Talk:Rangers F.C.

Please consider reading the archived discussions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page or initiating any new debate.

Ok now we are starting to move towards a FA article

Ok now that we are getting the article to FA status never mind GA status, i think we should create a to do list

I also say instead of going through a GAC we go straight to FAC.

Please add things to the list to be done

• Finish conversion to cite Done
• Finish improvement of cite references, archive where it can be done Done
• Fix all cite references parameter to include the right information and add other where appiorate Done
• Check ever reference is using the right cite ie cite web should be cite news Done
• Get reference for stuff that is citation needed or remove it Done
• Add a hall of fame section, which would include the Rangers greatest starting 11, hall of fame in scottish fa for rangers players Done
• Condense the history section down a little Done
• Check all images use alt text Done
• Check the page is confirm to html5 standards Done
• Add more wiki links to other article where appropriate Done
• Expand and convert external links to cite Done
• Expand team manager section to have a brief information on past manager about 4 or 5 sentences long Done
• Expand notable players section to have a brief information on notable players throughout history about 4 or 5 sentences long Done
• Expand international payer section with details on international payers about 4 or 5 sentences long Done
• Expand youth section with information on the youths about 4 or 5 sentences long Done
• Make sure all wiki links are relevant if not remove them Done
• Move stuff in the see also section to appropriate parts of the main article and expand with any other appropriate see also articles Done
• Create a wiki book Rangers F.C just like Book:Manchester United F.C. and Book:Manchester City F.C. Done
• Add other templates like {{commons}} to give more information in the external links section Done
• Remove unnecessary white space Done
• Remove red links Done
• Once records section has been fully expanded with all records that can be sourced, trim it down after the records that are not so important for this page are moved to the records and statistics page with the sources so starting the work of improving that page to Done
• Add some links to fansites and news sites Done not sure if the fan sites should be removed.... Done
• Fix the prose of the articles including spelling and grammar mistakes
• Reduce the records section down and move records less important with there references to records article Done

• Check reference to make sure reference parameters are using the right information
• Check the sources confirm what is said in the part the reference is used
• Make sure everything that is in each section is referenced , if not try find one or remove it
• Check for more than one use of the same reference condense using /> referencing tag (exception bbc history of rangers fc to long to use as single reference)
• Check the article for weasel words
• Check for use of peacock terms

To be done after the above is done

• Run AWB and WPcleaner and DAB cleaner, nDash script, reflinks script or from website, autoed, date script, possible other thing to make sure the page is up to strach
• Delink over linkage of duplicate wiki links
• Get the page copy edited
• Make sure the page is using British English
• Peer Review

Whenever a job on the list above has been done please mark it done using {{done}} template so other know the work has been done or checked. once the work is done we can then do a peer review

anything else add it aboveAndrewcrawford (talk - -:contrib) 22:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Dab Solver has been run several times and as this is on my watchlist I see it every day. Reflinks doesn't pick up any issue although I can see a few that need manually fixed. If you want to go straight to FA I suggest asking for it to be copy edited by an experienced copy editor and ask for a last peer review. FA will be hard and your better getting it right. Personally I would go for ga as that's hard enough and work up. Blethering Scot 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Having just looked at other FA class articles i think this needs a bit more work. There are sections with no text purely a link. Other Fa class articles all have some form of text if not the full list, arsenal managers section for instance has explanatory text but a link for the full list. We need to address the team managers section in particular and come up with a better way of handling the links to other squads and past notable players. I would also suggest that List of Rangers seasons is added as an extra link as part of the History section and removed from see also. With regards to see also remember that links are also in navbox at the bottom of the article so we dont need a lot of them. I would suggest only non Rangers articles such as football in scotland and old firm is left. Duplication isn't necessary.Blethering Scot 00:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

yeah i thought about peer review after i went to bed, i guess wether we go to FAor GA first will depend o the peer review, yeah those section bug me but i had to remove theinfomation that was ther ebecause black kite said it was a problemAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 06:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• The prose quality would have to be improved a great deal. I keep finding the most basic errors of grammar, and far too much of it is written in the passive voice. --John (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

i know hence why guild of copyeditors would probally fix that, but ill add it to the listAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If we went on the polish wikipedia this page would be good enough already for GA as it almost identical copy of this one witht eh same references etc. But i dnt propose submit this until all teh above is done which i should start work on tomorrow. although the italian wikipedia one need fixed we have got enough references and consensus from here to show ther ento dissovled that doesnt help the case here when other wikipedia ie different languages say different things.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Due to work commitments i will get work done soon but it will take me longer to do feel free to do any of the above also changing do not archive until 2015Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.204.149 (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC) 

Further attempt at agenda-driven editing.

