Squirrelhumper Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, Parklife said: Indeed! The Rangers' fan favourite Phil Mac was being referenced and everything Man with the Irish name.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said: Man with the Irish name.... "He is not friendly to Rangers" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 So whats the craic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 Coral are going to end up on the list if they are not careful here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, ShedTA said: Coral are going to end up on the list if they are not careful here. They're going to save themselves £250k though, so they won't give a shite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, Parklife said: They're going to save themselves £250k though, so they won't give a shite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 TBF I am on the side of the punter - coral trying to have it both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairbairn Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 11 minutes ago, ShedTA said: TBF I am on the side of the punter - coral trying to have it both ways. We weren't relegated though regardless of the same club/new club bollocks so I'd say Coral are right in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theweestevie Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 26 minutes ago, Fairbairn said: We weren't relegated though regardless of the same club/new club bollocks so I'd say Coral are right in this case. We weren't relegated in the traditional sense when talking about football. If they are using the SPL rules then we weren't relgated. Using the dictionary definition it would seem we were. I guess it will depend on the terms and conditions of Coral's bets and if they are with respect to the competion that the bet is for. If that is the case though I would have assumed things wouldn't have gotten this far. verb (used with object), relegated, relegating. 1. to send or consign to an inferior position, place, or condition: He has been relegated to a post at the fringes of the diplomatic service. 2. to consign or commit (a matter, task, etc.), as to a person: He relegates the less pleasant tasks to his assistant. 3. to assign or refer (something) to a particular class or kind. 4. to send into exile; banish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 35 minutes ago, Fairbairn said: We weren't relegated though regardless of the same club/new club bollocks so I'd say Coral are right in this case. Absolutely agreed. But coral have you described as relegated on their website apparently. If that's true they should pay out. Like I say can't have it both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, theweestevie said: We weren't relegated in the traditional sense when talking about football. If they are using the SPL rules then we weren't relgated. Using the dictionary definition it would seem we were. I guess it will depend on the terms and conditions of Coral's bets and if they are with respect to the competion that the bet is for. If that is the case though I would have assumed things wouldn't have gotten this far. verb (used with object), relegated, relegating. 1. to send or consign to an inferior position, place, or condition: He has been relegated to a post at the fringes of the diplomatic service. 2. to consign or commit (a matter, task, etc.), as to a person: He relegates the less pleasant tasks to his assistant. 3. to assign or refer (something) to a particular class or kind. 4. to send into exile; banish. You weren't relegated in any sense. It's quite clear what happened - you surely don't need me to remind you of those events? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theweestevie Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 57 minutes ago, ShedTA said: TBF I am on the side of the punter - coral trying to have it both ways. 7 minutes ago, ShedTA said: You weren't relegated in any sense. It's quite clear what happened - you surely don't need me to remind you of those events? Coral not the onle ones trying to have it both ways... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasgow jock Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Parklife said: They're going to save themselves £250k though, so they won't give a shite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theweestevie Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Parklife said: They're going to save themselves £250k though, so they won't give a shite It will be interesting to see how much the legal costs are and who has to cover them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 48 minutes ago, theweestevie said: It will be interesting to see how much the legal costs are and who has to cover them. Likely to be high, and it'll depend on who wins the case and whether the judge thinks that the losing party's case had merit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 1 hour ago, theweestevie said: Coral not the onle ones trying to have it both ways... Ha! Not exactly. The punter is utterly wrong but coral have been playing a game with the truth so if they lose f@ck em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalgety Bay TA Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 I started following the Twitter account in the vague hope of some old club/new club "bantz". However have to admit that every since Coral's counsel took the stand to start questioning the boy I have been getting more and more concerned about their level of stupidity. They are trying to discredit the boy because - he uses betting exchanges - he had an account closed with Ladbrokes, in itself no a biggie. - he had £100 in his wallet - he doesn't do accys, he himself admits he usually does single bets. I am going to take a stab in the dark here and suggest that Coral's legal counsel has never placed a bet outside the Grand National in their life because they sound like they know feck all about betting. Which is strange when they are representing a betting company. Absolutely none of the above makes the boy a "baddie", he is, as in his own words, just not your average betting shop mug that will punt on two drops of rain running down a window. Fact is he has an idea what he is doing and Coral, or their legal counsel, are trying to suggest thats wrong. Fck them. They are trying to paint him as some gambling guru who had inside info when all he has done is have a