Talk:Rangers F.C.

Can this be used to make updates(can be copy and pasted over once its unlocked?

Sorry but the football club Rangers FC became a company in 1899 - the club became a company. The club and the company are one. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

How can the club be dead you retard, they have just applied to play in Divivsion 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.221.87 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi 92.235.221.87 - I assume you won't understand any of the following but here goes anyway: Newco Rangers has applied to get the place of Rangers FC in the SPL. It may then apply for a place in the SFL if that request is rejected (as looks likely). As for Rangers FC, it will not be playing football again as it is being liquidated. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Accepting football debts and fines is definitive

Seeing as Charles Green is OK with accepting the debts and fines of the old company surely this means it isn't a new club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadSynergy (talk • contribs) 11:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That was rumoured to be a proposal of a price the newco Rangers could be asked to pay to get into Division 1 rather than division 3. That's all. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sevco getting into division 1 or the SPL will not be a relegation, but in actual fact a double promotion,the company is the club,wikipedia should finally be rewarded for not pandering to fans who want some form of recognition for a club that does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.75.49 (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that new club is taking assets and debts from the old club doesn't make the new club the old club. TerriersFan (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Newco = New company amazing that people think newco = new club BadSynergy (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if editors round here said "new company" properly instead of cutting it off in this fashionably illiterate manner. Britmax (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The advantage of speaking about the 'newco' and the 'oldco' is so that people can be clear which Rangers is being discussed. It may well be that the newco will try and use the name Rangers FC, but they may have to agree a variation on this as other reformed clubs have done - e.g. when Halifax Town A.F.C. was liquidated the newco adopted the name F.C. Halifax Town. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Request to change re kit

On the kit manufacturers section it states that umbro and tennents were manufacturer and sponser untill 2013. 2013 hasnt even happened yet, this is 2012. We dont know when the sponsorship will end so it should be 2010- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.221.87 (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well 2013 hasn't happened yet but, as a thought, that may be when the contract runs out. Britmax (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes made again without consensus

Once again page has been altered to make it seem RFC is dead while it's still being debated. I don't want to start an edit 'war' so to speak however thought someone higher up should know. BadSynergy (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is also being done by editors who leave no edit summary to explain their actions. This is a complex issue in which every editor can no longer be expected to keep up with the arguments, but it is reasonable to expect them to know why they have made their individual edit and to explain this in a summary. Britmax (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It suits posters POV's that's why certain sources that reckon RFC the club is dead is being used but other sources stating the opposite are ignored. BadSynergy (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Prime example an entirely new editor has changed page to say RFC were dissolved in 2012! BadSynergy (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can both contribute to the debate at "Rangers FC club dead or not" I have just asked the question:Everybody seems to accept that Rangers FC is currently a member of the SFA. In that case, could someone who is arguing that Rangers FC is both alive and will survive the liquidation process explain what need is there for Sevco Scotland to seek SFA membership? If Rangers FC is not dying, surely its membership of the SFA will live on? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The SPL share cannot be bought like the assets and he has to prove to the SFA his company can run RFC. I still post on the Dispute notice board however it doesn't stop people making changes so kind of defeats the purpose of debating. BadSynergy (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't asking about SPL share. I also wasn't asking about Sevco Scotland proving to the SFA that it could run a football club (which happend any time there is a take-over of a club). I'm asking why Sevco Scotland requires to apply for membership of the SFA when Rangers FC already has membership of the SFA. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rangers Football Club plc (oldco) has the share, which is why Rangers can still vote on proposals. Green's company has applied to the SFA to have that share transferred to his company (newco). As has been reported the SFA want full details of his company and could be asked to accept sanctions in return for the share. If the SFA turned him down Rangers would be a club without a league to play in however apparently very slim chance of that happening. BadSynergy (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Green's company has applied to the SPL (not the SFA) to have that share transferred to his company (newco). So question remains, why does Sevco Scotland require to apply for membership of the SFA when Rangers FC already has membership of the SFA? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sevco need to have membership to the countrys football association. It's why Rangers were given 3 year ban from Europe because it's in their rules you have to have been a member for 3 consecutive years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadSynergy (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is dragging on a bit I'll stick to the disput page rather than clog up the talk page --BadSynergy (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly Fishiehelper2 because there is an ongoing discussion at dispute resolution the article should remain unchanged until an accurate outcome is reached. There is so much POV pushing on here at the moment that the article should be fully protected again. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not publish original research. Monkeymanman (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Monkeymanman - the article does need protected. As you say, too many editors are making edits either by way of gloating over Rangers' demise, or by way of almost denying the reality of Rangers liquidation. It is sad that this article requires protection, but it does - I don't recall protection being required on the Halifax Town A.F.C. article when it was liquidated. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

it was fully proctect yesterday for the next month so anything anyone thinks needs changed less discuss and get aocnesus and then put the request inAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

For starters, the past tense should be reverted until Consensus is reached. Both here and with dispute resolution. Monkeymanman (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A change from the past tense would require consensus as it would be a highly controversial change. The fact is that Rangers FC is being liquidated and it now has no players and no ground (its assets having been sold on 14th June). It has therefore played its last game and therefore 'was' a football club seems appropriate on that basis. On the other hand, I concede that in strictly legal terms, the club still exists as it has not yet been finally dissolved - the liquidation process is not due to be completed for another few weeks. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no Consensus for the article to be changed to a past tense. There was (and still is) an ongoing dispute resolution if there should be a separate article for the club or the company. Therefore the article should remain present tense until a resolution is reached. Many editors have explained to you that there are conflicting sources to cite both sides of the argument. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Complaint about 'Rangers Football Club was a football club'

Surely it's 'Rangers Football Club were a football club', using the singular here doesn't sound right.--188.223.14.24 (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Football club" is singular. "It is a club". Not, "it were a club". The same way it would be "X was a player", not "X were a player". 130.88.141.34 (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

British English treats football clubs as both singular or plural entities. Various pages on Wikipedia reflect both uses. In the past, I've used singular for corporate club and plural for team, but that's neither more or less right than any other methodology. In cases like that, we go with the status quo, unless there's consensus to change. --Dweller (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Were Rangers not founded in 1873 as FIFA says?

Just reading the Rangers page on FIFA 's Classic Clubs [1] and noticed that FIFA records the foundation of Rangers as 1873. This article says 1872 and the reference just goes to an 'error page'. Is FIFA wrong and, if so, can we prove it? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

yes and no they where founded in 1872 but where to late for regristion to play that season but played friendlies until the 1873 season when they where register with sfa that what fifa is probably saying i think it is in the history section a reference to prove it if not we will need to find one or change itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

just checked the links that source it are dead so we nee dot find new onesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

[2]. Monkeymanman (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

So Andrewcrawford, what do we do when the sources say conflicting things? The SPL says 1872[3] and FIFA says 1873 [4]. Do we just go by the sources alone, or do we check to see which source is correct and which source is inaccurate? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

excately what i have said before we must amend it to say something in the line of rangers fc where formed in 1872 (source) but is it also suggested they where formed 1873 (source) both are reliable sources so we cant choose over the other once we can get 75% majority of sources for either 1872 or 1873 then we mention that in the infobox as founded but in the history mention both but mention more source support the one over the other, can we try get more sources please but put a edit request to make a slight change just now to say bothAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

the main problem with trying to find out which source is wrong is how do we do it we cant is the simple answer because both are reliable if it was on the article dead link the club website it would be primary source so we go with the 3rd party reliable source fifa but the scotprem site is reliable 3rd party toAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources are all over the place: just putting 'Rangers founded' into a google search bring up 1872. However loads of sources say 1873, such as STV, [5]] The Guardian [6] the Scottish Sun, [7] Arbroath FC, [8] - even the Rangers website makes clear that the official founding of the club was in 1873. [9] Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

please post sources for 1872 as well and the rangers website oneAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, the article was sourced that way. A citation to explain the club recognises it was founded in 1872 (this was changed within the last 3-4 years), but official matches were played in 1873 (included in a footnote). So what's the problem? Monkeymanman (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

the source on the article are dead links and are primary source so isnt be reliable in that sense, but we have sources saying both 1872 and 1873 from reliable 3rd party sources so the article has to say it isnt clear which is the real founding year if there a source saying what you have that is a 3rd party one that will be a start, im campaigning to have it one article because of conflicting sources i will campaign to have both years included until a majority go one way or the other, the attitude of pick and choose what source is why the club or not dispute is still on goingAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the solution not to edit the infobox so it reads 'Founded: 1873 (official date)[10] '. That should make clear that the 1872 is an unoffical date. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

reading the source yes your correct put 1873 in infobox but make sure to edit history to say unofficially for 1873 173 officially founded, i agree with this because of this statement on the primary source "Despite this promising start, as every fan knows the official founding of the club did not take place until the following year.

