PDA

View Full Version : Court case v Coral



Pages : [1] 2

bernz
17-01-2017, 03:08 PM
Saw on Twitter that someone has taken coral to court as they refused to pay out on a 100 bet for rangers to be relegated in 2012 at 2500/1.

What way would you judge the case?

lapsedhibee
17-01-2017, 03:10 PM
Saw on Twitter that someone has taken coral to court as they refused to pay out on a 100 bet for rangers to be relegated in 2012 at 2500/1.

What way would you judge the case?

In favour of Coral. The the's weren't forcibly descended into the fourth league. They were thrown oot the whole league system.

Waxy
17-01-2017, 03:13 PM
No way youd pay out. Should have worded the bet better.

HibernianJK
17-01-2017, 03:14 PM
I agree. They technically weren't relegated.

PolmontHibby
17-01-2017, 03:14 PM
I would side with Coral, Rangers were not relegated they ceased to exist.

BH Hibs
17-01-2017, 03:14 PM
Surprised it got this far but as before they weren't relegated so Coral win

May2116
17-01-2017, 03:17 PM
Surprised it got this far but as before they weren't relegated so Coral win

Relegation means "the transfer of a sports team or player to a lower division of a league."

If the court rules Rangers are the same outfit, which going by FIFA, UEFA, SFA etc then it has to rule in the gentleman's favour.

CMurdoch
17-01-2017, 03:17 PM
Not relegated
Chucked oot.

21.05.2016
17-01-2017, 03:26 PM
Rangers weren't relegated. They formed as a new club and had to start again. IMO lucky to even be aloud back into the professional leagues.

lucky
17-01-2017, 03:30 PM
Rangers weren't relegated. They formed as a new club and had to start again. IMO lucky to even be aloud back into the professional leagues.

But according to Rangers they are the same club. Like other teams who remained the same club but cheated financially they got relegated. For me anything the rams the bookies is a good thing

hibee316
17-01-2017, 03:34 PM
Relegation means "the transfer of a sports team or player to a lower division of a league."

If the court rules Rangers are the same outfit, which going by FIFA, UEFA, SFA etc then it has to rule in the gentleman's favour.



That is the dictionary definition of a team being chucked out of a league.

Will be interesting to see if Coral have defined it as something else in any of their regulations.


....

Or will Coral lose a huge base of hard core betters by saying the Rangers are a new club and upsetting the Govan hordes?

:)

BH Hibs
17-01-2017, 03:34 PM
Relegation means "the transfer of a sports team or player to a lower division of a league."

If the court rules Rangers are the same outfit, which going by FIFA, UEFA, SFA etc then it has to rule in the gentleman's favour.

Pretty sure the law courts will rule that Rangers went out of business then a new club were entered into league 2 in their place no matter what the SFA or anyone else thinks.

Geo_1875
17-01-2017, 03:34 PM
But will the Judge risk the wrath of his lodge by deciding that Rangers were liquidated and no longer exist? If he does then Coral's win.

If he announces that they are the same club, thus saving his windows from a tanning, then I think the punter should be paid.

Kato
17-01-2017, 03:50 PM
Good summation of today's proceedings here.


https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman

Sergey
17-01-2017, 04:17 PM
Good summation of today's proceedings here.


https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman

Thanks for posting and after reading the tweets I must say that I'm siding with Kinloch.

21.05.2016
17-01-2017, 04:23 PM
But according to Rangers they are the same club. Like other teams who remained the same club but cheated financially they got relegated. For me anything the rams the bookies is a good thing

According to Rangers they were also innocent victims after the cup final and all heroes who were just bravely trying to save their players from "brutal attacks" from hibs fans . . . .

Rugy07
17-01-2017, 04:30 PM
Thanks for posting and after reading the tweets I must say that I'm siding with Kinloch.

Me too, I'd love to see him win it. At the very least it's not at all clear from Coral and the fact they actually added to the slip 'from the SPL' but nothing else when they had a chance to be far clearer can't look good for them.

Smartie
17-01-2017, 04:47 PM
Could this case have unexpected significance?

i.e. I'm sure there are still ongoing wrangling, appeals etc over the "Big Tax Case".

Does the outcome of this case not basically fall down to whether or not The Rangers are a new club? If Coral win and the punter loses Rangers are a new club, can walk away from the big tax case but be mercilessly ribbed for ever more for being a new club.

On the other hand, should the wee guy win and Rangers are proven to be the same club and were "relegate", could that mean that any tax liability from the old club be passed onto Sevco (he says hopefully)?????????

One way or another there will be a legal precedent that can be referred to.

LustForLeith
17-01-2017, 04:49 PM
I'm sure the guy got Coral to check it a few times before placing the bet. I'd let him win.

CropleyWasGod
17-01-2017, 04:53 PM
Could this case have unexpected significance?

i.e. I'm sure there are still ongoing wrangling, appeals etc over the "Big Tax Case".

Does the outcome of this case not basically fall down to whether or not The Rangers are a new club? If Coral win and the punter loses Rangers are a new club, can walk away from the big tax case but be mercilessly ribbed for ever more for being a new club.

On the other hand, should the wee guy win and Rangers are proven to be the same club and were "relegate", could that mean that any tax liability from the old club be passed onto Sevco (he says hopefully)?????????

One way or another there will be a legal precedent that can be referred to.

The BTC has nothing to do with the old club/new club debate. It's only concerned with the Oldco. Newco can't be directly affected by it.

NAE NOOKIE
17-01-2017, 05:23 PM
If the slip says 'relegated' then the guy is on a loser.

Rangers 1872 were not relegated they went out of business and ceased to exist as the football club who were playing in the SPL. The new club formed after that event and who bought the assets of the defunct club were 'admitted' to the lowest level of Scottish professional football as existed at that time, they were not 'relegated' to it. The club the guy put the bet on was never relegated so how can he win his bet?

If this is a legal question then surely the fact that followers of the old Rangers, the SFA or the Daily Record see the two incarnations of the club as one and the same is immaterial, that's based on emotion not cold hard facts. The fact is that the club mentioned in the bet ceased to exist and were replaced by a new club, they were never relegated either as the result of on field failure nor as a result of being wound up. Coral win.

CropleyWasGod
17-01-2017, 05:32 PM
If the slip says 'relegated' then the guy is on a loser.

Rangers 1872 were not relegated they went out of business and ceased to exist as the football club who were playing in the SPL. The new club formed after that event and who bought the assets of the defunct club were 'admitted' to the lowest level of Scottish professional football as existed at that time, they were not 'relegated' to it. The club the guy put the bet on was never relegated so how can he win his bet?

If this is a legal question then surely the fact that followers of the old Rangers, the SFA or the Daily Record see the two incarnations of the club as one and the same is immaterial, that's based on emotion not cold hard facts. The fact is that the club mentioned in the bet ceased to exist and were replaced by a new club, they were never relegated either as the result of on field failure nor as a result of being wound up. Coral win.

The only fact is that the "facts" of "new club/old club" have never been established. Everybody has an opinion on the situation, but until the Courts rule on the matter, the debate will continue.

wearethehibs
17-01-2017, 05:37 PM
Coral are a bunch of bandits.

Hope they have to pay out

Killiehibbie
17-01-2017, 05:42 PM
Not relegated as they ceased to exist and a tribute act was granted permission to join Scottish football.

Super_JMcGinn
17-01-2017, 05:44 PM
But according to Rangers they are the same club. Like other teams who remained the same club but cheated financially they got relegated. For me anything the rams the bookies is a good thing

It doesn't matter if they are the same club or not they weren't relegated., and what a ridiculous waste of court time and money.

May2116
17-01-2017, 05:47 PM
It doesn't matter if they are the same club or not they weren't relegated., and what a ridiculous waste of court time and money.

If they are indeed ruled to be the same club then they were relegated.

Super_JMcGinn
17-01-2017, 05:52 PM
If they are indeed ruled to be the same club then they were relegated.

If you place a bet on a team being relegated it is based on them being relegated by points and to the division below, I can't see how he can win this bet.

I was always under the assumption NO BET could be challenged in court anyway and the bookies word was final :confused:

Col_0762
17-01-2017, 06:04 PM
Not sure how to post a pic on phone but on twitter there is a screen shot of the coral website before the first Celtic/Rangers match this season where they state it's the first since their "relegation", so it seems coral can't make their mind up, unless trying to doge paying out. Not sure how they can not pay out if they state theirselves that they were relegated. If it wasn't for that then coral win as they weren't relegated, they were tossed out. But they've shot theirself in the foot here maybe.

bernz
17-01-2017, 06:08 PM
I can't remember from the time, but were another team relegated the same season? Or did rangers leaving mean there was no relegation?

Col_0762
17-01-2017, 06:10 PM
I can't remember from the time, but were another team relegated the same season? Or did rangers leaving mean there was no relegation?

Dunfermline. Was between us and them mind.

May2116
17-01-2017, 06:13 PM
If you place a bet on a team being relegated it is based on them being relegated by points and to the division below, I can't see how he can win this bet.

I was always under the assumption NO BET could be challenged in court anyway and the bookies word was final :confused:

Not if there are no rules regarding it, which there wasn't. Relegation, as stated earlier, by definition is a team being relegated into a lower division, not the league directly below.

As said, the only question is whether the court sees Rangers as the same, or a different entity. Everyone will have an opinion on that but I'll leave it with the court to decide. If it was a waste of court time it would've been thrown out already.

Thecat23
17-01-2017, 06:20 PM
The Rangers are a new club. Hence "The Rangers" they only got to keep the history so the fan base would stay with them. They had to apply to get back in so it's clear as day a new club.

For me it's a no bet.

JT Fae The Toon
17-01-2017, 06:31 PM
Relegated teams tend not to have to apply to rejoin the league. The Rangers did as the former Glasgow Rangers were liquidated, leaving their players free to walk from their contracts if they wished. Again, not a situation that would apply to a relegated club.

They weren't relegated so I think Coral will be on solid ground not paying out on this one.

HibbySpurs
17-01-2017, 06:36 PM
Dunfermline. Was between us and them mind.

Correct and it's how Dundee got up if I recall correctly?

Basically that means Coral will have paid out on Dunfermline being relegated.

I can't see the guy winning but the good news for everyone else is that it will be judged that Rangers ceased to exist and that secco are a completely separate entity👍

2016 Delivered
17-01-2017, 06:37 PM
They got demoted based on the top flight clubs not accepting their new carnation back into the top league. The punter has a chance.

Andy74
17-01-2017, 06:39 PM
If they are indeed ruled to be the same club then they were relegated.

Not necessarily. As noted above the club were effectively rebooted and had to apply to join the league, they were never dropped down leagues. They ceased to be a member at one level then later became a member at a different level.

Cilla Black
17-01-2017, 06:49 PM
As they were liquidated and thrown out of the league set up, then kindly allowed to join the lowest division, you could argue they were actually promoted :wink:

Col_0762
17-01-2017, 06:50 PM
Correct and it's how Dundee got up if I recall correctly?

Basically that means Coral will have paid out on Dunfermline being relegated.

I can't see the guy winning but the good news for everyone else is that it will be judged that Rangers ceased to exist and that secco are a completely separate entity👍

Yep, Ross County won league and Dundee got the Huns' place.

2016 Delivered
17-01-2017, 06:53 PM
Yep, Ross County won league and Dundee got the Huns' place.

So Dundee got promoted then in expense of the demotion out the league (and SPL at the time) and placed into SFL 3 as a newco.

Keith_M
17-01-2017, 06:57 PM
Rangers FC were not relegated, they went bust.

Coral are in the right.

Col_0762
17-01-2017, 07:06 PM
So Dundee got promoted then in expense of the demotion out the league (and SPL at the time) and placed into SFL 3 as a newco.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2X-FGTWIAEPpcb?format=jpg&name=large

Hope that works. This is what card I presume the punter is playing, their website stating the huns were relegated.

Col_0762
17-01-2017, 07:07 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2X-FGTWIAEPpcb?format=jpg&name=large

Hope that works. This is what card I presume the punter is playing, their website stating the huns were relegated.

Can anyone edit that? Useless!

Green Man
17-01-2017, 07:19 PM
Can anyone edit that? Useless!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2X-FGTWIAEPpcb?format=jpg&name=large

lapsedhibee
17-01-2017, 07:20 PM
Can anyone edit that?
This (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2X-FGTWIAEPpcb?format=jpg&name=large)

anon1875
17-01-2017, 07:20 PM
Hope he gets his money. **** all bookies

northstandhibby
17-01-2017, 07:34 PM
Not if there are no rules regarding it, which there wasn't. Relegation, as stated earlier, by definition is a team being relegated into a lower division, not the league directly below.

As said, the only question is whether the court sees Rangers as the same, or a different entity. Everyone will have an opinion on that but I'll leave it with the court to decide. If it was a waste of court time it would've been thrown out already.

The defense from Coral should be the newco rangers were 'placed' into the bottom league by the SFA due to their oldco becoming liquidated.

They were not 'relegated' as there are normal procedures for 'relegated' football teams as per league placings determining 'relegation' and 'promotion'.

The new rangers or Sevco 5088 were 'positioned' into the bottom tier by the SFA because of the former club being liquidated.

Glory Glory

21.05.2016
17-01-2017, 07:36 PM
Relegated teams tend not to have to apply to rejoin the league. The Rangers did as the former Glasgow Rangers were liquidated, leaving their players free to walk from their contracts if they wished. Again, not a situation that would apply to a relegated club.

They weren't relegated so I think Coral will be on solid ground not paying out on this one.

This.

Eyrie
17-01-2017, 08:55 PM
The facts are that Sevco is a new club that was allowed to purchase the assets of Huns RIP (in liquidation) and which was allowed to enter into the fourth division of Scottish football to fill a vacancy caused by an extra promotion place in each of the divisions above following the demise of Huns RIP who had been in the top division.

