Talk:Rangers F.C.

Club Crest

Propose that the crest should be removed on the page as it does not belong to the football club.It has been sold to Sevco5088 and therefore is not the crest of the soon to be wound up club.

As we all know the football Club and it's history has continued and the holding company has been liquidated. The Rangers FC page should look similar to that of Leeds Utd & Fiorentina who have been through a similar process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.51.52 (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

it is been discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rangers_FC_club_dead_or_notAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Opening section

I think that the opening section needs a cull. It is an insult to Rangers FC that Wikipedia thinks that the most important fact about Rangers is that the stadium has a capacity of 51,082 and is located in south-west Glasgow. This information is a non sequitur and gives the impression of padding. Claiming that they have "more top-flight national championships than any other club in the world" is misleading as it doesn't enter a national championship but a regional one, so reduces the credibility of the other claims in the article -- the same goes for the claim for domestic trebles. Claiming to be the first British team to reach the European Cup final draws an immediate contrast to the previous claim to national championships, making the article appear grandiloquence. It is also very odd that the this seems to be more important than Rangers actually winning the cup a few years later. In short the opening seems rather boastful and just reduces the credibility of the article. I therefore think that a serious cull of these opening paragraphs to really focus on the achievements of the club will improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingowasher (talk • contribs) 20:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What "regional" championship??? I think perhaps you should read more background information. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The Scottish Premier League is based in Scotland which isn't a sovereign state, thus making it difficult to claim that it is a national championship. Wikipedia also states that Club Nacional de Football has won 123 domestic titles, more than the 54 won by Rangers, thus weakening this article's claim that Rangers have won the most championships in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingowasher (talk • contribs) 21:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Scotland is a independent member of FIFA, therefore by any definition that counts it has a national league. By your bizarre logic the English Premiership wouldn't count as national either, England not being a sovereign state.

Wikipedia can't be used as a source, and cannot be used for original research. If there are verifiable reliable cites that say Rangers have the most then that's good enough. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no citation on the Rangers statistic in the article right now, whereas the Club Nacional de Football article cites a reliable source -- perhaps the Rangers claim should be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingowasher (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I have tagged it as needing a cite. If none is forth-coming it should be removed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And that's it cited. There is maybe a discrepancy with what Club Nacional de Football says, or maybe the numbers are not comparable. Either way, we can't perform original research to sort it out ourselves. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the Club Nacional de Football article. It is cited to a blog, in Spanish, which doesn't appear to contain the figure 123. So it can be discounted at least once, for not being a reliable source, and possibly twice, for not actually saying what is claimed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The figure of 123 in the Club Nacional article appears to refer to the total honours the club has won (i.e. league title and all cups added together), their total number of national league wins only seems to be 43..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

THE DIFFERANCE BETWEEN THE RANGERS(of Green) AND RANGERS(of Whyte)

The Rangers are owned by Charles Green and Rangers are owned by Craig Whyte. This is why there has to be two seperate Wikipedia pages as there are two seperate entities. Rangers are in Liquidation, The Rangers are not. Further to this just to clear up all the Talk of Club/Company/Holding Company. This should explain things clearly enough for all to understand the differance between the 1872 Rangers and the 2012 Rangers.

Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872, it plodded along until 1899 when it was Incorporated as a Limited Company and became Rangers Football Club L.T.D(check the gates on Ibrox Stadium which have the Full Club name(as of when they were put up) or check any Rangers documents you will see Rangers reffered to as "Rangers Football Club P.L.C" ("The Club") it has since become a PLC hence why it is now called PLC at the end. This is what is in Liquidation and will be dissolved. Thre is no seperation between Club/Company they are one and the same, the Club became a Company and is a Company. The Holding Company of Rangers 1872 is Rangers FC Group Ltd which is owned solely by Craig Whyte hence why Craig Whyte is just said to be the owner. Rangers FC Group Ltd are not in Liquidation/Administration nothing. They will outlive Rangers Football Club and still exist when they are gone.

In Short: 1872 Rangers FC is Founded, 1899 Rangers FC become a Limited Company, 1995 Rangers FC become a PLC, 2012 Rangers FC go into Administration, 2012 Rangers FC go into Liquidation, 2012 Rangers FC are dissolved(cease to exist).

2012 The Rangers FC is Founded

At the moment both Clubs are shells, The Rangers only own Ibrox and Murray Park as far as we know and are owned by Charles Green, we also know their Chairman and that they were founded in 2012 - so we can say all that accuratly and update it as more and more is revealed ie. once they appoint a manager, register a player and stuff we can then add to it. On Rangers' page we can now say that Rangers have sold Murray Park and Ibrox Stadium as they have sold them to The Rangers, they are also still owned by Craig Whyte(or rather Rangers FC Group LTD but Craig Whyte own 100% of them so its basically Whyte. Whyte should remain owner of Rangers on the Rangers page. Once Rangers' Liquidation process is over and they are dissolved then we can update their status to Dissolved: 2012 and turn the page into a Historical rememberance of Rangers, obviously a lot will have to be removed as after they Dissolve they will obviously not have a manager, squad, owner or anything. But it can list their History, what they achieved and how they came to an end.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What you say is basically correct. However, The Rangers is not a football club it is the name of Green's company. I previously made that mistake as well. However, the new club will be considered a continuation of the old one so will be kept at this page. However, it will be said in this page that Rangers dissolved in 2012 and a new club came to be a continuation of them. Look at other clubs which did the same thing, AC Fiorentina, Leeds United A.F.C.. They still are at the same article as before. Adam4267 (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It will be though once they have Rangers SPL share, join a League and appoint playing and managerial staff. Fiorentina and Leeds are both from different Legal systmens Scottish law has nothing to do with either. Look at Gretna and Airdrie, other Dissolved(dead) Scottish teams. There is no continuation after Dissolution, Dissolution is death in legal terms. Rangers Football Club will be dissolved and from that there is no way back. That is why there is a New Club called The Rangers starting, as we see with them buying a Ground and Training Ground. A Football Club and a Company are the same thing mate, Rangers are a Club and Company. They will soon not be a Company and will used to have been a Club. The Rangers are a Company who will soon be a Club.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing is though, Gretna and Ardrie went about it in a different way to Rangers. Ardrie bought a different club (Clydebank) then changed the name and moved them to Ayr. Gretna went bust completely and a different club was formed with a similar name but playing somewhere else. Its nothing to do with Scots law. Rangers are (planning) on doing what Fioretina did. Of course that may be unsuccesful but we'll have to take it as it comes. Adam4267 (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers aren't planning to do anything mate, Rangers are being run by Administrators and Liquidators and business has ended with them. They are in Liquidation and soon to be dissolved when that process ends. The New Rangers are planning to sign players, appoint a manager and join a League, they have already bought a Stadium and Training facilites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers have said they will try and do it so the history transfers, there may of course be complications or they may have to change the name to get a licence. Eithier way we don't know so all we can and should do is state the facts. Once we know then we can easily shift across to a new article. All everyone who wanted to keep on the same page was a bit of patience until the whole story emerged. For now all we can say with any confidence is Green bought the assets and does not hold a licence for the SFA or the league shares he has requested them to be transferred to his continuation company of Rangers. After that we don't know.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You cannot transfer/buy History, Rangers FC>Rangers FC Ltd>Rangers FC PLC are the Club that has achieved it's achievements. Not a New Club born in 2012, have you not even thought about how a Club only born in 2012 could win a League title in 1990 never mind 1886 or whatever. It's not a continuation company either. If anything it is a Tribute act, like if someone bought the rights to Elton Johns whole collection and then went about performing as an impersonator when Elton dies. There is absolutley no differance between Rangers as a Club and Rangers as a Company both are the same entity and the entity is about to be dissolved. Any Tribute Act is indeed a Tribute Act.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

IF/WHEN RANGERS FORM A NEWCO

With the news now reporting that the CVA will not be agreed and consequently a newco will be formed, I suggest we look at how this will affect the Rangers F.C. (1972) pages on English wikipedia. The main question is, do we follow the ACF Fiorentina where both clubs are regarded as one or the Gretna F.C./Gretna F.C. 2008 model.

This is a highly contentious issue, Rangers fans will simply not accept the Gretna model not matter whether it is technically correct or not. On the other hand, rival fans will mercilessly pursue the Gretna model. Let the edit wars commence... Johnelwaq (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

At the moment the most up to date information should go into the article, that the proposed CVA will be rejected by HMRC. We should then await the full fallout of this from Rangers and the SPL /SFL.Monkeymanman (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The most up to date news is that rangers will be liquidated. Whether or not they enter the spl or sfl they are a new company. They are purchasing the assetts but will be a new company. I think we have to go down the Gretna route. I think it's likely they will have to change the name slightly even if it's just A.F.C. Another instance would be Airdrionians becoming Airdrie by buying out another club. Don't think what rangers fans like comes into it, let's face it they don't like the situation one bit anyway. Edit wars by ips on the main page would only happen through main users not ips as its protected. Until we know exactly what is happening the main page should be changed to CVa rejected and club is to be liquidated per greens statement. Once the club is officially liquidated then as I say my pref would be the Gretna version new company new club. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing is for clubs like Leeds United A.F.C. etc. They liquidated the holding company and then basically returned to be the same club for the following season. If Rangers are allowed back into the SPL then that will be the same route. Even if they go into the Third Division then they will still really be the same club in a sporting sense if not in a business sense. They will still have the same fans, stadium etc. The difference with Gretna F.C. is that the old club went into liquidation, then went bankrupt and ceased to exist. Then a new club was formed with a similar name. I think the distinguishing factor is whether it is a newco (new company) or new club. Of course it is possible Rangers will not be allowed back in as a newco. So they might try to buy a First Division club or go to England or Northern Ireland etc. In those cases it will be considered a new club. That's my take on it anyway. Adam4267 (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