The date of 1873 is recognised because that was the year when the club had their first annual meeting and officers were elected. Rangers were becoming businesslike."Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The club officially recognise 1872 as their founding date. You can include a footnote that it was changed from 1873, which is when .......etc etc. It was only recently changed in the last one or two seasons. Hence is why the FIFA website has probably got it wrong. According to that source the club is "bidding for a third successive domestic title." Monkeymanman (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

sorry the primary source and reliable 3rd party sources confirm it as 1873 i will put the edit request in later if someone want to do it before i do go ahead, when primary source states teh above as 1873 that the year we will useAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The Club state 1872 putting it as 1873 is basically false information regardless of what the primary source states, what Monkeymanman suggests is far better and far more accurate. If we know a source to be likely wrong then we shouldn't follow it, and its hardly original research when the club have such a comprehensive history. There are many clubs that have this issue Hearts for instance were possibly founded a year earlier than they state.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

We could also citebook The Gallant Pioneers: Rangers 1872. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

no the club states 1873 as they officially founded but they where playing as a team 1 year before but missed the sfa membership cut-off read the followinf quote from rangers own site y to say unofficially for 1873 173 officially founded, i agree with this because of this statement on the primary source "Despite this promising start, as every fan knows the official founding of the club did not take place until the following year.

The date of 1873 is recognised because that was the year when the club had their first annual meeting and officers were elected. Rangers were becoming businesslike."Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Scottish football encyclopaedia states club formed February 1872, first match played May 1872. Officially founded 1873. Now this is a bit like club company however we clearly have reliable sources that state the Club Rangers played matches in 1872 which is when the were formed. Could the infobox not be | founded = 1873 <br>Formed 1872. Think I'm over thinking it but not straight forward as a club did play in 1872 so 1873 isn't correct on its own which is why a footnote is probably best. This is really the stupidest debate ever given there was and isn't anything factually wrong in the opening statement and the sources provided. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

i dnt see anything wrong with doing |founded=1873 <br />Formed 1872 but this is excately liek club or company we cant go against the sources that is pov, i dnt think there is formed parameter if there is use that insteadAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

it's only pov if not sourced or slanted. . This can be sourced clearly via several books who don't have a pov on the issue. I don't care what year they were formed or founded or much else about the club but this is accurate. I hold copies of these books as i do with a lot to do with Scottish Football in general so can provide the cites if necessary. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

write upa repalcement for the infobox with sources using citebook and i wont object to that but also writ eup replacement for the early yearsw part of the history sources th various sources that say 1873 and 1872Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Eyes open people

I've just seen the first trickles of reports that they have lost the vote. Of course this will need to go into the article but watch the POV and grave dancing (from all other Scottish clubs by the look of things). Britmax (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've already updated the Newco Rangers article to include this information. I don't see it also needs to be added to this article. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

agreed the debate about whether this should be one article or two is in disputer resoution and now about to go to wp:rfc so until that matter is cleared up this article should be read like it is the old club and the new article about the new club once the dipsute has ended and if it decided it should be one article we will merge everything together and make it all right but until then we go with this as the old club and the other as new clubAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough it will need to go in an article rather than this one but I think people will still try, so stay vigilant. Britmax (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Consistency on Wikipedia regarding liquidated/reformed Football Clubs

The Rangers F.C wikipedia page needs to be changed to be factual and without bias. Referring to the club in the past-tense is clearly a wind-up from rival fans of the club.

The page needs to follow that of Napoli - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.S.C._Napoli Exiting via a newco purchase isn't much different from exiting administration via a CVA, both methods require a buy-out of the business by new owners leaving the creditors with the proceeds fo the sale.

the precedent has been set already that a club retains it's identity and history through such insolvency processes.

Napoli has been given as an example above, but others include;

Fiorentina, who retain their identity and history recognised by both Wikipedia & FIFA.

Leeds United.

Charlton Athletic reformed in 1984.

Middlesbrough F.C. reformed liquidated and reformed in 1986.

In years to come, like the above clubs, Rangers FC regardless of the corporate entity that owns them, will continue to recognise the history of the club formed in 1872 (and not the plc formed 27 years later) and that history will continue to be recognised by the governing bodies, including FIFA. http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=31067/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky072 (talk • contribs)

Apart from Rangers fans, no-one seems very sure about the answer to these questions. To take Leeds as an example, they didn't need to scrabble around to find a new League, so something is different. Tackling another of your assertions, it seems liquidation is indeed different from exiting administration via CVA, as clubs do the latter from time to time without these issues arising. --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A few corrections: Leeds, Charlton and Middlesbrough didn't get completely liquidated as will happen to Rangers FC - those clubs were actually saved from final liquidation at the last minute. Yes new companies were created to buy out the old company, but this is not what is happening to Rangers: Charles Green's consortium didn't buy the old company - it bought the assets, leaving the company to be liquidated. As for Italian clubs, there bankruptcy laws are very different to what happens in the UK. If you really want to get consistent treatment on Wikipedia, perhaps have a read of the following pairs of articles: Halifax Town A.F.C. and F.C. Halifax Town; Chester City FC and Chester FC; Telford United FC and A.F.C. Telford United. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

ok i am goign to celar something up for both sides of the argument, what another article does on wikpedia does not mean it has to be done on all similar articles, each case is depentent on sources, there is clear argument that both sides are right so that why i am goign toa rfc hopefulyl avoiding the need for a formal medation that could be looked at by the hgiher up of wikipeida and the deicision instead of being a conesus taken out of our hands, gopefully the rfc will draw neutral people in whop dnt really knwo the siution and will review the sources and make non bias conesus and hopefulyl we can all agree on it regrardless if it doesnt suit our own personal agenda wikipedia is about source and conesus and i hope we all can appericate thatAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Crawford - That cleared nothing up. And also, yes, articles on wikipedia need to be consistent. That is the whole point of having a universal encyclopaedia, is it not?

See Vale of Leven F.C. for another case where we have a single article on a club which folded and a new club re-emerged with the same name, and the article explicitly mentions a few other Scottish clubs where this happened. In practice a crucial factor seems to be that the new club is effectively regarded as a continuation of the old club if it carries on playing at the same ground, which happened with most of these clubs but not Gretna. PatGallacher (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And there lies the crux of the matter. Many here have done an awful lot of personal research about company law, and reckon they're quite experts. It is all very interesting, but this article is not about just a company. It is about a football club, a football team and a cultural landmark. Wikipedia doesn't care what some editor's expert analysis of company law concludes. What is important is what reliable sources generally regard the situation to be. No-one, but no-one, is reporting this story as if the new company's Rangers is some new invention, imagined out of nothing. Everyone is reporting it as a continuation of Rangers Football club. A much reduced and humbled version, certainly, but essentially the same club, with the exact same manager, the exact same ground, the exact same fans and many of the same players and staff. The idea that some new suits sitting in the director's box with a different company name on the letter heading means it's a totally different club, meriting a totally different article, is perverse and not in line with sources. Anyone who thinks that having an end date on the info box here is going to in anyway resemble reality is dreaming. Rangers will be generally regarded as having continued on under a new company and no-one will care what company law says. It won't matter because a football club is not just a company.

No reader is going to come to Wikipedia wanting to read about Oldco Rangers, to the exclusion of Newco Rangers, and every reader who wishes to read about Newco Rangers has every right to read about Oldco Rangers. Their stories cannot be told separately, they are integral to each other, having them in separate articles makes absolutely no sense.

Reference to other teams' articles is interesting, but not binding. Each situation is different. What matters is what the sources say and what is right for this article.

And before we get yet more irrelevant talk about who's a fan of whom; I am not a fan of Rangers and I would argue the exact same about any major league team of any sport. The club is more than the company that runs it. If it was just another company we wouldn't be having this discussion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

What you say is equally true of other football clubs that have gone into liquidation, though of course Rangers FC is much more significant than those on any measure - but surely size isn't the important difference here is it? As for your point about people wanting to read about oldco as well as newco - yes, that's why all articles for clubs that have reformed from liquidation have clear links to the related articles. There is a great deal of ignorance about what is really going on - and that is exhibited in some of the newspapers as well as on blogs and forums - and the role of an encyclopaedia is to provide clear and accurate infomation. Having a single article for oldco Rangers and newco Rangers would add to the misunderstandings about the differences between administration and liquidation. As a coomment above said "Exiting via a newco purchase isn't much different from exiting administration via a CVA"...help!!! The newco Rangers may carry the 'spirit' of Rangers - just like other newcos have carried forward the spirit of those clubs as well - but a newco is a new incarnation, and should be a new article to reflect that, as has been done for several other British clubs that have been liquidated. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In any way the article should not have been changed to a past tense without consensus and a formal result from Dispute resolution.

There are clearly precedents that have been set already on wikipedia and conflicting reliable sources to back up whatever opinion we may have.

In all respects the article before and after liquidation of the parent company should be the same (like with Fiorentina). A separate article can be clearly created which explains (in vast detail) the circumstances of the administration and liquidation process and subsequent formation of the new company. This way a link can be made between the "Rangers FC" article and the "Administration and Liquidation of the PLC" for readers who have an interest in that.

