- This topic has 63 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
The bet is a loser, but Coral’s ineptitude may have proven their downfall here
THeir witnesses on the stand utterly hopeless.
I believe you work for Chandler’s, employed as some sort of ‘mouthpiece’ functionary; therefore an inept and hopeless outburst like that should of course be roundly dismissed, or at the very least you should have ‘declared an interest’
It strikes me that the correct and sensible option would have been to void the bet, returning stake to punter
What befell Rangers was, as far as I’m aware, a unique occurence and presumably unimagined by the punter and bookmaker when the bet was struck
Wit and others have tried hard to clarify the ambiguity of the word ‘relegation’ applied to this scenario and it seems to me to be largely inapplicable, only open to woolly personal interpretation
Yep, void it Joe
tried hard to clarify the ambiguity of the word ‘relegation’ applied to this scenario
In terms of the bet the word relegation means finish in the relegation zone
How about the x amount of bets on a runner up on a horse race that in a few months time the winner gets stripped of 1st place, where is the pay out on these…?
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
presumably unimagined by the punter and bookmaker when the bet was struck
Not sure of the specifics myself but going by earlier posts it strikes me that this is exactly what the punter had in mind. No way is this a void bet, it’s a winner or a loser. They completed their fixtures, bets are only voided on uncompleted events where the result has not been determined. Although the ton pales into insignificance relative to the legal costs anyway.
How about the x amount of bets on a runner up on a horse race that in a few months time the winner gets stripped of 1st place, where is the pay out on these…?
Exactly, let’s all go to court. Horse races are paid out on the weighed in result on the day. F1 for example is paid out on the result at time of podium ceremony. Same with athletics. If we apply the same principles to this case, they finished second in the league. Whatever happens after that is immaterial.
What befell Rangers was, as far as I’m aware, a unique occurence and presumably unimagined by the punter and bookmaker when the bet was struck
According to reports the punter, a shrewd former bookmaker apparently, was speculating that the behind the scenes chaos at Ibrox would potentially result in them being turfed out of the SPL.
to this day, Coral rules seem very sketchy:
25.7 Ante-post football
This is the market/s for bets placed over the course of the season. For example a typical ante-post football bet would be to select the winners of a league. The following rules apply to the market for league winners:
all bets are settled on the final league placings, regardless of the results of any divisional play-offs;
bets on “who will win” a league will be settled on the team awarded the trophy;
bets will stand on any team that does not complete all its fixtures.
25.8 Head to head match bets…..
[ search for “relegation” in the Rules produces zero mentions]
contrast William Hill:
Football Rules: Relegation
Relegation
Market Description
Select a team to be relegated from a given league at the end of the season.
League positions will be determined by the official rules of the respective league. A play-off or any other process which is used to determine relegation will count.
If a team has points deducted by the official governing body during the course of the regular season, bets placed on this market will stand.
If a team does not complete all of its fixtures, bets placed on this market will stand.
Bets placed will be settled from the feed supplied by our service providers, which will be based on the official competition rules, immediately after the completion of all matches on the final day of the season or end of season play-off, if applicable.
If a team is demoted by an official governing body or in any way other than points total immediately following the completion of all matches on the final day of the season or end of season play-off, if applicable, bets placed on that team in this market will have lost.
Adjustments to settlement will not be made for any changes or adjudications made by governing bodies after the event. This includes changes or adjudications made by governing bodies, pools panels, player committees etc.
If Corals have not got that in their rules it is a massive error on their part.
Does anybody remember Swindon getting promoted but not going up in 1990…?
The 1990 Football League Division Two play-off Final was contested by Sunderland and Swindon Town at Wembley Stadium, London. Swindon won the match by a scoreline of one goal to nil, with a Alan McLoughlin goal via a wicked deflection from Gary Bennett thus deciding the fixture. Swindon Town were later demoted after being found guilty of financial irregularities which resulted in Sunderland gaining promotion.