So I have to side with the bookies on this one, regardless of how strange that feels.

Winston Ingram
17-01-2017, 09:03 PM
I can't believe it has got this far. No matter what the media have said since, the facts are they died and therefore lost their place in the league structure.

Rangers didn't exist at all for a number of days in any form.

jacomo
17-01-2017, 09:16 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2X-FGTWIAEPpcb?format=jpg&name=large

Is that Coral's website? A bit awkward for them if so... but still doesn't mean Rangers were relegated. They went bust. Sevco is a new club.

tamig
17-01-2017, 10:57 PM
Not if there are no rules regarding it, which there wasn't. Relegation, as stated earlier, by definition is a team being relegated into a lower division, not the league directly below.

As said, the only question is whether the court sees Rangers as the same, or a different entity. Everyone will have an opinion on that but I'll leave it with the court to decide. If it was a waste of court time it would've been thrown out already.

I'm also certain Mr Kinloch would argue it's not a waste of money as he has 250 grand riding on the outcome.

Northernhibee
17-01-2017, 11:20 PM
As far as I'm aware bookies aren't obliged to pay out winnings. Can't see the boy walking away with his 250k, maybe his 100 stake at best as a goodwill gesture.

Sir David Gray
17-01-2017, 11:59 PM
Rangers R.I.P. were not relegated. They were liquidated and therefore the new club had to apply for their position in League Two.

Teams don't get relegated down three divisions.

May2116
18-01-2017, 07:01 AM
As far as I'm aware bookies aren't obliged to pay out winnings. Can't see the boy walking away with his 250k, maybe his 100 stake at best as a goodwill gesture.

If it is found in his favour the bookie is obliged to pay. The bet slip is now a legally binding document which never used to be the case.

Very interested to see how it plays out.

InchHibby
18-01-2017, 07:47 AM
I know I'm probably going over old ground but it's something that has angered me since The Rangers demise.
If the court rules in Corals favour then it can only be because they ceased as a club and came back as an entirely new club, which when being Liquidated, is the norm and by doing that, all previous history becomes null and void, this is what happens to all companies who find themselves in that position.
My point is, then how, in the history of liquidations, are they allowed to retain their history.
Surely if the Courts decide that they are in fact a new club, then this decision for them to retain their history should be looked at again.

Winston Ingram
18-01-2017, 09:34 AM
I know I'm probably going over old ground but it's something that has angered me since The Rangers demise.
If the court rules in Corals favour then it can only be because they ceased as a club and came back as an entirely new club, which when being Liquidated, is the norm and by doing that, all previous history becomes null and void, this is what happens to all companies who find themselves in that position.
My point is, then how, in the history of liquidations, are they allowed to retain their history.
Surely if the Courts decide that they are in fact a new club, then this decision for them to retain their history should be looked at again.

Thing is who would look at it? It's not in the SFA or SPL's interest to do it. The only way that'd happen was if some Celtic fans took them to court again.

J-C
18-01-2017, 09:41 AM
Rangers were liquidated and due to this were thrown out of the league system in Scotland, they were not relegated from the Premier league to another division. As they then became a new club they had to apply to the governing bodies to be accepted back into our football league, which duly happened and they started from the bottom tier as per norm.

Peevemor
18-01-2017, 09:50 AM
Rangers were liquidated and due to this were thrown out of the league system in Scotland, they were not relegated from the Premier league to another division. As they then became a new club they had to apply to the governing bodies to be accepted back into our football league, which duly happened and they started from the bottom tier as per norm.

Why then were Dundee Utd. ordered to pay a development fee for Charlie Telfer?

Thecat23
18-01-2017, 10:01 AM
Why then were Dundee Utd. ordered to pay a development fee for Charlie Telfer?

Because those running our game are as corrupt as they come.

CropleyWasGod
18-01-2017, 10:07 AM
Why then were Dundee Utd. ordered to pay a development fee for Charlie Telfer?


Because those running our game are as corrupt as they come.

It was because it was a football debt. The NewCo had to pay all the football debts of the OldCo, hence were entitled to the football-related income of the Oldco.

Peevemor
18-01-2017, 10:09 AM
Because those running our game are as corrupt as they come.

It seems to me that some people have come up with a hypothetical division between club and company - the company went down the tubes but the spirit of the club lived on (and thus kept their leaugue titles, honours and right to Telfer's development fee). If this is the case, then the club were relegated, pure and simple.

JeMeSouviens
18-01-2017, 10:14 AM
I can't believe it has got this far. No matter what the media have said since, the facts are they died and therefore lost their place in the league structure.

Rangers didn't exist at all for a number of days in any form.

Bizarrely, it's actually the other way round. The SFA had a member called Rangers and a temporary member called Sevco Scotland *at the same time*.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9432583/Rangers-in-crisis-Sevco-given-given-conditional-membership-of-SFA-as-stand-off-continues.html

Moulin Yarns
18-01-2017, 10:16 AM
Counsel for Coral opens by asking Kinloch about his claim that a commission led by Lord Nimmo Smith decided Rangers remained the same club

Counsel for Coral suggests that in 2012 "the Rangers team was sold from Oldco to Newco."Kinloch "I don't understand"

Sandison "The company called Newco was not allowed membership of the SPL'Kinloch "I don't know anything about that."

Counsel for Coral now having Kinloch read sections of Nimmo Smith report on "Newco" and asks witness if he agrees he has read this?

Kinloch asked if he accepts Nimmo Smith account as accurate "I don't really understand this" he responds

Counsel for Coral suggests company has always said "Rangers were not relegated from the Scottish Premier League.""I disagree" witness says

Moulin Yarns
18-01-2017, 10:21 AM
Coral's letter to Kinloch states Rangers were "demoted" not "relegated." Counsel says that remains their position

Moulin Yarns
18-01-2017, 10:29 AM
Counsel and Kinloch now discussing Juventus and Lazio being demoted from Italian Seria A in 2006 for match fixing.

Sandison asks Kinloch if he has read the rules governing Italian footballKinloch says he has not and counsel brings out an excerpt.



My opinion is that Kinloch is taking a whipping by Coral's QC

Moulin Yarns
18-01-2017, 10:31 AM
Kinloch "I think very few people in Scotland would know the rules of the Italian leagues."

Moulin Yarns
18-01-2017, 10:33 AM
Kinloch says he has done research to support his case. "It seems to me this is in the same ballpark as my bet with Corals."

Moulin Yarns
18-01-2017, 10:35 AM
Racist comment alert. :wink:

Court now discussing a Welsh football example, asked how name is pronounced Kinloch says "there are too many L's in it for me."

Moulin Yarns
18-01-2017, 10:36 AM
Counsel "how many teams are in the relegation zone of Welsh league 1?"Kinloch says he doesn't know.

Peevemor
18-01-2017, 10:38 AM
Counsel gets paid hundreds of pounds per hour for wasting time with smart-arsed, often irrelevant questions.

Waxy
18-01-2017, 10:40 AM
Whats the odds on a coral win?

Moulin Yarns
18-01-2017, 10:43 AM
Kinloch asked if Port Talbot were relegated "under the rules of the Welsh league"?"I don't know the rules of the Welsh football league"


Court now moving on to the rules of the Gambling commission.Kinloch says he read these in the Racing Post

(Port Talbot FC relegated for financial rule breaking and refusal of licence)


Kinloch asked if he has complained to the Gambling Commission?"Why should I," he replies "I knew my case was coming to court."

Kinloch "When I made a bet Coral should have informed me of all of the rules of the bet."Counsel "Can you answer my simple question?"

Counsel suggests "a reasonable person in your position.. would complain to the Gambling Commission, did you think it would be dismissed?"

Counsel for Coral now turns to the company's terms and conditions. Kinloch agrees these were on the wall of the shop where he placed the bet

Moulin Yarns
18-01-2017, 10:50 AM
Counsel for Coral asks if Kinloch has went to Independent Betting Adjudication Service ( IBAS)Kinloch says IBAS owned by bookmakers


Kinloch says he called IBAS and asked "how often does the punter win" and received no answer."I don't trust them" he adds

northstandhibby
18-01-2017, 10:55 AM
Bizarrely, it's actually the other way round. The SFA had a member called Rangers and a temporary member called Sevco Scotland *at the same time*.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9432583/Rangers-in-crisis-Sevco-given-given-conditional-membership-of-SFA-as-stand-off-continues.html

Rangers Football Club plc was the old rangers which was in administration and was to be eventually liquidated with the new football club The Rangers Football Club which was owned by the New Company Sevco Scotland Ltd.

The article makes it clear the new football club was seeking entry as a new entity albeit using the old football club Rangers Football Club plc's membership.

In reality Kinloch doesn't have a leg to stand on save for the authorities reluctance to state The Huns being a new entity.

Glory Glory

JeMeSouviens
18-01-2017, 11:08 AM
Rangers Football Club plc was the old rangers which was in administration and was to be eventually liquidated with the new football club The Rangers Football Club which was owned by the New Company Sevco Scotland Ltd.

The article makes it clear the new football club was seeking entry as a new entity albeit using the old football club Rangers Football Club plc's membership.

In reality Kinloch doesn't have a leg to stand on save for the authorities reluctance to state The Huns being a new entity.

Glory Glory

:agree: However, it seems Corals are reluctant to press this obvious angle. Presumably because they don't want to noise up the new Huns?

brog
18-01-2017, 11:39 AM
:agree: However, it seems Corals are reluctant to press this obvious angle. Presumably because they don't want to noise up the new Huns?

That's how it comes across to me. Coral's counsel only has to say, Rangers were liquidated, therefore they ceased to exist. A new club was formed which was allowed entry into the 4th tier of Scottish football. Coral obviously reluctant to go that route & potentially lose thousands of the great unwashed as customers.

northstandhibby
18-01-2017, 11:55 AM
:agree: However, it seems Corals are reluctant to press this obvious angle. Presumably because they don't want to noise up the new Huns?

Surely a very plausible reason or it could include not upsetting other concerned parties such as the SFA and Nimmo Smith and/or the msm and/or the masonic lodges etcetera etcetera. There's sure to be a reason why this case was put down to be heard as it seems quite nonsensical for the SCTS to have not thrown it out due to it being public knowledge Charles Greens The Rangers was formerly Rangers plc. Therefore Charles Greens new football team could not possibly have been 'relegated' as it was a new entity seeking entry into the leagues using the former football teams SFA membership.

It seems an illogical and frankly ludicrous argument that the former football team formerly known as Rangers Football Club plc was 'relegated' when in fact it had gone into administration upon failing to agree upon a CVA and were awaiting liquidation. However I suppose the authorities can do or say what they like really.

Glory Glory

StevieC
18-01-2017, 01:05 PM
My understanding was that the football club was separated from the company and was one of the assets sold in order to recoup as much as possible for the creditors? (5.5m?)

The club, for all intents and purposes, is viewed as the same club by the SFA and other governing bodies. The SFA accepted them back into the league, and actually pushed for them to retunr to the same division as well. It was the member clubs that decided that the club would be demoted/relegated to the lowest division.

Everything that the footballing authorities have done since the administration/liquidation event have been on the understanding that it is the same club (football debts, etc.), so it could easily be argued that they are indeed the same club. If they are the same club, and they went from the top league to a lower league, then the argument by Coral is by no means a foregone conclusion.

I wonder what the bookies stance was on relegation the season that Aberdeen were "relegated" but remained in the top league due to the "promoted" team being denied access due to stadium requirements?

BH Hibs
18-01-2017, 01:24 PM
:agree: However, it seems Corals are reluctant to press this obvious angle. Presumably because they don't want to noise up the new Huns?

This. Also why has neither party called someone from the then SPL to clear this up. I'd love to hear Doncaster stand up in court and state Rangers were not relegated as they went bust and were readmitted as a new club.

CropleyWasGod
18-01-2017, 01:30 PM
My understanding was that the football club was separated from the company and was one of the assets sold in order to recoup as much as possible for the creditors? (5.5m?)

The club, for all intents and purposes, is viewed as the same club by the SFA and other governing bodies. The SFA accepted them back into the league, and actually pushed for them to retunr to the same division as well. It was the member clubs that decided that the club would be demoted/relegated to the lowest division.

Everything that the footballing authorities have done since the administration/liquidation event have been on the understanding that it is the same club (football debts, etc.), so it could easily be argued that they are indeed the same club. If they are the same club, and they went from the top league to a lower league, then the argument by Coral is by no means a foregone conclusion.

I wonder what the bookies stance was on relegation the season that Aberdeen were "relegated" but remained in the top league due to the "promoted" team being denied access due to stadium requirements?

That's exactly what happened, Stevie. 5 of the 5.5m was allocated to Intangible Assets.

Moulin Yarns
18-01-2017, 02:13 PM
Sandison (Coral)"14 June 2012 sale of assets from "Oldco to Newco?" he asks Fox(Bookie witness for the punter) "It's all very confusing with the different names" witness says

Looks like it will hinge on a difference between relegation and demotion.

Fox agrees he has never himself taken a bet on a club entering administration or going out of business.

Cilla Black
18-01-2017, 02:22 PM
Interestingly, Mr Fox is being described as an "expert witness" but has stated he is "certainly not" an expert on SPL rules. Surely they could have found an experienced bookmaker who at least claims to understand the SPL rules the bet was based on.

Moulin Yarns
18-01-2017, 02:32 PM
Fox confirms that nowhere on the betting slip are SPL rules mentioned
.

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 9m9 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/821724444020396032) Fox says Rangers "Lost its rights [to play] as the SPL had voted them out of the league.""Under their rules?" counsel asks"Yes" he replies


Claire"s statement "2500/1 odds would not have been offered if there was a chance of the event happening."