This would be far less confusing and would make common sense for the wikipedia community and readers who would like to know more about Rangers FC. Monkeymanman (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well put monkeymanman, to suggest that Napoli & Fiorentina are different because the italian insolvency laws are different is not only an absurd view, but a bias one. Wikipedia documents football clubs across the globe with a similar consistency. It documents Fiorentina as a singular club but also documents them founded 1926, and then in brackets, 2002. Napoli also mentions the club was "founded in 1926 (refounded in 2004)".

And to the above mentioend examples of British clubs being reformed, Fishihelper mentions they clubs didn't actually 'liquidate' which is contrary to Wikipedia's own information from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_%28British_football%29 In this case of Charlton, the club is run by Charlton Athletic Football Company LTD (1984) which is housed by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited (1992). There is no record of the old company what-so-ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky072 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC was the company which is being liquidated.

From the website of the now defunct club:

http://www.rangers.co.uk/coaching-staff-profile/article/1555141

"In May 1899, Wilton was given the dual role of manager and secretary when the club became a limited liability company. "

http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495830

"Wilton was rewarded with his appointment as the Club's first Manager as Rangers formally became a business company."

I'm not sure what there is to argue about here, Rangers FC, the club started as an association of members, whose shares were converted into those of a limited liabilty company, and whose most recent major shareholder was Craig Whyte, is the company which is being liquidated.

It's plainly presented on their old site, for as long as its paid for, at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.31 (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What you say is all correct. Rangers FC was a football club that became a company and is now being liquidated. The assets and business of that club have now been bought by a new company that plans to change its name to Rangers Football Club Ltd at the end of July (when the oldco Rangers changes its name to Rangers 2012 so as to release its original name to be used by the new company.) This is all quite clear. However the issue for some editors appears to be that since the new company, the administrators, many fans and some media outlets state that 'the club' (and not just the assets) was bought by Green's consortium, and 'the club' is therefore merely continuing under new ownership, should this not be reflected in Wikipedia even though it is incorrect? Unfortunately I don't see how a compromise is possible between those who take this view and those, like myself, who believe that we should always seek to make Wikipedia as accurate as possible and should therefore not use sources that are clearly wrong or may have been written in an inaccurate or misleading way for reasons of commercial self-interest or wishful thinking on the part of the authors. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There are conflicting reliable sources that would directly support both arguments of separate club or separate company. However Remember this. Monkeymanman (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be useful to this debate if some reliable sources could be posted that clearly state that Rangers FC (the club) is somehow separate from Rangers FC PLC (the company), as I don't believe I have seen any (that are reliable). All I recall seeing are articles containing quotes from people who have a commercial interest in promoting one interpretation on this issue. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add..."or supporters of Rangers who may not have a commercial self-interest but have an emotional self-interest." Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that the club is dead. However, I would have some sympathy for those Rangers fans who look at how the Fiorentina issue was handled. Ultimately though, it seems beyond clear that the club died with the company. Heywoodg ^talk 09:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, though bankruptcy laws in Italy appear somewhat different to here in the UK. As for sympathy, I also have sympathy for fans of Halifax Town A.F.C., Chester City FC, Telford United FC etc who see that liquidation of their clubs led to new articles for the newcos (F.C. Halifax Town, Chester FC and A.F.C. Telford United - they must be wondering why Rangers FC should be treated differently from their clubs. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In what way is Italian law so different that a liquidated company, which is reformed, maintain the same identity & history as the previous club? UK law allows a company to purchase the "goodwill" of another, meaning the history is transferred over to the new corporate entity. This is simiar to that of Napoli, who actually existed for a couple of seasons before they were allowed to rename the newco as the same as the previous club. To maintain the arguement that Italian insolvency law is different I think is a clear showing of your bias, as you are using complete nonsensical guesswork to try and back-up your stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky072 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That is why Fiorentina should really be a separate page too. The old club is dead, the new Fiorentina is a new different club. However, the same mistake shouldn't be made here. If fans want a fan page with history, fine, but Wikipedia should stick to reality which is that newco are not Rangers just because they share a name. For Wikipedia to pretend that entity is somehow a parent/sibling of the other, or that nothing happened, is wrong. Rangers will always be Rangers to a lot of fans I guess, but sentiment isn't a reason to turn a blind eye. Heywoodg ^talk 11:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well clearly they do share much more than "just a name". That much is plain. So your argument doesn't stand up to even the slightest analysis. And I don't believe anyone is suggesting "nothing happened". Wikipedia treats Fliorentina as the same club because the footballing authorities and reliable sources do the same. The purpose of Wikipedia is in being a verifiable encyclopaedia, it is not about establishing what some see as truth in the face of others' "mistakes". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I claim no expert knowledge in Italian bankruptcy laws and am willing to be corrected. However, I know that Scottish bankruptcy law is the same as the rest of the UK (as it is the same UK wide legislation that applies) and therefore thought it better to look at what has happened to UK football clubs that have been liquidated. That was why I raised Halifax Town A.F.C., Chester City FC and Telford United FC. No one has provided an argument why the case of Rangers FC should be treated differently on Wikipedia from these clubs. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Because, as I have repeatedly explained to you, but you appear reluctant to listen, reliable sources are treating the newco as a continuation of Rangers, a refounding of Rangers FC, the same club. I do not know how reliable sources treated the other clubs you quote, I do not know how the decisions were reached about their articles. Harping on about liquidation law is irrelevant if the sources don't care. The sources don't care because the club is more than a company. There is a reason why this is all being reported on the sports pages and not the business pages. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It works both ways. It would be useful to this debate if some reliable sources could be posted that clearly state that Rangers FC (the club) is one and the same as Rangers FC PLC (the company), as I don't believe I have seen any (that are reliable). I'm also inclined to ignore any original research added to a talk page that shouts "FACT!". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

i did on the dispute resolution noticeboard, tha tthe problem both sides are right it is not clear that is why to get a proper deciison on this i am moving up the dipsute to rfc hopefulyl wihtin next week or so, i am still gathering sourcs for sides of the argument, those who say the club is edad will only point o th soruce that say it is and when source that say otherwise they say it is is bad editor writing the source because its not ocmplying wiht ther epov same the other way round if source says the club is dead and that nto the poitn of view people ingore it, i think ther eis maybe 3 or 4 editors here that are being neutral on this regradless of own opinions and following wikipedia rule but pov are trying to get it there way for both sides hence why it will be diffucult resovle it will ahve to be taken out of our hands and let indepent people mak ethe decisionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well if you have no idea if Italian insolvency laws differ or not, why take a stance on that basis? It has been reported in various sources that Charles Greens consortium purchased Rangers assets, inclusive of intellectual property (such as the badge, the right to call the team 'Rangers Football Club') and the "goodwill" which includes the history. If you want to argue that is different from the Napoli situation, who purchased the old name & history of the club, then you need to provide evidence as to why this is different. In reference to why Fiorentina 7 Napoli 'should have thier own page', these clubs are globally recognised as the same clubs, playing at the same grounds, under the same name and are recognised by FIFA as maintaining their history, so why would a different page be appropriate to seperate 2 sections in the clubs respective histories? (Source: http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=2147481899/index.html http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=44331/ ) Ricky072 (talk)

Why would you find it appropriate to create 2 seperate pages for these clubs based on the fact they were 'reborn' at certain times in their history, when FIFA, the worlds governing body, have no issue in documenting the clubs history, inclusive of their 'rebirth' & recognises all major honours pre & post rebirth? Why would Wikipedia not feel it appropriate to keep all documention within the same page but include, like FIFA, the rebirth episode within that page, in similar fashion? i.e: Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872 (refounded in 2012) ? In regard to the points raised by examples of Chester etc... These clubs did not 'purchase' the assets & goodwill from the company in adminsitration. The name of the Club (not the company) is also different, as is the badge. The situation is more comparable to Charlton Athletic, who despite being liquidated, maintained the same name of the CLUB (but different company). A quick check on various sources online will only show that the companies that run charlton Athletic were formed in 1984 & a holding company formed in the 90's. Their is no record of the old company, because it was dissolved. Ricky072 (talk)

Don't FIFA have a vested interest in football? Heywoodg ^talk 12:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to individual clubs. You could use FIFA as a source on wikipedia when documenting a clubs honours, or say, listing Brazil's World Cup wins. On that basis it's fair to use FIFA as a reputable source that recognises Fiorentina & Napoli as the same Club maintaining the same history, despite the rebirth of the companies as certain points within that history. Ricky072 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So you don't think FIFA have a vested interest in making the clubs, which they rely on for their income and existence, look like on-going legitimate concerns? I guess we will have to agree to disagree! I would consider FIFA as reliable in this matter as Green. Heywoodg ^talk 13:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Because otherwise they would not be legitimate on-going concerns? Charles green is laying claim to the history of Rangers Football Club, and past honours, including the 54 Scottish League Championships. Which authority will sanction that? considering that list of honours includes a European title, any opposotion to Green's claim is likely to be out of the SFA's jurisdiction. If footballs maining governing bodies in UEFA/FIFA do give clearance and recognise Rangers Football Club in it's current form under charles Green, as the same club as the oen founded in 1872 retaining past honours, would you still argue that Wikipedia should not? Ricky072 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

