stonedsailor

Courts don't make judgements based upon sports history. They go by definition of wording. I won't repost the definition of relegate, you can look back yourself.

It doesn't directly involve them. They have no input. It will have a bearing on how many trophies they can claim to have won though.

But it may prove the new club theory. Will you give a f**k then? Will Rangers appeal do you think? :lol:

Forever in denial. How can the result go "in your favour" neither you nor your club are involved in the case. It's between a punter and bookie.

So if the courts prove you wrong then you will still be as defiant? Fair play for your loyalty but it does show up your stubborn denial of facts and pigheadedness and negates any point in discussing any subject with you. Or are you nervous about the decision and putting on a brave face?

It does not state in the definition how relegation should take place, whether it be by sporting merit; sporting integrity; a vote by members or just for shits and giggles all it says is

Have you not been follow following? This debate has raged for years and one way or another we will get an answer. I am ready to eat humble pie, are you? No excuses, no arguments, if the case goes against Coral and the court decrees that Rangers were relegated I will concede defeat and admit I was wrong on the continuation issue. Will you do the same if the case goes the other way? Remember what the definition of relegate is, there is even a specific entry for British football. If Rangers are a continuation then they were relegated to a lower division. That is fact.

@The Tedi bookmark this. If Coral are forced to pay out on the bet then I will agree that Rangers Football Club are the same club as they were prior to a bunch of assets being reformed into a club.

The "Rangers fans' view" argument mixes up supporters clubs with a football club IMO. I am a Caley (RIP) fan but supporter of ICT, commonly known as Caley, to add some perspective.

I have said since the beginning that this will be decided in the courts and this is the only case where the same/new club argument is the decider of the court proceedings. Other has been tested in FIFA rules, no transfer fees for TUPE rebels. Remember that the registrations which are transferred are held by the association and not the club. We now have a proper legal test, it's been a long time coming but, to use a footballing analogy, this is the deciding penalty in the shootout.

The law works in black and white. Either it is or it isn't. Rangers Football Club were either relegated or they were not per the reported wording on the betting slip and per the definition of the word relegated. "Court papers say that Mr Kinloch wrote: “Rangers Football Club to be relegated £100 at 2,500/1” and handed over his slip." If Rangers Football Club are legally the same club then Coral must pay out. If coral are forced to pay out then I accept continuation, if not they are without doubt legally a new club.

Relegation is a fact though.

True dat. Or, more specifically to allow the transfer of share to a new legal entity.

Getting the excuses in early? As the Cambridge English dictionary definition says "if a football team is relegated it is moved to a lower division" If coral win then Rangers Football Club were not moved to a lower division.

I think this is the decider. Any decision which sees Corals having to pay out any money will prove continuation. The best part of it is that "Rangers" will have no input in the procedure. 'Mon the Corals.

http://www.disabledliving.co.uk/Training/Events---Courses/Disability-Awareness-Training-(1) @The_Kincardine

Now, now Kinky. All I am doing is pointing out the hypocrisy in your rhetoric. Your insulting me won't stop me from doing so, I have thicker skin than to let simple words upset me. You have your crusade against a word which hurts your sensitive feelings because it likens your social group to a violent marauding tribe whilst using words which mock those afflicted by mental illness. I think Manchester, the cup final and many other occasions show that the fans of Rangers have earned their nickname.

You did.

Again he uses a medical term as an insult. What is this man's problem with mental illness? Why so much abuse? I think it's a Rangers thing to attack those whom they see as a lesser human being.

Finished what?

Silly ***

More seriously than you? How many times did you spam the report button because you don't like asterisks?

Your hypocrisy is the most extraordinary feature of this board these days.

Then why use the word cretin? It's etymology is extremely similar.

My thyroid is fine thanks very much. You'll be calling us all spastics next. Or do you want to talk about the way in which the English language is dynamic and how words can mean different things to different people? Like how one word which can be used to describe people of limited intelligence by some people is used by others to mock those afflicted by medical problems? Or, how a word used to racially mock German soldiers by one group is used by others to describe a race of Nomadic people who lived in Eastern Europe the Caucasus and Asia and adopted by football fans to describe the fans of a Glaswegian club after reports of their hooliganism appeared in the English press likening them to the Nomadic warriors of the East?