this seems about right it depends if they cease to exists and ifa new team is register that is a similar name sicne it a newco it will be the same club, but the big question still to be answered is will teh spl or sfl let them in if they dnt the current club will ceast to exist if they do they it will be the same club once that known the way forward can be deicded jsut now we stick to teh same page, and rangers fans dnt come into it, wikipedia isnt here for fans its about a encolpedia and notabilty and relaible sourcesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In answer to the question, I think Wikipedia will simply follow usage. The newco, when all is said and done, is simply a legal fiction; for Wikipedia all that matters is whether or not reliable sources actually, in practice, treat it as a "new" entity. Keep in mind too that there may be some small part of the final deal that allows the "new" club to keep the history of the "old" club. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference between this and Leeds is there is no holding company. The proposal that was made by Bill Miller involved a holding company that was later liquidated. The route proposed by green does not involve that. They will buy the assets and register as a new company legally at company's house and the old one ceases. No holding place. Whether they are accepted back into the SFL or SPL has no bearing on the process. The history goes with the club to some extent due to the assets travelling across. Although under PFA legal advise the players do not unless they want to contrary to Greens statement. legally they will never be Rangers as we know it hence why the HMRC have stated they have no case against a new company just against the previous ones owners. Now Wikipedia can be accurate and say the old one has ceased as legally and what reliable sources say they are a new company or be false and regard then as the same old. The argument put forward above does not hold water. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearly there is much more to a football club than the legal entity plc. I fully expect for the most part that whatever new company is formed, Rangers the football club will generally be considered to be the same club. Naturally this article should include the whole sorry tale of the two companies, but we must follow general usage. However, this is all pointless at the moment. If anyone believes there is a case for Wikipedia to list the two separately, then they can put their case (with supporting sources) when it actually happens. Until then there's not much point speculating. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is more to a football club than a legal entity but we are not a football club, for instance Airdire consider themselves to be Airdrieonians we treat then seperatly because they are not. We are an encyclopaedia we tell the truth backed by reliable sources not what a club or it's fans want us to. Now every source around just now states a new company and the old one ceases to exist. I agree we tell the story but how we handle it is important this isn't an If and but it's happening now Rangers will liquidate unless HMRC changes it's mind which isnt going to happen. This will go to the SPL board and they will decide whether to accept the application for the new club to join. Now it's not going to be very hard to back up with reliable sources and rules on clubs being liquidated to show they are a separate entity. Now Rather than get emotional because eithier a club you support or a club we deem to big to die is soon going to be gone lets decide how to properly handle it. Eitheir a sepperate page which would seem sensible given what we can prove. Or keep the old page with a tottaly new section detailing the new club. Now eithier probably will be acceptable but bear in mind the size of the page already and given they will be a new club splitting seems a good option. A new page could have background to establish history whilst accepting they aren't the same. Worth thinking about I'm not overly bothered eithier way, we do however as said above have to be fair and let the facts tell the story. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Edinburgh that Rangers fans having WP:OWN of the article(s?) is not the way to go. I understand it's an unpalatable situation for the Rangers guys, but come on. The article now doesn't even mention liquidation. From the outside looking in, there has also been glaring maladministration at the club: everyone seems to agree on that, although various protagonists are apparently pointing the finger at eachother. Why is all this deficient from our article when the sources are out there? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Edinburgh Wanderer 23:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A new statement from Green states the clubs history will travel across not sure how much truth is in that yet. Technically possible but only if done right plan outlined previously does not show this. I'm sceptical purely because he made other statements today that are totally untrue such as liquidated clubs already been allowed into SPL and players contracts must travel across under employment law both are false. Will need to wait and see eithier way as Clavdia says the article at the moment is rather inaccurate and dosent cover much at all it's almost in a state of denial. It needs more info on past financial problems, administration issues with Duff and phelps, new ownership and Luqudation. It needs work. Let's update it and then plan for future of article. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that if the history carries across, so would the history of having spent more money than they have repaid. You can't pick and choose which bits of history you will retain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

At the moment everything is speculation. We should be awaiting the fallout in the next few weeks.Monkeymanman (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. What we must do now is add all information to the article. Yes we wait on the outcome of Luqudation but the article is missing huge amounts of the financial problems. Mostly due to wait and see and a wee but of censorship along the way. We've waited and reached this outcome, it should all be added ASAP. Including details of EBT being barred from Europe for a year, transfer ban lifted on appeal, court case against football laws. Edinburgh Wanderer 07:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Worth a read.[1]Edinburgh Wanderer 09:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok i have been doing some research, there may be some truth to the history carrying over, ok we know rangers are getting liquidated unless hmrc change there mind not likely, ok the company getting liquidated is rangers fc plc estbalished in 1899 but the club itself anfd its history is serperate to that in the fact ti was formed in 1872, the company being liqudated is being replaced with the new green consurtium company but it is like sister and parents companies work, just because the parent company is liqudated doesnt mean teh child company is, the club itself isnt being liquidated it the company we are goign to have to qait and see hwo this folds out but the aritcle needs updating to0 current information but as fora new article we cant determine that until we know for sure if the original club is oging out of existence or its the company that owns the club and i think tha tis what is cruical here and why the histroy might be preservedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that a key point has been made in the previous comment. It is the COMPANY being liquated, not the CLUB. The club was formed in 1872, while the company was established in 1899. With the company being dissolved and a newco formed, there is no change to the club, provided that it continues to function. A ACF Fiorentina is the correct one to follow is this instance. The Gretna model is only relevant should the club fail to continue as a football club. Johnelwaq (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Slight issue with that is the club hold the licence. The company is being liquidated and lose their licence with the SFA to play therefore once they find a league to play in they then have to apply for that licence back. The BBC and others read It differently to that interpretation. That's all this is an interpretation once it happens we will know. Let's be totally honest that is Duff and Phelps plan however name one thing they have done in this that has happened to plan. Also the HMRC would also have a claim against the club in that scenario not owners as they claim. let's see what happens but we will go with what sources say not what the club or their fans want us to. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because teh club lose there license does not mean there liquidated, that is the important point if the club isnt liquidated there might eb truth to the history carrying on personal i think the history dies. and hmrc have said they will havea claim against the old company not te new one so that doesnt go with what oyur saying and the sources are there to prve it, but i agree we dnt do what the fans want but what he sources sayAndrewcrawford (talk - Special:Contributions/Andrewcrawford

The business that holds the licence is being liquidated its currently open to Interpretation which that is given the company being liquidated was formed in the 1800s most of their history has been since then so really club and company for over a hundred years has been the same. It's a lightweight argument until we know more. Lightweight but not necessarily wrong. . HMRC say they would have no claim against a newco just it's past owners but in that example the history travels across with the business so there is still a claim there. Anyway let's get the story straight but the article in its current form is very censored. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I just want to know does everyone understand their is more than one way to liquidate a business one where it's a full Luqudation and one where a holding company is set up and history to some extent transfers but that is If it's done properly and its excepted as such. Sources will dictate that one for us. However the distinct difference is one leaves the HMRC a avenue to go after and the other doesn't. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

im well aware of the process and the club was formed in 1872 the company which owns the club rangers plc was formed in 1899 at company house, teh company is getting liquidated not the club, but i agree until it is all over it hard to say excately i only pointe dout there could eb truth to the history carrying over i never said it will becaus ei dnt know. but rangers plc is being fully liquidated ther eno holding company that was bill miller plan but that reuqired the old company having cva accepted which is now clear it never was goign to be so it full liquidation of the company not the club, well at the moment it not liquidation of the club, and no jsu tbecause they have to reappliy for the license does nto mean the club is liquidated, teh company holds the license since it getitng liqudiate the license is terminated and the newco has to apply for one or buy a club who alreayd has one ie what airdie done, but i stress but until it clear we dnt know what thell is goign, howeve ri agree the article is censored to suit rangers fans i agree lets change it, but lets get aconesus on it here i dnt really have the time to come up with it are you able to? i proopse a complete new sectionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure you really get what I'm getting at but never mind. I do however think its unlikely in the eyes of the public and latterly the press they will treat club and company seperatly. Anyway as I've said wait and see. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The club and the company are the same. That's why when the company is liquidated, the membership of the SPL and SFA are extinguished; the debt is extinguished and the assets are sold off. If a new company chooses to buy some of those assets then they can; if they want to apply to the SPL for membership they can. Players become free agents on liquidation of the old company save that, if a new company comes along to emulate the old one then the staff of the old company are entitled to have their contracts transferred across to the new company if the staff wish. That's a special piece if legislation to protect employment rights. At the moment much of what the Green Consortium (and what a joyously ironic name for the group that is liquidating Rangers!) is spin to pacify their customer base and try to entice them across to the new company. They need to make believe that it is just business as usual, a continuation of the old. But it isn't and it can't be in legal terms or else the debts would come across too. It does mean, from a Wikipedia perspective, that much of what the club's owners, administrators and liquidators might say needs to be set aside as partisan and untrustworthy. Also interesting to see that Ibrox Park seems to have been devalued from GBP160m to less than GBP5m. Even allowing for the initially inflated figure, surely that much prime real estate in Glasgow would be worth more than GBP5m for housing or retail. I do hope we don't see the oldco selling off assets to the newco for under market value... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That is my position also. The BBC source also says club is liquidated [2]. Stv source talks about club being liqudated buy in looser terms. It also sounds like new company to be called The Rangers Football Club. Going to be rather tricky to say its just the company. Edinburgh Wanderer 10:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

i believe you when it broke on bbc they didnt make it clear if they where tryign to stop liqudation or make the newco but i stillt hink until liqudation starts in about 8-10 weeks once that does then make the article until then it would bea bit preemptiveAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A new page shouldnt be set up. Its the same assests as before, just under a different name. The club is just being "refounded" so as such should be updated on the current page. It takes the same structure as Fiorentina AFC as they done the EXACT same thing!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.227.203 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers Football Club is a Company. Rangers Football Club is not just a name it is an Entity called Rangers Football Club P.L.C it is true it once was not a Company but it was Incorporated as a Limited Liability Company in 1899 and has since become a Public Limited Company. Rangers Football Club is in Liquidation and it will be dissolved and cease to exist following the Liquidation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

being you are celtic fan i welcome your comments, but the club was formed in 1872 like celtic was formed in 1888 in 1899 a company was establish which then took ownership of the club called ranger football club plc register at company house, i need to check when celtic company house registration is but they have a company celtic football club plc which was formed after the club and owns the club, the ranger plc is getting lqiudaited but it is unclear just now how it affects the club as there serperate according to the sources so teh club isn't getting liquidated just reformed restructuredAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to look up the word Incorporate and looks what it is and means. The Club IS A COMPANY, it wasn't took over by a Company it was made a Company so that it could trade and get the benefits of being a company. Celtic IS a company too. There is no "according to sources" those people are only making out there will be a team called Rangers playing at Ibrox wearing Blue so football will continue for fans to go and support. However its a New Club altogether with no connections to the old. This is why they have to apply to play in a League, why they need to buy assets like a Stadium. If Green bought the existing Rangers they include the full shebang of Stadium/Players/Manager etc but he isnt he's buying their assets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Adminstration and Liquidation