But that is the point. Rangers is not a legitimate ongoing concern. It has folded and is going to be dissolved. That doesn't change regardless of what FIFA say in order to protect their interests. It is however in the interest of the new club (and FIFA) to pretend that this is the same club because no one with an interest in the new club (or the football associations) wants to see the fans (and their wallets) walk away. Heywoodg ^talk 14:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of you're interpration and the semantics of club/company as one or seperate concerns, the debate here is how Rangers should be recognised by Wikipedia. There is no reasonable arguement as to why Rangers in it's present form should be recored factually in a different format than Charlton Athletic, Napoli or Fiorentia. All of whom were dissolved (Charlton dissolved source here: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/02808331 & here: http://www.cafc.co.uk/page/history/0,,10267~2180943,00.html )at one point, but reborn and as a new corporate entity, retaining their 'club' name & history, as is the case here. The contributor above is wrong in his example such as Chester, these clubs do not set precedent as they did not purchase the club from the Administrators, nor did they stake claim to the clubs history, and the name of "club" changed, along with the badge. All of which would reasonably suggest they intended to be recognised as a new club. Charlton Athletic here is a clear precedent of a club which maintained it's identity despite being liquidated. Ricky072 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your link to Charlton doesn't actually show much either way. Where the football club owned by a holding company? If so, that would be a completely separate issue to Rangers. But you might be right, which is why I posted something on the Charlton page earlier today, although to me, the main incident for them was 1984. Still, just because a company associated with Charlton does not mean that it is the same situation with Rangers. If you have any more info though, feel free to present it! Heywoodg ^talk 21:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"these clubs do not set precedent as they did not purchase the club from the Administrators" - eh... neither did Charles Green's consortium. He was only willing to purchase the club from the administrators if the creditors agreed to the proposed CVA. When they refused, he instead bought the assets from the administrators. (Had he bought the club, he would have bought all the good stuff, like history, but also taken on the bad stuff - £134M debt.) As for Chester, the fans of Chester City FC formed the club in preparation for the liquidation of their club - they happened to vote to revert to Chester City's previous name which they had had for 98 years. As for Charlton, I seem to recall that they managed to escape from liquidation with 5 minutes to spare - I'll have to check that out. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your reckoning of FIFA's motivations is irrelevant. If that's what the ultimate footballing authority wants, and what the club wants, and what the fans want, and what reliable sources report, then it is not Wikipedia's place to decide "Actually we've done some research on company law of dubious relevance, and decided it trumps the lot of you, we know better, you're not getting it". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess that is up for debate. The fact is though that the club that existed for 140 odd years, will shortly cease to exist. It will be gone in to the ether like Accrington Stanley and plenty of previous clubs (and I suspect plenty will follow it too!) Personally, I think Wikipedia should be focused on the real-life situation, not on the fans fantasy/interpretations. That is what fan sites are for. But, that is just my opinion and obviously a lot of Rangers fans will disagree which is to be expected. I think 90% of us would if it was our club who had disappeared. Heywoodg ^talk 21:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishihelper, You're wrong as a matter of fact when you say he did not purchase "the good stuff" as you put it. Green himself has claimed he purchased the business "today, the consortium I represent has fulfilled its agreement with the administrators and has completed the acquisition of the business and assets of The Rangers Football Club plc." (source:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2159368/The-Rangers-Football-Club-bought-Charles-Green.html#ixzz1zrJwoqQF). This is inclusive of the 'goodwill', and also the right to use the club's badge & the right to call the team/club "Rangers Football Club". Chester did not to this. They did not purchase the right to use the old club name, nor the badge. Having changed the name of the club & badge it is reasonable to assume the new founders were content to be recognised as a different club born out of the death of the old one, and not a continuation. You are also wrong about Charlton, I supplied 2 links above, both reputable sources, 1 is the Charlton website which confirms the oringal PLC was eventually dissolved in 2010 after being more or less dorment since they reformed. A similar situation may be teh case for RFC as the current PLC in administration, may remain in that state for a number of years as ongoing court cases & legal disputes are resolved. This is also the case with Leeds United. LEEDS UNITED ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (THE) IN LIQUIDATION Source: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00170600 I personal believe that your reluctance to recognise that both Leeds United & Charlton Athletic have both been dissolved/liquidated yet continue as the same club, is again showing of anti-Rangers bias. I've proven these cases by providing reputable sources and no Wikipedia contributor has been able to seperate Rangers to the precedents set by Fiorentina/Napoli/Charlton/Leeds, you're counter-arguements thus far have been 'Charlton & Leeds were not liquidated' when they were, and 'Italian insolvency law is different' when infact you have no knowledge on that subject and later admitted it was purely guesswork in order to discredit those precedents. Ricky072 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ricky072, are you an accountant? When I did accountancy (a basic level a long time ago), goodwill wasn't used in the way you are using it here. Goodwill isn't something that is transferred just as people's affection for say Apple would be transferred if Apple were bought by the Chinese company that actually make Apple products. Goodwill is simply a figure that is used to indicate off-balance sheet value in a company. Here I guess it would refer to the potential value in the name Rangers, which would draw fans of the old Rangers club to the new one. I would find it difficult to believe that you would see one company selling goodwill to another one like a normal asset. It is slightly different to that. Is there a specific item called "goodwill" that is listed somewhere, or is it just something that Green used in interviews? Heywoodg ^talk 21:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

this is going to Request for Comment with sources that back both sides of the argument as both sides are right but neither are willing to listen to each other side and resolve this Request for Comment will hopefully bring unbiased with no knowledge of the subject here i should have this in place in a week or soAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to correct you on a few points, Ricky072. Firstly, you misquote what I said: what I actually said was that Green didn't want to buy the whole club because that would have meant buying both the 'good stuff' and the 'bad stuff'. He couldn't get an agreed CVA so chose instead to buy the good stuff alone (ie, he didn't buy the club - just the assets.) Are you really arguing that it is possible to buy a club's history by buying the club's goodwill? If other clubs had known that, perhaps one of them would have offered several million to buy Rangers' goodwill - a quick way to get a number of league titles to your name! Secondly, can I point out that there is a world of difference between exiting administration by a CVA and exiting by liquidation. Leeds United definitely (and Charlton, I believe) exited administration by an agreed CVA just prior to final liquidated - this is why each preserved their history. As part of these agreed CVAs, Leeds and Charlton then moved to new company structures under holding companies I believe. Rangers FC are in the same boat as other clubs that have gone into administration, failed to exit via an agreed CVA, and then end up liquidated. Finally, I am sorry that you take my refusal to accept your point of view as evidence of me "showing of anti-Rangers bias". If you check you will see that I have been an editor for more than 4 years with over 10,000 edits - trust me: I am more concerned about ensuring that wikipedia's reputation is protected than I am in any having any desire to annoy Rangers supporters by reminding them that their club has gone bankrupt! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

fisherhelper can you please correct your post what you just quote as saying was not me saying it that was ricky or excape orbit i merely said both side are right and wrong and this is going to Request for Comment nothing about anything you quote please correct your postAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fisherhelper, 1. yes, it is possible to purchase the clubs history via "goodwill", as claimed by several sources, the Administrators Duff & Phelps, and also achieved by Napoli who purchased the clubs old name, badge & history (goodwill) 2 years after the refoundation of the new club "Naploi Soccer". It was also a proposal put forward by Bill Miller who intended to transfer the clubs historym name & goodwill to an "incubator" newco. Your suggestion other clubs could have baught them and picked up the titles is bizarre, and the biding process was open to anyone who could table the best bid, not just the £5.5m Green used to purchase the club, but also future funding, making it the highest bid. It simply isn't viable for any club in Scotland to make that kind of purchase to try and then claim they won the titles. 2. Leeds United and Charlton DID NOT agree a CVA. do your research, HMRC blocked a CVA going through at Leeds United. I provided a source above which now states Leeds United 1920 "in liquidation" with liabilities over £32m & net worth of £-27m. I also provided a reputable source that Charlton PLC has also been dissolved. There is no basis nor foundation to argue that the RFC wikipedia page should be documented in a different structure, or reffered to in a past tense, when Charlton, Leeds, Napoli & Fiorentina are all represented as current, going conerns and contained within 1 single page. Ricky072 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, this is so bloody simple, I can't even believe there's an argument over it.

The club was a company. That much has already been established.

That company is currently in the process of being liquidated. That club is currently in the process of being liquidated.

They are one and the same thing.

It says so, on their own website.

A club is not an asset of a company, a club is a company.

There is no OR here, it's taken from their own website.

Is there which anyone doesn't understand?

