The Guy Suing Corals Is Backing A Loser. Rangers Were Liquidated, Not Relegated.

Image for The Guy Suing Corals Is Backing A Loser. Rangers Were Liquidated, Not Relegated.

I like a bet. I’m never going to be able to retire on my winnings or anything, but I enjoy a wee flutter from time to time. That’s why the story of the guy suing Coral over a 2012 bet that Rangers would be relegated tickles me so much. On the one hand, I like nothing more than to see the bookies getting taken for a few quid – especially when I’m the one doing the taking.

But this guy is, if you’ll pardon the pun, backing an absolute loser, and Coral are sticking to their guns on the matter and making their position pretty plain. They don’t consider Sevco the same club as Rangers – their pre-Ibrox tweet made that clear – and they, at least, are willing to say what few others have been thus far; that no relegation actually took place.

I have no gripe with what the guy is trying to do. The media has helped to build this ludicrous narrative, that of the “relegation” and so he’s quite entitled to chance his arm. I wish him well, but he’s procedurally incorrect as I’m sure he’s well aware.

This is a bugbear of mine, and for a lot of people. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve read this fiction publicised, in the mainstream press and elsewhere. It will be interesting to see where the case goes, although I strongly suspect it will come down to another procedural matter, that the bet itself was only valid based on events on the pitch; i.e. that the club would have had to finish at the bottom of the league, via results.

This is quite cheeky of them, but as I know well the bookies always have a get- out. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had to get into with the online team at Bet365 over stuff like the time goals are scored and when other match events take place.

That’s why these organisations have terms and conditions that could fill a phone book.

If the SFA’s own rulebook was as robust as theirs this issue would never even be up for debate.

Perhaps the guy will drag the SFA into this – I know I would –  and ask them to present their view that Rangers and Sevco are one in the same, because if they can then surely he has a case, of sorts? Then Corals can ask the question that no-one in the media seems to want to; where’s the material justification for the Survival Lie? Where’s the regulation, the precedent, where’s the actual legal argument for saying that Sevco and Rangers are the same club?

Maybe the answers would surprise us.

Maybe they would convince people, although I strongly doubt it.

Because they would almost certainly confirm what we already know and always have, and that the SFA knows it too; Rangers are dead. Sevco started at the bottom where all clubs have to, and even then they skipped the queue and didn’t have to follow procedure.

I’m going to keep an eye on this case, both as a punter and as a blogger. I like the idea of challenging the bookies in court, and under normal circumstances I’d say I hope this guy plays a blinder and takes them for every penny he can get.

But the defence Coral mounts is going to be interesting.

It’s definitely one to watch.

Share this article