Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I can easily believe that only one guy would have put on the kind of money to make pursuing this worth the risk.

24 people voting on Leicester isn't odd.  For starters, they play in the much bigger, more attractive market of England.  

For another, there will have been Leicester fans who always stick a daft little bet on them each summer.  It's much more surprising that their numbers came up than that they exist at all.

That's just it though.  Sure, perhaps only 1 guy placed a £100 wager for a £250k return.  But almost certainly people stuck a quid or 50p on it for a laugh.  Chances are bets were being placed long into the season.  You can bet today on Everton getting relegated at 500/1.  Now what would be a killer for Coral is evidence that they paid out this bet when someone stuck 10p on it or a similar low wager.  It's almost a certain that some other punter made this bet, probably with a different bookmaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

 

 

:lol: Just when you thought the diddies couldn't get any diddier....

Better than drinking yourself into an early grave, I've seen it happen to someone very close. You have a rough ride ahead whereas we will learn something of legal procedures. I know who is better off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lofarl said:

That's just it though.  Sure, perhaps only 1 guy placed a £100 wager for a £250k return.  But almost certainly people stuck a quid or 50p on it for a laugh.  Chances are bets were being placed long into the season.  You can bet today on Everton getting relegated at 500/1.  Now what would be a killer for Coral is evidence that they paid out this bet when someone stuck 10p on it or a similar low wager.  It's almost a certain that some other punter made this bet, probably with a different bookmaker.

I'd imagine that if anyone did place such a bet, the bookie would have not paid out and the punter would have accepted it, as pursuing it would not have been worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been following the case on twitter as well, I'm more interested in the outcome because I used to work in the Bookies. Personally I think that the guy is 100% at it and Coral should win the case. I was interested to see that he didn't take it to IBAS first (because I think he knows he would have lost) so he's lumped his chances on getting a judge to take his point of view. I don't think, whatever the ruling, it has any influence on oldco/newco arguments and I'm not really fussed about that aspect of it.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, stonedsailor said:

Better than drinking yourself into an early grave, I've seen it happen to someone very close. You have a rough ride ahead whereas we will learn something of legal procedures. I know who is better off.

Did you imagine this was clever or funny when you wrote it? It's roughly at the level of 3xASC(2A)s scoring BJK child-abuse points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always had it in my head that the Scottish courts refused to go near any cases involving gambling? edit: in fact there was a fairly high profile case of a lottery syndicate was there not? Something along the lines of a work colleague collecting money from staff as part of a lottery pool, but it turned out he either hadn't been buying the tickets or that he pocketed the money all for himself when the numbers came up, and the court said "nope, not going near that".

A niggling voice in my head tells me that this may have changed circa 2010 but I don't know. A quick google of "scots law gambling" isn't really helping me much...

Edited by Thistle_do_nicely
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sugna said:

Did you imagine this was clever or funny when you wrote it? It's roughly at the level of 3xASC(2A)s scoring BJK child-abuse points.

No. I watched my mother die a slow excruciatingly painful death 18 months ago. Nothing funny about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The DA said:

What's the basis for assuming Kinky is an alcoholic, though?

I shall withdraw my statement but Kinky has on occasion admitted to consumption which would be classed as dangerous on medical advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

I always had it in my head that the Scottish courts refused to go near any cases involving gambling? edit: in fact there was a fairly high profile case of a lottery syndicate was there not? Something along the lines of a work colleague collecting money from staff as part of a lottery pool, but it turned out he either hadn't been buying the tickets or that he pocketed the money all for himself when the numbers came up, and the court said "nope, not going near that".

A niggling voice in my head tells me that this may have changed circa 2010 but I don't know. A quick google of "scots law gambling" isn't really helping me much...

Gambling act 2005 came into force in 2007

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, stonedsailor said:

I shall withdraw my statement but Kinky has on occasion admitted to consumption which would be classed as dangerous on medical advice.

Which doesn't mean a person is an alcoholic 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rugster said:

Which doesn't mean a person is an alcoholic 

Believe me I know the definition of alcoholic. I also know you don't need to be an alcoholic to kill yourself through alcohol consumption. 

I withdrew my statement. I shall say no more on it other than, sorry Kinky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, stonedsailor said:

Believe me I know the definition of alcoholic. I also know you don't need to be an alcoholic to kill yourself through alcohol consumption. 

I withdrew my statement. I shall say no more on it other than, sorry Kinky.

Not sure what the statement was , nor care, but The Sailor has withdrawn the statement. It should be left here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the guy saying that coral should've showed him the rules is more pertinent. It's like saying if you stick a £5 e/w on a horse you expect the cashier to recite the rules of rule 4. E/w terms, is it 1/4 the odds or 1/5, how many places. What happens if there is a dead heat. If all the horses fall and it's a void race, do you get your money back. I'm sorry but this guy is at it, has been from the start and no way does he deserve to be paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 10menwent2mow said:

 I'm sorry but this guy is at it, has been from the start and no way does he deserve to be paid.

 
Maybe..it's an unusual set of circumstances I agree. However I'm on the side of the punter here. 
 
IMO It's up to the seller not to be vague about what is being bought or contract entered into, otherwise it's open to interpretation. In this case the seller removed that vagueness or ambiguity around what happened to Rangers, IMO,  by stating clearly on their literature that Rangers had been relegated. 
 
Simply that's what the punter said in his contract with Corals, and what they stated happened
Edited by LordHawHaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...