[Hareeba!]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...bookie-9648117

[dealer wins]

Thats very interesting, the fact coral used the word relegated does help their case really lol

[Hareeba!]

A host of absurd arguments put forward in this case, most of which reflect very poorly on Coral in particular and the bookmaking industry in general.

However, getting back to the crux of the matter, it comes down to the meaning of "relegation".

Imho the general meaning of the term when it comes to football is that the bottom team(s) in the competition at season's end go down to the next lower level.

General dictionary definitions don't have much relevance to this. I think what Wikipedia has to say is quite useful:

In sports leagues, promotion and relegation is a process where teams are transferred between two divisions based on their performance for the completed season. The best-ranked team(s) in the lower division are promoted to the higher division for the next season, and the worst-ranked team(s) in the higher division are relegated to the lower division for the next season.

Rangers finished the season in second place. In Scottish Premier League only the bottom team gets relegated. That duly was Dumferline.

Rangers were declared insolvent and were then booted out of the Premier League. Only after the remnants were purchased by new owners were they eventually granted a place in Scottish Third Division.

That doesn't by any reasonable definition of the word in the context of football amount to "relegation".

So, much as I like to see the punter come out on top, I would have to bring down a decision in favour of Coral in this case.

[Optional]

^^^ I was thinking pretty similar to that Yisman.

BUT, if Coral did not define what relegation meant they leave it open for a judge to decide. And really, relegation means changed to a lower status (or similar) and they clearly were.

It appears the tweet about welcome back from relegation is what inspired the case, from that article, but I doubt what a marketer on twitter calling the situation will have any bearing on the decision.

I think the judge will find for Coral too based on the little we know. But we have seen at least one other case where the judge pretty clearly cared more about fairness to the player than trying to impose technical law. (think that was against William Hill about a year ago that you posted) So never know with these.

[bettingmosquito]

My thought is, this 72 yo guy knew about those tax issues before placing the bet. surely?

[JayZ]

Since Coral didn't define relegation, the definition of this by SPL seems the most relevant. My reading of the rules of the SPL is that relegation as a term encompasses action by the Board and Commissions of the SPL to order a club into a lower division after a breach of the rules and regs of the League as well as the regular relegation of the last placed team. On this basis Coral ought to lose. However, there may be some other factor that comes into play, especially as to whether there was an effective discontinuity in legal identity of the 'old' and 'new' clubs.

[semibluff]

I'm not going to pretend i'm impartial. (I used to work in the Sportbook for Coral at their Glebe House headquarters in Barking). I believe this case is frivolous. Teams have been demoted before eg Swindon. I don't believe the UK betting industry paid out on them being relegated. If the league had imposed a points penalty on Rangers during the season that resulted in them to be relegated at the end of the season, (similar to Portsmouth), then it would be a different matter.

[Alfa1234]

Was there another team that stayed in the league or did an extra team get promoted that year? I can't really find anything about it but if that's the case I'm wondering if Coral paid out on bets taken on those teams to be relegated or promoted.

[Hareeba!]

Was there another team that stayed in the league or did an extra team get promoted that year? I can't really find anything about it but if that's the case I'm wondering if Coral paid out on bets taken on those teams to be relegated or promoted.

From what I can see, bottom team Dunferline was relegated and no doubt Coral would have paid out on that.

Normally there is only one team relegated to and one promoted from the Championship each season.

But the two top teams in the 2011-12 Championship were promoted to the Premier League for 2012-13 so as to make for a 12 team competition following the loss of Rangers.

Would be very interesting to know if Coral (and other books) paid up on the promotion of both those teams!

[Alfa1234]

From what I can see, bottom team Dunferline was relegated and no doubt Coral would have paid out on that.

Normally there is only one team relegated to and one promoted from the Championship each season.

But the two top teams in the 2011-12 Championship were promoted to the Premier League for 2012-13 so as to make for a 12 team competition following the loss of Rangers.

Would be very interesting to know if Coral (and other books) paid up on the promotion of both those teams!

Yep, seems to me this should kinda determine the outcome of this lawsuit. If they didn't pay on that 2nd team to be promoted they shouldn't pay for the Ranger's relegation either. If they did however...

[Hareeba!]

Yep, seems to me this should kinda determine the outcome of this lawsuit. If they didn't pay on that 2nd team to be promoted they shouldn't pay for the Ranger's relegation either. If they did however...

A point to further complicate the issue is whether the promotion/relegation payouts should be at full value or only half as the bets would have been placed/taken on the presumption of only a single team being relegated/promoted. So isn't it a dead-heat result?

And of course this would apply all the way down the competition through the leagues affected by Rangers being put down to the fourth level.