"If anyone wanted to bet on Rangers not being in the SPl next season that would be a special bet" Clare says


Clare "whenever someone asks for a bet you have to take into account that they might know something." Sandison ends questions

Moulin Yarns
18-01-2017, 02:56 PM
Big point

Clare agrees there is nothing in Coral's rules that defines what "relegated" means.

Clare "The new Rangers applied to go back into the lower divisions is how I understand it."

Clare "Coral does not believe Rangers were relegated."

OOPS James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 17s17 seconds ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/821735977324519424) QC now shows Clare a printout of an article from Coral's website Rangers are back in the big time..After being relegated."

Billychaotic182
18-01-2017, 03:14 PM
Big point

Clare agrees there is nothing in Coral's rules that defines what "relegated" means.

Clare "The new Rangers applied to go back into the lower divisions is how I understand it."

Clare "Coral does not believe Rangers were relegated."

OOPS James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 17s17 seconds ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/821735977324519424) QC now shows Clare a printout of an article from Coral's website Rangers are back in the big time..After being relegated."

Oooooohhhhh

Moulin Yarns
18-01-2017, 03:15 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 2m2 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/821736552732774400) Clare "Rangers relegation" article was written by a freelance journalist. Counsel "You don't want to pay out a quarter of a million?"

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 51s52 seconds ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/821736874108735488)
Clare "question if it is the same Rangers or a new Rangers, is a different company."

Poole asks if Coral keep a record of paid out bets. Clare confirms that is the case Poole then ends her cross, Sandison to re-examine

brog
18-01-2017, 03:20 PM
My understanding was that the football club was separated from the company and was one of the assets sold in order to recoup as much as possible for the creditors? (5.5m?)

The club, for all intents and purposes, is viewed as the same club by the SFA and other governing bodies. The SFA accepted them back into the league, and actually pushed for them to retunr to the same division as well. It was the member clubs that decided that the club would be demoted/relegated to the lowest division.

Everything that the footballing authorities have done since the administration/liquidation event have been on the understanding that it is the same club (football debts, etc.), so it could easily be argued that they are indeed the same club. If they are the same club, and they went from the top league to a lower league, then the argument by Coral is by no means a foregone conclusion.

I wonder what the bookies stance was on relegation the season that Aberdeen were "relegated" but remained in the top league due to the "promoted" team being denied access due to stadium requirements?

The football club was just one of a basket of assets which had to be sold as a result of liquidation, possibly more correctly, a basket case of Assets! I agree the football authorities did everything in their power to treat the new club, sevco/The Rangers as the same club, but the clubs, who are the SPFL & the Scottish League at the time did not. Only The Rangers voted in favour of the Rangers being allowed to enter Tier 1, Killie abstained. There was also a strong vote against The Rangers being allowed into Tier 2, now The Championship. It's all good fun though & amusing how Coral are trying to defend their case without actually using their strongest argument!

Rugy07
18-01-2017, 03:34 PM
I find the whole thing strangely addictive. I'm just sitting here watching the live tweets coming in. I should probably do some work...

I'd really like to know what the odds would have been on Rangers being liquidated? Surely the odds on such an unprecedented event would have been far higher than for them to be relegated.

northstandhibby
18-01-2017, 03:53 PM
My understanding was that the football club was separated from the company and was one of the assets sold in order to recoup as much as possible for the creditors? (5.5m?)

The club, for all intents and purposes, is viewed as the same club by the SFA and other governing bodies. The SFA accepted them back into the league, and actually pushed for them to retunr to the same division as well. It was the member clubs that decided that the club would be demoted/relegated to the lowest division.

Everything that the footballing authorities have done since the administration/liquidation event have been on the understanding that it is the same club (football debts, etc.), so it could easily be argued that they are indeed the same club. If they are the same club, and they went from the top league to a lower league, then the argument by Coral is by no means a foregone conclusion.

I wonder what the bookies stance was on relegation the season that Aberdeen were "relegated" but remained in the top league due to the "promoted" team being denied access due to stadium requirements?

They may have bought an assortment of assets but they were not able to retain the old football teams name. They had to re-name the assortment of assets bought because the old football team had died as they could not agree a CVA.

The assortment of assets Sevco 5088 bought were then aligned with a new football team called 'The Rangers'. This was because the assortment of assets were not in itself a football team and a new football team was borne when Sevco 5088 bought the assortment of assets and produced a new football team with another name as it had to change the name because the old football team 'Rangers' had been allowed to die.

Glory Glory

CropleyWasGod
18-01-2017, 04:00 PM
They may have bought an assortment of assets but they were not able to retain the old football teams name. They had to re-name the assortment of assets bought because the old football team had died as they could not agree a CVA.

The assortment of assets Sevco 5088 bought were then aligned with a new football team called 'The Rangers'. This was because the assortment of assets were not in itself a football team and a new football team was borne when Sevco 5088 bought the assortment of assets and produced a new football team with another name as it had to change the name because the old football team 'Rangers' had been allowed to die.

Glory Glory

1 of the 5 for Intangible Assets was the name.

northstandhibby
18-01-2017, 04:05 PM
1 of the 5 for Intangible Assets was the name.

So why didn't they just keep the same name as the club put into administration to be liquidated?

Glory Glory

Moulin Yarns
18-01-2017, 04:09 PM
SPFL Rules



At the end of each Season (following completion of all League Matches in the Premiership in that Season) the Club in position 12 in the Premiership shall be relegated to play and be eligible to participate in the Championship for and during the next Season.




Upon determining that a breach of or failure to fulfil the Rules or Regulations has been established, the Board or, as the case may be, a Commission may:-



[*=2]order the relegation of a Club to a lower Division and make such consequent orders as to promotion as it shall think appropriate;






I guess that means they were relegated, I would have said demoted or readmitted.

CropleyWasGod
18-01-2017, 04:15 PM
So why didn't they just keep the same name as the club put into administration to be liquidated?

Glory Glory

I promised myself I wouldn't get into the club/company argument on this thread, since I don't believe it's about that. :greengrin ... but here goes.

The club wasn't put into administration, the company that owned it was.

The club was, and is, known as Rangers. That's what Sevco paid the 1 for. The brand.

The club/company debate is well-worn on the other thread, so I'll butt out again.

FTR, I don't believe they were relegated either.... but this case is fascinating me too.

northstandhibby
18-01-2017, 04:19 PM
SPFL Rules



At the end of each Season (following completion of all League Matches in the Premiership in that Season) the Club in position 12 in the Premiership shall be relegated to play and be eligible to participate in the Championship for and during the next Season.




Upon determining that a breach of or failure to fulfil the Rules or Regulations has been established, the Board or, as the case may be, a Commission may:-



[*=2]order the relegation of a Club to a lower Division and make such consequent orders as to promotion as it shall think appropriate;






I guess that means they were relegated, I would have said demoted or readmitted.




Yes but the argument is whether it was a new football team The Rangers instead of the old Rangers. If it is determined it was the new football team The Rangers which I would argue it was that took its place in the lowest tier instead of the old football team Rangers, then Kinloch's bet is a bust.

Glory Glory

northstandhibby
18-01-2017, 04:21 PM
I promised myself I wouldn't get into the club/company argument on this thread, since I don't believe it's about that. :greengrin ... but here goes.

The club wasn't put into administration, the company that owned it was.

The club was, and is, known as Rangers. That's what Sevco paid the 1 for. The brand.

The club/company debate is well-worn on the other thread, so I'll butt out again.

FTR, I don't believe they were relegated either.... but this case is fascinating me too.

:greengrin

That's absolutely fine with me as I've seen the arguments on another thread. I agree it is fascinating although I would suggest its a simple issue one made much more complex by vested interests.

Glory Glory

Moulin Yarns
18-01-2017, 04:47 PM
To be continued tomorrow

CropleyWasGod
18-01-2017, 04:50 PM
To be continued tomorrow

Cheers for the entertainment.

You'll be back tomorrow.

(that wasn't a question, btw)

JeMeSouviens
18-01-2017, 04:53 PM
I promised myself I wouldn't get into the club/company argument on this thread, since I don't believe it's about that. :greengrin ... but here goes.

The club wasn't put into administration, the company that owned it was.

The club was, and is, known as Rangers. That's what Sevco paid the 1 for. The brand.

The club/company debate is well-worn on the other thread, so I'll butt out again.

FTR, I don't believe they were relegated either.... but this case is fascinating me too.

Alternatively ...

The club *is* the company, ie. old club/company Rangers Football Club plc, new club/company The Rangers Football Club Limited (formerly Sevco Scotland).

The new club/company bought a basket of assets including a stadium, training centre and various trademarks, branding etc from the old club/company.

The defence rests. :wink:

CropleyWasGod
18-01-2017, 04:55 PM
Alternatively ...

The club *is* the company, ie. old club/company Rangers Football Club plc, new club/company The Rangers Football Club Limited (formerly Sevco Scotland).

The new club/company bought a basket of assets including a stadium, training centre and various trademarks, branding etc from the old club/company.

The defence rests. :wink:

:lips seal

BH Hibs
18-01-2017, 04:56 PM
SPFL Rules



At the end of each Season (following completion of all League Matches in the Premiership in that Season) the Club in position 12 in the Premiership shall be relegated to play and be eligible to participate in the Championship for and during the next Season.




Upon determining that a breach of or failure to fulfil the Rules or Regulations has been established, the Board or, as the case may be, a Commission may:-



[*=2]order the relegation of a Club to a lower Division and make such consequent orders as to promotion as it shall think appropriate;






I guess that means they were relegated, I would have said demoted or readmitted.




It wasn't the SPFL back then it was the SPL and the SFL.

northstandhibby
18-01-2017, 04:59 PM
Alternatively ...

The club *is* the company, ie. old club/company Rangers Football Club plc, new club/company The Rangers Football Club Limited (formerly Sevco Scotland).

The new club/company bought a basket of assets including a stadium, training centre and various trademarks, branding etc from the old club/company.

The defence rests. :wink:

That sums it up in a nutshell really.

:greengrin

stantonhibby
18-01-2017, 05:52 PM
Alternatively ...

The club *is* the company, ie. old club/company Rangers Football Club plc, new club/company The Rangers Football Club Limited (formerly Sevco Scotland).

The new club/company bought a basket of assets including a stadium, training centre and various trademarks, branding etc from the old club/company.

The defence rests. :wink:

Agree, until this all kicked off I don't recall any chat about there being a separate club/company.

Ozyhibby
18-01-2017, 06:00 PM
Agree, until this all kicked off I don't recall any chat about there being a separate club/company.

Exactly, they club and the company were indivisible until Rangers went bust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ekhibee
18-01-2017, 06:23 PM
Could it be that they were thrown out of the league AND relegated? If they weren't technically relegated then another team should have been, and an extra promotion place up for grabs.:stirrer:

speedy_gonzales
18-01-2017, 06:24 PM
Coral's letter to Kinloch states Rangers were "demoted" not "relegated." Counsel says that remains their position
Never mind the technicalities of football, I'm trying to get my head around the technicalities of the English language,,,, relegated is the opposite of promoted which is the opposite of demoted,,,, but relegated isn't the same thing as demoted!?!

lord bunberry
18-01-2017, 06:46 PM
Never mind the technicalities of football, I'm trying to get my head around the technicalities of the English language,,,, relegated is the opposite of promoted which is the opposite of demoted,,,, but relegated isn't the same thing as demoted!?!
Demoted is the same thing as relegated. The Huns suffered neither. If corals haven't got the balls to say in court what everyone else knows to be the case (that they went bust and started again in division 3) then they should pay this geezer out. It's ludicrous that we have went 2 days in court without them mentioning this.

Spike Mandela
18-01-2017, 07:00 PM
As I recall Dundee were in the SPL relegation spot and when the new SPL season fixtures came ourt in the June Club 'x' was in place as around about the same time the CVA of Rangers in administration was rejected and the phoenix club hastily created.

At this point the Scottish football authorities had absolutely no idea what to do and the whole summer was spent talking 'armageddon', ' withering on the vine' and 'commercial deals'. They had no idea how to deal with liquidation of Rangers and their rules were fine for dealing with Gretna but the SFA thought the world would end if the rules were applied to Rangers.

The desperate SPL and SFA were frantically trying to slot the new Rangers entity in anywhere in the leagues, moving heaven and earth to scare people, no talk of relegation or demotion . It was arguing over re-entry to SPL, then re-entry into division 1 all rejected by the clubs due to reaction of the fans. Finally the SFL agreed to allow the new clubs entry into their league by the usual manner albeit they skipped the usual waiting time for entry.

Pedantic_Hibee
18-01-2017, 07:06 PM
One word and this court case is resolved. Liquidation.

jonty
18-01-2017, 07:22 PM
I'm surprised paddy power don't have some ad's taking the piss out of this lot

Mr White
18-01-2017, 07:26 PM
I'm surprised paddy power don't have some ad's taking the piss out of this lot

Wait till the verdict and they'll have at least a tweet or 2 I'd think.

lapsedhibee
18-01-2017, 07:49 PM
As I recall Dundee were in the SPL relegation spot and when the new SPL season fixtures came ourt in the June Club 'x' was in place as around about the same time the CVA of Rangers in administration was rejected and the phoenix club hastily created.


Was it Club X or Club 12? Club 12 might have been something different, to do with Gretna or The Hearts.

CropleyWasGod
18-01-2017, 09:32 PM
Agree, until this all kicked off I don't recall any chat about there being a separate club/company.
That's because this particular set of circumstances hadn't arisen before. Gretna, Livi, Airdrie, Dundee, Motherwell, us, were all different to this.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 11:00 AM
Read this from bottom to top :wink:




McKenzie"It was agreed that Rangers FC, now owned by Sevco Scotland, would play in the 1st division, but this didn't work out."