In this section example everything that has happen since feburary and what we know about is potential goign to happen with the deifferent scenario and make it clear nothing is truly known for a few months make it clear that there is dispute abotu the history, where it says or goes, there adispute if the players willt ranfer or not etc, include everything and refernece it so tehre no dispute as i say can you write something up jsut now i dnt have the time i think the above section is the best way forwardAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. Maybe even a new article 2012 Rangers F.C. liquidation? To an outsider, the whole saga seems like a hugely complicated mess, so I came to the article looking for some clarity. What I found read like it had been written by a Rangers version of Comical Ali! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

its a bit earlier for a serperate article on it but it a good possibailty in the near future when they have been liquidated, but jsu tnow it properable pass notabilty but only just it be better to make this section them once it gets to big then split it outAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers financial problems? Its not just this, there's the EBT tax case as well. That has been going on for 20 years. Although will probably be irrelevant as the club won't have to pay it. Adam4267 (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Also financial problems have been ongoing for many years which is why I think it should have its own article. Between the early 2000s and 2008 Rangers were about £80m in debt most of the time. And they didn't sign anyone in 2008 (I think) due to not having any money. Of course it could be possible just to make a sub-page for the Ownership and finances section, like with the history section.Adam4267 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Rangers Finanical problems would be the most appropriate. My reasoning is that what has caused this didn't just happen this year. Yes they are only currently being liquidated becaus of Craig Whyte, however the previous owners mismanaged the company for years and as Adam said there is plenty to tell that has lead us directly here and the saga is likely to drag on. But as Clavdia says the article is laughable at the moment jut totally censored. I understand there was a wait and see but now it needs done. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually would simply Rangers F.C Administration and Liqudation without the 2012 not be a good idea. It would still need to include the background anyway. Seems like a logical search title to me. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC

Yeah seesm fine to me but i still think we shoudl wait until they get liquidated which should be within the next feew weeks we dnt need to wait for the completely liquidation only for the process to begin and we can have some good references, a summary of this article we will create should also be here, i suggest starting making the page ina user sandbox its goign to be highly contravasial so we need ot make sure it all accurate and meets wikipedias standards before getting it live so then we can get ti proctecrted if the worse comes to the worse.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

don't think that page will be controversial to be honest. It's what happens to the main page that will be. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

ok after what just broke we will need to wait until the liqudateors do starting the liqudation process as they might not be will try update when bbc does, but i dnt think the new article should be made until it startsAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Em sources already exist. They aren't trying to stop the club being liquidated just trying to stop Green buying remains. Stv is already live. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

[3] Bbc source confirms smith would go down newco route as well. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The whole process takes 8-10 because it takes time however it's already started so Liqudation is happening. In fact it's to late smiths bid because Green purchased the assetts from the liquidator this afternoon. The only way Smith will get it now is if they buy it off him. So if adam or anyone else wishes to start that article there is no reason not to. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A new page shouldnt be set up. Its the same assests as before, just under a different name. The club is just being "refounded" so as such should be updated on the current page. It takes the same structure as Fiorentina AFC as they done the EXACT same thing!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seery234 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

ive already said a new page shouldnt be made for the club and i explained why already it a different thing to gretna as oyu say it the same as fiorenta and leeds utd its all contained within the same page, i have saida a new article on the liquidation of ranger sis needed given the backrgound of what has happene dover 220 years and hwo they got into adminstration and why liqudiation has happened it not abotut the club page its about a serperate article on liquioidation is wha ti am propusingAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not really different as Gretna 2008 bought the clubs assists as well. The club will now have two boards one for the company and one for the new club because the old one i.e. the club and company were interlinked hence why no way out and needed liquidated. In the new set up one would go under and not the other which really kind of shows the club and company were the same thing. I keep telling you its not up to you or me or fans not sure if you are one it's up to what sources say and we will wait that outcome. However its apparent the name is going to cause a problem as its already being edit warred over.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok gotcha now. Sorry Andrew, must have misread it. Just so much info to take in today i quickly glanced over it. Sorry again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seery234 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

im not making decision, the sources at the moment are saying that the club is liquidated and hte company but other sources say it only the company tha tis liquidated and the two are serperate, we have to wait and see until it clarified and in the publis domain we cant make decision at the monme twe can only go on wha thte soruces are saying and since it is confliucting we cant make a rel choice but you have not commented on fiorentina or leeds utd who had the same doen they bought the assessts. oh gretna 2008 never bought the assesst the ground blongs to property developer last time i checked and the new company was like wimebldoen restarting the club in that case was liquidated and botoed out, the membership is still up in the air. so until we have a better idea ie it been made clear lets stick with this article, if it is reveale din teh coming months that it ias new and the original club is liquidated we will make a new one. ive no objections to the liqudation article as the history of that will over fill this pageAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I give up its impossible to speak to you because you don't follow talk page guidelines and to be honest aren't making a lot of sense, so this will be my last reply to you unless you do. And no sources are split i can show one from today that say club and one from yesterday that says company. Its pretty clear from the way they are setting up the new business were linked. The club holds the licence not the company. Anyway its impossible to follow and I'm not tidying up after you again. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

oh and if it was as simple as you say ;) explain how the newco can vote if they get basck into the spl if there mebership is gone and why a decision on where to suspend or terminsted the newco license because of the civil court ruling? if they dnt have a licene what license is there to terminate?§Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

They don't the Rangers Admins have a vote as they still hold the licence the club have nothing. Honestly either read sources or don't bother. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok i have just reviewed what you put for references and it does confirm what you are saying and i never disagreed with that just other soruces aint all saying the same but it also does state the company not hte club but yes the company is losing it membership but doesnt meantion anytihng about the club, if what you have put is removed if my page procttion request is decline ill revert it for now but the sitution is still pretty early and not totally clear just now you have my support because what you have put is correct with what the source oyu have put :)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The original source stated they didn't have a licence so really there was no need for the extra ones. However I've now spelt it out even clearer not that i should have needed to. Im not saying page protection will not be required at some stage but its mostly experienced editors who should be invited to discuss here first, however everything that other users were edit warring over have been sorted for now. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Racism

The section on Combating sectarianism states "Some Rangers fans racially abused former Celtic player Bobo Balde, and former Rangers player Mark Walters was racially abused by some Celtic, Hearts and Rangers fans." I don't doubt this is true (I recall it being reported) but this strikes me as the kind of statement that really, really needs to be backed up by a source. 82.37.25.44 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Full page procttion

I have request full pag eproctection as there goign to be edit wars content disputes etc, so if it is granted please discuss changes here and if there a conesus we can makea edit requestAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Administration and liquidation & Ownership and finances

Should these sections not be merged they duplicate each other very heavily and are relevant to each other. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is all part of rangers' history as well as Ownership and finance. I'd say change the name of the history section to, maybe; 2012 Restructure/Reconstitution. I don't know but something along those lines. Adam4267 (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be deleted but the Ownership part only goes back to David Murray which is where the admin and Liqudation should really begin if we are thinking about adding background. And to be honest the second paragraph of ownership is virtually the same as in the admin part. Edinburgh Wanderer 07:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

i have OT agree that i think the sections should be merged in some way but it needs to be part of the history section to, and as Adam said a restructuring section is required, again as Chris says below i think it to early to start making the changes like this until we know the fully picture, but i do think the article needs updating to be more accurate but the question is what is accurate no source really know themselves, the administrators and the liquidators are saying different things, the liquidator are saying the sale to Charles green might not be binding because the administrators should not have a fixed contract to sell teh asserts to one person in liquidation and not open up the process to other potential bidders in the liquidation so to try achieve more money , the story changes one second to the next, to be honest anything the administrators say i dnt believe any more they have a serve conflict of interest and have constitutively changed there answers to the same questions over the last 4months (note i have tried to indenting properly and spell checking but i cant guarantee i have done it how you like Edinburgh wanderer)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is about the club, not the company

I have reverted the lead and info box back to the name of Rangers Football Club. This article is not about the company that owns the club, it is about the club and should lead by what it is commonly called. So the change in the lead to "The Rangers Football Club" is not necessary. If you have a look through all other football club articles you'll see that the club is not referred to by its holding company name. Take Liverpool F.C. for instance; it is not "Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The club has changed its name though. Its a new club with a new name so you were wrong to revert. Adam4267 (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The cite provided says the new company will be called "The Rangers Football Club". It says nothing about the club itself. The company name can be anything that takes the owner's fancy. The club itself can be new, but it will still be commonly called "Rangers Football Club". As I noted above, it is not common practice to refer to the club by the holding company name, although naturally in many cases they are one and the same. You are not about to see fixtures listed as "The Rangers" vs Celtic (or vs East Stirling, as the case may be). --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. However, at present moment there is no Rangers Football Club. There is a company which owns the different parts which were previously used to make up RFC. I'm pretty certain under SFA rules they would have to take a nominally different name to the previous club. However, you are correct in saying the article is about the club, which at the present moment is defunct. So what so we do? Adam4267 (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Most sources don't distinguish the two at present. The club is not currently active so we should take the name of The Rangers which is their current trading name. To me it is eithier that or we list as defunct. It's already being edit warred over so which is the lesser of the two evils. Also they will have to make an alteration to the name and this is the likely change. Also the reason they have now setup a company and a club board is because they were one and the same before which is why the club fell under the new way the club or company would fall but not the other. Edinburgh Wanderer 07:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Points taken. But look at the way Wikipedia documents Gretna; there are two seperate articles for Gretna F.C. and Gretna 2008 since they are different clubs. This is NOT a simple name change that Rangers are going through as they are not keeping their company number, they are completly dissolving the old club and setting up an entirely new one with a similar name. Saying that "the article is about the club not the company" doesn't hold any water, because the club IS the company and the company IS the club. A new article should be started for the Newco. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a degree of difference in the Gretna case in that Gretna were wound up entirely. There was no transfer of assets and the "new" Gretna makes no claim to being a continuation. It may well end up that we have a new article here, but that's yet to be determined. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm extremely puzzled as to why people who do not even appear to be reading sources, let alone providing them, are editing this article. The "oldco" traded under the name "The Rangers Football Club plc". The "newco" will trade under "The Rangers Football Club Ltd". So the initial definite article is not new.