Rangers, the club, which was also a company, is dead.

No debate, no argument, it's as simple as 1+2=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.78 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not "bloody simple" and the odd quote from the Rangers website does not clinch it. Just a few minutes ago we had a story on BBC Scotland news "The Rangers captain is the latest to join the exodus from Ibrox". He is perfectly entitled to do so, but the implication is that the default option for players is to stay with Rangers, which implies that there is some serious continuity between the old and new clubs. "The club" is a complex entity, more than a company, it includes fans, a ground, players and non-playing staff, the bulk of which is likely to continue. Keep it as a single article. PatGallacher (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So, the quote from the Rangers website, about how Rangers are a company, isn't sufficient to prove that Rangers are a company? Dear Lord, no wonder no one visits this website any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.78 (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A Club is not a company, that arguement is flawed, they are seperate entities. The club is made up of the club name (not to be confused by the name of the company which is usually the club name followed by PLC/LTD etc...), a badge, a stadium, colours & other brand identities, a squad of players, coaching staff, a stadium & other assets. The club is merely operated by a company, and it's common practice for sports clubs to be shuffled around during a corporate reorganisation. A fine example of this would be Rangers rivales Celtic who in 1994 underwent a corporate restrcuture where parts of the club & assets were moved to a new holding company entitled Pacific Shelf 595. To argue that the club becomes a company and the 2 aren't seperate entities is contrary to any club which has had a corporate restructure, or has been baught over. In the case of Rangers, the precedent has been set by Carlton Athletic, Leeds United, Napoli & Fiorentina where the CLUB has maintained it's recognition as the same club despite the previouse corporate entity being dissolved/liquidated. Perhaps the most obvious point that should be stressed is that within Charles Greens purchase, he also baught the rights to allow the club to use the name, and be recoginsed as "Rangers Football Club", which operates under the company Sevco (but will be changed shortly to The Rangers Football Club Ltd). The wikipedia page in dispute right now is entitled "Rangers Football Club". It's the club that the page documents, and within that page it's corporate history should be documented, including the administration period and subsequent reformation & purchase by Charles Greens Consortium. The page therefore takes the same structure as the afore mentioned clubs (Charlton, Leeds, Napoli & Fiorentina) that ultimatly, the page is a documentation of what is generally regarded as the recognised 'clubs'. Ricky072 (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 July 2012

Can you please update this page as the current Rangers Football Club as the club is still in existence it is the company that is in liquidation. Other clubs such as Leeds Utd and Charlton Athletic have done exactly the same process.

90.192.146.99 (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

To admin reviewing this please do not make any the changes the ip user is requested a consensus has yet to be reachedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andrewcrawford. (For the record, the club itself became a company in 1899 and therefore is the same entity. This club/company entity is now being liquidated) Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are there so many people who don't recognise that a club is a company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.78 (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Because any football club with a history is at once that and so much more. Britmax (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Because you rarely find people buying apparel in company colours they don't work for, or visiting it once a week to cheer it on going about its business. There therefore must be something more to it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A Club is not a company, that arguement is flawed, they are seperate entities. The club is made up of the club name (not to be confused by the name of the company which is usually the club name followed by PLC/LTD etc...), a badge, a stadium, colours & other brand identities, a squad of players, coaching staff, a stadium & other assets. The club is merely operated by a company, and it's common practice for sports clubs to be shuffled around during a corporate reorganisation. A fine example of this would be Rangers rivales Celtic who in 1994 underwent a corporate restrcuture where parts of the club & assets were moved to a new holding company entitled Pacific Shelf 595. To argue that the club becomes a company and the 2 aren't seperate entities is contrary to any club which has had a corporate restructure, or has been baught over. In the case of Rangers, the precedent has been set by Carlton Athletic, Leeds United, Napoli & Fiorentina where the CLUB has maintained it's recognition as the same club despite the previouse corporate entity being dissolved/liquidated. Perhaps the most obvious point that should be stressed is that within Charles Greens purchase, he also baught the rights to allow the club to use the name, and be recoginsed as "Rangers Football Club", which operates under the company Sevco (but will be changed shortly to The Rangers Football Club Ltd). The wikipedia page in dispute right now is entitled "Rangers Football Club". It's the club that the page documents, and within that page it's corporate history should be documented, including the administration period and subsequent reformation & purchase by Charles Greens Consortium. The page therefore takes the same structure as the afore mentioned clubs (Charlton, Leeds, Napoli & Fiorentina) that ultimatly, the page is a documentation of what is generally regarded as the recognised 'clubs'. Ricky072 (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Celtic began as an unincorporated association in 1888, they became a private limited company in 1897 and in 1994 that same company floated and becomes a public limited company, changing their name to merely 'Celtic Plc' in the process rather than the previous Celtic Football and Athletic Company. The old name was no longer in use and was subsequently used to rename the purchased shell company Pacific Shelf. Look at companies house and check the company number for Celtic Plc, you will see it changed to Plc in 1994 and changed from the old name to the new name, but it's the same company as it was back in 1897, the number is unique to a single company. There were no assets moved. By contrast Rangers were an unincorporated association in 1873 which became a public limited company in 1899, no name changes since, same unique company number. This unique number is not that of Sevco. It will never be that of Sevco. Jaikyboy 07 July 2012. 09:48

Senior Scottish judge Lord Glennie has confirmed that Rangers are the same club as before. In his Court of Session ruling on the transfer embargo he described the old company as one that "presently operates" the football club. Now, a few months on. the football club is operated by a new company ("newco"). Similarly, Malcolm Cohen of insolvency practitioners BDO who are liquidating the old company has said: “It’s important to understand that the appointment of liquidators will not mean the end of football at Ibrox – only the end of the company that ran the club”. Again, a new company now runs the club. Company and club are two separate entities. Moreover (and arguably this is all I need have said), as things stand, the old company has not been liquidated (the intention is to liquidate it but it hasn't actually happened). 23:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBO (talk • contribs)

Secco owner Charles Green has stated more than once the intent to offer the fans part ownership of the club via a share issue. Ths is only possible if the club IS the company. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/07/07/rangers-in-crisis-charles-green-to-give-fans-chance-to-own-half-of-ibrox-club-with-new-share-issue-86908-23905404/. The emotional arguments dont hold water when you've taken investment from people - it has to remain analytic. There are two trains of thought; club becomes company upon incorporation (look at every football clubs letters where the name the company unequivocally then immediately equate with the ubiquitous "the club") or club and company are forever separate. If they are separate then a share issue can only confer part ownership of the company. They can't have it both ways. Also, Lord Glennie's statement would have been closer to truth had it said Rangers Football Club Plc operate AS a football club. I am fairly sure Charles Green knows precisely he is running a new club, and is intent on equating this new club with the old so he can sell shares and profit. No problem with that but you can't sell shares in a club then upon liquidation say it was never really the club you sold shares in but a company, then afterwards reverse your position 180 degrees and try to sell shares on the basis of club and company being the same again. Also please look at various quotes from the main movers in the entire charade - Craig Whyte, Brian Kennedy and of course Charles Green. They ALL said more than once on record that it all ends with liquidation, that the club is gone and so too the history behind it. To use this as an argument to get a CVA then discard it after the CVA fails is pure PR and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Club and company are the same thing when the club itself incorporates. Have a look at Celtic's Articles of association where they define the first team as the "first team playing squad of the company" - to claim club isn't company is to simultaneously accuse every football club which has had a share issue of fraudulent misrepresentation because all of them have used the same argument Charles Green is attempting to use now, namely that you can own a part of the club through a share issue. This, I state again, is only possible when the club and the company are the same thing, shareholders do not own assets but they do own a part of the company. Repeating my correction of Lord Glennie's statement: the company operates AS a football club. Please let the charade end and report honestly taking into account the sources own statements and intentions. 07 July 2012.09:23 by Jaikyboy