I see (yet another) attempt has been made to alter the opening paragraphs of this article to push an agenda aimed at presenting Rangers FC, post 2012, as a "new" football club. Lets make things clear - once again - that this article is based firmly on the distinction between Rangers FC has a football entity, the continuation of which has been recognised unambiguously by the football authorities, and the corporate entity known colloquially as 'oldco', currently in liquidation.

Therefore any attempt to blur the distinction between the two in order to pursue an agenda that, for whatever reason, wishes to subvert the official line on Rangers continuation is a waste of time and energy for all.

The liquidation of 'oldco' is not being hidden, indeed the longstanding version of the introduction references the event clearly with detail provided in subsequent sections. However, in the context of this article, that event is regarded as the liquidation of Oldco, the company formerly known as The Rangers Football Club PLC, not Rangers FC. I will be paying closer attention to the wording of certain paragraphs to ensure that the clear attempt to subvert this principle (established through consensus over a long period i might add) is not diluting the coherence of this important article.Gefetane (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The sheer audacity in suggesting anyone who says 'Rangers FC' is a new Club is quite startling. Let's be clear. The football authorities in Scotland do not under any circumstances make the law of the land in Scotland.

Football authorities had no rules in their rulebook that made any distinction between a so called 'Company' and 'Club'. This type of setup was only invented when the SPFL was created AFTER 'Rangers' suffered an compulsory insolvency event and only 'Assets & Business' were sold off. There was no 'Club' listed on the sale of 'Assets & Business' contrary to LNS assertion nor was any 'Club' listed anywhere as having been 'Transferred'. There is categorically no paper trace that confirms ANY of these claims. Certainly as far as the law of incorporation in Scotland is concerned there is no distinction.

With regards to the term 'Oldco'. This was in fact coined by American Truck Tycoon Bill Miller who famously proposed an 'Incubation' of the 'Good bits and bad bits'. This would ONLY have been achieved by satisfying creditors via agreed payment of oustanding debts by whatever means. This proposal was the ONLY way Rangers football Club est in 1872 and incorporated as a legal entity in March 1899 would have been able to remain operating as a continuation.

The key question is this. What exactly is the 'Club'. It is certainly not a 'Club' in a sense where it has a constitution whereby it's structure must contain a committee, treasurer and so forth. Now if the 'Company' operates as such by funding areas such as signing players, selling match tickets, owning and operating Ibrox & Auchenhowie training facility, paying players salaries, paying management salaries, appointing management, nurturing youth players to hopefully make it to play in the first team. Just a handful of examples of what role the 'Company' plays. But what exactly constitutes the 'Club'?

It is clear to all and sundry that this page has been hijacked by fans of 'Rangers' who simply could not accept that their 'Club' had gone bust owing £Millions. Initially the local media were telling the truth on it which is well documented but commercial necessity similar to that of the football authorities created a scenario whereby making it up on the hop became the order of the day. Hence Raith Rovers chairman Turnbull Hutton declaring that all other Scottish Clubs (Including his) were being lied to and bullied by the football authorities in order to facilitate something that was clearly NOT in the rulebook. KingSupper (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hijacked by Rangers fans, you clearly don't know the demographic of editors within the projects that look over this page do you. There are very few Rangers fans. Also what this comes down to is sources, and the sources back the view that its the same club, in addition how the football governing bodies deal with a football club, of which this article is about is also highly relevant. Your non evidence here is spurious at best.Blethering Scot 22:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