punt on some internet rumours. Their question about "why would you place a bet if you thought it would lose" shows they have heehaw gambling knowledge, he answers it perfectly with the comment about he thought he would get 1000/1, he got 2500/1 but he wouldn't have placed the bet if the odds were 100/1. They have also come out with the pearler about McCoist "must know what he is talking about" in their defence. Surely the only time thats ever been said and in a court of all places?! I hope at the the end of this the Coral legal person ends up in a shallow grave for being so stupid with their questioning. Probably the same shallow grave that their odds compiler is already buried in. I mean think about it. Some boy walks in off the street and asks for odds on Rangers being relegated. You offer 2500/1, when you normally offer about 1000/1 on Lord Lucan riding Elvis to win next years National, and then boy sticks £100 on it without what seems to be blinking an eye. WTF. At the same time you are taking about £10 max on your novelty bets. If some boy in Glasgow asking for £100 on that event doesn't set massive alarm bells ringing in the odds compilers head, well fck me, he must have been comatosed at the time. And surely out of a job right now. I really think they dropped the ball on this one big time. As for the case itself, I don't think the boy will win as I think Rangers were admitted into Div 3 after the whole club/company stuff, not relegated to it. Doesn't stop me hoping he wins if only to teach Coral a lesson for shoddy odds compiling and shoddy legal questioning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dandydunn Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 It's quite simple really,thought everyone would've been on corals side here. The usual nonsense here is that they died,they're a new club etc etc. So coral are right,a new team started the next season. Unless the majority have been lying to me and they're actually the same team etc etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reevesy Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 14 minutes ago, dandydunn said: It's quite simple really,thought everyone would've been on corals side here. The usual nonsense here is that they died,they're a new club etc etc. So coral are right,a new team started the next season. Unless the majority have been lying to me and they're actually the same team etc etc? How is that nonsense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu101 Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, dandydunn said: It's quite simple really,thought everyone would've been on corals side here. The usual nonsense here is that they died,they're a new club etc etc. So coral are right,a new team started the next season. Unless the majority have been lying to me and they're actually the same team etc etc? Coral will win based on their terms and conditions and the law around gambling in Scotland. Surprised this has even got to proof, as as far as I was aware the contract created when you place a bet is pretty much non-enforceable (must admit Ive not looked at this since uni, but though it was settled law from the 1800's) In terms of the team/club nonsence, unfortunately the majority on here have a limited understanding of company/insolvency law, so you'd be well advised to stay clear of those rogues . Edit: Just checked. His bet could be valid under Section 335 of the Gambling Act 2005. Edited January 17, 2017 by Stu101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazziessc Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 13 hours ago, Stu101 said: Coral will win based on their terms and conditions and the law around gambling in Scotland. Surprised this has even got to proof, as as far as I was aware the contract created when you place a bet is pretty much non-enforceable (must admit Ive not looked at this since uni, but though it was settled law from the 1800's) In terms of the team/club nonsence, unfortunately the majority on here have a limited understanding of company/insolvency law, so you'd be well advised to stay clear of those rogues . Edit: Just checked. His bet could be valid under Section 335 of the Gambling Act 2005. It should never have got this far they gave him odds and took his money. If they are happy doing that assuming he won’t win they should be prepared to pay out when he does. Look at it this way, say the legal fees are 50k as a figure. Wtf is another 200k to the size of Coral? It’s not just the initial monetary side of it, there is their customer relations too, others may think twice before betting with them in future. Having a gander at the 2005 act he has something of a case however I doubt it’s enough for the courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedTA Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Hilarious as well that for all the slating that "mad" Phil gets on here, the Coral lawyer has referenced 3 of his articles as proof in this court case. Apparently he never gets anything right so I am kind of amazed at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theweestevie Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 19 minutes ago, ShedTA said: Hilarious as well that for all the slating that "mad" Phil gets on here, the Coral lawyer has referenced 3 of his articles as proof in this court case. Apparently he never gets anything right so I am kind of amazed at that. I think he is doing this as the other guy referred to "mad" Phil as a source for the information that led him to place the bet. The Coral lawyer is then using the same source which contradict the punters arguments, weakening the punters position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazziessc Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 20 minutes ago, theweestevie said: I think he is doing this as the other guy referred to "mad" Phil as a source for the information that led him to place the bet. The Coral lawyer is then using the same source which contradict the punters arguments, weakening the punters position. Source of information is used throughout betting not just in the case. If he had access to one so did Coral. If they didn't in time and reduce the odds accordingly tough titties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donaldo87 Posted January 18, 2017 Share Posted January 18, 2017 Surreal twitter feed some of the things being asked. Mr Fox must be a friend 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.