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 3m3 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822033624463769602)
McKenzie declines to reveal whole 5 way agreement as much of it is "confidential'





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 4m4 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822033482352304129)
"The summer of 2012 was the busiest period of my professional life." Resolved by a contract, best known "the 5 way agreement" McKenzie

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 6m6 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822033043250696193)


McKenzie says the SPL refused to recognise the transfer of the share from RFC to Sevco."It was a frankly bizzare situation" he adds





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 7m7 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822032759476600832)
McKenzie affadavit" The Rangers football club plc had sold its business to Sevco Scotland including its share in the SPL."

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 9m9 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822032306433118208)


..Him making a judgement on meaning of the word "relegation' 2/2

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 9m9 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822032160584503296)


Counsel asks "Was the football team called Rangers FC ever relegated from the SPL?" McKenzie declines to answer as would involve...1/2





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 13m13 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822031242929569796)
Points deduction was meant to "balance the sporting advantage."





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 14m14 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822031044023119872)
McKenzie confirms clubs in the SPL automatically had points deducted if they had an insolvency event but denies this is a punishment.1/2





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 16m16 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822030376126349314)
"with one exception relegation was decided on sporting performance." McKenzie says. Exception was Falkirk seeking promotion.





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 18m18 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822030033543921665)
McKenzie says despite rule changes it would have been clear who would be relegated, only on one occasion did the SPL choose




James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 20m20 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822029388787093505)
McKenzie tells the court that in it's period of existence the SPL changed its rules over 30 times





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 22m22 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822028855733026817)
McKenzie says he was the solicitor for the Scottish Premier league and advised them over the "administration and liquidation of Rangers FC





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 24m24 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822028422880919553)
McKenzie tells court the SPL had ten members each having one share. This later rose to 12.





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 27m27 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822027720498487297)
McKenzie is a senior partner at Harper MacLoud and helped set up Scottish Premier League limited the court is told





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 28m28 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822027363185782784)
McKenzie confirms affidavit presented to court is his.





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 29m29 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822027070863769600)
McKenzie tells the court he is 58 and is a lawyer based in Glasgow





​James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 31m31 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822026744945397760)
Next witness for Coral is Rod McKenzie

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 11:01 AM
Bottom to top :wink:




James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 5m5 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822034914648461312)
McKenzie agrees Rangers had "become ineligible" to play in the SPL as opposed to being relegated.





​James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 6m6 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822034615506468864)
"The 5 way agreement reflected the contractual reality" McKenzie testified





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 7m7 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822034436036423680)
McKenzie"Sevco did not and had never owned a share in the SPL, also had no right to play in the league "

May2116
19-01-2017, 11:04 AM
Read this from bottom to top :wink:




McKenzie"It was agreed that Rangers FC, now owned by Sevco Scotland, would play in the 1st division, but this didn't work out."





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 3m3 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822033624463769602)
McKenzie declines to reveal whole 5 way agreement as much of it is "confidential'





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 4m4 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822033482352304129)
"The summer of 2012 was the busiest period of my professional life." Resolved by a contract, best known "the 5 way agreement" McKenzie

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 6m6 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822033043250696193)


McKenzie says the SPL refused to recognise the transfer of the share from RFC to Sevco."It was a frankly bizzare situation" he adds





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 7m7 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822032759476600832)
McKenzie affadavit" The Rangers football club plc had sold its business to Sevco Scotland including its share in the SPL."

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 9m9 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822032306433118208)


..Him making a judgement on meaning of the word "relegation' 2/2

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 9m9 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822032160584503296)


Counsel asks "Was the football team called Rangers FC ever relegated from the SPL?" McKenzie declines to answer as would involve...1/2





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 13m13 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822031242929569796)
Points deduction was meant to "balance the sporting advantage."





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 14m14 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822031044023119872)
McKenzie confirms clubs in the SPL automatically had points deducted if they had an insolvency event but denies this is a punishment.1/2





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 16m16 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822030376126349314)
"with one exception relegation was decided on sporting performance." McKenzie says. Exception was Falkirk seeking promotion.





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 18m18 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822030033543921665)
McKenzie says despite rule changes it would have been clear who would be relegated, only on one occasion did the SPL choose




James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 20m20 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822029388787093505)
McKenzie tells the court that in it's period of existence the SPL changed its rules over 30 times





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 22m22 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822028855733026817)
McKenzie says he was the solicitor for the Scottish Premier league and advised them over the "administration and liquidation of Rangers FC





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 24m24 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822028422880919553)
McKenzie tells court the SPL had ten members each having one share. This later rose to 12.





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 27m27 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822027720498487297)
McKenzie is a senior partner at Harper MacLoud and helped set up Scottish Premier League limited the court is told





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 28m28 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822027363185782784)
McKenzie confirms affidavit presented to court is his.





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 29m29 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822027070863769600)
McKenzie tells the court he is 58 and is a lawyer based in Glasgow





​James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 31m31 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822026744945397760)
Next witness for Coral is Rod McKenzie





Surely not Doncaster with underhand tactics to get the Huns into Division 1... Utterly astounding.

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 11:08 AM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 2m2 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822037416080982017)
McKenzie "it was established there had been multiple breaches of the rules of the SPL" a complaint was served on "Sevco Scotland" and RFC





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 3m3 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822037109414494208)
McKenzie "Since 1989 Rangers operated two, we could call them, tax avoidance schemes," he was asked to undertake investigation in 2012

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 11:22 AM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 9s9 seconds ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822041289902485504)
Poole asks if Rangers were put out of the SPL in "accordance with the rules"?McKenzie says they were





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 2m2 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822040866260918272)
McKenzie: "The Club, with a capital C, had been sold to Sevco Scotland ltd." Adds "We learned this from the press mainly "


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 3m3 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822040459291795456)


Poole notes that while McKenzie might know athe rules a "normal layperson" wouldn't"No more than they would know structure of BP" he says

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 5m5 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822040136171089920)


Counsel asks McKenzie if he had a good knowledge of SPL rules "I suspect I am the person with the best knowledge. He replies





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 7m7 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822039690522066944)
Ms Poole QC, for Mr Kinloch, rises to cross examine the witness





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 10m10 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822038695171751937)
Witness now being shown various documents and confirming they are accurate. Includes two sets of SPL rules from 2012 alone

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 11:31 AM
bottom to top...




James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 16s16 seconds ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822043398181941249)
McKenzie "they drafted the document and I revised it and sent it back." 2/2

James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 1m1 minute ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822043200038850560)


Counsel "when solicitor for Coral contacted you did they give you a list of things they wanted you to swear to.' 1/2





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 2m2 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822042892109758466)
"I am phoned up and asked about SPL rules on an almost daily basis," McKenzie tells the court





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 3m3 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822042706306301952)
McKenzie: SPL rules shown not those when Rangers left spl"They are the ones in force when the bet was placed" counsel replies "Oh"

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 11:32 AM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 21s (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822043990824550405)
McKenzie says SFL chairman "sanctioned" Rangers because assurances not given. Hence they were sent to 1st division

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 11:40 AM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 3m3 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822045356783521792)
McKenzie on definition of a club. ' We choose to define our rules based on clubs having an existence...that's not the way FIFA operate."

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 11:41 AM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 38s38 seconds ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822046058108829697)
Poole ends and Mr McKenzie steps down from the witness box

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 11:42 AM
Court has a KitKat

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 11:52 AM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 5m5 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822047354748620800)
Mr McKenzie was the last witness so when court reconvenes we will have closing argument from both QCs

Place your bets now.

northstandhibby
19-01-2017, 12:00 PM
Bottom to top :wink:




James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 5m5 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822034914648461312)
McKenzie agrees Rangers had "become ineligible" to play in the SPL as opposed to being relegated.





​James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 6m6 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822034615506468864)
"The 5 way agreement reflected the contractual reality" McKenzie testified





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 7m7 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822034436036423680)McKenzie"Sevco did not and had never owned a share in the SPL, also had no right to play in the league "





Puts the case to bed.

Ineligible to play in the SPL due to becoming insolvent and no CVA having been agreed upon.

Its very clear the old rangers became defunct. Sevco bought the assets from the administrators and incorporated the assets into their new company which later changed to The Rangers Football Club whereby being a new company and therefore a new phoenix club was borne.

No doubt about it.

Additionally tax avoidance since 1989? And the old rangers didn't have their titles stripped since then - wow.

Glory Glory

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 12:05 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 1m (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822051709413425152)
Proceedings resume and Ms Poole QC for Kinloch rises to give her closing speech. Says it will be in 4 chapters

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 12:06 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 14s14 seconds ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822052399296745472)
Poole No dispute this contract is valid enough to be put before the court. Issue over whether consumer rights act applies and over interest

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 12:09 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 49s49 seconds ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822052974994329601)
Ms Poole advised judge to "read between the lines" of various written documents

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 12:11 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 2m2 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822053125821435905)
Basic matter is "what happened to Rangers" Poole says

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 12:12 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 33s (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822053946449661958)
Poole "The ultimate question is what a reasonable person would think the word relegation means.' Cites principle of simple language

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 12:15 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 16s (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822054701093027840)
Poole now going through various legal precedents

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 12:24 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 16s (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822056832483164162)
Poole notes that the courts are increasingly applying "the test of commercial common sense" to contractual law.

Hibs Class
19-01-2017, 12:25 PM
Bottom to top :wink:




James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 5m5 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822034914648461312)
McKenzie agrees Rangers had "become ineligible" to play in the SPL as opposed to being relegated.





​James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 6m6 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822034615506468864)
"The 5 way agreement reflected the contractual reality" McKenzie testified





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 7m7 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822034436036423680)
McKenzie"Sevco did not and had never owned a share in the SPL, also had no right to play in the league "





Ineligible for the SPL would mean also ineligible for the SFL (despite attempts to get them into the championship) - which proves that it was a new club that applied to, and was allowed to, enter at the bottom of the SFL.

Billychaotic182
19-01-2017, 12:26 PM
Really hope the Auld boy gets his money

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 12:26 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 22s (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822057480528265216)
Poole suggests court take into account consumer law."If any doubt about Rangers being relegated the advantage should go to Mr Kinloch.'

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 12:31 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 7s7 seconds ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822058769488216064)
Poole suggests that despite his previous employment in betting industry, Mr Kinloch was acting as a consumer and should have those rights

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 12:33 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 57s (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822059052343689219)
Poole "Coral is a large company in a business dominated by large companies..Mr Kinloch is just one man."

Waxy
19-01-2017, 12:36 PM
wonder what coral would offer him as a cashout right now.

Peevemor
19-01-2017, 12:41 PM
Strange that the judge is suggesting that the rules/law applicable might be different depending on who placed the bet. :confused:

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 12:44 PM
Bottom to top




James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 5m5 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822060693461549057)
Poole notes "all bets are laid to make money.'





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 6m6 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822060507716866048)
Judge "if professor Vaughan Williams placed a bet on Trump it would be a hobby rather than his job?"Poole agrees1/2





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 7m7 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822060099506151424)
Judge "if he was acting as a professional gambler this consumer law does not apply' Poole "People who are retired are allowed a hobby.'





James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 9m9 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822059728280965124)
Poole "If I am a retired restraunteer and I go for a meal I am still acting as a consumer' Judge asks "was he not a professional gambler?'

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 12:45 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 2m2 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822061795967926272)
Poole notes Coral's argument that SPL rules apply undermined by fact no copy of these rules are available for customers in betting shops.

CyberSauzee
19-01-2017, 12:46 PM
Really hope the Auld boy gets his money

If he doesn't we're all waiting to see if the judge mentions the newco elephant in the room.

It's clear Coral QC has been told to avoid mentioning this to keep the bigoted unwashed turning up with their giros in their shops. And Ladbrokes for that matter since the merger.

Onion
19-01-2017, 12:47 PM
wonder what coral would offer him as a cashout right now.

Now, that's funny :greengrin

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 12:47 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 3m3 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822062318418821120)
Poole notes Coral "made no attempt to negotiate" over meaning of relegation which was a breach of "good faith' a breach of consumer law

Since90+2
19-01-2017, 12:50 PM
Coral have this in the bag.

I'd say current odds were Coral 1/5 Auld Boy 7/2

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 12:50 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 3m3 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822062988710596608)
Poole "Coral are soliciting for business on their website by saying Rangers would be relegated.'

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 12:50 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 3m3 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822062989838872577)
Judge "surely main issue is the meaning of the relegation.'Poole "I'm not going to agree with that'Judge "I was inviting an argument'

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 12:51 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 23s24 seconds ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822063806792790016)
Poole "it is unfair to try and bind consumers to terms they do not know about.'

rubber mal
19-01-2017, 12:52 PM
wonder what coral would offer him as a cashout right now.

:thumbsup:

southern hibby
19-01-2017, 01:01 PM
I store bet not online no cash out facility lol. Wonder how much old guy will have to pay in costs if he didn't win???


GGTTH

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 01:02 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 1m1 minute ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822066448789098497)
Poole notes that Coral have given 3 different versions of the meaning of the word relegation

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 01:03 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 50s50 seconds ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822066598693453825)
Court rises for lunch, back at 1.45

Fortunate, as my laptop is about to be as dead as Rangers FC.

Onion
19-01-2017, 01:12 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 1m1 minute ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822066448789098497)
Poole notes that Coral have given 3 different versions of the meaning of the word relegation


Fascinating. Not having a clear definition is what's brought them to court - probably never thought they'd need it :greengrin

Despite, Rangers not being "relegated" in the classic football sense, I reckon the judge might side with Kinloch.

JeMeSouviens
19-01-2017, 01:15 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman) 3m3 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822045356783521792)
McKenzie on definition of a club. ' We choose to define our rules based on clubs having an existence...that's not the way FIFA operate."