KingSupper is partially correct in what he/she says: legally, the current Rangers FC is a new football club. However, in a fudge, the Scottish Football Association did "transfer the membership" (whatever that means) of the old Rangers to the new Rangers, thus indicating that the SFA recognises the new club as a continuation of the old. The media and all third-party sources also recognise the current club as a continuation of the old club. Mooretwin (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Legally doesn't matter only what sources say as that's what an encyclopedia works on, also legally they are a new business not necessarily a new club they were kept seperate which is why there will always be debate. The debate re legality isn't something we should be getting involved in only sources. Also the governing body is as its states the governor of the rules regarding clubs in Scotland, if sources agree with them then we have to take that into consideration. All these points are met. Blethering Scot 14:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Legally doesn't matter? I'm not sure how that one works. Your comment "governing body is as its states the governor of the rules regarding clubs in Scotland" is quite indicative given that those rules you are referring to had no mechanism for distinguishing between a 'Club' and 'Company'. The 5 way agreement which has been kept secret and there are plenty of sources to prove that, was hastily drafted because of this. The idea also that because an SFA transfer of membership had taken place means it's the same Club is simply preposterous. Remember what the word transfer means. From one thing to another. In this case it was from one Club to another Club. The 'Club' is the 'Member' of the association hence it is called a 'Member Club'. Now had this 'Rangers' had been the same 'Club' why would it have required a transfer?

You point out "legally they are a new business not necessarily a new club they were kept seperate which is why there will always be debate". Where are any sources on here that proves on paper there was distinction between? Perhaps in 'Common Speech' as said by Lord Nimmo Smith (Who was instructed by the SPL to distinguish Rangers for the benefit of an inquiry) could be taken by some as a yardstick for same Club argument. But 'Common Speech' doesn't hold any substance when dealing in facts.

And as far as sources are concerned. When a large section of the media see benefits of putting a story out into the public domain that benefits their own commercial well-being, they tend to embellish things to suit. It's called media spin in the same way political parties have spin doctors. As I have said above. The media in Scotland done a complete u-turn on this story to suit their commercial activities. Where this story is concerned given the motives of the media being used as sources for this website. I am afraid this website isn't worth the server it is being held on. It simply cannot be taken serious as a source of factual information. KingSupper (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You clearly have a pov, so this discussion is a non starter. We go with sources, so yes I couldn't give two monkey shits whether there legally a new club, or as is backed up by sources a new business. Business and club are not the same thing. We go with sources not with people filled with pov. Im afraid you cant be taken seriously as someone interested in factual information if you think we shouldn't source the site using multiple independent reliable sources.Blethering Scot 20:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how what I have said is being described as a singular POV. All the sections of what I have wrote have merit. Now it seems to me that there is some confusion regarding what a 'Club' actually is. So without me indulging in a longer discussion just now. I ask that given what this page is suggesting in that a 'Club' continued beyond liquidation; I would respectfully ask can the definition and function of this 'Club' be established. One thing to ponder. The article states - "when an agreement could not be reached with its creditors. Its business and assets, including Rangers FC, were bought by a new company". For the record, there was no 'Rangers FC' nor 'Club' listed on purchase sheet as part of the sale to Sevco 5088 Ltd. I would be grateful for any response to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSupper (talk • contribs) 21:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Legally" the transfer was from 1 limited company to another. A "club" has no or little legal definition or standing. It's more like a brand, a logo, goodwill, a trademark, a copyright, all of which is listed "legally" as an asset, owned, purchased & transferred by the company. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