You really think you can "correct" Lord Glennie, Principal Commercial Judge at the Court of Session, the highest Court in Scotland (a statement in a formal ruling from Lord Glennie at that)? And also senior insolvency practitioner Malcolm Cohen? (The emotional appeals people make when they are trying to sell shares or whatever carry nothing like the same weight.) BBO (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I just did. I didn't say L. Glennie was wrong, I corrected him though, and Malcolm Cohen also refrained from saying Rangers Football Club will still play at Ibrox, pointedly, he said 'football' will still be played at Ibrox. The emotional appeals are actually the opposite of what your taken from my writing - the fans of the club are the ones who have the emotional appeals, not the people trying to sell it via flotation. It's against the law to misrepresent what you're selling in a flotation of a company, and lawyers are paid handsomely to ensure the company for sale does not misrepresent its position. The emotional appeal is not being made - yet - by Charles Green because the obfuscation in the mass media has done it for him. If its Rangers in the minds of the fans then he doesn't needed to point out they'll be investing in a new club, he just carries on telling them they can invest the the club because technically its true they can, because the club and the company are the same thing one the club floats. It just won't be the same club they followed fist time around and the same club started as an unincorporated association back in 1872, it's a new club. It's is logically impossible for the old club and company not to have been one and the same thing whilst the new cub and company are. Green was, like Kennedy and Whyte before him, well aware of this. None of these guys feared the prospect of no European games for a few years on liquidation - go back and read their statements and watch the Green video right after the Blue Knights trashed his CVA appeal, they all say the exact same thing: liquidation is the end of the club. It's true. The fans CAN invest in the club, just like the share prospectus will tell them, legally, because it will be a new club they're investing in. Nothing emotional about that, just the law. 07 July 2012. 13:28 by Jaikyboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.201.67 (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Spot on. Charles Green's consortium could have bought the club if he wanted to secure its history, by buying Rangers Football Club PLC, but that would have meant buying the debt along with the history because he couldn't get a CVA agreed. He therefore chose NOT to buy the club - his consortium bought the club's assets instead, allowing him everything he needed to operate a club if he can get a SFA license and a league to play in. For all those who can't see this, please answer me this: why go to all the bother to try to exit administration by an agreed CVA if you could buy the club debt free by simply liquidating? Green's consortium had offered £8.5M as part of a CVA but only £5.5M for the assets if the club were liquidated. Why was he willing to offer £3M extra for the club under an agreed CVA if he could get the club with history etc for £3M less by liquidation? Truth is, that he was aware that after liquidation, he was buying the assets and not the club - hence paying £3M less. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

well he didnt want to lose potential eurpeon revenue which they wont get now for 4 years if they manage to qualify in the 3rd year, also it mean they would not lose the membership of spl or sfa so wouldnt need to reapply, doing it this way makes ita lot harder but a more interesting thing will be if they go into administration how this scenario will play out because it almost garnteed we will see a third article but with the same argument still existingAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes - that makes sense. However, there is still the point that since only 'clubs' can be members of the SFA, and since Green is now suggesting that 'the club' lives on transferred to his new company, then why does 'the club' not retain its SFA membership? Clearly the SFA must believe that 'the club' dies when 'the company' is liquidated and can not merely be transferred to a new company when it buys a liquidated club's assets. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

We're debating how wikipedia documents football clubs (and to a broader extent, sports clubs). There is an issue right now in how Rangers are documented. The 'new' page that documents them is entitled "Newco Rangers". Let's take a minute to establish something. Football clubs on wikipedia are referenced to within the page title as the CLUB name. For example, let's take Arsenal. Their main wikipedia page is "Arsenal F.C", however the company that operates Arsenal is known as "Arsenal Holdings plc". The company owns the rights to be called, and known as "Arsenal Football Club" and also owns the the badge/logo. When documented in the media, match reports, league tables, etc... they will always be universally known and recognised as either "Arsenal" or "Arsenal FC". OK so now we have established that Wikipedia documents football clubs by their 'club' name (what the club wishes to be known as, and owns the right to be known as), on that basis, Charles Green's Rangers MUST be documented on Wikipedia as "Rangers Football Club". He (his consortium) OWNS the rights to be known as Rangers, he owns that name, he also owns the badge, the strip and all other intellectual property. There is absolutely no precedent set to document a club with anythign other than the club name. If Wikipedia was to remain consistant in this approach we must reconstruct the current pages of; Charlton F.C, Leeds United F.C, Napoli & Fiorentina. These pages must reflect now defunct clubs in the past tense, and document them only until the point of when the old companies were abandoned & newco's formed. The new company must then be given it's own page and entitled "Newco Leeds". It's of the upmost importance that Wikipedia as an encyclopedic reference establishes consistency, and if the community and administrators of Wikipedia feel that this is the most accurate way to reflect the Rangers situation, I will request edits of the afore mentioned clubs, and any other clubs which have at some point in their history underwent any kind of insolvency process whereby they continued via a new company route, yet lay claim to the identity of the old club (aswell as Charlton, Leeds, Napoli & Fiorentina I think Midlesborough is also a company which has been liquidated and reformed via a new company). Ricky072 (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

First Ricky 072, repeating incorrect statements does not make them true. I'm sure you will have read it being pointed out to you that Leeds United were saved from being liquidated almost at the very last gasp when Ken Bates managed to get an agreed CVA with just over the required 75%. Anyway, to yor main point, the Newco Rangers is called that because that is how the 'club' is widely being referred to, with a view to changing the name of the article once a final name for the 'club' is settled upon. If Green's consortium gets an SFA license, and if it then gets into a league for next season - both 'ifs' at this stage (remember that Green's new company doesn't have three years of accounts which is supposed to be a relevant condition) - then we may find out what name the club is allowed to use. It may be allowed to use 'Rangers FC' or it may be told that it can only get membership if it agrees to something like 'Rangers AFC'. The point is that we don't know and it would be a bit of 'crystal ball gazing' to guess. Therefore, Newco Rangers seems the most appropriate title for the time being for the article about the newco. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect? It's not incorrect, it's a matter of fact which i have repeatedly proven. Leeds United "newco'd" and here is the evidence: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00170600 <- original company, established in 1920, status: "in liquidation", and the records for the present company operating the club: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06233875 That is solid, undeniable evidence that the 'Oldco' Leeds existed between 1920 until 2007 and was liquidated, and the current Leeds is operated by a Newco established in 2007. Do you deny this as a matter of fact? You are also incorrect on the point that the SFA hold the power to decide upon what the club can be called, Green owns the rights to "Rangers Football Club" and the badge and is/will be known as "Rangers" or "Rangers F.C". The term 'Newco' is merely a descriptive term (slang) being used to explain the current situation. I refer you to the BBC's up-to-date documentation on Rangers: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers The newco is still being referred to as "Rangers" with their own club page within the football section. If you notice the most recent article in both the headline & subheadline they are reffered to as "Rangers", there fore to argue they are widely being reffered to as "Newco Rangers", I would infact counter that by saying they are more widely being called simply "Rangers" and can provide literally thousands of reliable & respected journalistic sources like the BBC above who have at some point still reffered to the newco as "Rangers". The appropriate structure of Wikipedia at this time would be to structure the page "Rangers F.C" in the same manner as Leeds United, with an up-to-date account of the club in it's current form, and a link to another page entitled "Sevco Scotland Ltd" as a page that references Charles Greens consortium & owners of "Rangers Football Club". Do you feel that it's appropriate that charlton, Leeds, Fiorentina & Napoli are documented and represented in a different format from Rangers FC? Ricky072 (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to put forward another source to bolster any remaining doubt about the Leeds United situation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2312463/Bates-buys-back-relegated-Leeds.html QUOTE: "Leeds United have been relegated from the Championship after appointing administrators, who immediately agreed to sell the club back to a newly-formed company led by Ken Bates." And i'd also like to put forward yet another source with a detailed explanation to Ken Bates takeover of the club: http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/blog/article/phoenix-companies-leeds-united-did-ken-bates-break-the-law QUOTE: "Ken Bates was a director of the old Leeds United Football Club Limited (company number 05334247) ("Oldco") from 17 January 2005 until 7 March 2006. Oldco went into compulsory liquidation on 6 March 2006. He was also a director of The Leeds United Association Football Club Limited ("AFC") from 20 January 2005 until 4 May 2007. AFC went into administration on 4 May 2007. Since 21 January 2005 he has been a director of: Leeds United Stadium Limited ("Stadium"); Leeds United Retail Limited ("Retail"); and Leeds United Investments Limited ("Investments") . Stadium and Retail went into compulsory liquidation on 27 June 2007." QUOTE: "Shortly before AFC went into administration on 4 May 2007, Mr Bates became a director of Leeds United 2007 Limited (1 May 2007) and Leeds United Football Club Limited (company number 05765697) ("Newco") (3 May 2007)." And 1 final piece of evidence for you that confirms that no CVA took place when Bates baught the club via a Newco I reffer you to Leeds Uniteds own website: http://www.leedsunited.com/throughthedecades/20070605/2000s_2249413_1033248 QUOTE: "The administration saga and legacy lasted throughout the summer of 2007 and well into the new season. Despite Bates' buy-back plans receiving creditor approval, the Inland Revenue lodged an objection with the court rendering the CVA invalid. The administrators (KPMG) immediately offered the club for sale again - and the bid from Bates was again accepted. But, without a valid CVA in place, the Football League deemed the club's exit from administration to be a breach of their insolvency policy and initially refused the club a share of league membership throwing into doubt its future. That 'golden share' was finally handed back to the club less than two weeks before the start of the 2007/08 season, but it came at a price, with a 15-point sanction imposed by the League." Ricky072 (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ricky072. Back to Leeds. There is a difference between entering liquidation and being finally liquidated. A club can be saved from the liquidation process after the club has entered liquidation. That is what happened to Leeds United and Middlesbrough to name but two. Ken Bates did form a new company to buy 'the club' but what he was doing to buy 'the club' was buy the company (since the club was a company and the company was the club). Once his ne company owned the club/company that was Leeds United, he restructured the companies in the group, and then liquidated the original company. That is entirely different from the Rangers situation because his holding company owned the company/club that was Leeds United and therefore this restructuring was acceptable to the football authorities. In the case of Rangers, Green's company has not bought the company/club that is Rangers FC. Instead he has bought the assets of the club, the name etc and has transferred them to an entirely separate company that does not own the original company/club. This is the key difference: this difference means that while Leeds United could claim complete continuity, Rangers FC can not. Leeds United retained membership of the English Leagues through their process; the newco Rangers is having to apply for new membership of the SFA and having to apply to get in to a league. Do you not see the difference? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I wrote the above before I notice your additional point. Addressing that additional point, you are only partly correct: his attempt to get an agreed CVA was initially blocked by the HMRC - he had achieved over 75% but the HMRC went to court to contest the result. While that matter was moving through the courts, he proceeded as though he had won and transferred everything as would have happened anyway had the agreed CVA not been blocked by HMRC. This led to a 15 point penalty - but ultimately worked because the HMRC eventually lost and Bates move was vindicated. He had saved Leeds United from being liquidated, with its history intact. Rangers, however, is a different story: no-one will be buying the club/company last minute to save it from liquidation as its assets have now been sold to the newco. The break has been made newco starts off as a new entity. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

