plus ‘bad publicity’, it would have been cheaper for Coral to put their hands up (they laid Mr K £100 at 2,500/1 against Rangers being relegated – there is no definition of relegation in their rules) and pay with a smile and employ a ‘watertighter’ to fix the rules. Given their marketing spend, it would have been a good investment.
If there is nothing in their small print what constitutes a relegation then they should pay out. Rangers were demoted/relegated, simple as.
Why has this taken so long to get to court? It’s over 4 years since Rangers were relegated.
Looks simple
It depends if they were in the relegation zone at the end of the season ie given a penalty deduction of 100 points for example then I’d say yes they were relegated but even then that would normally result in only going down one division but still relegation = Pay out.
If however the season was over and Rangers finished 1st, 2nd or 3rd and then have been taken out of the league and put in the third tier they have not been relegated in the terms of the football table = no pay out
Blackbeard to conquer the World
The final table shows Rangers 2nd after a 10 point deduction. The bottom side were relegated. The 2nd from the next league then came up as well as first. Assuming Coral paid Rangers as 2nd (for example in a forecast or each way market if there was one) then that can only help their case. Technically the club was liquidated after the season and a new one admitted to the bottom division. Relegation involves the same club moving down a division. And surely there’s some wording like ‘all bets settled on final league placings’ but I guess not.
Should they have to pay out there’s a good argument for a DH.
I might see if I can get paid out the £2.00 whoever owes me for when I backed the 2nd yet months later the winner gets disqualified.
Blackbeard to conquer the World
If there is nothing in their small print what constitutes a relegation then they should pay out. Rangers were demoted/relegated, simple as.
Why has this taken so long to get to court? It’s over 4 years since Rangers were relegated.
This seems at the heart of it. Nothing in their rules defines ‘relegation’ and both sides seem to agree that the judgement will hinge on what the judge decides is the definition in this case.
Whatever happens, the man on the spot, and twitter commenters, seem agreed that Coral have been poorly served by their legal team
The really interesting part of this case is that Coral have a cast iron defence of this case but deliberately have chosen not to use it.
Rangers were most certainly not relegated from the SPL but the club was in fact (as stated above) liquidated. The new club sought to join the SPL (sic) again but this was rejected, by the other clubs.
Curiously, but not surprisingly for those that have followed this story and are aware of the facts, Coral actually have built their defence around the semantics of ‘relegated’ ‘demoted’ and ‘expelled as the deciding factors in the decision.
Their counsel, a Mr Sanderson, stated that Rangers were not relegated (finished 2nd, after pts deduction etc.) but were in fact expelled by the other clubs.
The question however put to the 12 SPL clubs in the summer of 2012 (Rangers were actually allowed to vote on this also!) was should the new Rangers (old Rangers being liquidated due to inability to meet their debts) be allowed to enter the SPL automatically as a new club. This was, by a clear majority, rejected by the other clubs.
Therefore quite clearly and without any serious challenge Rangers were not ‘expelled’ as Coral’s counsel insists nor were they relegated nor demoted. They were simply unsuccessful in their application for the new club to join at the same level as the old.
A clear statement of fact would have seen the case resolved in Coral’s favour in very short order.
The circumstances whereby Coral, or more accurately (and significantly) Ladbrokes/Coral, chose not to put forward this straightforward defence and depend instead upon semantics, good luck and the goodwill of the judiciary is very, very interesting.Notes
Ladbrokes/Coral is the sponsor of the SPFL
Ladbrokes/Coral’s Scottish PR company has only two clients
The other client is RangersFirstly , just let me say that I am no way a Rangers fan ( no siree ! ) ; be they old club , new club or as some would have , merely a modern day tribute act .
Anyhow , I digress . The Coral punter , himself a Rangers fan , if I’m not mistaken , has tried to play a cute one here and for that reason I don’t think he has a Craig Whyte’s chance in he’ll of winning his case in court .
When he placed the bet at those odds ( odds relative to Rangers’ natural relegation from SPL ) , Rangers were sitting second in the league at the time . The punter , a knowledgeable football man and experienced punter by his own admission , would most certainly have known that those odds would not have been offered by means of Rangers being ” relegated “via punitive measures – i.e. demotion ; hence why he could reasonably be accused of trying it on .
I would like odds on him losing his case . I wonder if Coral will accomodate me ?
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Very interesting RR. Your post sent me off to Wikipedia where I found this:
The business and assets of Rangers were instead sold to a new company.[132] One of Rangers’ assets was its membership of the SPL, but this could not be transferred without the approval of the other SPL clubs.[132] Rangers’ application for transfer was rejected by a 10–1 majority.[133] The SPL attempted to negotiate a deal with the SFL whereby Rangers would enter the First Division (second tier).[134] This was rejected by SFL clubs, who instead voted for Rangers to be granted associate membership of the SFL and a place in the Third Division (fourth tier).[134]
I know that a million words have been written about the Rangers saga, but just going on the above, and trying to look at the current case from a logical perspective (without legal knowledge):
If a company buys a business, then that business exists, the only change being it is owned by someone else. An asset of that business, in this case, is membership of a football league. Now, do the rules of that league say that any club which changes hands is subject to a vote by other members as to whether it can stay in its position? Probably not. On what basis then, I wonder, was the ruling about the club vote put in place?
If it was that Rangers was in effect a new club, then the asset mentioned in the wikipedia article either did not exist or proved worthless. But if the other clubs accepted that the league position was an asset (and they appear to have done that, or why vote at all?) and that their job was to decide whether the new company could make use of that asset, then the effect of their decision was to seriously reduce the value of that asset by granting only associate membership to division 3.