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Despite Corals lack of rules and poorly presented legal defence I still say the judge will consider that the reasonable definition of relegation as it relates to football, to be found in many places online and in paper dictionaries, is such that Rangers could not be said to have been relegated.
Properly thought out rules, like those of Hills, make it clear you would be paid out, in that case, if you had backed Swindon to be promoted but not on Sunderland because the change (of promoted team) by the governing body was several days after the play off final. Interestingly, Swindon were originally a) denied promotion & b) demoted but b) was overturned on appeal so they stayed in the same division!
In 1919/20 Leeds City were expelled from the league after 8 matches, Port Vale took their place and inherited their points total. If it had been possible to back Leeds to be promoted and had Port Vale finished in the top 2 we’d still be in court now sorting that out :)
David Ashforth, Racing Post:
>>Simon Clare, Coral’s Head of Public Relations, stated that odds as long as 2,500-1 were only offered on events that “weren’t going to happen,” prompting observers to recall the 5,000-1 offered by some bookmakers, including William Hill although perhaps not Coral, against Leicester City winning the Premier League.
Coral insist that Rangers were not relegated but demoted, an issue central to Lord Bannatyne’s judgement…..<<
Are Corals really saying that any 2,500 -1 bet they lay comes with the proviso that it can never be a winner, because if it could they would never have offered that price about it ?
If so then, regardless of what Lord Bannatyne may determine in this case, perhaps punters in Coral shops should be saying “Ahm oot!”…… [sorry, will get my coat].
According to reports the punter, a shrewd former bookmaker apparently, was speculating that the behind the scenes chaos at Ibrox would potentially result in them being turfed out of the SPL.
Good for him if he did have this foresight but, unless he’s in possession of documentary evidence or has the recording of a chat with a pal, it’s impossible to know whether this was true or that he decided to say it in hindsight in order to bolster his case in court. Hearsay can’t be construed as evidence I believe
If he can prove he was ‘shrewd’ then he has a better case, regardless of the myriad interpretations of ‘relegation’ as it implies that Coral had not done their homework; and thus the odds offered were a lazy rick akin to the notorious case of the ‘hole in one gang’ availing themselves of 33/1 a hole-in-1 being hit at a golf tournament when the true odds are around 7/2
If Simon ‘would you buy a secondhand car from this man’ Clare really thinks that it’s okay to lay 2500/1 only to zero-chance events then he and his company really should have taken note that someone obviously didn’t think it was, particularly a ‘face’
Was the 250,000/100 referred to head office before being accepted?
My opinion that it should be voided is made not because it might be the correct decision ‘in law’ but that it would be a consensus that both parties would perhaps grudgingly accept
Whatever the outcome, it’s likely to be an interesting new addition to the reams of Case Law
…
Was the 250,000/100 referred to head office before being accepted?“In September 2011 he went to Coral and asked for the odds on the club to be relegated and was surprised that, after a call to head office, counter staff offered him 2,500-1.”:
https://dsportsnews.com/coral-in-court-over-250000-rangers-relegation-bet/
According to reports the punter, a shrewd former bookmaker apparently, was speculating that the behind the scenes chaos at Ibrox would potentially result in them being turfed out of the SPL.
Good for him if he did have this foresight but, unless he’s in possession of documentary evidence or has the recording of a chat with a pal, it’s impossible to know whether this was true or that he decided to say it in hindsight in order to bolster his case in court. Hearsay can’t be construed as evidence I believe
If he can prove he was ‘shrewd’ then he has a better case, regardless of the myriad interpretations of ‘relegation’ as it implies that Coral had not done their homework; and thus the odds offered were a lazy rick akin to the notorious case of the ‘hole in one gang’ availing themselves of 33/1 a hole-in-1 being hit at a golf tournament when the true odds are around 7/2
If Simon ‘would you buy a secondhand car from this man’ Clare really thinks that it’s okay to lay 2500/1 only to zero-chance events then he and his company really should have taken note that someone obviously didn’t think it was, particularly a ‘face’
Was the 250,000/100 referred to head office before being accepted?
