This is a well publicized case in Europe as former bookmaker, Albert Kinloch, had taken a bookmaker, Coral, to court for non-payment of his bet that would have won $250,000.
Coral was giving 2500/1 odds that famous Scottish club, Rangers, would get relegated out of the Premier League and Kinloch bet $100 that this would occur because he knew the club had financial issues that could lead to them getting kicked out of the Premier League. Rangers were indeed demoted/relegated/expelled due to financial administration and have since been climbing back into the top tier by promoting in successive years.
The court ruled earlier this year that relegation is not the same as getting demoted because of financial administration and that part of the case can be read at http://www.scottishlegal.com/2017/04/04/blog-all-bets-are-off/
that strangest part occurred today when, during Kinloch's appeal hearing, the judge ordered that while he believes the bet should be paid out to a consumer as relegation is the same as being expelled and demoted, he ruled against Kinloch on the grounds that because he WAS, at one time, a professional oddsmaker he isn't protected by consumer law and that the appeal is lost.
Coral was giving 2500/1 odds that famous Scottish club, Rangers, would get relegated out of the Premier League and Kinloch bet $100 that this would occur because he knew the club had financial issues that could lead to them getting kicked out of the Premier League. Rangers were indeed demoted/relegated/expelled due to financial administration and have since been climbing back into the top tier by promoting in successive years.
The court ruled earlier this year that relegation is not the same as getting demoted because of financial administration and that part of the case can be read at http://www.scottishlegal.com/2017/04/04/blog-all-bets-are-off/
that strangest part occurred today when, during Kinloch's appeal hearing, the judge ordered that while he believes the bet should be paid out to a consumer as relegation is the same as being expelled and demoted, he ruled against Kinloch on the grounds that because he WAS, at one time, a professional oddsmaker he isn't protected by consumer law and that the appeal is lost.
