Should relegated not mean you play one division down the following season, not three as the case is here? And surely should be based on you scoring less points in the league than your rivals. Rangers didnât incur say a points deduction of 30pts, culminating in a relegation to division one. Clearly they were liquidated and then âdemotedâ to division three (or rather âacceptedâ into division three) but there are all sorts of articles and blogs from the time referencing how Rangers were ârelegatedâ, including a blog on Coralâs own website!
Mr. Kinloch as Corals are so plainly trying to get across (as though it is some sort of crime) is not your average mug punter and is pretty sharp and has experience in betting matters. He went five miles out of his way into a shop where they didnât know he was sharp to place his bet. Thatâs not a crime but he obviously knew to go into a shop he wasnât known in, there would have been alarm bells ringing in other shops that this chap was placing such a bet. My own feeling is he hoped Corals would stump up a settlement figure for him to fuck off and avoid the embarrassment of a court case. Probably if they offered him ÂŁ10k to go away i bet heâd have taken their arm off. He didnât bother appealing to any of the various betting arbitration dispute services, but rather went straight for the juggler of the court room with his case, knowing it would cause embarrassment and was his best chance of a settlement. They were no doubt seething at the cheek of him so are taking him on and they will probably win, but they look so incredibly bad out of it. Even the line of questioning their counsel is taking with witnesses is embarrassing.
Is it a crime that this guy isnât a âmugâ FFS? Of course heâs âself servingâ, any punter is. You want to take money off the bookie, thatâs how the game works.
I think there was 1 down and 2 up but Iâm not certain either. But they changed all the rules around that time as part of the situation so Iâd say timelines are complicated.
Doesnât appear they do. The opposite in fact it seems from this
##The fact that a taxpayer has a system by which they place their bets, or that they are sufficiently successful to earn a living by gambling does not make their activities a trade.
The case of Graham v Green [1925] 9TC309 concerned a man whose sole means of livelihood came from betting on horses at starting prices. Rowlatt J says at pages 313 and 314:
âNow we come to betting, pure and simple⌠the man who bets with the bookmaker, and that is this case. These are mere bets. Each time he puts on his money, at whatever may be the starting price. I do not think he could be said to organise his effort in the same way as a bookmaker organises his. I do not think the subject matter from his point of view is susceptible of it. In effect all he is doing is just what a man does who is a skilful player at cards, who plays every day. He plays today and he plays tomorrow and he plays the next day and he is skilful on each of the three days, more skilful on the whole than the people with whom he plays, and he wins. But I do not think that you can find, in his case, any conception arising in which his individual operations can be said to be merged in the way that particular operations are merged in the conception of a trade. I think all you can say of that man ⌠is that he is addicted to betting. It is extremely difficult to express, but it seems to me that people would say he is addicted to betting, and could not say that his vocation is betting. The subject is involved in great difficulty of language, which I think represents great difficulty of thought. There is no tax on a habit. I do not think âhabitualâ or even âsystematicâ fully describes what is essential in the phrase âtrade, adventure, profession or vocationâ.â
This shows that having expertise or being systematic (âstudying formâ) is not enough to create a trade of being a âprofessional gamblerâ.##
If you make money from shares thatâs taxable which to me is insane if youâre âpart-timeâ. Say youâre a postman and you won 5k on fortuitous trade positions in a year, why should they tax that over the barman who won 5k on backing horses for example? To me making money on shares would be far harder but then @Julio_Geordio would say its easier make money on the shares, I presume. You could say both are equally hard to make money on so why tax one but not the other?
If the postman made 5 k on spread betting the shares itâs tax free though which is what a lot of fellas would doâŚI. e. Instead of buying a share you bet it will go up or down
Tax free shares trading minus the paperwork of actual ownership. Shenanigans.
The court case is really interesting stuff.
They werenât relegated they were demoted.
I didnât steal from the man, I robbed him. Thereâs a HUGE difference.
All the tiptoeing that Coral are doing is hilarious.
The Coral lawyer explaining the origin of the word was relegation in my view only backs the case that they need to pay out. âSomeone was exiledâ. Sound, Rangers were exiled from the SPL, pay up!
Is there a screenshot anywhere of the actual betslip?
Itâs an awful pity he didnât word his bet differently. Would probably have shortened the odds a bit but so be it.
Hindsight and all that. What would have been the best wording without drawing too much attention to Rangers going broke. âRangers to not finish in the top 8 of SPLâ would be crafty. If you were to say ânot play in the SPL the following yearâ then youâd probably tip your hand a little too much around the financial implications.
That really would have been a clusterfuck. Probably would have ended the same way.
Coral: You bet on the old Rangers to win D3, this is the new Rangers. The old Rangers no longer exist. The new Rangers won D3. Itâs totally different.