So you conceed you were wrong that a CVA took place at Leeds and have now adjusted your stance accordingly? And how do you distinguish between an asset purchase and a purchase of 'the club'. I've sourced previously that Charles Green has claimed he "baught the business" and if you like can reference numerous sources that claim he "purchased the club". The fact of the matter is that, at some point, everything that could be transfferred out of 'LU Athletic FC Ltd', was transferred over to the newco 'LUFCltd' and the oldco was liquidated. Everything that could be transferred from RFCplc to Sevco, was (including the name 'Rangers Football Club' & badge). The point that you now base your "continuaty" arguement on is that the 'newco' method was acceptable to the footballing authorites. The football authorites were actually reluctant to transfer the membership as it was delayed for a considerable amount of time mid-season and when they did eventually decide to transfer it over. The application process differs with the Scottish footballing authorites who decided that it's members would vote on wether or not the membership could transfer, which was voted no. With relation to the SFA membership, this is still unclear at present, but what can be said is that a Football Membership cannot define a club, as membership constantly change. Gretna on several occasions changed membership to & from the SFA to English FA. You are also incorrect that HMRC 'lost' in the courts. They did not, they accepted a Bates purchase (eventually). HMRC could have challenged Green's take-over bid, as remember, his £5.5m is what will be split between the creditors in return for the club & it's assets (in the same way Bates purchase of an undisclosed sum would have been). It's reasonable to assume that HMRCs initial challenge to Bates takeover was that they felt that the administrators could have gotten a better 'sale' of the 'club & assets' than the amount Bates paid, but ultimately they dropped the challenge and accepted Bates bid. You're argueing here the semantics of an asset sale. When ultimately the same effect is achieved. There is no difference if Bates baught the club, transferred the assets to a newco, then liquidated, compared to adminsitrators simply transferring the assets out to a newco then liquidating. It's the same end result, and it's the same method of separating club & company. If you prefer, it may be more comparable to the Charlton method, where the Oldco was dissolved. When i've put forward precedents for how Wikipedia should document Rangers, naming 5 clubs; Leeds, Charlton, Napoli, Middlesborough & Fiorentina. The complexed intricacies of each case will differ, but the same basic principle remains.Ricky072 (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Ricky072 - wrong again on several fronts. Firstly, I did not concede that I was wrong that 'a CVA took place at Leeds and have now adjusted your stance accordingly'. I explained that a CVA DID take place, but was just held up for a while by HMRC going to court. You state "It's reasonable to assume that HMRCs initial challenge to Bates takeover was that they felt that the administrators could have gotten a better 'sale' of the 'club & assets' than the amount Bates paid, but ultimately they dropped the challenge and accepted Bates bid." Stop guessing: the reason HMRC challenged the CVA was because they disputed that the CVA vote had reached the 75% required. As for your attempted summation of my point explaining the differences bewteen what happened at Leeds United and what is happening at Rangers - you clearly don't get it, so I won't repeat it. However, let me give you a couple of pictures to imagine that might help:

Imagine I own a shed (Ranger FC formed in 1899) which I call 'blue shed'. The shed has a number of tools that are used and replaced regularly (the team/players). After 17 years it is decided to protect the shed more by adding thick felt to the roof (making it a limited company in 1899). The shed it still the shed though it now has a better roof! Then in 2012, I try to sell the shed as a complete package due to debts I have built up by buying tools I couldn't afford to pay for, but can't manage. However, a neighbour (Green's consortium) sees my plight and offers to buy my shed package if my creditors agree to a pence in the pound CVA he offers. The creditors do not agree to his offer. Therefore he offers to buy all the stuff in my shed but doesn't buy the shed itself. He moves all the stuff into a different shed he has newly built (the newco) and then calls his shed 'The blue shed'. He tries to persuade everyone that since he owns everything that was in the shed - even the name - it is the same shed that has existed for 140 years.

Now imagine I own a different shed (Leeds United). Once again the shed is fitted with thick felt (when it originally become a limited company.) Once again it build up debts and I try to sell it as a package to include contents. A neighbour (Ken Bates) offers to buy my shed plus contents as a package if the creditors agree to the pence in the pound CVA he offers. (This is a agreed but blocked while one creditor disputes the vote.) Anyway, the neighbour feels that the best way forward is to build a new shed that covers and contains my old shed inside - that will really protect it, he thinks. Once built, he decides to lift the old felt from my shed as it is safely within the new shed (eventual liquidation of 'oldco' Leeds United which was owned by his newco.) He argues that the shed he owns is a continuation of the original shed despite it now being within a new outer shell.

Can you see the difference between the two pictures? - One is continuation of the original shed, wheras one is only a continuation of the spirit of the original shed. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ricky and fisherhelper can you both do me a big favour, and make a new enter on my talk page one for ricky saying "Why the club survives" as the talk page title with all the examples above you have given and the reference please, and fisherhelper can you make one that says "Why the club and company are the same" as the topic title an give the examples of the ones you have previously stated and references, this will save me some time reading through all the posts to find it and help put to together the request for comment so we can get it out faster and hopefully get a consensus via wider community option. I am only stated both your names as your both the current ones that disputing this, but all other editors who have previously commented been in the dispute if you can make a similar title topic on my talk page with your arguments and references please, the best chance we can get a consensus is if we present the argument on both sides and then let other user who dnt have anything to do with this make a conclusion based on the evidence we submitAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, you are once again point blank wrong on the issue of Leeds CVA. It's rather ammusing to tell me to stop guessing when you early admitted to guessing the Italian insolvency laws may differ from the UK and that may be justification for Naploi & Fiorentina to retain the identity of the old club. I've already cited several sources which confirm that Leeds DID NOT exit administration via a CVA. On Wikipideas own paragraph on the matter of Leeds CVA, it cites the following source: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/taxman-pulls-out-of-leeds-united-court-challenge-1-2113182 here are some quotes from the source: QUOTE: "The CVA would have been worth just 1p-in-the-pound to creditors like the Revenue. Its opposition prompted KPMG to scrap the CVA and put the club on the open market before again agreeing to sell to Mr Bates." QUOTE "Yet the Football League claimed that, by failing to exit administration via a CVA, Leeds had breached its insolvency policy." QUOTE: "Today a spokeswoman for HM Revenue and Customs said its legal challenge had become "academic" when the CVA was ditched in early July." Now will you please admit that you conceed no CVA went through in the case of Leeds UAFC Ltd? If not, please supply a reliable source which states that a CVA did take place at Leeds. After admitting this, you can then explain Charlton Ahletic's reformation and how it allowed them to continue to trade as, and be recognised as Charlton Athletic 1902, despite being reformed by a new company with the oldco being dissolved.Ricky072 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