FFS, I can't believe it's back to this again. The legal position is reflected in what the sources are saying, because that's one of the reasons they are saying it. The FC is a business, meaning the bundle of assets (tangible and intangible) and goodwill (in the legal and accounting sense) making up a going concern. It was transferred as a going concern. This happens day in and day out in the business world. When a company purchases a business from another company noone talks about it being a "new business". It's just got a new owner, but it's the same concern or enterprise. DeCausa (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Taking part of the DeCausa's statement above - "It was transferred as a going concern". It is clear you have no idea regarding business. A 'Going Concern' is a company that has been deemed operational without the threat of liquidation. Rangers FC Ltd was not 'Transferred' in any shape or form as you are suggesting. An example of a 'Going Concern' being purchased is when Craig Whyte bought Rangers FC. The company at that time was sustainable and fully operational with no threat of liquidation. Liquidation then followed. What was then purchased was 'Business & Assets'. The unsigned poster above makes a point when he/she mentions "A "Club" has no or little legal definition or standing". That is absolute. A 'Club' in the proper sense does have constitutional, legal responsibilities. 'Rangers' as a 'Club' would have had such responsibilities pre March 1899. Once Rangers FC was incorporated, it's custodians became a board of directors and not a committee like a 'Club' is constitutionally structured. I am not sure if I have picked up wrong the suggestion that a company owning a array of assets including logo, trademark and copyright etc, that once lumped together represents a 'Club' entity? If that is the suggestion then it is clearly preposterous. A 'Club' in the sense of that has absolutely no definition whatsoever. Rangers FC that was formed in 1872 and incorporated in March 1899 and liquidated in 2012 no longer has a valid legal nor constitutional existence.KingSupper (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You have no clue what you are talking about. There are so many half-baked misconceptions in what you have written that it's hard to know where to start. But the short answer is it doesn't matter because this has long since been resolved via the sources and your personal ill informed WP:OR is irrelevant. "Transfer as a going concern" is not the same thing as the going concern test in acounting. It refers to the fact that a business is sold as a fully functioning enterprise: it's meaning and paramaters are well established by tax law. A related and overlaping concept is used in employment law under TUPE and TUPE applied to this transfer. I'm done with this half-baked nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are you suggesting that my input here is personal? "Half bake misconceptions"? Where do I even start with that crass accusation. Just one example shows why you are constantly chasing a tail when trying so hard to believe that RFC carried on as if everything was as normal - "It refers to the fact that a business is sold as a fully functioning enterprise". At the stage you are describing, what exactly was the 'Business'? Once the CVA proposal was rejected, ALL contracts were null and void. Has it never dawned on you why players such as Naismith and Whittaker simply walked away for nothing? It wasn't under a 'Bosman' or players being handed free transfers. They were free to go because their employer had ceased trading. When Wavetower bought RFC 1872 from Murray Holding's in 2011, it heralded a "fully functioning enterprise" being sold and bought for £1. Your suggestion that this is what happened post CVA in a liquidation firesale is tantamount to sheer fantasy. It is clear to all and sundry that it is you that has no concept of business and we all know in this case why that is. What is incredible is that all the points I have put on this page have merit yet you suggest they are 'Half-Baked'. You show me exactly where I have picked it up wrong in my suggestion that "Rangers FC est 1872 and Incorporated in March 1899 no longer have a Constitutional or Legal existence". KingSupper (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha. "we all know in this case why that is". Really? Well, one thing I don't know anything about is football. I'd rather drink bleach than have to watch a football match. However, I came to this page 2 years ago because, as a corporate lawyer, I was frustrated by the ill-informed assertions made at that time. At that point the sources hadn't got to grips with the legal position. Now reliable sources have caught up. You've now turned up aggressively promoting your own personal analysis. Well, you're not allowed to do that on Wikipedia - we go by what reliable secondary sources say only. But, what is worse, your personal analysis is based on nothing. Try and think through the similarites between what happened in 1899 and 2012 and you might start to get it. I'll give you a further clue. "Football club" has two meanings. As with Rangers pre 1899 and, presumably non-league football teams today, it is an unicorporated association run as a "club" in a legal sense. The second meaning is a type of business operated by a legal entity. In that sense, it is interchangeable with "fast food chain", "widget manufacturer", or "estate agents". DeCausa (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You are now suggesting that my "Personal analysis is based on nothing"? This page is based on the very same 'Reliable Sources' that pre CVA application had categorically confirmed that Rangers 140 year history and timeline would cease to continue should a CVA be rejected. So what exactly defines a 'Reliable Source' on this story? You may well be a corporate lawyer but it is abundantly clear that you know nothing regarding insolvency. I however do. You will know that Rangers very own lawyers informed an SPL commission that "Rangers ceased to be a Club as per the rules on 14th June 2012". This was in order to free the new Club from any punishment(s) that potentially could be handed down in the event that registration rules were breached. Do you see the section "As per the rules"? I agree with you in the definition of what the term 'Club' stands for. There really is no need to give 'clues' on the definition of it. Pre 1899 RFC were indeed an unincorporated association. But they were however constituted as a 'Club' operated by committee and a treasurer etc that does come with responsibilities. That constituted structure ceased to operate in 1899 and RFC Ltd was incorporated as a football Club now with legal personality and able to trade. This also freed the founders from personal liabilities the Club would amass. Your examples of a sense of interchangeable 'Type' of business is not equated to RFC. These examples are non specific. A fast food chain i.e. KFC operates thousands of outlets but they also franchise out some of them outlets to a franchisee who is contractually bound to buy the necessary products from KFC which in turn allows the franchisee to use the KFC brand. If KFC were to enter administration and seek a buyer, the buyer would make an offer for the business and also either take on creditors debt or seek a CVA. If a successful bid was accepted and creditors satisfied, the new buyers could continue on operating KFC. If KFC were to liquidate, all the outlets and remaining assets would be sold off and monies used to settle debts. KFC would cease to operate or exist. However McDonald's come along and buy up the outlets and operate McDonald's out of the outlets. But they would not put a KFC sign outside the outlets now would they? In specific terms where RFC are concerned. Had the St Mirren chairman bought the business and assets from the administrators of RFC Plc and moved St Mirren into Ibrox. Would that of meant St Mirren were Rangers? Where was it written or even possible that anyone who bought 'Business and Assets' were in fact buying RFC? One question that remains a poser in all of this. If the 'Club' was separate from the 'Company'. Why did Craig Whyte simply not offer to buy the 'Club'? Why would he accept £30M of debt with a tax case hanging over it that potentially could have turned debt towards £100M? Why not buy the 'Business and Assets' like Sevco 5088 Ltd did? Strange but very telling. KingSupper (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Tldr. DeCausa (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Too long to read a 519 word entry? I think we all know you did read it. We can all agree it puts the illogical 'Club is separate from the Company' idea in it's place. KingSupper (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh yet another person appears oblivious to how these articles are put together. During this whole saga yes sources were contradictory however for a prolonged period of time they now regard Rangers as the same club. We cannot add POV or opinions to pages. Also KingSupper, after reading through your posts I feel I must remind you of one of the main talkpage guidelines -