Furthermore, the "oldco" hasn't been wound up yet, and it's very far from clear exactly what will happen regarding the "newco" yet. It is therefore wholly inappropriate to go treating this like an article on the "newco", which at present may own the club's assets but isn't "the club" as far as any governing body is concerned. I've reverted these changes pending something in the way of an actual resolution to this, which isn't likely to happen for a while yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly how the hell is them not having a licence speculative. They don't the Admins have it not the club. Also Craig Whytes shares have been purchased by Charles Green so he isn't the owner. There were sources in the article to that effect which means once again we have a censored article. Good job there Chris Edinburgh Wanderer 09:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't actually know what you're talking about. This is somewhat problematic when you're editing the article. You really shouldn't do that when you don't know what you're talking about. The Rangers Football Club plc, which is what Whyte still owns, is what is still represented (by Duff and Phelps, the administrators) in the SPL. Green did not buy his "shares": he bought the club's assets, which means Ibrox, Murray Park, the team bus, the statue of John Greig and so on. Right now, The Rangers Football Club Ltd (the company formerly known as Sevco) is, ironically enough, not a football club: it is indeed correct that it does not have a license, but seeing as it isn't the subject of this article it is irrelevant. So the (reliably sourced) owner of the club should be restored to the infobox. Does anyone who knows what he is talking about disagree with these facts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris first of all you should not be treating people the way you do. I've told you before that I would complain about you for this very reason And I will this time because I've had enough. You know fine well what is acceptable and you are making every encounter between us personal. I would post this on your talk page but as you are being like this I won't. However this time is enough go ahead and complain about me too but you have more to loose than me so I actually don't give a toss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinburgh Wanderer Mobile (talk • contribs) 10:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In regards to this whole club company debate. The 2 are seperate as stated by the joint liquidators. They mention that its not the end of the club, but just the end of the company that ran the club. Therefor no new article and just an update on what has transpired over the past few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seery234 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that starting a new article at this time is counterproductive as there is no guarantee that the "newco" will ever actually be a football club. Right now it is still entirely possible that there will be no club associated with Rangers playing in Scotland next season. I've no idea what "joint liquidators" is meant to mean, as The Rangers Football Club Ltd is not going to be liquidated AFAICT. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree entirely. There situation with Rangers, the football club, (the subject of this article) is still very fluid and uncertain. Editors jumping in with changing of names and leagues, based on speculative interpretations of the company situation, is not helping in keeping a stable and accurate article. Talk of new articles etc is not warranted at all at present based on hard facts from sound sources. There is no shortage in speculation in the media, Wikipedia should not be joining in. Wait until the dust has settled. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Im fairly certain most people have agreed that no new article is needed for now. However it's pretty clear at the moment they don't have a league to play in. So being accurate was to say they are applying to rejoin the Spl which was what it said before. That was clearly sourced. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as the season hasn't started yet, and there will undoubtedly be a change of some sort to this scenario in the weeks to come, it would be a disservice to our readers to go boldly announcing where and when the article's subject will be playing next season. Until that point, all indications are that they are still part of the SPL (they're going to be on Monday's fixture lists for starters) and the article should continue to maintain this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Its a diservice to say they are going to when we don't know that they are, sources indicate that they do not hold the membership So listing no league is more appropriate. Also we know have two articles The Rangers Football Club.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Whyte does not own the oldco, Charles green owns Rangers FC establish 1872 ie the club, the oldco establish 1899 still has the sfa and spl license not the club ie the oldco in the hands of the administrators, the new co now owns the asserts (there is a dispute as to whether they own the players due to the fact TUPE is getting quoted differently) the newco owns The Rangers FC LTD and green has a ~10% stake in the newco, the situation keeps changing every hour the sources change what there saying people say this and that, for example green named Ian Hunt as a partner but 1 hour later he said he is partner for the walter smith bid. just now no one really knows what is going on and time will tell, the article needs to be updated as it is incorrect in many ways, but the problem is how the hell do we do that when the sources dnt have a clue themselves, we can speculate nor can we say something we aint sure about, the best we can do is reference to the conflict sources for things we are disputing and show that we cant really say so give readers the ability to read both source and make there own judgementAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That's false. The Rangers Football Club plc (aka "oldco", est. 1899) is in administration. The owner is Craig Whyte. Green owns the "newco", aka The Rangers Football Club Limited. If Charles Green owned the "oldco" he could simply take them out of administration. The whole point of the "newco" is that Charles Green does not want to own the "oldco" as he would therefore be liable for its debts. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well thats what everyone wanted until someone changed it creating an almighty edit war.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as their records haven't been expunged from the SPL, and they'll be on Monday's fixture lists, that's a dramatic leap of interpretation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is the interpretation they don't hold a SFA licence or the right to play in the SPL. That is no interpretation that is Fact. The sources you removed to push this pov clearly stated that. The SFA list are subject to Rangers getting that licence whether they do or don't is irrelevant. The fact is they don't have it now which is all that needs said, if we say they play in the SPL then we are denying the fact that legally they cant unless the spl board and then the SFA give them the licence.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can point at a reliable secondary source which states that the "oldco" has had its license revoked, directly and not by interpretation, by all means go ahead and do so. At that point the relevant minor edits can be made to the infobox to reflect that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

:Chris stop this behaviour now. You know that everyone on this page wanted too keep one page. Today you have abused that by deliberately forcing a change through against consensus. We were treating them as one and the same which you knew fine well. So now this club will need to be declared defunct. nobody wanted to that but now we do. I really do hope you are ashamed of yourself but knowing you, i know you aren't. What a mess, an admin should a know not to cause an edit war and b know that consensus on wiki is key.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris your edits to the new page aren't that helpful either. This is a mess neither article means anything to the other. And saying they cant use that crest, how do you know that, they bought the assets so they may well be able to use that crest name your source.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, isn't this a fuss and bother. I can only repeat what I've said above. The situation is highly volatile. The situation is abnormal. It is therefore no surprise than the usual football guidelines and formats within Wikipedia cannot accurately hope to reflect accurately where things stand. I don't think anyone even knows for sure how things stand. There's a lot of argument going on that is pretty much differing analysis with different conclusions, and a lot of it WP:OR. Please, could everyone clam down, take a step back, and wait for something concrete to emerge. Attempting to keep an encyclopaedia up to date in such a changeable situation, where just about no-one knows for sure what's happening and what will happen, is a futile exercise. It can be updated when things are known for certain and reliable sources are reporting facts instead of speculation and guesses. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

you have basically summed up what i have been trying to say, thats why i asked for full page protection but as of yet no admin has responded which is quite annoying even to decline it would be better than nothing :(Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The Club is a Company. All the Confusion comes from the Trading name(which is nothing in a legal sense) is just used as Rangers or Rangers FC or Rangers Football Club, the actual Clubs name is The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. In easier terms im a human with my own identity(as Rangers are a Club/Company) however I can be known by many names, real name, nickname, blah blah but I only have 1 officialy(The Rangers Football Club P.L.C). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Owner of the club in infobox poll to form consensus.

Chris changed the Infobox to owner Craig Whyte. I disagree with this so the best thing would be to take a poll. Chris has made it clear why above however I believe this to be very misleading and makes it look like we are in fact censoring the page.

Please add your name to supports the options, those that have been in the infobox recently before this change.

Craig Whyte

Green Consortium

• For reasons laid out below. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Charles Green

In administration.

This all depends on are we talking about the club, the oldco the newco, before we can clarify it we need to know what is the article about to me it is about the club and as such as the transfer of shares from whtye to green happened yesterday then green owns the club itself but at the same time he says he only owns about 10% of the club and it is the consortium that owns the club through the newoc, which then suggest the newco owns the club, so it is very hard at this time to tell.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Firstly, this isn't a vote. Secondly, I gave a specific reason and rationale for maintaining the current owner of the club in the infobox as opposed to a "newco" which simply happens to own the stadium and various assets, while the counterargument is that, what, "we are in fact censoring the page"? Censoring what, exactly? If and when Green's consortium actually gets itself admitted into a footballing body, there's something to discuss as regards what exactly constitutes "Rangers Football Club". Until that point, it's just a company that owns some assets. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No it's the simplest way of gaining consensus something you aren't used to I know. . The article is about the club as far as im concerned and my view is it is green that should be listed eithier as consortium or as owner. Given its ten percent i think it should be Green consortium which was actualy listed for some time before people decided to edit war. So I'm with Andrew to some degree. Andrew do you think Craig Whyte should be listed then we can work from there. . Also it's imperative this page is protected we can't agree so until we can it should be. Dosent matter what version is chosen to protect at however as they are all as bad as each other exempt probably the one chris decide to dismantle despite it being many editors who edited to that version. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying. "The club" is the thing which has Rangers' SPL registration and seat in the meetings. Craig Whyte still owns this. Green owns the stadium and training facilities, but that does not equate to owning the club. I don't have a clue what "Given its ten percent" means. As for consensus and what it is and isn't, I rather think that I've got the community's trust on that one. Unless someone is actually willing to substantiate why Green should be listed as the owner of an entity that he doesn't own, the previous wording (which has the benefit of being both accurate and reliably sourced, even though some guy on the Internet apparently disagrees with it for reasons not yet expressed in lucid English) will be restored. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris, the "oldco" is currently a company which owns a footballing licence, and has £5.5 million in its bank account which will be used to pay off creditors (or just Duff and Phelps). The "newco" currently owns the stadium, training ground and possibly the players. It is widely known that the "oldco" will be wound up and that the "newco" will attempt to become a news Rangers FC. So although you are 'technically' correct in saying that this article is about Rangers FC (the "oldco"), which is not quite dead yet - going forward the new Rangers, owned by Green, will be the only football team under that and this article is now about them. Adam4267 (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you meant "may be" by "will" and "may in future be" by "is now". There are no guarantees at all that the "newco" will be given a place in the SPL (or the SFL, or indeed any other league for that matter). It is flatly false to suggest that this entity actually constitutes "Rangers" at this time. This actually became less clear in the last 24 hours following the announcement of a rival consortium, who in all honesty have as much right to call themselves "Rangers" as anyone else (and if they can't buy the "oldco" assets from Green may very well apply to do so with the SPL). As you can see, this is all speculation, which is why unlike many others I am not edit warring to include it in the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Is our self-appointed arbiter of how consensus and collaborative editing work around here really edit warring over this? Not a sign of a particularly strong position. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets be fair Chris no one Listens to you because you are the worst admin around because you snipe at everyone. Coming you you with a problem would be like going to a mad house. Sources clearly stated in that article was that the admins will vote because they hold that licence. You didnt read andrews post and I am agreeing with what he wrote but I don't see you having a go at him just me, that's where the ten percent comes from. This is all because you have a personal vendetta against me because I once happened to disagree with you over your precious accessibility and high ideas. You know take ever opertunity to have a go at me and you know it. There is no way that Craig Whyte should be listed. If you want it then until we have any change in consensus given it was listed for sometime then it should remain as Green. Unless you want to protect the page on that version which would be something you probably would do because of your issue with me. But that would be abusing your powers and higher powers wouldn't like that. Not that Jimbo ever thought he would have an admin who has a personal vendeta and decides to turn every Convo into a vendetta. You started the edit war. Escape orbit had no consensus for the change neither did you. Seems to me that you are in a minority regards to your Views. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Flat out lie chris you know many editors accepted the green version and choose to start the edit war by removing plenty of verifiable sourced material that backed up the points. You started this messEdinburgh Wanderer 13:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