NewCo not New Club

The reality is that while the old holding company - founded in 1899, 27 years after Rangers itself - is to be wound up, the club formed in 1872 remains. The page says is was founded in 1872 and this cannot change as the club has not been disbanded, only the company liquidated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2mhunter (talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but you incorrectly state "the old holding company - founded in 1899, 27 years after Rangers itself - is to be wound up" - it is not a 'holding company' that is being liquidated but the club itself that had taken on company status in 1899. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's widely documented that Charles Green purchased 'the club', transferring everything out of the old PLC leaving it only as an empty shelling housing debt. Source as fresh as today from Scotlands biggest sellign newspaper: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/07/07/rangers-in-crisis-charles-green-to-give-fans-chance-to-own-half-of-ibrox-club-with-new-share-issue-86908-23905404/ QUOTE "Many supporters questioned Green’s reasons for buying the stricken club for £5.5million " Ricky072 (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you really referencing the same article I used to prove the opposite point? The ONLY way that the fans an own part of the club via a share issue is if the club and the company are the same thing legally. Shareholders own a part of whichever company they own shares in, but NOT a part of any of the company's assets, only the legal entity of the company itself. You cannot strip out the club from underneath the company when they are the same thing. The club was already split into millions of parts (the shares) and the original club remains constituted by those shares today and until it is officially wound up, at which point those shares will be of nothing, they will literally be a part of something that has ceased to exist. Sevco are running a new club which has bought some buildings and some intangible assets like a brand name but they are a different company and they will be offering a different club to the fans when they float. It cannot logically occur one way first time around and another way this time, you must either accept the the club became a company when it incorporated and sold its shares far and wide and that club which became a company is soon to be liquidated, or the new share issue will not be bestow ownership of the club, only the company holding it. Make your mind up, which is it? Either the fans can indeed own a part of the club via a share issue which means the original shareholders too owned a part of the cub because club and company are one and the same, which in turn means by definition the new company is running a new club (the old shareholding still exists, with near zero value, but it still exists) OR the club wasn't the company first time around meaning it cannot be the company this time around meaning the fans cannot own it via the share issue, they will merely own a part of Sevco which just happens to run the club (bear in mind this too means that the club is just some intangible, ethereal and completely virtual thing which can never be truly owned by anyone. This chain of thought also means the club can never be responsible for anything, no wrongdoing, etc, because any transgressions are always linked to the company, the big nasty company which ran the club. Preposterous. There WAS a holding company, it was Wavetower, renamed as The Rangers FC Group, and before that it was Murray Sports, but those aren't what's being liquidated, that honor falls to The Rangers Football Club Plc, which has no legal entity underneath, it is the original Rangers Football Club, the Plc just means that The Rangers Football Club happens to be an incorporated company as well as a football club). Remember, you can't have it both ways. Either club and company are the same, in which case you can buy a part of the club in a share issue, but it's a new club cos the first one is still constituted by the original shareholding, or it's a share issue in a mere holding company which fans will buy but never ever own any part of the club, merely the holding company. Those share certificates on the wall would be somewhat hollow looking in that case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.201.67 (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Club liquidated or not

This is invite to all users who contest this regardless if it for the club is liquidated or the club is not liquidated can you please, post on my talk page with topic for saying something similar to "Why the club survives" with your arguments and sources please, and user who believe the club is liquidated make a post saying something like "Why the club is liquidated" with your arguments and sources and post it on my talk page please. Then i will draw arguments together and sources and make Request for Comment which will get other user who do not have conflict of interest or POV to try help get a consensus on this.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts but the arguments are quite clear: on one side, people like me that point out that the club and the company are the same entity - the club formed in 1872 took on itself limited company status in 1899; and on the other side those who argue that the club is much more than the actual legal entity and it is that 'spirit' that will survive any liquidation. As a result, some us believe that entering liquidation followed by 'relaunched club' should lead to a new article on wikipedia, and other believe that entering liquidation followed by 'relaunched club' should lead to nothing more than a note on the same club article. Difficult to see how consensus can be achieved starting from these two directly opposing positions - but always willingto try through discussion. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

i know it goign to be very hard to get it, but that is what a dispute is about trying to reach compromise that is acceptable and complies to guidelines, im not saying currently it doesn't because it does but at the same time conesne can change and other politics can trump others. im interested in both sides arguments then it can be fair reflectingAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's very simple, from a legal stand point, Sevco Scotland (later to be renamed) has purchased the the legal rights to trade & represent itself as Rangers Football Club, the intellectual & brand rights such as the badge, colours, kit, aswell as it's tangible assets. There is also more than enough precedent set, as Rangers are not the first club to have underwent an asset purchase & reformation process yet still represent itself as the same club & identity. Wikipedia articles on football clubs pages are entitled by what the club is commonly known as, e.g Arsenal F.C, and NOT the company name (which would be Arsenal Holdings PLC). It means that in the future the 'new page' for Rangers on wikipedia will be entitled exactly as the old one 'Rangers F.C'. If Wikipedia is to have any consistency it will structure it's documentation on Rangers in the same manner as all other clubs. It will recognise Rangers F.C as commonly known football club regardless of it's current corporate status but it's history will be documented to include the administration/liquidation/reformation peroid accordingly. Ricky072 (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It will be no problem if Green's club does enter a league as 'Rangers FC' - the newco Rangers article could be renamed 'Rangers FC' with the original Rangers FC article remaned 'Rangers FC (1872)'. Most clubs reforming after the original club has been liquidated don't have this particular problem because they usually choose to use a slightly different name to signify the new beginning. The opposite appears to be the case here where there appears to be a real effort to play down the idea of any new beginning, and an attempt to play up notions of continuity. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Teams such as Chester chose to have a slighlty different name because they chose to be recognised as completely different clubs, and did not purchase the legal rights from administrators to trade as the previous club, use the previous badge/branding. In this case, and is the case with Leeds, both the respective consortiums purchased all these rights which were transferred to a newco, therefore maintain the right to be recognised as the same club if they wish so. On that basis, both Rangers F.C & Leeds United F.C should be housed on the same wikipedia page but have their corporate hisotry documented within, both specifically highlighting that the clubs reformed in 2007 & 2012 respectively. Ricky072 (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

please all your arguments about it being the same club and the company is getting liqduaited to date can you please post all your argument with your sources pleaseAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Which administrator can i contact about rectifying this page? Ricky072 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ricky072, an administrator will only alter this page if consensus has been established on the particular change you wish to make. If you have a specific suggestion for a change, post details under a new section and it can then be discussed. (As I did when I asked above about the foundation date of 1872.) Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the criteria for establishing consensus? It seems to me that contributors will be agenda driven or bias on this subjected given the emotions involved. It would seem the most logical step would be for a few administrators of Wikipedia with no prior knowledge or emotional attachment to the situation should read the arguements, and consider how other clubs in similar situations have been documented, and make the decision to edit the page. Ricky072 (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ricky072. You may find this helpful. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

ricky i keep telling you please post your arguments with examples and sources it will go to my request for comment which will get uninvolved editors involved to try establish a consensus, as for admin not attached what would you do if they review it and say no the article is correct by wikipedia policies if it is decided it is right you have to accept that wikipedia isnt here as fan site it is encyclopaedic that relies on sources so i ask again please present your arguments with examples and sources pleaseAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Every point i have put forward thus far has been supported by reliable sources. Do you want me to rewrite all the points i've posted already and post it elsewhere for administrators attention? Ricky072 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

no administrator will make the changes without a consensus which at the moment there is none, please post all your points and argument with sources herein one place for me i will be take club dead or not further in the dispute resolution process which might finally get a decisionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A fundamental point is that, as things stand, nothing has been liquidated - not the company, not the club, nothing. This can be checked at Companies House: The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. (incorporated in 1899) is in administration, not liquidation. Here is the specific link: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/99da7e368a7af5154a71b9b08ae39c35/compdetails - and here is the link to search the Companies House database: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/617731e19a364eeae3203c11f9a2a99c/wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo (I have put more material on your Talk page.) Edit: I see there are problems with Companies House links expiring. Try this (click "Search Company Information"): http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/toolsToHelp/WCInfo.shtml BBO (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, liquidation process has started but is not completed. The provisionally appointed liquidators are Malcolm Cohen and James Stephen from financial company BDO. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Darlingon FC

Just reading that Darlington was in administration and could not get an agreed CVA. The assets of Darlington were then bought by a new, separate company that called itself 'Darlington 1883' and said it was now running the club, leaving the debt with the oldco. The following is from an article in the Northern Echo on 29th May 2012 [11]:

The FA have also confirmed that Darlington are effectively being treated as a 'new club' because they were unable to agree a CVA with their creditors before exiting administration and were unable to conduct an acceptable transference of the football share. The spokesman said: "The original Darlington FC are no longer members of the Football Conference and, under the regulations of the National League System, are now a 'new club'. As such, they are only allowed to make an application to join a league/division at Step Five."

Given that they are being treated as a new club, Darlington will almost certainly have to change their name before the start of next season. They are unable to carry over the old club's name, and all the history that goes with it, and must instead adopt a new moniker such as Darlington United or Darlington Town. The spokesman added: "It is very likely that the 'new club' will not be allowed to carry the name Darlington FC. This is a matter to be discussed with their County Football Association, Durham FA. As it stands, the 'new club' are not yet affiliated to Durham FA and have been advised to do so at the earliest opportunity by The Football Association."

Similarities with Rangers' situation: was in administration, assets bought out by newco without an agreed CVA, new company claims to be running same club. Outcome: regarded by FA as effectively a new club, and all the history of the old club is gone. And on Wikipedia? Two articles - one for the oldco and one for the newco. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 July 2012

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangers_F.C. is inaccurate and deeply offensive to Rangers fans. No body has even attempted to remove the CLUB's history and to have such an article listed as fact when it is clearly mischief by opposition fans discredits Wikipedia itself. Please amend to present tense immediately. 212.183.128.45 (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)