[semibluff]

Was there another team that stayed in the league or did an extra team get promoted that year? I can't really find anything about it but if that's the case I'm wondering if Coral paid out on bets taken on those teams to be relegated or promoted.

Coral wouldn't have paid out on another team being promoted because of the situation with Rangers. Nor would any other bookie anywhere around the World.

There's a simple and over-riding factor in this. There is a point where things are considered final and irreversible for betting purposes. If something happens after that time it doesn't affect bets. In British parlance it's called the weigh-in. If the NFL decided a month after the Super Bowl that the winning team had broken the rules it could annul the Super Bowl result and declare the other team as the winner. This wouldn't affect the Super Bowl result from a betting perspective.

The 2012 Scottish Premiership season finished on May 13th. The weigh-in was May 13th. Rangers went into administration on June 14th. A decision to remove them from the top divisions of Scottish football for the start of the 2013 season was taken shortly after Rangers reformed whilst in administration.

[Hareeba!]

Coral wouldn't have paid out on another team being promoted because of the situation with Rangers. Nor would any other bookie anywhere around the World.

There's a simple and over-riding factor in this. There is a point where things are considered final and irreversible for betting purposes. If something happens after that time it doesn't affect bets. In British parlance it's called the weigh-in. If the NFL decided a month after the Super Bowl that the winning team had broken the rules it could annul the Super Bowl result and declare the other team as the winner. This wouldn't affect the Super Bowl result from a betting perspective.

The 2012 Scottish Premiership season finished on May 13th. The weigh-in was May 13th. Rangers went into administration on June 14th. A decision to remove them from the top divisions of Scottish football for the start of the 2013 season was taken shortly after Rangers reformed whilst in administration.

Excellent point!

[Optional]

Coral wouldn't have paid out on another team being promoted because of the situation with Rangers. Nor would any other bookie anywhere around the World.

There's a simple and over-riding factor in this. There is a point where things are considered final and irreversible for betting purposes. If something happens after that time it doesn't affect bets. In British parlance it's called the weigh-in. If the NFL decided a month after the Super Bowl that the winning team had broken the rules it could annul the Super Bowl result and declare the other team as the winner. This wouldn't affect the Super Bowl result from a betting perspective.

The 2012 Scottish Premiership season finished on May 13th. The weigh-in was May 13th. Rangers went into administration on June 14th. A decision to remove them from the top divisions of Scottish football for the start of the 2013 season was taken shortly after Rangers reformed whilst in administration.

That sounds logical but I would still be surprised if a judge decided not to hear it over a rule like that unless it was very clearly defined in relation to that particular market. Easy to call the day the season ends the 'weigh-in' but unless that was stated definitively somewhere I don't think a lower court will care about that sort of argument.

[Hareeba!]

That sounds logical but I would still be surprised if a judge decided not to hear it over a rule like that unless it was very clearly defined in relation to that particular market. Easy to call the day the season ends the 'weigh-in' but unless that was stated definitively somewhere I don't think a lower court will care about that sort of argument.

Surely it is universally accepted that once market has been settled, that's it?

Have you ever heard of a bookie paying out on the runner up in a horse race or athletics event following a subsequent doping finding?

Did NRL punters get paid on the GF losers after Melbourne Storm's premierships were annulled?
Or the recently declared Brownlow winners following Jobe Watson's disqualification?
etc. etc. etc.

[Optional]

Surely it is universally accepted that once market has been settled, that's it?

Have you ever heard of a bookie paying out on the runner up in a horse race or athletics event following a subsequent doping finding?

Did NRL punters get paid on the GF losers after Melbourne Storm's premierships were annulled?
Or the recently declared Brownlow winners following Jobe Watson's disqualification?
etc. etc. etc.

No I agree with what semibluff said and what you say.

If it was a complaint I was dealing with I would tell the player the argument was sound if that's what the book came back with.

But this is a court matter and I am assuming a local court. I just doubt a local level magistrate is going to go in depth about usual bookmaking practices and think unless it is very clear in Coral rules that this particular market had closed then I can see them overlooking that argument. And leaving it for a higher court to deal with if Coral appeal later. Just how low level courts work. could be wrong of course.

[Hareeba!]

Coral's Sports T&Cs as they appear currently:

2. RESULT
2.1 For settlement purposes the initial official result will be considered final, following an event's closure. Unless a specific sport's rules state otherwise this rule will apply to all events, for example the podium positions in a Grand Prix race or at an athletics event.

• any subsequent change to results, whether due to disciplinary hearings or otherwise, will be disregarded;
• if the official result of a sporting event is not available, the result will be determined by us with reference to all accessible evidence.