ENOUGH!! This is turning into the most childish thing I've ever seen. The next person to make a personal comment will be swiftly reported to WP:ANI. Yes we have disagreements on Wikipedia but most editors are capable of working together and having discussions in a moderately mature manner. And neither of you are blameless. If you cannot work together then don't come into contact with each other. Adam4267 (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If its possible to move back to the content then I would like to say to you Chris. You are correct in saying that the oldco are the club. But they don't own for example, the stadium - you didn't remove that from the infobox. Either we have two articles, one for the olco and one for the newco. Something which most people don't think we should do. Or we have this article cover the "entity" that is Rangers, that includes Green who owns the assets and is trying to set up a new club. Adam4267 (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's gone too far Adam as you are aware every discussion I am involved in he comes after me. That is why this will go further and be dealt with. I react back but that is the point of it in the first place. He ignored your comment and Andrews and honed in on me. People can't have it both ways they are eithier separate or we accept them as the same which would mean Greens consortium own the club. You could argue a case for saying in administration but Whyte is inaccurate and the source was before the green purchase of the assetts occurred so isn't valid. I can assure you this will be dealt with. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Also it should be noted that there is a request for page protection been made by andrew I initially disagreed but following the fact we all disagree the page should be fully protected. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for being blunt again EW, but you've been threatening to report me for whatever heinous crimes I've committed against my mop for about six months now and yet I've seen you do nothing about it. You edit war or otherwise disrupt the project, I tell you off for it, you yell about how terrible an admin I am and how you're going to report me... and then nothing. Would it be too much to ask you to put up or shut on on that front? Additionally, pages are not protected simply because there is a dispute. Page protection is only required to prevent edit warring, and even then there are alternatives (for instance, where only one party is edit warring, the usual solution is to block that party). By all means continue to bang that drum. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No you won't be for given for anything. The only reason an RFC was not started was because an Arb and admin I actually have some respect for advised me it would be best to try and stay away from you and see if started up again. Since you are unable to do that and deliberately follow me to discussions with venom turning a debate which was going fine against one editor. That is no longer the case and an RFC is now appropriate per talk I've had. . You can start one of you wish as well on me I really don't care, what I do care about is the bullying culture that you as an admin are giving out. How many people are going to disagree with you before you actually listen. Consensus mean anything to you or does causing an edit war against main consensus to push a pov mean more. Help us out here how many people do want. Oh and I've told you before block me but you better have good reason because you started the edit war I have not broken 3RR and many other editors including yourself have edit warred Edinburgh Wanderer 14:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Adam, if you think the "newco" should have an article then by all means start one, with an {{infobox company}} at the top. What we absolutely should not be doing is conflating two entirely separate entities based on what various tabloid newspapers suggest may happen. As regards Ibrox, unless there is evidence to the contrary that the football club does not play at Ibrox (for instance, that its new owners have locked them out of it) then it would be harmful to our readers to suggest that this was no longer the case. Discussions around here are supposed to be based on evidence, rather than mere rhetoric or (in the worst case) head counts and misguided assertions of "consensus" based on such. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris how many people have to have an opposite view to yours before you actually listen to then. You started an edit war by changing it from a Version that people had worked toward before you came in. That has pushed your pov. You knew there was a page here but you chosse to ignore it. Just like you are ignoring everything anyone else says to you. The sources were already in the article. You argued above that we should keep as one article now you say split it. Absolute mess you have caused here. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers own website is suggesting Green now owns them [4]. For example, Malcolm Murray is honoured to be Rangers' new chairman [5]. As is the BBC; New Rangers chairman Malcolm Murray. As I said its clear that Green's company are considered by reliable sources to be Rangers. BBC; Rangers chief executive Charles Green - Green, whose consortium completed the purchase of the Glasgow club on Thursday,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam4267 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You understand that "the club assets" includes things like "the domain name", right? Updating the website still doesn't give Green the right to field a team in the SPL. And I'd rather suggest that the article on McCoist simplified the matter of the club purchase because it wasn't the point of the story rather than anything else, although of course much of the problem here has been the atrocious level of journalism exhibited by pretty much every part of the media. That tends to be why we're cautious when sources contradict one another. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sky Sports The decision means the troubled club will now be liquidated. As I said Green's group owns the parts required to make Rangers FC (maybe not the players). The old club is in the process of liquidation. Green's newco is in the process of applying to the authorities to become the new Rangers. We could have this article just be about the old club, and ignore what Green's doing. But then you'd have to remove the stadium, players etc from the article because the club don't own that. The most sensible thing seems to be to have this aricle be about the "entity" that is considered to be Rangers. Adam4267 (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Until chris reverted there was firm consensus that for now we didn't want to create a new page and continue as the old. Now do we keep that and continue as the same entity which until we know more or create a new club article. I'm with the first and create a new one later if it becomes appropriate. We do not know if the new entity will even get of the ground. Eithier way the article as it is is very misleading the way that Adam and others had it was far more explanatory and clear. Now it's a mess. So we eithier treat this one as defunct and create a new one or Make this one clearer. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

New article The Rangers Football Club.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A start at least, if titled based on a misconception already rebutted above. I'll move it shortly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that's wholly inappropriate. I addressed the point regarding the stadium in the above discussion: the club may no longer own it, but we cannot simply extrapolate from that that they will no longer play there (assuming, and again this is a big assumption, that there even is a "Rangers" next season). Everything goes up in flux with every club during the summer. The usual procedure is simply to leave things as they are until they have definitively changed. That isn't the case here. If and when the "newco" is actually a football club, we can discuss updating things. Until then, doing so would lend credibility to information which is at best disputed and at worst factually false. And that's why Whyte is going back in the infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Then this club has to be declared defunct, the players removed and stadium removed. You have started one big mess to push a pov. And no Whyte is only in infobox if we deem this club dead otherwise as adam, andrew and me have pointed out it should be green. Where is your consensus here. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Whyte does not own the oldco, Charles green owns Rangers FC establish 1872 ie the club, the oldco establish 1899 still has the sfa and spl license not the club ie the oldco in the hands of the administrators, the new co now owns the asserts (there is a dispute as to whether they own the players due to the fact TUPE is getting quoted differently) the newco owns The Rangers FC LTD and green has a ~10% stake in the newco, the situation keeps changing every hour the sources change what there saying people say this and that, for example green named Ian Hunt as a partner but 1 hour later he said he is partner for the walter smith bid. just now no one really knows what is going on and time will tell, the article needs to be updated as it is incorrect in many ways, but the problem is how the hell do we do that when the sources dnt have a clue themselves, we can speculate nor can we say something we aint sure about, the best we can do is reference to the conflict sources for things we are disputing and show that we cant really say so give readers the ability to read both source and make there own judgementAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thats what we had all agreed to do. And the edit warring stopped when the version we put in place happened. Because all that work was removed we now have that edit war again and neither article makes sense. Really this has made things ten times worse.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You edited the article so that it was factually false, based on a complete misreading of the entire situation regarding ownership, and then edit warred when editors explained why you were wrong. That certainly has made things worse. With any luck someone on the project can come up with a simple solution to that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris thanks for making the threats at WP:Footy also shows that you massively went against consensus on this and are now making threats. Going after adam isn't on either on his talk page. You clearly know that we had worked on a consensus for several days and then went against it to push a pov.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Why create a new page? I must say the admins for wiki don't know what the hell they are doing tbh. If you had any sense and look at all the facts that's been presented to us you will see that its the same case as Leeds, and fiorentina. The asset sale included the "club" all that was left behind was the company that controlled that. Look at how the other articles are written. If comes to a point where the New owners has to over a club for rangers to be in the league then that's a new football club with the bought over clubs history, but if they get into the leagues on their own application then its the same rangers different corporate structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.62.116 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The parts of EW's comments which refer specifically to Rangers are spot on here. The status quo is that we should only have one article for the club, as the newco is currently considered a footballing continuation of the oldco. There is admittedly an article specifically about the new business, but that is at AfD and looks likely to be morphed into a more general article, such as Liquidation of Rangers F.C. We should work along the lines of the continuation of one club unless we decide that there should be two articles, and Green owns the newco. I'm not sure how much more clear-cut it could be. —WFC— 20:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This article should be about the entity that is considered to be Rangers. Rather than about the companies that own them. As has been confirmed by several reliable sources Green owns "Rangers", whatever they may be. Therefoe he should be the owner and his "newco" should be considered the representitive entity of the club. That's how the article was a few days ago and I think what has gone on since has screwed it up as it is now a mixture of both companies with neither being represented properly. Adam4267 (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The opening paragraph still needs a little work, but its getting there. The oldco`s official name was "The Rangers Football Club P.L.C". I dont think that when talking about the club in the article it should be refered to as the rangers football club ltd, think rangers would be ok etc. Just use the official corporate name when talking about the ownership of the club etc. Glad to see that progress is finally been made though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seery234 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 June 2012

The recent edit is a result of Bigotry and not fact. Rangers FC (the club) is not yet dead! The hidtory will more than likely transfer to the new company including all previous honours just as happened with Leeds United and Middlesboro. Please delete last edits and block any edits until the facts are knowm. Andydbeattie (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You quite clearly don't know what the word 'Bigotry' means. Adam4267 (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  TOW  talk  17:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This is being discussed above the problem is no one knows what the situation is the club from sources is suggest still exists but some sources say other, time will tellAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This was fixed in the process of rolling back the changes to tense in the lead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Potential Dispute Resolution

Ok there is to many editors including myself to heavily involved in this project i think maybe we would be best to look at dispute resolution and get other editors with no involvement and hopefully no football knowledge of this subject who can review what we are saying, if everyone agrees can we gather a list of what we disputer and sources so we can take this to official dispute resolution? this is only a suggest im not going to do it without other consentAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Before anyone asks i am trying to take myself out as i am to personal involved but the article might not be correct and i like a outsider input Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It may come to that and if you feel that best i will totally support that. However its a minority against the main consensus so it really shouldn't be necessary but if no one is willing to listen to others which even with outside input isn't the case then i would go ahead but give it 24 hours and see if it calms down a bit. Which version is more neutral and factually informative i think the original was but does not always come down to that.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Now the page is protected can we please try and come to a conclusion on where the consensus is once again and take it from there. If we have a consensus then we of course should go with that, but given the shouting we need to take stock and see where we are. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Summarise the problems ie what sections and what is wrong with it, then others can comment on it provide sources to what it should be and if you can all agree then put it live tomorrow and then revert changes unless it been discussed here first, im not going to comment but if no solution is found i will use the informational from here to put it to dispute resolution if the other parties involved do not objectAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Im not going to make any further comments than the ones i have here and at WP:Footy already, its clear where the problems lie to a fair few of us mainly accuracy and the fact that the way it is leaves it wide open to speculative editing we need something that covers the bases so that people understand. Also i wouldn't bother trying to be impartial now purely because your already involved. You could still ask for outside comment in dispute res. The best version was the one that we all worked on together including you adam and others. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

i know it to late to be impartial but i want to not be involved now at least that way i am trying to show i am trying to stand back and stay i am to involvedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we are all a bit like that, i don't want to be involved in this any more than you do. Ive made the point and I'm not going to be accused of not being the one to back off even when the whole situation is wrong. So unless we all talk it through then there isn't any point.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No Longer Required page full protected so needs edit request to change so forcing agreement on the tlak pageAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please use the talk page

I'm not keen to protect an article when "change is afoot" so I'm not going to protect it now. But, please use the talk page rather and try to get some consensus before you actually edit the article itself. --regentspark (comment) 19:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Note. I've protected the page for 24 hours. Please use the talk page to discuss your edits during this time. --regentspark (comment) 19:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 June 2012

The Rangers Football Club P.L.C entered liquidation on 14 June 2012 following the rejection of a proposed CVA by HMRC.[71]. HMRC are to appoint the BDO Insolvency firm to reveal why the Company failed.[72] Following this the Company's assets, including the Club, Ibrox Stadium, Murray Park and The Albion were sold off to The Rangers Football Club owned by Charles Green. The existing company is expected to be dissolved in around 6 to 8 weeks.