How the decision was reached doesn’t matter (in logic, at least). The de facto effect of the decision was that Rangers were expelled/demoted/relegated. Now, if clubs were entitled to vote, that establishes the fact that Rangers could have been allowed to stay in the top league and had that happened, Mr Kinloch’s bet would have been a loser. So there were two possible decisions: stay in or get out. Stay in means the bet has lost. Why then shouldn’t get out – especially get out to Div 3 – mean the bet is a winner?
Now, had those clubs simply said, No, you are not staying and they’d closed the meeting and got up and gone home, this would be a different kettle of fish. But when they sat down, Rangers were in the Premier League. When they got up, Rangers were in Division 3.
Clear as mud, probably, but my tuppenceworth!
hence why he could reasonably be accused of trying it on
Exactly. People trying it on make a mockery of it for the rest of us honest punters who understand the rules. Lets all go to court to try to get paid out on losers. Reminds me of one a few years ago when somebody did a ‘treble’ on Wales to win the Six Nations title, Triple Crown and Grand Slam (about as related as bets get). Went crying to the TV/papers/whoever and of course they caved in and he got paid. Wasn’t a fortune like this is and it’s not a directly comparable case but as I say they both take the piss out of those of us who are honest and understand rules.
So there were two possible decisions: stay in or get out. Stay in means the bet has lost. Why then shouldn’t get out – especially get out to Div 3 – mean the bet is a winner?
In my (entirely not professional or informed) opinion the outcome of the vote is irrelevant. They completed their season and finished 2nd in the table after all penalties were applied. Had he placed a £100 forecast on Celtic-Rangers, he wouldn’t have thought the bet was a loser would he?
Again, merely my two penneth, and not even worth that.
himself a Rangers fan
I thought you supported Hibs, Himself…….
Blackbeard to conquer the World
Haha . No, Nathan , I think you’re confusing me with Fish ( he of Marillion ) , Irvine Welsh , and Craig and Charlie Reid .
Nah , I am keen supporter ( and shareholder ) of Hibernian’s richer and much more successful, albeit younger , green and white Hoop wearing cousins from the West .
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
been following it been quite interesting, clearly the punter is trying one on, on the hope some legal interpretation can go his way regarding “relegation” –
For what its worth the Rangers FC that he placed the bet on to be relegated, now no longer exist, gone, forever, and they should never ever be allowed to forget that
It is a new tribute act currently residing in top tier of Scottish football, looking like going the same was as OldCo the way they are conducting themselves
been following it been quite interesting, clearly the punter is trying one on, on the hope some legal interpretation can go his way regarding “relegation” –
For what its worth the Rangers FC that he placed the bet on to be relegated, now no longer exist, gone, forever, and they should never ever be allowed to forget that
It is a new tribute act currently residing in top tier of Scottish football, looking like going the same way as OldCo the way they are conducting themselves
Since Scottish law is founded in Roman-Dutch law rather than English common law, the answer may be found in Justinian’s sixth-century codification of Roman law, the Corpus Iuris Civilis.
Roman law made a clear distinction between Deportatio and Relegatio.
Deportatio removed citizenship, ie membership of the group. Relegatio did not – you stayed a citizen/member but were banished to another place.
Deportatio was final – you were out and forfeited all rights. Your only hope of rejoining was in seeking and gaining completely new admission in future in the same way as someone who had never before been a citizen.
Relegatio was usually temporary – kind of a “sin bin”. You never lost membership and never forfeited your other rights. If your Relegatio was declared perpetual, it became Deportatio with all its consequences of loss.
sources: Inst. 1, 12, 1 & 2; Dig. 48, 20, 7, 5; Id. 48, 22, 1 to 7; Code, 9, 47, 8.
====
if all that be accepted as determinative of the natural and ordinary meaning of the word “relegation” under Scottish law where no special definition has been given to that word, then one analysis of the case may be:a) either Coral used the word “relegation” in fact to mean Deportatio – which one way or another seems to be what happened – so they should pay out on the bet and be more careful in defining their terms in future; or
b) Coral used the word “relegation” to mean Relegatio – which, since there is no concept of sin-binning in the SPL, means they offered a meaningless market so all bets on it, winning and losing, should be voided and all stakes returned.
Running Rein is correct.
I hope Coral’s intention was, by allowing this case to come to court, to establish some kind of precedent as to what is a reasonable definition of a word (‘relegation’ in this instance) that is not clearly enough defined in bookmakers’ rules.
That could be considered as very noble of them, bearing in mind the inevitable bad publicity and costs, because any such precedent established might transfer not only to other words/terms in their rules but also to those of other bookies.
However, the misguided ineptness of Coral’s counsel and witnesses cast severe doubt upon whether this was their intention.
It’s incredible because the court’s ruling really should be quite simple.
Rangers in the historic tradition of a football club going belly up then being reformed is the same club, legally Rangers is not. Rangers went into administration and duly had points deducted but was not relegated as a consequence. Rangers was then liquidated and ceased to exist (not relegated/expelled/demoted) as a club and a member of the SPL/SFA.
It was immediately reformed as a new legal entity and applied for membership of the SPL which was denied (it makes no sense that the former legal entity/club that ceased to exist had a vote on the matter!). For the owners of the new club to have ever regarded membership of the SPL as even a potential asset acquired was not realistic, all the new club could do was to apply, in turn, for membership of leagues until accepted by one. It was accepted by the SFL but naturally had to start at the bottom tier of that league.
Therefore, the Rangers club bet upon to be relegated was absolutely clearly not relegated. I don’t see how any court could reasonably define the word ‘relegation’ in Coral’s rules to apply in this case (however poor Coral’s counsel). Relegation is when the same club/legal entity, whether or not it has had points deducted for going into administration or any other reason, drops a tier by virtue of finishing in one of the bottom positions in the table (and in some seasons then loses test match/es or play off/s) clearly stated in advance by the league.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.