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. If you have a reliable source that you think affects this pages content then please bring it up. If not there are plenty of forums for discussing this subject. BadSynergy (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It's quite simple, your posts here are so long because you are conducting original research. Wikipedia doesn't care what you've worked out about Rangers, and it doesn't care about your comparisons to KFC. It cares what reliable sources say. That's the final word, not negotiable. If you had reliable sources to support your argument, you could get a far further by simply posting a link to them. But you don't, hence the lengthy paragraphs above and why you'll get no-where with them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

All the reliable sources which say the old club died (and there were plenty) have been taken out by you guys. The article will keep running into problems for as long as you try to peddle the new club's official fiction as fact! We need a much more balanced approach. New world record, Timmy (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Examples of these reliable sources? As I said above, all that is needed is to direct people towards them and we start getting somewhere. Until then... --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What about this from today - "history - the timeline - is broken" "cyber lynch-mobs set after you if you dare to address the Rangers collapse". Aye, cyber lynch-mobs and their Wikipedia cousins: disingenuous POV warriors! 94.8.61.183 (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I beleive that the relevent football authorities have comfirmed that it is indeed a continuation of the Rangers Football Club formed in 1872 and that the match record and history is indeed intact. http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/12/The-Rangers-Football-Club-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_224406.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.208.157.200 (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Typo in introduction

In domestic football, Rangers has won more league titles and trebles than any... 77.97.35.2 (talk)

Not necessarily a typo. It's British-English VS American-English.Correctron (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Article Intro

2 years have now passed since the insolvency/newco-ing in Summer 2012 and the article should be adapted so as not to give undue emphasis on events from that long ago. Am I talking about removing any reference to liquidation/administration from the intro? No, not yet. Those elements have been retained.
However I did condense the current content that - for the opening introduction to an article for a sports team - was far over-burdened with terms like "insolvent", "administration", "liquidation", "creditors", "business", "assets" etc.
I have also re-ordered the introductory paragraphs to the more logical and standard sequence of general facts of significance regarding the club being stated before a short summary of recent history.Gefetane (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the insolvency of 2012 will dilute with time, although a big story and talking point in 2012. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

There was no original consensus for the introduction. The edit made by Gefetane trimmed excess detail. In theory it could be shortened further. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the introduction would be improved if most of the details of the events of 2012 were removed as they are already covered in the article itself. The key point that needs to remain is that Rangers was a founder member of the league and remained in the top division continuosly until the company entering liquidation in 2012 which saw the club ejected from the SPL to have to start in the fourth tier the following season. Regards Fishiehelper5 (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It's no surprise to see fishiehelper continually disrupt the article given his sustained anti-Rangers bias, There is a growing consensus among neutral editors that the storm of 2012 is being diluted with time but ofcourse in true point scoring fashion it's imperative of you to push the whole "the club was liquidated" agenda right in the opening sentence if you possibly can.Ricky072 (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the changes made, other than two minor details. The grammar should be "Rangers were the first club.." not "Rangers was the first club..". And the introduction should be a maximum of three paragraphs, as we discussed in length on the archives of this talk page. Cheers, VanguardScot 15:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)