Aye, and it's not the way you used to operate either, before you retrospectively pauchled your own rulebook to try and keep a "Rangers" in the league. :rolleyes:

Spike Mandela
19-01-2017, 01:43 PM
If Kinloch wins the Daily Record and all the liquidation deniers will have a field day. Feel sorry for the punter if he loses but they weren't relegated in any shape or form.

Moulin Yarns
19-01-2017, 01:50 PM
Apologies for missing this morning, we had a team get together where we were in teams and had to pitch ideas to the bosses like the Apprentice!! Our ski/climbing/quad bike/mountain bike/restaurant/glamping pod/soft play zone in a disused quarry was knocked back in favour of a climbing centre and restaurant in the same quarry. *not a happy bunny*

InchHibby
19-01-2017, 01:51 PM
We all know that they were liquidated, Corals are shying away from this word.
They seem to be more reliant on the word, Demoted rather than the word, Relegated. As someone had previously stated, they mean the exact same and they have actually used the word Relegation themselves.
I think it's a victory for the claimant.

CropleyWasGod
19-01-2017, 01:52 PM
Apologies for missing this morning, we had a team get together where we were in teams and had to pitch ideas to the bosses like the Apprentice!! Our ski/climbing/quad bike/mountain bike/restaurant/glamping pod/soft play zone in a disused quarry was knocked back in favour of a climbing centre and restaurant in the same quarry. *not a happy bunny*

You weren't missed.:greengrin

Cilla stepped into the breach.

You'll have to arm-wrestle him/her for this afternoon's gig.

Moulin Yarns
19-01-2017, 01:55 PM
You weren't missed.:greengrin

Cilla stepped into the breach.

You'll have to arm-wrestle him/her for this afternoon's gig.

I noticed, but you had to read it in reverse, I'll keep editing so they are the right way round. Either that or do some work!!


BREAKING

Proceedings resume. Ms Poole QC continues her closing argument on behalf of My Kinloch

Peevemor
19-01-2017, 01:55 PM
They're off again...

HoboHarry
19-01-2017, 01:57 PM
You weren't missed.:greengrin

Cilla stepped into the breach.

You'll have to arm-wrestle him/her for this afternoon's gig.
You been getting your leg over every morning this week CWG? You are on fire........:greengrin

CropleyWasGod
19-01-2017, 01:59 PM
You been getting your leg over every morning this week CWG? You are on fire........:greengrin

It's January, HH. Any decent bean-counter has to take performance-enhancers to get through the month...... :greengrin

Moulin Yarns
19-01-2017, 02:02 PM
Poole No mention of SPL rules in Coral's terms and conditions (the contract) "They should just be disregarded.'

Poole notes that even the SPL rules have a definition of "relegated' notes Rod McKenzie, who drafted the rules wouldn't answer Q about it.

Poole "There are a number of ways a club can go down.

"We should not confuse the meaning of the word relegation with the mechanism. Rangers were still relegated.'

Moulin Yarns
19-01-2017, 02:47 PM
On odds Pool notes that clubs moving down divisions for "corporate reasons" is not common and would not automatically attract short odds

Poole "the fact Mr Kinloch was a former bookmaker is irrelevant, this was a winning bet"

Poole "Coral winning this case would be writing a blank cheque for bookies to avoid paying out."

Moulin Yarns
19-01-2017, 03:00 PM
Poole notes bookies gave 5000/1 odds on Leicester City winning the league"They make mistakes" she suggests

Poole ends, Sandison for Coral rises and begins by accusing Kinloch of "concealing his vast background in gambling" and being "self serving

Peevemor
19-01-2017, 03:04 PM
Poole notes bookies gave 5000/1 odds on Leicester City winning the league"They make mistakes" she suggests

Poole ends, Sandison for Coral rises and begins by accusing Kinloch of "concealing his vast background in gambling" and being "self serving

Fancy that! Someone going to a bookies who wants to win money - whatever next?

derekHFC
19-01-2017, 03:11 PM
I've been following this quite closely the last few days and I'm really intrigued to see how it ends up now.

I hope the guy wins, but I really don't know which way it will go.

I'm only reading the same tweets as posted on here, but going by some comments made by the judge, I have a feeling he may go with Coral.

I'd go 60/40 in favour of Coral based on what I've seen so far.

I don't think Coral could (or would) be told to pay the guy back his stake for example, I think its an all or nothing outcome for him now.

Moulin Yarns
19-01-2017, 03:19 PM
Sandison says that, evidence aside, the whole case hinges on the meaning of the word "relegation'

Sandison now going through precidents dealing with the "construction of contracts" adds, "I could talk for days on this issue.'

Sandison "Rangers were not moved to a lower league, a set of circumstances arose that made them ineligible to play in the Premier League"

Sandison tells the court the word "relegation" comes from ancient Rome from when someone was exiled after displeasing the emperor.

Sandison returns to his point that "relegation" is a transitive verb. Accepts he has not had much success with that so far

Moulin Yarns
19-01-2017, 03:30 PM
Sandison "Rangers were not relegated from the SPL, they were expelled from it."

northstandhibby
19-01-2017, 03:31 PM
Sandison says that, evidence aside, the whole case hinges on the meaning of the word "relegation'

Sandison now going through precidents dealing with the "construction of contracts" adds, "I could talk for days on this issue.'

Sandison "Rangers were not moved to a lower league, a set of circumstances arose that made them ineligible to play in the Premier League"

Sandison tells the court the word "relegation" comes from ancient Rome from when someone was exiled after displeasing the emperor.

Sandison returns to his point that "relegation" is a transitive verb. Accepts he has not had much success with that so far

Which club is he referring to?

The old club that died 'Rangers Football Club PLC' or the new club 'The Rangers Football Club Limited'

The old Rangers died when a CVA couldn't be agreed.

The Clumpany alleged argument was total bs and meant to confuse.

Wouldn't surprise me to hear when the decision and reasons are made known that Kinloch wins his case and the Judge sides with the blatant lies that The Rangers formed by Sevco is a continuation of the Old defunct Rangers.

Glory Glory

Moulin Yarns
19-01-2017, 03:39 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 3m3 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822105272508366848) Sandison says a bet on "Rangers leaving the SPL for any reason either wouldn't be accepted or would only have odds of 2/1

northstandhibby
19-01-2017, 03:47 PM
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 3m3 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/822105272508366848) Sandison says a bet on "Rangers leaving the SPL for any reason either wouldn't be accepted or would only have odds of 2/1

The only argument this twat needs is to say the club Kinloch bet on died when a CVA could not be agreed upon and was put down to be liquidated.

Why won't they just be honest and sow this easy case up?

:brickwall

Moulin Yarns
19-01-2017, 03:57 PM
The only argument this twat needs is to say the club Kinloch bet on died when a CVA could not be agreed upon and was put down to be liquidated.

Why won't they just be honest and sow this easy case up?

:brickwall

Sandison "Are we to surrender the decision on who won or lost a sporting event to the power of the popular press?"

The cry was No Surrender

derekHFC
19-01-2017, 03:58 PM
The only argument this twat needs is to say the club Kinloch bet on died when a CVA could not be agreed upon and was put down to be liquidated.

Why won't they just be honest and sow this easy case up?

:brickwall

It all comes down to closing all loopholes for an appeal from either side.

Not as straightforward as you think I'm afraid.

Ozyhibby
19-01-2017, 04:04 PM
[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
Judge demands heckler shouting "****ing liquidated man" be removed from the building. Court quietens down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CropleyWasGod
19-01-2017, 04:07 PM
[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
Judge demands heckler shouting "****ing liquidated man" be removed from the building. Court quietens down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Craig Whyte gets everywhere.

"turned the weans against us....."

Peevemor
19-01-2017, 04:11 PM
It all comes down to closing all loopholes for an appeal from either side.

Not as straightforward as you think I'm afraid.

For me it comes down to what relegated means. Does it mean drop a division as a result of league position, or does it simply mean finish up in a lower league?

Nobody seems to be proposing/arguing that Rangers ceased to exist.

Moulin Yarns
19-01-2017, 04:12 PM
Sandison now questioning why Kinloch has not handed his betting slip over to Coral. "It's a negotiable instrument' he tells the court

northstandhibby
19-01-2017, 04:15 PM
It all comes down to closing all loopholes for an appeal from either side.

Not as straightforward as you think I'm afraid.

The argument I referred to was and is indeed relevant, incredibly powerful, straightforward and goes to the heart of the case put before the court by Kinloch and his counsel.

The real issue is whether the Judge will go against the continuation narrative. As a poster said earlier if he states they were 'relegated' the deniers of a phoenix club would have a field day.

The issue of whether or not they would have offered 2-1 or bigger odds is not a loophole its completely irrelevant to the bigger issue here.

Glory Glory

Moulin Yarns
19-01-2017, 04:16 PM
The argument I referred to was and is indeed relevant, incredibly powerful, straightforward and goes to the heart of the case put before the court by Kinloch and his counsel.

The real issue is whether the Judge will go against the continuation narrative. As a poster said earlier if he states they were 'relegated' the deniers of a phoenix club would have a field day.

The issue of whether or not they would have offered 2-1 or bigger odds is not a loophole its completely irrelevant to the bigger issue here.

Glory Glory

The higher the number the thicker they are :wink:

Peevemor
19-01-2017, 04:17 PM
Could the judgement be to split the difference, eg. a 50% payout?

Moulin Yarns
19-01-2017, 04:18 PM
Damn!! Into Extra Time now.

Hearing ends and Lord Balantyne retires to consider his verdict. Should be given next month.

derekHFC
19-01-2017, 04:21 PM
Could the judgement be to split the difference, eg. a 50% payout?

Very unlikely I would say.


Damn!! Into Extra Time now.

Hearing ends and Lord Balantyne retires to consider his verdict. Should be given next month.

I didn't realise it would take so long for a verdict, I was hoping for the end of next week :grr:

CropleyWasGod
19-01-2017, 04:24 PM
The argument I referred to was and is indeed relevant, incredibly powerful, straightforward and goes to the heart of the case put before the court by Kinloch and his counsel.

The real issue is whether the Judge will go against the continuation narrative. As a poster said earlier if he states they were 'relegated' the deniers of a phoenix club would have a field day.

The issue of whether or not they would have offered 2-1 or bigger odds is not a loophole its completely irrelevant to the bigger issue here.

Glory Glory

I'm not a lawyer, so I'll defer to anyone on here who is.

However, IMO the reason the L word hasn't been discussed is that, in both parties' opinion, it's just not relevant. The case is about the word "relegation".

northstandhibby
19-01-2017, 04:25 PM
Damn!! Into Extra Time now.

Hearing ends and Lord Balantyne retires to consider his verdict. Should be given next month.

That's quite normal. They will probably produce umpteen pages of law speak which could all be summed up in one paragraph in essence but that's the Law for you.

It would appear they dodged the fact the old club died with a phoenix club taking its place. Makes you wonder if this hasn't been a set up to have a decision in law to state they were 'relegated'.

Can't see them going against the continuation narrative. The authorities do what they want to really. Hey ho.

Glory Glory

northstandhibby
19-01-2017, 04:30 PM
I'm not a lawyer, so I'll defer to anyone on here who is.

However, IMO the reason the L word hasn't been discussed is that, in both parties' opinion, it's just not relevant. The case is about the word "relegation".

What was relevant was Coral defending their position and they could easily have argued the case the club Kinloch bet on had been put down for liquidation therefore could not have been 'relegated'.

I studied civil law a good number of years ago and am still involved in it. I as many others would be am stunned they did not put up as strong a defense as they should have as per the old club new club argument. It would appear they are simply reluctant or were warned off using it.

Glory Glory

Peevemor
19-01-2017, 04:34 PM
What was relevant was Coral defending their position and they could easily have argued the case the club Kinloch bet on had been put down for liquidation therefore could not have been 'relegated'.

I studied civil law a good number of years ago and am still involved in it. I as many others would be am stunned they did not put up as strong a defense as they should have as per the old club new club argument. It would appear they are simply reluctant or were warned off using it.

Glory Glory

I think the judge will be fully aware of this and I wonder if he can rule on this basis given that the argument wasn't presented.

derekHFC
19-01-2017, 04:36 PM
What was relevant was Coral defending their position and they could easily have argued the case the club Kinloch bet on had been put down for liquidation therefore could not have been 'relegated'.

I studied civil law a good number of years ago and am still involved in it. I as many others would be am stunned they did not put up as strong a defense as they should have as per the old club new club argument. It would appear they are simply reluctant or were warned off using it.

Glory Glory


I suspect the bit in bold.

northstandhibby
19-01-2017, 04:37 PM
I think the judge will be fully aware of this and I wonder if he can rule on this basis given that the argument wasn't presented.

You make a very good point bud but normally a Judge can only make a decision based on what he/she has been presented with in court and/or what documentary/reports etcetera evidence has been lodged in addition to the verbal testimony.

Glory Glory

Jack
19-01-2017, 04:38 PM
What was relevant was Coral defending their position and they could easily have argued the case the club Kinloch bet on had been put down for liquidation therefore could not have been 'relegated'.

I studied civil law a good number of years ago and am still involved in it. I as many others would be am stunned they did not put up as strong a defense as they should have as per the old club new club argument. It would appear they are simply reluctant or were warned off using it.

Glory Glory

Could they be leaving that for any appeal?

Peevemor
19-01-2017, 04:40 PM
You make a very good point bud but normally a Judge can only make a decision based on what he/she has been presented with in court and/or what documentary/reports etcetera evidence has been lodged in addition to the verbal testimony.

