Glasgow punter loses his £250,000 claim over Rangers bet

A Glasgow gambler's legal action over a £100 bet with Coral he claimed should have won him £250,000 has been rejected by Scotland's highest court.

Albert Kinloch, 74, placed a £100 bet early in the 2011-12 season that Rangers would be 'relegated' from the Scottish Premiership in 2012 and was offered odds of 2,500-1 by Corals.

Kinloch argued in court during the three-day hearing that he should be paid as Rangers, who went into administration, began the next season in a lower league.

However, Coral said that a team was only 'relegated' if it had been demoted for finishing at the bottom of the league on points.

Rangers PLC went into liquidation in June 2012 and the team began the next campaign in the Scottish third division.

In a written decision, Lord Bannatyne, presiding judge in the Court of Session, rejected Kinloch's case, ruling that the relevant definition of 'relegation' was the one given by the football authorities not that in the dictionary.

The judge noted that the new company operating the team "applied to and was permitted to join the lowest division of the SFL as a new Associate Member".

Lord Bannatyne also ruled that Kinloch was a "professional gambler" and added: "His actings at that time went well beyond the placing of bets as a hobby."

As a result the judge ruled that the Glasgow man was not entitled to the full protection of consumer law.

Coral issued a statement which said: "We are clearly very satisfied with the judgement passed down."

A source close to Kinloch has told Racing Post that he is considering an appeal. No decision on costs was made.