This should replace the following text because of factual inaccuracies in the text below:

The Club entered liquidation on 14 June 2012 following the rejection of a proposed CVA by HMRC.[71]. HMRC are to appoint the BDO Insolvency firm to reveal why the Club failed.[72] Following this the Club's assets were sold off to The Rangers Football Club owned by Charles Green. The Club was projected to be dissolved in around 6 to 8 weeks.

Nookiebear (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please discuss all changes before using {{editprotected}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Player contracts

Seperate, but related to the above, is the matter of the players' contracts. The owner of the new club/company/whatever apparently thinks that all players must automatically transfer over. This opinion seems to have been trashed by the players' union, among others. Should the squad section say that all players are free agents, potentially at least? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Their employment is covered by TUPE. As such, any who do not wish to transfer to the "newco" do not wish to do, and will be treated as if their contracts had naturally ended (in essence becoming free agents). So far as I can tell, there have been no reliable sources indicating that employee contracts have been transferred yet, nor that any player has officially moved to the "newco". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):There using TUPE to transfer them but TUPE as you say doesn't mean they will, green says they are in breach of contract if they dnt the pfa says there not, fifa are still to clarify, the law says that a employee must be offer the same contract and condition that where with the old company when transferring to the new company but it also says they can decided they do not want to transfer and become unemployed, so until the player come and say we cant list them free agents but at the same time we cant say they have moved to the new come maybe something explaining the situation i just said with a source added to the squad section would be best.in addition to what chris has said fifa and the sfa have still to comment fully on how it affect football player as they seem to be treated differently but teh pfa says TUPE is a law and cant be treated differentlyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the situation is still up in the air and there is a lot more doo-doo to come down the pipe. But I still think it would be worth adding the current info to the article. There is reliable sources saying the owner expects to transfer them, and other reliable sources saying he has no chance (both parties citing TUPE). Our article at the moment says nothing about all this. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

put what you want to add here with in-line citations if no one objects then put a edit request inAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, what about:

When Rangers entered administration in February 2012, their players accepted pay cuts of up to 75% to allow the club to continue to trade. After lengthy negotiations the players agreed on condition that they could leave for substantially reduced transfer fees. When a CVA was rejected in June 2012, prospective asset–purchaser Charles Green said that players who had contracts with the company in liquidation must transfer their contracts to his new company. It was suggested by Green that, under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE), any player who did not wish to do so would be in breach of contract. This interpretation of the law was rejected by the Professional Footballers' Association Scotland (SPFA) who argued that the playing staff could decide whether to transfer their contracts to the new company. If not, they effectively became free agents from the point that their original employer was liquidated. SPFA chief exectutive Fraser Wishart, who had been a Rangers player under David Murray's administration, described the players as unsure of their future and "increasingly unhappy at having to operate in an information vacuum".

Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty Neutral and NO POV put a edit request in make sure to quote the bit you want changed with the above oyu want to replace it. You have my vote for this changeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

I would like the section heading for "Liquidation" removed and the content of that section be placed in the "Administration" section. The "Administration" section then should renamed "Administration, liquidation and new corporation". Kingjeff (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This one got in before the lock by an editor who has been strongly pushing for the "refocus this entire article around Rangers' demise" angle. I'd leave it at "administration and liquidation", though, seeing as it's not certain whether the new corporation will actually be "Rangers" or not come the start of the season. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done, merged as "Administration and liquidation", capital A small l. Kept as two separate paragraphs. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2012

Can I Please Edit The Rangers Wiki Page So It Can Be Updated Please 81.103.29.245 (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC) The integrity of Wikipedia is now questionable,in wikipedia's own definition of Liquidation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidation it clearly states the END of a company, Rangers Football Club 1873 where a football club, an asset sale does not mean the club has been taken over it means the club does not exist anymore and therefore wikipedia's editors need to think with their heads and not their hearts and the use of the page should now have Rangers FC 1873 in the past tence and a new page dedicated to The Rangers FC 2012. If the club where taken over,or got a CVA approval I would understand but they didnt the club does not exist anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.156.194 (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done; getting the companies' respective names wrong is generally a good indiaction of not having sufficient grasp of the facts to warrant an edit request. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

We should learn from Halifax Town AFC and FC Halifax Town articles

This article needs to be written to reflect the reality that 2012 marks the end of an era and the beginning of a new one. The way this was done when Halifax Town went bankrupt is probably what is required here. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The rangers case is not the same. Halifax town afc were fully wound up and the new club was formed without any links to the new one bar the old directors as the ones that set it up. No assests were transfered across and so the old club lost all connections. Rangers FC has been transfered to the newco therefore it is the same football club and should be same article. E.g. fiorentina, Leeds utd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.62.116 (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a completely new club. Their football share has been revoked and taken back by the SFA/SPL. The new club now has to apply for that available share, putting in an application for it, in fact i'm sure many other highland league sides will be applying for that share. It is a new club. The club has been liquidated. Nothing has been transferred. The assets have just been bought with the intention to play at the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.57.11 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

read teh soruces, they state they are the same club but new tro tranfer teh license form teh oldco to the enwco, if you have problem contact the source and tell them that there wrongAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Every professional football club is also a company to limit the liability of the individuals involved should it lose money. When the company goes bust, the club is bust - they are one and the same. Green has bought the assets of Rangers - he didn't by the club as it is still owned by the shareholders, though it is now worthless having no assets and millions of liabilities. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

read this, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18452212 "Season ticket income looks vital if he's to avoid pitching the club back into administration. So Charles Green now has control of the assets, but faces hostility from his customers." if it is indeed a new club then you can tpitch the club back into administration, this wher ethe confusion lies sources are stating the club contunies and sources state teh club is disolved but no one knows just now, the article itself also makes it seem like the club is dissolved so it is contradiciting itself never mind other sources contradict itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Not in SPL

This article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9335076/Rangers-to-be-excluded-from-SPL-fixture-list.html

states that Rangers will not be included in the SPL. Perhaps the article should be updated to reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingowasher (talk • contribs) 09:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not included in the fixture lists. Instead, a placeholder name will be used. If the decision were "not included in the SPL" then the fixture list would simply state the replacement team. The issue isn't decided yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you seem to be missing the point - the fact that the fixtures list will be issued without including the name 'Rangers' makes clear that Rangers is no longer a team in the SPL. Whether or not a new team called Rangers will be allowed to join is yet to be decided. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

We wouldn't change anything until the fixtures come out. But if as expected they are ommitted from the fixture list, I would recommend using carefully selected language in the lead such as "competed in the SPL in the 2011–12 season", rather than explicitly stating that they are or are not in the SPL. —WFC— 12:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It makes it clear that there is uncertainty over whether they will be a team in the SPL. Nothing more. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Relevant quote from Charles Green on the Rangers website [6] - "Today we are out of the SPL. Today we are not in the SFA. These are problems that we have to deal with to get this football club back playing football here." Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but he is also attempting to transfer the memberships of the "old" Rangers to the newco. If he is successful in that application then there will have been no breakage in the Rangers membership of the SFA or SPL. Only if and when that application is rejected can you definitively say that Rangers FC are out of the SPL. James Morrison (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi James, on reflection I think I was wrong in my earlier statement though not for the reason you have suggested. Charles Green referring stating "today we are out of the SPL" could be referring to the new Rangers club he is forming to replace the one that is being liquidated. Anyway, as to your point about 'no breakage in the Rangers membership of the SFA or SPL', I have to tell you - as gently as I can - that if Charles Green is successful, it will be a new Rangers that takes the place of the Rangers formed in 1872. New club, fresh start, not burdened (or able to celebrate) the baggage/history of the previous club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18471197 this also suggest they could be back in the spl, first division or so on, no one knows until we know we cant do anything, as point out it is a placeholder so if rangers are back in they rangers and the toehr teams knwo when there playing, if it dunfermline they will know if it 2nd place 1st division tema they will know to, no one knows so to edit when even teh soruces do not knwo is stupid when we know we will change the page to reflectAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers are not on the SPL fixtures list http://www.scotprem.com/content/default.asp?page=home_Fixtures I therefore propose to remove the statement that Rangers definitely play in the SPL from the first line of the article. Instead it should read something like the final line of the introduction saying that Rangers are under consideration to play in the SPL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingowasher (talk • contribs) 10:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

i dnt object to that change remeber and cite the refernce so post the line you want changed here with the replaceme nt line and get a edit request submittedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2012

Please change the "owner" field as Craig whyte is not the owner 82.25.167.30 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This source says that he is the majority shareholder. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This source confirms green as the new owner of the business and assets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.62.116 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't confuse two things - as Rangers is being liquidated, its assets (like Ibrox and Murray Park) have been sold off. The Green consortium has bought these assets but not the club itself which is being wound up. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to rename this article Rangers FC (1872)

Seems to me that the whole integrity of wikipedia is up for question when the FACTS are misconstrued by not impartiality but from obvious Rangers supporters opinions.If the creators of wikipedia knew about the fabrication of the TRUTH they would most certainly expel the liars who have licence to create and edit pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.175.58 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

everything is by the sources, the problem is the soruces are contradiciting so no one knows, we will all know over the next few months, oh as rangers supporter i do not believe the enwco means the club contunies i beleive the club i supported for years is DEAD but if i go with my view i will be using POV which i cant do, sources is what wikipedia is about the aritcle is more a less correct, over the next few motnhs we will know for sure and the page iwll be updated and made rightAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion among editors about whether this article is about the Rangers formed in 1872 or about the replacement club that Charles Green is hoping to get into the SPL in time for next season. When I checked the article this morning several changes had been made in the info box suggesting that Rangers FC was formed in 2012 etc. I suggest that it may prevent confusion if we change the title of this article to 'Rangers F.C. (1872)'. Any objections? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

there is no need it is quite clear but user are wantign to say look the clud doesnt exist anymore, until it is clear the article must be discussed firstAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind either way, but just thought it might save confusion and unnecessary edits being made. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I really dnt think ti will stop the eidts being made as people called for The Rangers Football Club and the article is there so there is destincion just people are messing witht eh page givinmg POVAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that with the exception of complete page protection, little is going to save confusion and unnecessary edits being made. Fact is that there is confusion and uncertainty around the entire subject, but that isn't stopping a number of editors (some of whom have a clear POV to push) jumping all over the article to implement their preferred take on events, most of which have yet to be fully played out. Perhaps they should give some pause for thought; once the dust has settled and the facts are clear, other editors in due course will implement the most suitable solution based on mature consideration and consensus. And all the frenzied nonsense that has gone one in the last few days will be lost. It would save everyone a lot of time and grief it people would realise this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Excately and that is the point i have been sayign the whole time, my pov is teh club is dead but that is all it is pov and i was a rangers supporter i will not be following htis new team one because it isnt the club i followed all my life second i dnt trust green and his consturium i might follow if walter gets charge but it will be a new club in my eyes but at the monet sources suggest it will be the same club jsut new company that owns itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrewcrawford, every professional club is registered as a company as it has to trade, take income pay costs etc and the individuals involved want to protect themselves from being personally liable if the club runs at a loss. This view, therefore, that the club and the company are two different things is quite bizarre - they are two sides of the same coin. When the company folds, the club is folding! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