Glory Glory

It must be somewhere in the evidence. I'm sure there were thousands of pages presented - how else could the advocates bump up their fees?

grammyb111
19-01-2017, 04:42 PM
To me it's about the interpretation of the word relegation, although I'd like them to rule on it, I don't think the oldco vs newco is really relevant here. If folks are particularly interested then this is a good guide (a lot of it is relevant here)

https://www.reedsmith.com/files/uploads/miscellany/A_Guide_to_Contract_Interpretation__July_2014_.pdf

northstandhibby
19-01-2017, 04:43 PM
Could they be leaving that for any appeal?

An appellant court can only look at or examine the similar evidence the original Judge had at his/her original hearing unless compelling new evidence was uncovered however it would appear Coral could already have used the newco oldco arguement but failed to do so.

Glory Glory

TRC
19-01-2017, 04:44 PM
Is the boy not just a Celtic fan that is trying to get them to say they are a new club??

Sergey
19-01-2017, 04:44 PM
Could they be leaving that for any appeal?


If Coral lose, will they actually appeal?

While 250k isn't an insignificant amount of money to the likes of you or I, their legal fees alone must surpass that amount should it go to the Court of Appeal (or wherever it goes to). They may just cut their losses and pay up as they could be throwing good money after bad.

Moulin Yarns
19-01-2017, 04:44 PM
You make a very good point bud but normally a Judge can only make a decision based on what he/she has been presented with in court and/or what documentary/reports etcetera evidence has been lodged in addition to the verbal testimony.

Glory Glory

It will be agreed at the next lodge meeting surely :wink:

Peevemor
19-01-2017, 04:45 PM
To me it's about the interpretation of the word relegation, although I'd like them to rule on it, I don't think the oldco vs newco is really relevant here. If folks are particularly interested then this is a good guide (a lot of it is relevant here)

https://www.reedsmith.com/files/uploads/miscellany/A_Guide_to_Contract_Interpretation__July_2014_.pdf

It must be relevant. If the Rangers that appeared in the bottom league weren't the same club as the one that went down the tubes then they weren't relegated - they simply ceased to exist.

Cilla Black
19-01-2017, 04:45 PM
Rangers FC's liquidation was referred to at least twice during the court case according to the Twitter updates.

Peevemor
19-01-2017, 04:49 PM
Rangers FC's liquidation was referred to at least twice during the court case according to the Twitter updates.

Yes but the nothing was presented to say whether theRangers are a new club.

grammyb111
19-01-2017, 04:51 PM
It must be relevant. If the Rangers that appeared in the bottom league weren't the same club as the one that went down the tubes then they weren't relegated - they simply ceased to exist.

Yes, but it's about how the contract (in this case betting slip) is interpreted, what it meant at the time. If neither party thought they were betting on Rangers going bust (though I'm sure this was absolutely in the punters' thoughts, but not in Coral) then the contract can't be read that way. The man is arguing that he was betting on Rangers not being in that division the next season, Coral on Rangers finishing bottom of the league (or relegated in a play-off).

Peevemor
19-01-2017, 04:53 PM
Yes, but it's about how the contract (in this case betting slip) is interpreted, what it meant at the time. If neither party thought they were betting on Rangers going bust (though I'm sure this was absolutely in the punters' thoughts, but not in Coral) then the contract can't be read that way. The man is arguing that he was betting on Rangers not being in that division the next season, Coral on Rangers finishing bottom of the league (or relegated in a play-off).

I agree, but for me this hinges on whether they're the same club. If it's the same club, they were relegated, if not they weren't.

McSwanky
19-01-2017, 04:55 PM
Poole notes bookies gave 5000/1 odds on Leicester City winning the league"They make mistakes" she suggests

Poole ends, Sandison for Coral rises and begins by accusing Kinloch of "concealing his vast background in gambling" and being "self serving

That is frankly a bizarre argument - what has his background got to do with it?

I was siding with Coral when I first heard about this, but after that comment I hope the guy gets his money. Hate bookies, crying foul whenever someone has the audacity to go on a winning run, or even take best value from them to often. Bunch of absolute charlatans.

Rangers defo weren't relegated though! :wink:

northstandhibby
19-01-2017, 04:59 PM
Yes, but it's about how the contract (in this case betting slip) is interpreted, what it meant at the time. If neither party thought they were betting on Rangers going bust (though I'm sure this was absolutely in the punters' thoughts, but not in Coral) then the contract can't be read that way. The man is arguing that he was betting on Rangers not being in that division the next season, Coral on Rangers finishing bottom of the league (or relegated in a play-off).

The argument you present on Kinloch's behalf is too vague and should never have been heard in the first place and should have been thrown out at the first opportunity the court had to do so.

If you are attempting to inform us his idea of 'relegation' should include a club being liquidated and ceasing to exist then I can only state the court should not have indulged his case.

Ceasing to exist as a club is far removed from being relegated.

Glory Glory

grammyb111
19-01-2017, 05:10 PM
The argument you present on Kinloch's behalf is too vague and should never have been heard in the first place and should have been thrown out at the first opportunity the court had to do so.

If you are attempting to inform us his idea of 'relegation' should include a club being liquidated and ceasing to exist then I can only state the court should not have indulged his case.

Ceasing to exist as a club is far removed from being relegated.

Glory Glory

Betting that Rangers wouldn't be in the division the next season is exactly what he says he was betting on though? I agree that if they weren't playing anywhere the following season that the court will have thrown it out, because at that point there is no way you could interpret 'relegation' to cover the situation. I'd love the punter to win, and if he does that doesn't have any impact on the oldco vs newco debate.

Rangers visitor
19-01-2017, 05:13 PM
I'm not a lawyer, so I'll defer to anyone on here who is.

However, IMO the reason the L word hasn't been discussed is that, in both parties' opinion, it's just not relevant. The case is about the word "relegation".

as far as I can you're quite right. The old club/ new club debate hasn't been raised at all in this case.......however that won't stop those who want to see things that aren't there spouting their agenda

northstandhibby
19-01-2017, 05:16 PM
Betting that Rangers wouldn't be in the division the next season is exactly what he says he was betting on though? I agree that if they weren't playing anywhere the following season that the court will have thrown it out, because at that point there is no way you could interpret 'relegation' to cover the situation. I'd love the punter to win, and if he does that doesn't have any impact on the oldco vs newco debate.

Fair enough mate I'm happy to leave it at that as I have no wish to carry this on any longer. As you will know very well the Judge will reach the decision in his own manner irrespective of what we say!!!

Glory Glory

northstandhibby
19-01-2017, 05:19 PM
as far as I can you're quite right. The old club/ new club debate hasn't been raised at all in this case.......however that won't stop those who want to see things that aren't there spouting their agenda

Delusional as always.

Glory Glory

Smartie
19-01-2017, 05:53 PM
We've all had years to sharpen our arguments, to allow the dust to settle on the whole affair and to form our opinions.

The guy put the bet on before it all happened - he didn't know whether they were going to be liquidated, whether they would be relegated after being docked points or what the mechanisms were that led them to end up where they ended up. He just (I believe) had a hunch that they were going to come a cropper due to their financial mismanagement.

I don't think it is unreasonable for him to think that Rangers would be "relegated" due to their financial misdeeds, whichever way that happened.

I'm between a rock and hard place on this one. I think the guy has a case, but unfortunately that will empower the Sevconians with the chips on their shoulders who think they've been hard done by. The opposite is that the lowlife bookie gets away with one on a technicality, although we can all chuckle at what that means for the fans of the Sevco franchise 2012.

Rangers visitor
19-01-2017, 06:07 PM
We've all had years to sharpen our arguments, to allow the dust to settle on the whole affair and to form our opinions.

The guy put the bet on before it all happened - he didn't know whether they were going to be liquidated, whether they would be relegated after being docked points or what the mechanisms were that led them to end up where they ended up. He just (I believe) had a hunch that they were going to come a cropper due to their financial mismanagement.

I don't think it is unreasonable for him to think that Rangers would be "relegated" due to their financial misdeeds, whichever way that happened.

I'm between a rock and hard place on this one. I think the guy has a case, but unfortunately that will empower the Sevconians with the chips on their shoulders who think they've been hard done by. The opposite is that the lowlife bookie gets away with one on a technicality, although we can all chuckle at what that means for the fans of the Sevco franchise 2012.

as opposed to empowering those who are desperate to read something into this that isn't there. Seems to me that shoulder chip is on a lot of people who would rather bore us all to death with this sterile futility rather than concentrating on how well their own team are doing

Mr White
19-01-2017, 06:11 PM
as opposed to empowering those who are desperate to read something into this that isn't there. Seems to me that shoulder chip is on a lot of people who would rather bore us all to death with this sterile futility rather than concentrating on how well their own team are doing

If any of the subjects of discussion here bore you remember you're here because you choose to be. Nobodies forcing you to stay :aok:

CropleyWasGod
19-01-2017, 06:11 PM
as opposed to empowering those who are desperate to read something into this that isn't there. Seems to me that shoulder chip is on a lot of people who would rather bore us all to death with this sterile futility rather than concentrating on how well their own team are doing

Some of us can muiltitask :greengrin

Baldy Foghorn
19-01-2017, 06:19 PM
as opposed to empowering those who are desperate to read something into this that isn't there. Seems to me that shoulder chip is on a lot of people who would rather bore us all to death with this sterile futility rather than concentrating on how well their own team are doing

Your team died, your team is now a new entity.....Understand?

Northernhibee
19-01-2017, 06:26 PM
as opposed to empowering those who are desperate to read something into this that isn't there. Seems to me that shoulder chip is on a lot of people who would rather bore us all to death with this sterile futility rather than concentrating on how well their own team are doing

Typical Sevco fan, ploughing into things to defend their team. I admire your restraint

blackpoolhibs
19-01-2017, 06:26 PM
as opposed to empowering those who are desperate to read something into this that isn't there. Seems to me that shoulder chip is on a lot of people who would rather bore us all to death with this sterile futility rather than concentrating on how well their own team are doing

If you dont like it hunboy, go back to the cesspit your supporters call a fans forum, where any truth is squashed with bile and hatred.

Book of Kamberi
19-01-2017, 06:36 PM
as opposed to empowering those who are desperate to read something into this that isn't there. Seems to me that shoulder chip is on a lot of people who would rather bore us all to death with this sterile futility rather than concentrating on how well their own team are doing

Cup holders, and will be in front of yous next year in league. Not even a 2500/1 odds that one, I'd wager.

brog
19-01-2017, 06:36 PM
John James has a good article on this today, laughing at how Coral are dancing round the L word, pretty much what most of us on here are saying. He also has a good update on the cup final.

BH Hibs
19-01-2017, 06:54 PM
as opposed to empowering those who are desperate to read something into this that isn't there. Seems to me that shoulder chip is on a lot of people who would rather bore us all to death with this sterile futility rather than concentrating on how well their own team are doing

Irony bypass as per usual.

Alex Trager
19-01-2017, 06:57 PM
Has the decision been made?

R'Albin
19-01-2017, 07:02 PM
as opposed to empowering those who are desperate to read something into this that isn't there. Seems to me that shoulder chip is on a lot of people who would rather bore us all to death with this sterile futility rather than concentrating on how well their own team are doing


3-2 :)

Rangers visitor
19-01-2017, 07:04 PM
I promised myself that I'd only talk about Hibs and football in here and not get sucked into anything about 'Gers. I failed but I'll avoid such nonsense in the future

HoboHarry
19-01-2017, 07:05 PM
Has the decision been made?
Next month......

Nameless
19-01-2017, 07:07 PM
as opposed to empowering those who are desperate to read something into this that isn't there. Seems to me that shoulder chip is on a lot of people who would rather bore us all to death with this sterile futility rather than concentrating on how well their own team are doing
Go home, ya hun.
Go home, ya hun.
Go home, ya hun go hoooooome.
**This should be accompanied by the image of my middle finger, pointing you towards the exit**
It's not as witty or erudite as your killer "sterile futility" line, but I find its advisable to keep it simple when dealing with the utterly feckless.

Cheery bye then.

lapsedhibee
19-01-2017, 07:43 PM
I promised myself that I'd only talk about Hibs and football in here

Best not to promise yourself this or that, owe yourself this or that, etc, in here. It's the kind of thing that Famous poppy thieves do.

Alex Trager
19-01-2017, 08:29 PM
Next month......

Ah I see.

Interesting case I must admit.

Cheers

Ozyhibby
19-01-2017, 09:42 PM
http://thecelticblog.com/2017/01/blogs/what-a-can-of-worms-the-corals-case-has-opened/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Smartie
20-01-2017, 12:16 PM
as opposed to empowering those who are desperate to read something into this that isn't there. Seems to me that shoulder chip is on a lot of people who would rather bore us all to death with this sterile futility rather than concentrating on how well their own team are doing

As it was my post you initially responded to, I'll give you my tuppence worth on your club.........


I think you're the same club.

You have the same fans, wear the same colours, play in the same stadium in the same city as you did before. The sight of those colours in front of those fans in that stadium in that city brings out the same emotion in me (not a particularly positive one) as well as you (presumably a far more positive one) that it has always done, therefore I still see you as the same club.

For a while, your club clearly did something badly wrong. Exactly what, it is difficult to say (and not even the top legal minds in this country can make their minds up on, let alone the punters who now seem to be self-appointed experts on tax matters, corporate structure matters and God knows what else) but there needed to be consequences for that, you'll call it punishment but something needed to be done.

For me, the sentence your club and fans needed to serve was some hard labour in the lower divisions (which you've now done) and to be mercilessly taunted by fans of other clubs about Sevco, new club etc for eternity. It is up to you whether you want to get annoyed by it, ignore it, react to it, whatever. But in my opinion this is a small price to pay for getting to see your team survive, as it wasn't unthinkable (whereas it should have been) for a while that a club the size of Glasgow Rangers could have been wiped out altogether. And that was brought about by the actions of nobody but themselves.

