stonedsailor Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, bobbycoxblue said: But what if the judge thinks a new club cant be relegated?? Eh? A new club starts and is admitted to the league. How can a new club be relegated if it has never held a position in the league previously? When ICT started they were not promoted into the league set up, they were admitted but have suffered relegation since. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 13 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said: The Coral story is diverting enough, but it's still not going to decide anything. It's likelier to hinge on whether Rangers cropping up in the bottom tier can be termed a 'relegation' than it is on any notion of continuity. It's an interesting little twist though. Some terrific posts on here from Sugna. Some might call it fence sitting, but he's got to the nub here of the idea that in some respects it's a new thing; in others it's not. I'm not so sure, Monkey. I suspect Coral's case will rest on their proposal that only a club can be relegated (whatever meaning you want to put on the word 'relegated') and that, in this case, the club ceased to exist and therefore could not have been relegated. If that really is their argument and a court finds against the complainant on that basis, and not on some obscure point of law, then we've learned that Scots law (I assume it will be heard up here) disagrees with the club continuity myth. The fans are still free to accept or reject any other flavour of continuity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10menwent2mow Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 As a former betting shop employee I can assure everyone that coral will win. All they have to do is refer to their rules, which all bets are bound by. The punter is trying to pull a fast one. Rangers were in no way relegated. They were liquidated and reformed. At the end of that season they finished 2nd in the league and were liquidated. Dunfermline were 'relegated'. If rangers had been deducted 100 points for being liquidated and subsequently placed bottom of the SPL and continued in div 1 then the guy has a case. This is where I get my new club old club argument from as well. If it was the same rangers in 2012/13 as 11/12 they'd have been playing cl qualifiers the following season and been playing in r3 of the lge cup rather than r1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, 10menwent2mow said: As a former betting shop employee I can assure everyone that coral will win. All they have to do is refer to their rules, which all bets are bound by. The punter is trying to pull a fast one. Rangers were in no way relegated. They were liquidated and reformed. At the end of that season they finished 2nd in the league and were liquidated. Dunfermline were 'relegated'. If rangers had been deducted 100 points for being liquidated and subsequently placed bottom of the SPL and continued in div 1 then the guy has a case. This is where I get my new club old club argument from as well. If it was the same rangers in 2012/13 as 11/12 they'd have been playing cl qualifiers the following season and been playing in r3 of the lge cup rather than r1 The champions league thing is wrong. Their European club licence was withdrawn as soon as they were placed in administration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beano 3d Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 15 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said: The Coral story is diverting enough, but it's still not going to decide anything. It's likelier to hinge on whether Rangers cropping up in the bottom tier can be termed a 'relegation' than it is on any notion of continuity. It's an interesting little twist though. Some terrific posts on here from Sugna. Some might call it fence sitting, but he's got to the nub here of the idea that in some respects it's a new thing; in others it's not. I must echo the comments re Sugna - excellent posts. There is a thing currently in existence called Rangers. I find the arguments over whether it's a continuation of a previous thing called Rangers or not completely irrelevant. Some people choose to believe it is and it has won 54 titles. Others choose to believe it isn't. There is no way of conclusively "proving" this one way or another because there is no agreed frame of reference within which to do so. The one thing I do find hard to understand is why supporters (however you want to define that word!) of the Rangers thing want to lay claim to the titles within the 54 that the Rangers thing cheated to win. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, Beano 3d said: I must echo the comments re Sugna - excellent posts. There is a thing currently in existence called Rangers. I find the arguments over whether it's a continuation of a previous thing called Rangers or not completely irrelevant. Some people choose to believe it is and it has won 54 titles. Others choose to believe it isn't. There is no way of conclusively "proving" this one way or another because there is no agreed frame of reference within which to do so. The one thing I do find hard to understand is why supporters (however you want to define that word!) of the Rangers thing want to lay claim to the titles within the 54 that the Rangers thing cheated to win. This has been said before, Beano, but well put. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10menwent2mow Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 The champions league thing is wrong. Their European club licence was withdrawn as soon as they were placed in administration. I apologise. Didn't know that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 1 minute ago, 10menwent2mow said: I apologise. Didn't know that. No need to apologise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 57 minutes ago, Beano 3d said: The one thing I do find hard to understand is why supporters (however you want to define that word!) of the Rangers thing want to lay claim to the titles within the 54 that the Rangers thing cheated to win. It's because they have no shame. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 My first thought is, how thick is his guy that he didn't think to clarify this with coral at the time.Did he really think coral would accept those odds when they were in administration if they in anyway meant 'got liquidated and started again in division 3'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10menwent2mow Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 My first thought is, how thick is his guy that he didn't think to clarify this with coral at the time.Did he really think coral would accept those odds when they were in administration if they in anyway meant 'got liquidated and started again in division 3'. People who backed Motherwell to finish in the top 2 wouldn't get paid out, they finished 3rd. People who backed Dunfermline to get relegated will have been paid out. The guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. The market he bet on will almost certainly have been. 'To finish bottom' so he's goosed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, 10menwent2mow said: People who backed Motherwell to finish in the top 2 wouldn't get paid out, they finished 3rd. People who backed Dunfermline to get relegated will have been paid out. The guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. The market he bet on will almost certainly have been. 'To finish bottom' so he's goosed. Exactly. If his bet had been 'Rangers to not be in the top division next season' he might have had a bet but his odds would have been ridiculously different. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, 10menwent2mow said: People who backed Motherwell to finish in the top 2 wouldn't get paid out, they finished 3rd. People who backed Dunfermline to get relegated will have been paid out. The guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. The market he bet on will almost certainly have been. 'To finish bottom' so he's goosed. I get what you are saying, where would I find the rules which state this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWilliamson Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Ffs. Seriously who cares? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 11 minutes ago, BobWilliamson said: Ffs. Seriously who cares? It's a discussion board. Can't we discuss stuff? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 13 minutes ago, BobWilliamson said: Ffs. Seriously who cares? Obviously you do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 18 minutes ago, BobWilliamson said: Ffs. Seriously who cares? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, The DA said: Obviously you do. I find that the ones who try to end the discussion in that way are those who really don't want to hear the facts. I can never understand why people don't just avoid the topics they don't like without getting all upset. Almost as bad as those who scream for threads to be closed but can't help themselves reading them. If you don't like something on TV you change the channel, you don't go writing to ofcom to get it removed from broadcast. ETA just realised he's an asteriskasteriskasterisk he's probably never done writing complaints to anyone that he thinks is not Rangers minded. Edited January 13, 2017 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10menwent2mow Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Basically the guy will have gone to IBAS (independent betting adjudication service) and lost, so now he takes it to court. I think all bets are accepted on the premise that ibas decision is final. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, 10menwent2mow said: Basically the guy will have gone to IBAS (independent betting adjudication service) and lost, so now he takes it to court. I think all bets are accepted on the premise that ibas decision is final. Is an IBAS ruling legally enforceable? No, they are not. However, we are in a new era now where bets are seen as binding contracts, so as an adjudication body, the independent view of the panel would have some weight in any legal dispute between a company and customer. http://www.ibas-uk.com/faq_cust.php Nope. But it can be used as part of a court case. What was your position in the betting industry? 0 Quote Link to comment 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.