i am using bold to clarify, i agree tootally my club is dead ther ebeing liquidated as i fear from feburary but that is my POV i cant put that on, the source state otehrwise mostly because green is trying to get fans to follow the new club but the sources say different this is hte problem the sitution will be clearer by teh start of the season then we can fix the article and make it past tense if that what sources sayAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

read this, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18452212 "Season ticket income looks vital if he's to avoid pitching the club back into administration. So Charles Green now has control of the assets, but faces hostility from his customers." if it is indeed a new club then you can tpitch the club back into administration, this wher ethe confusion lies sources are stating the club contunies and sources state teh club is disolved but no one knows just now, the article itself also makes it seem like the club is dissolved so it is contradiciting itself never mind other sources contradict itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - when liquidation has happened to 'smaller' clubs we have immediately started a new page. Rangers should be no different. This is a new club that has assumed a similar name and is no different to F.C. Halifax Town and all the rest. I agree, Wikipedia's integrity is at stake. TerriersFan (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Only the plc is getting liquidated not the club, i suggest you do some reaidng into it, sp license is serperateAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, you keep repeating that the company and the club are different - they are not! The club was registered as a company (as are all professional clubs) and now the company, which is the club, is going bankrupt. If you are not convinced, let me prove to you that Green's club - the one he wants to get into the SPL is a different club from Rangers FC: Think of what is going to happen when the SPL decide which club should be 'club 12' in the SPL. Rangers FC will get a vote on whether Green's new Rangers should get in because Rangers FC remains a member club of the SPL. Yet it is voting on its replacement club - therefore, not the same club! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"i suggest you do some reaidng into it" - actually I have read fully into it. The SPL licence is irrelevant. If they accept a new club that is fine but irrelevant. The former Rangers has gone; we need a new article for the new 'Rangers'. TerriersFan (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

i mean read into corpations, it is more revelent than you think im goign to repeat what i keep saying as a rangers supporter i believe the club is dead as you all say but wikipedia is abotu sources and sources say the club and plc are serperat so until sources say the club is liquated and not jsu the plc we cant change the article as then it POV or speculationAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources do say that the club is being liquidated. For example, [7] "The club will now be liquidated and its assets sold to a new company which will aim to continue with football at Ibrox." Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

one sources does mean it true read this, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18452212 "Season` ticket income looks vital if he's to avoid pitching the club back into administration. So Charles Green now has control of the assets, but faces hostility from his customers." if it is indeed a new club then you cant pitch the club back into administration, this where the confusion lies sources are stating the club contunies and sources state the club is dissolved but no one knows just now, the article itself also makes it seem like the club is dissolved so it is contradicting itself never mind other sources contradict itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Your argument from the requests for page protection

I seem to have got a bit of stabilising again by reverting changes not discussed but i cant do this all day Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think the indefinite semi-protection should be restored, which was removed by fully protecting the page for one day. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 11:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed teh indefinitely semi protection needs restored minimum but i think something in the liens of 1-6 months full protection is required once the situation is clearer and we know what going on ie the sources know then we can ask for full to go and semi to be backAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

1 - 6 months full protection? Completely over the top reaction to some short term instability which can be better handled by Admins warning the culprits - on all sides of the debate about the club. Leaky Caldron 11:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really it forces users to get a conesus on the talk page, just because it not what you wantAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And have you look at how many changes there has been since the full protection was lifted? it is content dispute, because no one really knows the answers and it is people POV all we can do for now is put what is known the current revision of the page is as accurate as we can have it until we know better and all edits should be discussed before changes which full protection givesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And you think warning users is the best way? that like saying you are ok to dispute but since i dnt agree you cant full protection stop this i really hope it is non football admin that makes the decision even if they dnt give full protection as then i can at least feel it is unbiased but a football admin could be biasedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not contributed to the article so do not accuse me of partiality in the dispute - I couldn't care less. You need to calm down and stop making it look like you are some sort of guardian for the content. Asking for full protection for up to 6 months is idiotic. I suggest you calm down a bit. Leaky Caldron 11:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

i never accused you of being impartial i said i hope it aint a football admin that decided because they might have POV or might not be neutral a admin who doest do anything with football can review it better. And you did comment at wikiproject football about the article so you are semi involved :(. I dnt think 6 months is necessary but a few weeks is, by using 6 months then it will cover the entire time until everything is clear and known just now it is up in the air, and no one knows whats going on and the sources cant agree with each other so people use one source that says one thing so people use that for there POV but another contradicts it so yes there is major problem so any changes need to be discuses on talk like the previous admin says the onyl way to do that is full protection. Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There you go. You can have the rest of your argument here. ʝunglejill 12:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi protection

I've restored the indef semi. I'm personally reluctant to fully protect the article because I don't think it is warranted (as yet!) but, of course, you're free to ask at RFPP.--regentspark (comment) 12:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

hopefully the smei should stop the ip edits but if they register and start doign it as a register auto confirmed user then full might be the only wayAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. So I was wrong. I've protected it for 10 days. In the meantime, please reach consensus on the talk page and then ask any admin to make the changes.--regentspark (comment) 15:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

thanks that is what i have been trying to get is users to come here and get a cones us but no one wants to there more interested in pushing a povAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Just above we are told that this article is protected and yet there is nothing on the article to tell you that this is so or why. Is that not what the little padlock sign is for? Britmax (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

it was there until teh admin changed it to full proctection but the bot hasnt came along and updated the pageAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Andrew. I'll watch out for it. Britmax (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless the bot has sysop rights it may not be able to. Ive asked RegentsPark if he could.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

History Remains with the club

The history will remain with the club as stated by administrator Paul Clark of Duff and Phelps despite a newco http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/18417312#asset

So it should be on the same wikepedia as the original Rangers FC with the name changed and all the history intact. Just like the Fiorentina article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACF_Fiorentina

The history will still be there according to UEFA also just as Fiorentina.

Please sort this problem out as soon as — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.221.87 (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As soon as what? Britmax (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

and when have anything those admins said true? at the moment it is in dispute if the history does carry on as sources say inthing and another some say both in one statementAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

owner and dual contracts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18496571 they have applied that rangers might have breeahc rules on dual contracts came someone write up something im crap at it and we can get it added to the article ,this confirms green is the owner and wyhte no longer is its near the bottomAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've submitted a formal complaint to the BBC about that article - it wrongly implies that Green's consortium bought Rangers from Craig Whyte which we all know is rubbish. Green's consortium only bought the assets of Rangers, leaving Craig Whyte as majority shareholder of Rangers FC - a club with no assets but massive debts, and about to be liquidated. To be clear, Charles Green is chief executive of the Rangers Football Club Ltd that now owns Ibrox but is not a member of any league. Craig Whyte is owner of Rangers FC, the club that is being liquidated but retains a vote in the SPL until the liquidation is complete. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

i very much doubt bbc would knowigly publish something false, but there reporter will be tlakign to the peopel behind the scenese if ther etelling them that it the same club ow can we argue with that? are we expects ?? to complain about a reference ie bbc by complaining to them because it goes against what you think isnt rightAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

quoting from the rangers football club afd

"To illustrate the facts from the earlier comments about the club being distinct from the company and this is merely transfer of ownership, please see the following http://www.oldsquare.co.uk/pdf_articles/3100105.pdf specifically the section that states; ISSUE ONE: THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER TUPE APPLY 2. It is now clearly established that, in order to decide whether TUPE apply to a particular transaction, it is necessary to ask two questions: 2.1 does the function which is being transferred constitute an economic entity? 2.2 will that entity retain its identity after the transfer? As TUPE has already been established to apply in the case of Rangers then they must have satisfied the courts already that they are the same economic entity as before and they have therefore retained their economic identity. This page is innacurate and in poor taste. Please amend accordingly or factually represent these events in the existing page.212.137.36.231 (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)" i doubt a judge would approve of a tupe being used if it wasnt the same entity Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming all 'smoke and mirrors'. The BBC article spoke about "the club's new chief executive Charles Green" but Charles Green is not chief Executive of Rangers FC but of Rangers Football Club Ltd - a different organisation. What they should have said was "the new club's chief executive Charles Green". All it takes is a sloppy journalist to put the words in the wrong order and people start thinking Rangers is not being liquidated! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah right well in that case i see why you have challenged it, but do you see the problem i am saying there is that sources state one thing an state the otehr so how can we make the article correct we cant use our own POV or OPinions or SPeculations we have to put wha tthe soruces say what we can do is says something like Rangers FC is owned by craif whyte and cite the source but it is also said that charles greens bought craig whytes sahre cite the source and the ownership of the PLC is under clear because of this, that way the article is correct but we aint puttinga POV or saying what we want to we using the sources to say both version ins the articls would you agree that is more reasonable and once the soruces start saying the same tihng we update the article accordily?Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The only solution is not to rely on single sources as they may be examples of sloppy journalism. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