There is a small (well, absolutely minute) part of me that will respect you lot for rebuilding your club, although there is a long way to go yet, and if you want to try cheating, cutting corners or getting greedy at any point along the way then it might yet work out very badly for you. Every club has to live within it's means and it isn't easy for anyone but it should surely be easier for a club the size of yours.

Many people would like to have seen your club disappear, I'm not one of them. Ivan Sproule's hat-trick at Ibrox, Jim Leighton's double penalty save, Keith Wright's winner in the League Cup semi-final, Daniel Andersson saving penalties at Hampden - all are my favourite Hibs-supporting memories and all involved your club. Take them all, roll them up with all the negative experiences I've had of your club and you get the cherry on the cake that was David Gray's glorious 92nd minute header in the cup final.

There is a minority of absolute cretins who follow your club who I'd like to see your decent fans have less tolerance of. The fact that you can handle hanging around a Hibs fan site suggests you're probably the decent sort. I'd like to see your board play more to the decent fans than to the lunatics, mentalists and crackpots they seem hell-bent on appeasing with their words and actions these days. But I think I'm unusual around here in that I've always had a lot of friends who are decent Rangers supporters, and they've been through the mill these past few years.

Your pal Rod Petrie once said that Scottish football need well-run clubs. It's as true today as the day he said it and that goes for the very smallest club in the country to the very biggest. I look forward to our clubs continuing their rivalry on this level playing field.

aussie_hibee
20-01-2017, 12:28 PM
As it was my post you initially responded to, I'll give you my tuppence worth on your club.........


I think you're the same club.

You have the same fans, wear the same colours, play in the same stadium in the same city as you did before. The sight of those colours in front of those fans in that stadium in that city brings out the same emotion in me (not a particularly positive one) as well as you (presumably a far more positive one) that it has always done, therefore I still see you as the same club.

For a while, your club clearly did something badly wrong. Exactly what, it is difficult to say (and not even the top legal minds in this country can make their minds up on, let alone the punters who now seem to be self-appointed experts on tax matters, corporate structure matters and God knows what else) but there needed to be consequences for that, you'll call it punishment but something needed to be done.

For me, the sentence your club and fans needed to serve was some hard labour in the lower divisions (which you've now done) and to be mercilessly taunted by fans of other clubs about Sevco, new club etc for eternity. It is up to you whether you want to get annoyed by it, ignore it, react to it, whatever. But in my opinion this is a small price to pay for getting to see your team survive, as it wasn't unthinkable (whereas it should have been) for a while that a club the size of Glasgow Rangers could have been wiped out altogether. And that was brought about by the actions of nobody but themselves.

There is a small (well, absolutely minute) part of me that will respect you lot for rebuilding your club, although there is a long way to go yet, and if you want to try cheating, cutting corners or getting greedy at any point along the way then it might yet work out very badly for you. Every club has to live within it's means and it isn't easy for anyone but it should surely be easier for a club the size of yours.

Many people would like to have seen your club disappear, I'm not one of them. Ivan Sproule's hat-trick at Ibrox, Jim Leighton's double penalty save, Keith Wright's winner in the League Cup semi-final, Daniel Andersson saving penalties at Hampden - all are my favourite Hibs-supporting memories and all involved your club. Take them all, roll them up with all the negative experiences I've had of your club and you get the cherry on the cake that was David Gray's glorious 92nd minute header in the cup final.

There is a minority of absolute cretins who follow your club who I'd like to see your decent fans have less tolerance of. The fact that you can handle hanging around a Hibs fan site suggests you're probably the decent sort. I'd like to see your board play more to the decent fans than to the lunatics, mentalists and crackpots they seem hell-bent on appeasing with their words and actions these days. But I think I'm unusual around here in that I've always had a lot of friends who are decent Rangers supporters, and they've been through the mill these past few years.

Your pal Rod Petrie once said that Scottish football need well-run clubs. It's as true today as the day he said it and that goes for the very smallest club in the country to the very biggest. I look forward to our clubs continuing their rivalry on this level playing field.


Take a bow sir, a fantastically worded and well thought out response that is bang on the money.

10/10

660
20-01-2017, 12:29 PM
You either get to claim you're the same club but relinquish the trophies you won through cheating or you're a new club. The fact rangers are claiming both is what is distasteful. I'm not sure why it's become so complicated. I

Peevemor
20-01-2017, 12:34 PM
Your pal Rod Petrie once said that Scottish football need well-run clubs. It's as true today as the day he said it and that goes for the very smallest club in the country to the very biggest. I look forward to our clubs continuing their rivalry on this level playing field.

It's a bit ironic that you refer to RP as their pal, when you go on to paraphrase from a discourse he made condemning Rangers.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/rod-petrie-accuses-rangers-of-damaging-spl-integrity-1-2156674

Andy74
20-01-2017, 12:35 PM
Take a bow sir, a fantastically worded and well thought out response that is bang on the money.

10/10

It is other than the fact that what happened wasn't a punishment or a sentence as such - fine that it worked out that way too but they went bust, they ceased to be able to trade and they could not come to an agreement with their creditors. It's probably right that once a new set up was in place that to all intents and purposes the new entity represented the same club, however, it is also worth noting that the arrangement which meant that the assets were sold off on the side once the creditors agreement failed was pretty suspect. In normal circumstances the ability to set up again would be diminished because the creditors should have had the proceeds of selling the assets off to the highest bidder.

Smartie
20-01-2017, 12:38 PM
It's a bit ironic that you refer to RP as their pal, when you go on to paraphrase from a discourse he made condemning Rangers.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/rod-petrie-accuses-rangers-of-damaging-spl-integrity-1-2156674

I was being sarcastic. They seem to hate Rod Petrie, probably because a few of the home truths referred to in this article hurt.

Waxy
20-01-2017, 12:39 PM
If the dude had put Rangers to be demoted on his slip then Corals would have argued they were relegated. Seems when it comes to the big firms and the big money makers the law lets them twist the English language in any way needed to shaft the little guy.

grammyb111
20-01-2017, 12:43 PM
As it was my post you initially responded to, I'll give you my tuppence worth on your club.........


I think you're the same club.

You have the same fans, wear the same colours, play in the same stadium in the same city as you did before. The sight of those colours in front of those fans in that stadium in that city brings out the same emotion in me (not a particularly positive one) as well as you (presumably a far more positive one) that it has always done, therefore I still see you as the same club.

For a while, your club clearly did something badly wrong. Exactly what, it is difficult to say (and not even the top legal minds in this country can make their minds up on, let alone the punters who now seem to be self-appointed experts on tax matters, corporate structure matters and God knows what else) but there needed to be consequences for that, you'll call it punishment but something needed to be done.

For me, the sentence your club and fans needed to serve was some hard labour in the lower divisions (which you've now done) and to be mercilessly taunted by fans of other clubs about Sevco, new club etc for eternity. It is up to you whether you want to get annoyed by it, ignore it, react to it, whatever. But in my opinion this is a small price to pay for getting to see your team survive, as it wasn't unthinkable (whereas it should have been) for a while that a club the size of Glasgow Rangers could have been wiped out altogether. And that was brought about by the actions of nobody but themselves.

There is a small (well, absolutely minute) part of me that will respect you lot for rebuilding your club, although there is a long way to go yet, and if you want to try cheating, cutting corners or getting greedy at any point along the way then it might yet work out very badly for you. Every club has to live within it's means and it isn't easy for anyone but it should surely be easier for a club the size of yours.

Many people would like to have seen your club disappear, I'm not one of them. Ivan Sproule's hat-trick at Ibrox, Jim Leighton's double penalty save, Keith Wright's winner in the League Cup semi-final, Daniel Andersson saving penalties at Hampden - all are my favourite Hibs-supporting memories and all involved your club. Take them all, roll them up with all the negative experiences I've had of your club and you get the cherry on the cake that was David Gray's glorious 92nd minute header in the cup final.

There is a minority of absolute cretins who follow your club who I'd like to see your decent fans have less tolerance of. The fact that you can handle hanging around a Hibs fan site suggests you're probably the decent sort. I'd like to see your board play more to the decent fans than to the lunatics, mentalists and crackpots they seem hell-bent on appeasing with their words and actions these days. But I think I'm unusual around here in that I've always had a lot of friends who are decent Rangers supporters, and they've been through the mill these past few years.

Your pal Rod Petrie once said that Scottish football need well-run clubs. It's as true today as the day he said it and that goes for the very smallest club in the country to the very biggest. I look forward to our clubs continuing their rivalry on this level playing field.

Very well put. I respect folks that post on other fans' boards, defend their club without being offensive and seem keen for reasoned debate. If I only read things I agreed with it'd be quite dull.

Peevemor
20-01-2017, 12:44 PM
I was being sarcastic. They seem to hate Rod Petrie, probably because a few of the home truths referred to in this article hurt.

OK. So it was ironic then. :greengrin

Dazzling Doidge
20-01-2017, 12:47 PM
I promised myself that I'd only talk about Hibs and football in here and not get sucked into anything about 'Gers. I failed but I'll avoid such nonsense in the future

17968

Smartie
20-01-2017, 12:54 PM
It is other than the fact that what happened wasn't a punishment or a sentence as such - fine that it worked out that way too but they went bust, they ceased to be able to trade and they could not come to an agreement with their creditors. It's probably right that once a new set up was in place that to all intents and purposes the new entity represented the same club, however, it is also worth noting that the arrangement which meant that the assets were sold off on the side once the creditors agreement failed was pretty suspect. In normal circumstances the ability to set up again would be diminished because the creditors should have had the proceeds of selling the assets off to the highest bidder.

I know, that is true.

But I think we've all become a bit bogged down in technicalities and small details.

They did something wrong - working out exactly what is a minefield. There needed to be some sort of consequence/ punishment, I'm not even that bothered which way it is looked at.

There also needed to be some sort of attempt to rehabilitate, in order for us all not to cut our noses off to spite our face. Could/ should Scottish football REALLY be expected to lose the fans of a club the size of Rangers?

What we needed to do (and what I'm still not entirely convinced we've managed to do) is get in place appropriate rules that deter clubs from playing fast and loose with their finances. Stiffing small businesses, the taxman and charities should 100% not be tolerated in Scottish football and we need really tough deterrents from doing so. What is to stop clubs from following the "Hearts model" in future?

I'm also not a massive fan of the Celtic-minded conspiracy theorist blogger types who thinks that the integrity of Scottish football is advanced by scrapping around trying to scratch off the record trophies that were won several years ago. As far as I'm concerned these trophies will forever be tarnished and it doesn't matter what exists on what record books. The five stars on the Rangers jerseys make me chuckle and tbh their desire to hang onto the tarnished titles detract from the dozens of titles they won honestly. But I certainly wouldn't be wasting any energy trying to get them scratched from the record.

Don't even get me started on 5-1. That tarnished victory hurt at the time but doesn't concern me now. I'm far more bothered about the way their kids got the upper hand on us in that abominable relegation season under Butcher and Fenlon. Fair and square victories when we should have been pressing home our financial advantage, although I'm delighted to see that we've currently got the upper hand on them in this new post-financial doping Edinburgh derby.

It's a whole era that has to go down as the darkest in Scottish football history and we should all be pulling together to drag ourselves out of it.

Spike Mandela
20-01-2017, 12:58 PM
Take a bow sir, a fantastically worded and well thought out response that is bang on the money.

10/10

It's romanticised rubbish though.

Rangers failed to get through it's CVA. If it had been successful your club would have continued with new owners just as Hearts and other have done with a successful CVA.

Rangers, company and club , were Liquidated. The clubs assets, ground , training complex etc were sold off to make money for the unfortunate creditors. The old club with it's 150m debt is still sitting there with BDO but I am sure you don't want anything to do with that.

Charles Green came along, bought these 'basket of assets' (not the club) and formed The Rangers which is the team you now follow.

As a fellow football fan I understand your desire to see this as the same club after all it is same fans , same ground, same strip etc etc, you see no unbroken history. You have always been the same fan with your love for the club all your life but the unthinkable truth is that the club you supported all those years ceased to exist in 2012.

I understand all the Rangers fans desire to see it as the same Rangers football club, I as a Hibs fan would be the very same. Let me ask you this though, would all Rangers fans still think it was the same club if the Vatican has bought the assets and installed 22 priests in the squad? It would be the same ground, same strip, same badge etc etc. Just as legitimate as Charles Green buying it.

Honestly I feel your pain and I am sure you would happily give up your EBT tainted 9 in a row just for this to never have happened.........but it did.

southern hibby
20-01-2017, 01:13 PM
What I can't get my head round is how the SFA get so much say in the law. For example if a player hits another player he's red carded and rightfully so. But why do the SFA then fine him and not the law of the land.

Imagine if a player took out an injunction against another player that hit him, what would genuinely happen then. That player by law would have to miss next game against that player as he could not be within a set distance of player taking out the injunction.
Also for the SFA to say that all footballing bills must be paid when in Liquidation or administration to me ( I could be totally wrong here) before you can carry on, makes me believe that people who are not getting their money back ( shafted creditors)are being over ruled by SFA against Law of the Land.
Irrespective of what went on to me the Law of the Land should come first before anything else, but how much influence does the SFA have.

For example,the 5 way agreement was mentioned in court by whiteness for/ against Coral and he did not want to answer question on the witness stand because it was confidential. Surely a judge could order him to answer it or hold him in contempt of court. Is Scottish Law influenced that much by the SFA for a judge to be scarred to make a witness answer?

GGTTH

Andy74
20-01-2017, 01:18 PM
I know, that is true.

But I think we've all become a bit bogged down in technicalities and small details.

They did something wrong - working out exactly what is a minefield. There needed to be some sort of consequence/ punishment, I'm not even that bothered which way it is looked at.

