YOU have to hand it to 72-year-old Albert Kinloch and a set of clever lawyers.

Just when it seemed that there had been a diminution in all the hot air that has been expended on whether or not the Rangers playing at Ibrox is a new club or not, Albert goes and sues Coral bookmakers for failing to pay him the £250,000 he claims he won off them because he bet £100 on Rangers to be relegated in 2012.

The problem for punters is that the bookies make the rules and usually they make sure that the rules work in their favour.

There are methods and systems which are supposed to guarantee fairness for all, but that only works when you can afford the legal representation that you will need to fight your case because believe me, the bookies always have lawyers on their side.

The fact is that a few years ago, you could not even take the bookies to court, no matter how outrageous their treatment of punters.

Refusals to pay out on legitimate bets were much more common that you might think – The Kicker knows, he was caught out by a thieving clerk and it cost him £340.

This current case appears to be turning on the difference between demotion and relegation. There is no doubt that Rangers were ‘relegated’ to the old Third Division but it was by means of demotion, i.e. they were forced to go into that lowest league.

Albert, who is a former bookie, spotted that Rangers were in financial trouble and got his money down – £100 at 2,500-1. He was refused his cash, and so the case has ended up in the highest civil court in the land.

The Court of Session heard Coral’s lawyers sent Albert a letter stating: “They are not the same as the old Rangers”, along with a copy of the SFA rulebook.

Oh dear. The lawyers for Coral have opened up a can of worms by bringing in the whole issue of whether Rangers as a club ceased to exist in 2012.

The argument on both sides has been loud and long, but now if Coral maintain that defence a sheriff will have to rule on whether Rangers ‘the club’ is the same as Rangers the company, the oldco definitely being liquidated.

It’s an ingenious defence by Coral, but does that now mean that every single person who has placed a bet on Rangers to win anything since 2012 should get their money back?

For if Coral insist that Rangers really are a new club, does that club deserve the name Rangers? Should Coral not have made that clear on their betting slips – this is ‘new’ Rangers, or something.

This dilemma was always going to be a legal matter, especially in advance of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the use of Employee Benefit Trusts by oldco Rangers.

Perhaps those great friends of Scottish football, William Hill should have had a word with their pals at Coral and said ‘leave well alone chaps, the game here’s in enough trouble.’