My opinion that it should be voided is made not because it might be the correct decision ‘in law’ but that it would be a consensus that both parties would perhaps grudgingly accept
Whatever the outcome, it’s likely to be an interesting new addition to the reams of Case Law
For those who have followed Rangers Tax Case (which led to the RFC liquidation and Mr Kinloch’s earlier bet) it is interesting in the extreme to see how just the tiniest tip of the iceberg of this case, Mr Kinloch’s bet, has amused, infuriated and astonished a wider audience outside Scottish football.
Those who have only an interest in this story from a betting point of view would be, I think, astonished about how much was known of this case before the time Mr Kinloch placed his bet in 2011. There had literally been millions of words written and consumed on this individual issue. Few football fans in Glasgow, nor in Scotland, were ignorant of it but curiously because it was laid out and explained almost entirely through social media and bloggers it is not more widely known.
Indeed, it is the very fact that the mainstream media in Scotland sought to ignore and minimise the facts of the case that generated the circumstances that Mr Kinloch has perhaps taken advantage of.
Below is only one of the blogs that examined this case…there were many more but this is perhaps the predominate one and certainly the most influential. It was widely read by football fans and led to much discussion. The main points were, in large, proven to be correct and Rangers were indeed liquidated as the blogger initially predicts, well over a year before the event.https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/
To address the specific point on how much Mr Kinloch may have known or suspected…please note how many of the blogs and comments were published before September 2011, already at that point this was the biggest talking point in Scottish Football and remains so.
Rather like many other catastrophic events it is only when the main players leave the stage the full facts will be known. This story and the struggle for acceptance of the version of truth that the mainstream media and amateur (but very qualified internet contributors) is still being played out today. The Kinloch case will add another layer to an already fascinating story.In short, there were literally tens of thousands of fans who had enough knowledge (though perhaps not quite enough gumption) to place that bet. Mr Kinloch acted on the basis of knowledge that was widely available and in most cases could be backed up by primary sources such as Companies House, Lists of disqualified Directors, AIM listings and Company accounts.
As I mentioned above, in my view, the bet is a loser and (pardon me, I honestly don’t mean to tell people what to focus on and in no way undermines the structure of those arguments) the concentration on the semantics of the meaning of relegation are a deliberate distraction and irrelevance.Exactly and I wonder if he chose to place the bet with Corals maybe knowing their lack of rules in place…?
Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
..I wonder if he chose to place the bet with Corals maybe knowing their lack of rules in place…?
what if he did ? Punters do not write the Rules, and are always told to read them before placing the bet.
contract terms are sometimes left sketchy unintentionally, and sometimes left sketchy intentionally.
if sketchy unintentionally, you may indeed be dealing with >> the gang who couldn’t shoot straight <<.
but if sketchy intentionally, you may be dealing with >> the gang who want you to think they can’t shoot straight <<.
“Fast-and-loose, a cheating game played with a stick and a belt or string, so arranged that a spectator would think he could make the latter fast by placing a stick through its intricate folds, whereas the operator could detach it at once.”
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/284300.html
imo, without a lot more information it is difficult to form an opinion as to whether in these particular circumstances the Rules are sketchy unintentionally or intentionally, and in each case why, and who might have the greater claim to sympathy from an uninvolved onlooker.
what if he did ?
Well he wouldn’t have got as far as he has if placing it with William Hill
I was just wondering if he planned it very well or got lucky, that’s allGaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
I was just wondering if he planned it very well or got lucky, that’s all
Yes that thought struck me when the Hills rules were posted. They are clear as day. I wonder if can they be used as a sort of precedent in the absence of clarity in Coral’s own rules. Equally you could say that if Hills managed to cover the eventuality then Coral could have too. Apologies if I’m talking bollocks, my knowledge of law could fit on a postage stamp.
bit more background:
http://calvinayre.com/2017/01/19/business/coral-defends-refusal-punter-bet-rangers-relegation/
imo there seems more of deliberation than of haphazardness about both sides, the question being who out-thought the other rather than who out-lucked the other.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.