There also needed to be some sort of attempt to rehabilitate, in order for us all not to cut our noses off to spite our face. Could/ should Scottish football REALLY be expected to lose the fans of a club the size of Rangers?

What we needed to do (and what I'm still not entirely convinced we've managed to do) is get in place appropriate rules that deter clubs from playing fast and loose with their finances. Stiffing small businesses, the taxman and charities should 100% not be tolerated in Scottish football and we need really tough deterrents from doing so. What is to stop clubs from following the "Hearts model" in future?

I'm also not a massive fan of the Celtic-minded conspiracy theorist blogger types who thinks that the integrity of Scottish football is advanced by scrapping around trying to scratch off the record trophies that were won several years ago. As far as I'm concerned these trophies will forever be tarnished and it doesn't matter what exists on what record books. The five stars on the Rangers jerseys make me chuckle and tbh their desire to hang onto the tarnished titles detract from the dozens of titles they won honestly. But I certainly wouldn't be wasting any energy trying to get them scratched from the record.

Don't even get me started on 5-1. That tarnished victory hurt at the time but doesn't concern me now. I'm far more bothered about the way their kids got the upper hand on us in that abominable relegation season under Butcher and Fenlon. Fair and square victories when we should have been pressing home our financial advantage, although I'm delighted to see that we've currently got the upper hand on them in this new post-financial doping Edinburgh derby.

It's a whole era that has to go down as the darkest in Scottish football history and we should all be pulling together to drag ourselves out of it.

Yes but the point is what happened to them wasn't punishment for doing something wrong, it was the consequence of ceasing to be able to trade any more and being able to even agree a settlement with creditors.

aussie_hibee
20-01-2017, 01:21 PM
It is other than the fact that what happened wasn't a punishment or a sentence as such - fine that it worked out that way too but they went bust, they ceased to be able to trade and they could not come to an agreement with their creditors. It's probably right that once a new set up was in place that to all intents and purposes the new entity represented the same club, however, it is also worth noting that the arrangement which meant that the assets were sold off on the side once the creditors agreement failed was pretty suspect. In normal circumstances the ability to set up again would be diminished because the creditors should have had the proceeds of selling the assets off to the highest bidder.

I probably should have clarified that whilst I admired his post, I didn't actually agree with all of it's content.

As far as I am concerned, they are a new club and should've been made to start as such, in the lowland league.

Somehow they believe they are the same club that were simply relegated 3 times at once?


The truth of the matter is that the authorities in Scottish football failed (and not for the first time) to punish a club which cheated.

I love Hibs, they are a part of me and I will follow them for the rest of my life, it's just a shame that we are a part of a corrupt and backwards football association that can't see past Glasgow and the damage it has done to football in our country.

AndyM_1875
20-01-2017, 01:23 PM
I know, that is true.

But I think we've all become a bit bogged down in technicalities and small details.

They did something wrong - working out exactly what is a minefield. There needed to be some sort of consequence/ punishment, I'm not even that bothered which way it is looked at.

There also needed to be some sort of attempt to rehabilitate, in order for us all not to cut our noses off to spite our face. Could/ should Scottish football REALLY be expected to lose the fans of a club the size of Rangers?

What we needed to do (and what I'm still not entirely convinced we've managed to do) is get in place appropriate rules that deter clubs from playing fast and loose with their finances. Stiffing small businesses, the taxman and charities should 100% not be tolerated in Scottish football and we need really tough deterrents from doing so. What is to stop clubs from following the "Hearts model" in future?

I'm also not a massive fan of the Celtic-minded conspiracy theorist blogger types who thinks that the integrity of Scottish football is advanced by scrapping around trying to scratch off the record trophies that were won several years ago. As far as I'm concerned these trophies will forever be tarnished and it doesn't matter what exists on what record books. The five stars on the Rangers jerseys make me chuckle and tbh their desire to hang onto the tarnished titles detract from the dozens of titles they won honestly. But I certainly wouldn't be wasting any energy trying to get them scratched from the record.

Don't even get me started on 5-1. That tarnished victory hurt at the time but doesn't concern me now. I'm far more bothered about the way their kids got the upper hand on us in that abominable relegation season under Butcher and Fenlon. Fair and square victories when we should have been pressing home our financial advantage, although I'm delighted to see that we've currently got the upper hand on them in this new post-financial doping Edinburgh derby.

It's a whole era that has to go down as the darkest in Scottish football history and we should all be pulling together to drag ourselves out of it.


This. We should not forget the behaviour of clubs who ran up massive toxic levels of unsustainable debt, stiffed creditors or gave the taxman the finger but really there is no point IMHO trying to re-award or remove honours to other clubs a decade and a half on from when this behaviour was going on. 1998 - 2013 was arguably the most embarrassing decade for Scottish football ever. As for the Celtic conspiracy theorists, they are pathetic.

Smartie
20-01-2017, 01:25 PM
What I can't get my head round is how the SFA get so much say in the law. For example if a player hits another player he's red carded and rightfully so. But why do the SFA then fine him and not the law of the land.

Imagine if a player took out an injunction against another player that hit him, what would genuinely happen then. That player by law would have to miss next game against that player as he could not be within a set distance of player taking out the injunction.
Also for the SFA to say that all footballing bills must be paid when in Liquidation or administration to me ( I could be totally wrong here) before you can carry on, makes me believe that people who are not getting their money back ( shafted creditors)are being over ruled by SFA against Law of the Land.
Irrespective of what went on to me the Law of the Land should come first before anything else, but how much influence does the SFA have.

For example,the 5 way agreement was mentioned in court by whiteness for/ against Coral and he did not want to answer question on the witness stand because it was confidential. Surely a judge could order him to answer it or hold him in contempt of court. Is Scottish Law influenced that much by the SFA for a judge to be scarred to make a witness answer?

GGTTH

I think it's because football just wouldn't work if laws were down purely down to the law of the land. There (kind of) have to be special conditions when it comes to football.

Employment law would be one. I any walk of life you can hand in your notice and go to work for someone else. Football wouldn't work if clubs developed players, spent a fortune on preparing them then letting them go to work for someone else with month's notice, during a season.

Football's a contact sport. So when you enter a field of play you take a certain amount of risk, a certain amount of physical contact is accepted/ expected and you might get injured. Sometimes a line is crossed and more serious censure is required. But it is up to the players as to how far they'd want to take punishment of any offences. Duncan Ferguson served a prison sentence for a head-butt on the field of play so if you misbehave badly enough, the law of the land will get involved.


Sometimes you have to look at a bigger picture. I don't know what the 5 way agreement involved, but basically everyone in Scottish football (Rangers, Celtic, the other clubs, everyone) feel aggrieved by it. By letting details be known, everyone might feel more aggrieved. Old grievances get dug up and who knows, teams, players, fans may go on strike and stop the continuity of Scottish football. If some sort of agreement or compromise has been achieved that has allowed us to continue, surely that is a good thing?

Football is so partisan, sometimes the only logical thing to do is the illogical.

Ally McCoist and the like can go about demanding clarity if they want, but fans of Scottish football don't exactly have a good track record of being able to deal with clarity, therefore maybe the murky 5 way agreement is best remaining murky?

Moulin Yarns
20-01-2017, 01:31 PM
If the dude had put Rangers to be demoted on his slip then Corals would have argued they were relegated. Seems when it comes to the big firms and the big money makers the law lets them twist the English language in any way needed to shaft the little guy.

Had he placed the bet that 'Rangers' would not be playing in the SPL the following season we would not be having this discussion now. His bet was very ambiguous, and seemingly insightful, at the same time.

Smartie
20-01-2017, 01:38 PM
Yes but the point is what happened to them wasn't punishment for doing something wrong, it was the consequence of ceasing to be able to trade any more and being able to even agree a settlement with creditors.

I know, and I agree. But my point is that it doesn't really matter.

It's hard to establish what exactly the crime was, but we're all sure there was one, and for that there needed to be consequences. There was serious talk of Rangers being catapulted into the First Division, even kept in the Premier League as their absence would have brought about "armageddon". Quite frankly, allowing that to happen would have brought about "armageddon" (although I guarantee no Rangers fan anywhere would agree with me on that). They might even have been allowed to disappear altogether, which would have satisfied a great many, but I don't think that really would have been reasonable either.

By the letter of the law they should probably have had to compete with Spartans and other clubs for league re-entry, and a lot of these clubs would have met the criteria ahead of a new Rangers club. But would that really have been in the best interests of anyone?

In exchange for keeping their club they had to spend a spell in the lower divisions and get taunted about being a new club. In my mind (and I'm aware that I'll be in a vast minority on this site on this subject) that was a reasonable "bigger picture" trade to get us all out of a really sorry period.

It all kind of falls down when we start scrapping about the minor details such as relegated/ liquidated, keeping trophies etc.

lapsedhibee
20-01-2017, 01:39 PM
I look forward to our clubs continuing their rivalry on this level playing field.

Absolutely amazed if you genuinely believe that the thes and Hibs are now playing on a level field. The same clowns who spouted pish about Armageddon are still in charge. If the thes hit more financial (or any other kind of) trouble, those same clowns will be changing, twisting, rewriting the rules to suit the Glasgow giants.

Smartie
20-01-2017, 01:40 PM
I probably should have clarified that whilst I admired his post, I didn't actually agree with all of it's content.

As far as I am concerned, they are a new club and should've been made to start as such, in the lowland league.

Somehow they believe they are the same club that were simply relegated 3 times at once?


The truth of the matter is that the authorities in Scottish football failed (and not for the first time) to punish a club which cheated.

I love Hibs, they are a part of me and I will follow them for the rest of my life, it's just a shame that we are a part of a corrupt and backwards football association that can't see past Glasgow and the damage it has done to football in our country.

TBH I thought I was going out on a limb and I'm astonished anyone on hibs.net would agree with any of it but there you go..........

Smartie
20-01-2017, 01:49 PM
Absolutely amazed if you genuinely believe that the thes and Hibs are now playing on a level field. The same clowns who spouted pish about Armageddon are still in charge. If the thes hit more financial (or any other kind of) trouble, those same clowns will be changing, twisting, rewriting the rules to suit the Glasgow giants.

If you really feel that then why bother following us or Scottish football? The least you want/ expect is a fair fight.

Rod Petrie will represent us very strongly at SPFL/ SFA level. There is a great deal of "non OF" representation at high level in Scottish football right now.

Yes, I wish people like Regan and Doncaster would be a bit more proactive at drumming up interest in Scottish football outwith the OF and I thought that Barry Hearn made great points about furthering our game. Instead of catering to an existing, imo diminishing market I think we should be far more daring and try to open up new ones.

We'll always be an underdog against the OF but that doesn't mean it isn't fair. They'll win more against us than us against them, but our wins will always taste sweeter. There is no better feeling (in my opinion) than going to Glasgow and coming out with a win, and I'll always want to see Hibs test themselves against bigger and better teams and try to grow.

I'm not interested in going into games with an unfair disadvantage to go with the fair disadvantage, which is what happened all too often in this grim period.

Canon Hannan
20-01-2017, 01:56 PM
I know, that is true.

But I think we've all become a bit bogged down in technicalities and small details.

They did something wrong - working out exactly what is a minefield. There needed to be some sort of consequence/ punishment, I'm not even that bothered which way it is looked at.

There also needed to be some sort of attempt to rehabilitate, in order for us all not to cut our noses off to spite our face. Could/ should Scottish football REALLY be expected to lose the fans of a club the size of Rangers?

What we needed to do (and what I'm still not entirely convinced we've managed to do) is get in place appropriate rules that deter clubs from playing fast and loose with their finances. Stiffing small businesses, the taxman and charities should 100% not be tolerated in Scottish football and we need really tough deterrents from doing so. What is to stop clubs from following the "Hearts model" in future?

I'm also not a massive fan of the Celtic-minded conspiracy theorist blogger types who thinks that the integrity of Scottish football is advanced by scrapping around trying to scratch off the record trophies that were won several years ago. As far as I'm concerned these trophies will forever be tarnished and it doesn't matter what exists on what record books. The five stars on the Rangers jerseys make me chuckle and tbh their desire to hang onto the tarnished titles detract from the dozens of titles they won honestly. But I certainly wouldn't be wasting any energy trying to get them scratched from the record.

Don't even get me started on 5-1. That tarnished victory hurt at the time but doesn't concern me now. I'm far more bothered about the way their kids got the upper hand on us in that abominable relegation season under Butcher and Fenlon. Fair and square victories when we should have been pressing home our financial advantage, although I'm delighted to see that we've currently got the upper hand on them in this new post-financial doping Edinburgh derby.

It's a whole era that has to go down as the darkest in Scottish football history and we should all be pulling together to drag ourselves out of it.

I am glad there is a Rangers in our leagues and it makes Scottish football more appealing but they are 100% a new club. Established 2012.
End of story.

Ozyhibby
20-01-2017, 01:59 PM
The same club argument isn't really of that much interest to me. My own view is they are a new club but I'm happy enough for them to claim continuity.
However it was interesting to hear the the SPFL lawyer in court yesterday saying that it was only in Scotland where there would be a case for claiming it's the same club. He admitted FIFA and UEFA would not see them as the same club but that the SFA took a different view. Strangely though, as a member of FIFA and UEFA they are supposed to follow all their rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CropleyWasGod
20-01-2017, 02:16 PM
I am glad there is a Rangers in our leagues and it makes Scottish football more appealing but they are 100% a new club. Established 2012.
End of story.

It's not.

It won't be until there is an incontrovertible legal decision on it. Until then, the debate continues.

northstandhibby
20-01-2017, 02:24 PM
It's not.

It won't be until there is an incontrovertible legal decision on it. Until then, the debate continues.

There was an authoritative legal decision taken. They were put down to be liquidated and bits were sold off to Sevco 5088 and they produced a new football club.

What more proof does anyone need?

Glory Glory