[Optional]

^^^ Yeah, probably enough by the sounds of it.

[semibluff]

I can't say what the exact wording was when I worked for them or when this bet was placed. The principle rule as currently worded as:

coral-eng.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1700/~/coral-general-sporting-and-betting-rules---shop

3.4 Where a result is amended after the weigh-in, for example, as the result of a successful appeal, the amendment will be ignored for settlement purposes. Where a horse is withdrawn not under starters orders but is still returned Favourite (i.e. no new market is formed), then bets on that Favourite are void. Bets will not transfer to the second Favourite.

The football specific rule that applies in this case is:

21.8 ANTE POST FOOTBALL (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 which is awarded the trophy.
• If any team fails to complete all of its fixtures, bets will stand for settlement purposes.

Even if the football specific rule was ignored the general rule is:

22.1.1 Ante Post Rules
Ante Post rules apply for all sports outright betting unless otherwise specified (see Rule 11 for further details):
22.1.2 League Competitions

• Final league or tournament standings will apply for settlement purposes.
• If the team or player is excluded or withdraws from a league competition, having already completed one match, bets on that team/player will be settled as losers.

It is possible the wording has been changed in the 20+ years since I worked there but the rules and the intent behind them are as I remember them.

For what it's worth I don't think this is in a low court. I don't know how Scottish law & courts differ from England, but I know they do. In England you can't sue for large amounts in a small court. It has to go to the High Court. QCs, (Queen's Councils) are the highest level of lawyers in the land. The legal bill will be high. What Albert Kinloch knew at the time isn't relevant, but he was formerly a bookie and he placed the bet knowing Rangers were in financial trouble. I won't lose sleep if this doesn't end well for him.

[newton0038]

The bookies watchdog should have pulled all wagering on Rangers futures if they were in a position to not exist. Dont go bankrupt overnight, it is a lengthy process.

[Hareeba!]

Judgement handed down in favour of Coral.

No surprise.

But one disturbing point is that the Judge said that a "professional punter" isn't entitled to the ordinary protections of consumer law!

[Optional]

Judgement handed down in favour of Coral.

No surprise.

But one disturbing point is that the Judge said that a "professional punter" isn't entitled to the ordinary protections of consumer law!

Whats the judge's logic for that?

got a link?

[Hareeba!]

Whats the judge's logic for that?

got a link?

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search...0-ff0000d74aa7

[Optional]

Thanks. Read the whole thing.

It seems you are right, in the UK entering a contract for the purpose of his trade, business or profession excludes coverage by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

And that judge thinks being a 'professional gambler' means it was part of his trade.

Not that that was the crux of why he lost the case but agree it's the most interesting bit really.

It actually sounds like the judge felt his legal team did a shitty job and he came across as less than open and honest himself as major factors too.



I'm not sure this is enough evidence to really class the guy as a 'professional gambler' betting as part of his trade personally.

It was just that his lawyers didn't realize they needed to clearly show he wasn't acting in a professional capacity on this occasion. Which I think they could have.




Here's why the judge thought he was acting as a professional gambler;


In cross examination he was asked a large number of questions about his background with respect to the gambling industry and his experience regarding bookmaking, he said this:

He attended Shawfield Racing on two nights per week.
He worked there as a bookmaker at the weekend.
He set odds for dog racing. The week before the proof he was acting as a bookmaker’s clerk at the above course.
His father was a bookmaker.
He had acted as a clerk for a bookmaker since he was about 14. For the best part of 60 years he had been a bookmaker’s clerk.
Between 1987 and 1996 he was a bookmaker.
He accepted he knew well how the gambling industry worked.
He had taken bets in his betting shop with respect to football.
The shop at which he placed the bet was five to six miles from his home and there were many betting shops nearer his home than the one in which he placed his bet.
He accepted that in the past he had been asked not to make bets in certain betting shops. In certain betting shops he was not treated as an ordinary punter. At Coral’s in Victoria Road (which was near where he lived) the amount he was allowed to bet was limited.
In 2011 he was taking part on a regular basis in Texas Hold’em Poker tournaments. He was playing four nights per week and was making a profit by doing so.
He described himself at the time of placing the bet as retired and his pension then was £200 per week.
In 2011 he was also betting on horse racing and what he described as singles in football. He described himself as a success when betting on football.
He thought it was fair to describe him as an “ordinary person” in relation to betting transactions.
He said normally he would have £100 cash in his pockets as he had at the time of placing the bet.
He did not think £100 was an extremely large amount to bet, where according to him he did not think that he would win the bet.



To me most of that just means he should be knowledgeable on the subject.

I bet lawyers prepared for this type of argument could have countered it. So not a huge precedent or anything like that to me.