yes but if we rely on more than one then we have to meantion both sides of the arguement we cant only meantion one side, even if it referenced it doesnt matter if another source says something else wikipedia has to say both and explain what is goign onAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Whyte is the owner of The Rangers Football Club plc, a company which will soon be liquidated. Charles Green and his consortium are the owners of The Rangers Football Club Ltd, a company which now oversees the running of Rangers Football Club. I'm afraid there are too many people trying to push their own POV on this one, I assume to give 'ra Rangers one last good kick, but there is no coherent argument to show that a distinction can't be drawn between company and club. Over on the other page many good points were raised on this and a comment I see has been copied and pasted from that discussion to here which contains a citation to European Case Law which all but confirms that the economic identity of a business is separate and distinct from whichever company that may oversee it's operation, and that economic identity is transferable from one company to another and it's rights for such are protected by law such as it satisfies the conditions of that law. But despite this there still seems to be too many of you ignoring these cited facts in favour of your own opinion. I implore you to find a citation that is of equal weight that counters this fact and present it for consideration. Not a comment mind from a red top or the beeb, but an example of corporate law that shows irrefutably that the dissolution of The Rangers Football Club plc means the end of the separate and distinct economic entity that is Rangers Football Club, and that this entity is not entitled by law to transfer ownership, intact, to a new company. If I wasn't such a noob I would make an attempt to have someone in authority of wikipedia review these points and review the conduct and supposed neutrality of some of the contributors on this topic. Perhaps someone more experienced can point me in the direction of the complaints thread when contributors ignore citation to suit their own personal POV. Scottishfilmguy17 (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That the reaosn th page is full proctected because tehre is POV pushing, my POV although i am not pushing it on the article is the clbu is dead as a supporter of the dead club i wont support ther new one as that hwo i see it, but i have cite many times that the sources say the club contunies but it not taken and as you say kick in teh teeth, but there is sources that say it is dead but none i have seen are of a law nature but if you need guideence i can point you in the ight direction, i have stop taking this to dispute resolution for now but i suspect eventalyl it will be needed. Please do not think i am pushing my pov asi say in my view my club is dead but as wikipedian i write aritcles as per sources and they say differentAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, trust me the club is not dead. Not from a legal viewpoint and not from a footballing viewpoint. I've followed your posts, and I believe you mean well but I'm coming from a fairly technical legal background and I'm not sure you fully understand what is actually happening at Rangers as it appears that many, many other users on both sides of the argument also don't seem understand what is happening. I mean no offence to you or anyone else when I say this, it is not that I think you or any of the other users are stupid, you just do not have the training and knowledge that I do by virtue of my employment for almost the past ten years. I tried, before I registered, to put these points across in a layperson manner much in the style that I was originally taught but predictably those that don't want to accept this just detracted from it. Seeing as citation and sources seem to be the most important thing to wikipedia, I then sourced the most important piece of case law that exists in these circumstances, I even went to the extra trouble of finding a version that was in plain English, free of as much legal jargon as possible to provide to the discussion, but alas it is ignored by those who know it doesn't suit their argument to pay attention to such facts. I am now thoroughly in wikipedia and I have a tarnished view of something I previously thought to be a fantastic and useful resource. Indeed if the detractors were to spend half an hour on wikipedias own pages regarding corporate law, insolvency, pre packed administrations, the information is all there to confirm that the club and it's history is safe, and protected by law, in it's transfer from one company to another, but again this doesn't fit with the POV that people wish to peddle so I fear that would be useless too. As a noob, I feel lost in this quagmire, as such I have attempted to seek help to help me escalate these matters as this situation and the behaviour of many of the users on such a world renowned website is simply unacceptable. I wish you well Andrew and thank you for at least offering help to me. Regards Scottishfilmguy17 (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that analysis of European Law, and interpretation of how it may apply to Ranger's current situation, constitutes original research, something specifically not permitted on Wikipedia. Unless you have a good cite that mentions this European Law and states that it applies to this particular case, then you have nothing that can be used on this article. This is the problem with 90% of the discussion on-going here; very high on personal analysis and speculation of future events, very low on hard known facts from authoritative sources. Consequently I'd say most of what's been discussed is a pointless waste of time. People should save their time and efforts for when facts are known, decisions have been made and good sources are available. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Share transfers worth a read

Its only a blog so not a reliable source in any way but its worth a read. [8] It also raises a good point in that the SPL haven't made it clear whether they see it as a continuing entity or a new club so how can we. Nothing is clear cut in Rangers case especially with sources but this does explain the rules re share transfers.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a newspaper

Can I remind everyone here that we are an encyclopedia not a news service. If we need to wait until the meeting on the fourth of July or the situation clarifies in some other way there's no rush. Leave the "tabloid instant 24-hours-so-we've-got-to-fill-the-space-with-shite" to those who do that sort of thing. Britmax (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

well said :0, but i do think we should udpate somethings where is conflict in teh soruces showing that wikipedia isnt taking sides it reports it as it isAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Amen. Changing the article to accommodate speculation, mis-information, mis-understandings, guesses, wishes and opinions is a waste of time. It'll only get erased in a couple of weeks with facts. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers are no more and WILL NOT keep their history.

This page should be open to editing as Rangers are now non-existant. The old Rangers will keep their history, but this Newco will not inherit the previous Rangers FC's history. Further more the use of the club crest on the main page is also in need of adjusting, the clubs crests,logo's and badges where sold to the new sevco5088 which then became "The Rangers" but we wont get FACTS get in the way of heartstrings huh, well done Gers fans,your only lying to yourselves and someone will step in for you and fix this page properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.185.104 (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you source all this reliably? Britmax (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Shows how much you know mate, most rangers fans think there club is dead and the history is gone so it quite the oppisate, the pag eis full proctected to prevent people liek yourself pushing a POV without relaible source so forcing a discussion here, untila relaible source comes about that proves beyonda doubt the club history is dead the artile will nto be changed as source say the hsitory contunies because only the plc is liqudated and the club is owned by the plc but since it now techincally sold it history transfer as well even teh spl are treating the new rangers as the old rangers or else they would drop there dual contracts there planning on applying the sanctions agians tthe new rangers if it was new club they wouldnt be able to and they wouldnt need to submit account for this year either, as previous rangers support until my club died in my opinion i see hte history gone but as wikipedian i have to follow by wikipeida rule and use source soruce say it is very much aliveAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. Do you have reliable sources to support your view that "the club is owned by the plc". Is it not the case that the club WAS the plc, meaning that when the plc is liquidated, the club is liquidated? Rangers history will never die - it will stay as Rangers' history. However, the new Rangers will be starting its own history. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

sources have been present before but sources that contradict what you think you either will makea complainent to the source themself or just play it down and present other sources that says different, i repeat yet again it is not clear what way it is, no one knows people report wha thtey get told, the ones whoa re in teh know are saying the history stays witht eh club and the club is serperate to teh plc, i personally dnt believe it but hey that my pov. also no one has shown me acompany house comapny for every club in scotland i did some reasearch and not all them have one so again saying the club and plc aint one, but im not goign to go intoa arguement with you about it you believe teh club and plc are the same i beleive they are teh same but the current sources msotly say there serperate so go complain to them liek you have already doneAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"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," said Cohen. The club and the company are separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadSynergy (talk • contribs) 11:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for edit - website link in infobox

Since all the assets of Rangers FC have been bought by Sevco 5088/The Rangers Football Club Ltd, the Rangers FC website has now also come under the ownership of Sevco 5088/The Rangers Football Club Ltd. It is therefore inaccurate for the website link to remain in the infobox. Can I request that someone with permission deletes it? Thanks Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, why? The site still works, why does it make a difference to us who runs it? Britmax (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not "who runs it" that is the issue as much the misleading impression that may be given by the link to this website being here. Rangers Football Club plc sold its website to a different company and no longer owns a website, so keeping it here can only serve to confuse any reader struggling to get their head round the difference between the Rangers Football Club plc that is in liquidation and the proposed Rangers Football Club ltd (currently Sevco 5088) that has Charles Green as chied executive. Charles Green's company owns this website, so it should only appear on the page about that company. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Still don't see a problem unless the website content becomes deliberately deceptive or unacceptably partisan. Britmax (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact the link to the website is in the infobox is, in itself, deceptive. The website belongs to a different company/football club called Sevco 5088 (soon to be Rangers Football Club ltd) but having it here gives the impression that Rangers FC is the same company as Sevco 5088/ Rangers Football Club Ltd. Unless someone can explain why the link to this website should be here when it is now the website of a different company, it should be removed. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

can you a sources that says beyond a doubt that the new ltd company isnt taking over the old club, the problem it is deceptive because no one knows if we can get defintive proof we can remove it, but it aint clear you keep saying the plc is club and ltd is a new club why isnt spl sfa seeing as such there planning in punishing this so called new club for a nother club actions if you can explain and proove it aint then there a case to be arguedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I just don't think it matters who runs the site if it keeps doing the job. Britmax (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

ok lets take this example a company a owns the website www.a.com, then the comapny sells the site to company r, wikipeia says the website is company a even though company a has nothing to do with company r, if it can be proven that the club and the company are one and that the new company is starting a new club with nothing t do ith the old club apart form a simialr name then it has to be removed form this pageAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrewcrawford. I'm not suggesting that the new club has nothing to do with the old club apart form a similar name - indeed the opposite. It is clear that the new company is designed to be a 'newco' Rangers - a successor club to the one about to be liquidated. It is therefore important that readers are not confused about which club is the old Rangers and which one is the newco. Since the website, along with all assets were sold to the newco, the website link should appear on that page only. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok once the AFD for the new article is concluded and the decision on what to do with the page is decided then if it remains the way it is we will remove from here, but AFD could mean it deleted, moved to a new page, or redirect here or kept there is various potential for itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your recent attempt to remove the website link from the page about the company that actually owns and runs it. I thought you were arguing that the website link should appear on both pages until the AFD for the new article. However, your move seems trun counter to the case you have just been arguing here. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In what way do you think that whipping the link off this article and hiding it on the article about the owning company is going to "help the reader"? Do you honestly think any reader is going to be bamboozled by the fact that the Ranger FC article links to the same Rangers website that it did last month? At present Rangers.co.uk remains the best primary source for all matters relating to the content of this page.

There is plenty to be confused about, and hair-splitting and pointless edits such as this won't help the reader one bit. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

i removed it as a way to try lessening confussion as if it aint on both article it less confussing i said if the afd is to keep the article in it current form we will remove from here but we can easily add it back to the enw article i am trying to make it less confussing to not have it on two articlesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 07:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, Andrewcrawford, you are creating confusion by suggesting that 'Rangers' somehow belongs to two separate companies at the same time. If you read the website, you will see that the articles make clear that Charles Green is the chief executive - that is, of the company (Sevco 5088) that bought Ibrox and other Rangers' assets, including the website. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

and as been pointed out before at the moment everyone including the liqudaters are saying rangers are serperate to the company ie the club and ocmpany are serperate and the club is assest in essence so teh new company has took over rangers fc if you havea problem with that then contact every news agency and the liquadter etc telling them they are wrong i thinko you find they wont be bothered if oyu dnt believe them since cor;partion work in another level nither you or me understandsAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter in the slightest who owns the website. It remains the de-facto primary website about Rangers the football club, which is the subject of this Wikipedia article. Removing it would do nothing in assisting the reader. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Escape Orbit. 'Rangers the football club' has entered liquidation and its assets, including the website, have been sold to a different company that plans to run a new Rangers. The website is now about the new club - for example, one of the articles describes Charles Green as the chief executive, so it is not describing the old Rangers. It therefore makes sense for the website link to this new Rangers club to be in the correct article and not in the article about Rangers FC which is being liquidated. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It remains the de-facto primary website about Rangers the football club, which is the subject of this Wikipedia article. Removing it would do nothing in assisting the reader. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that page - now I see what you mean. That website does indeed contain information that expands on details in this article. However, my concern remains that for the casual reader who clicks on the link, they are likely to come across current news which is about Charles Green's Rangers rather than Rangers FC. Perhaps a compromise would be to remove the website link from the infobox and instead place the website at the foot of the article under 'external links' - this would allow a comment to be added explaining that the website contained information about both Rangers FC as well as the newco that bought Rangers' assets including the website. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Desirable to remove "current" template

The {{current}} template is intended for those rare and momentous occasions in which hundreds of different editors are participating in editing an article in one day, as its guidelines recommend. The {{current}} template's appearance on this article was not in alignment with the template's guidelines before editing was halted on the article, and certainly is not appropriate now that all editing has been halted on the article.

I would appreciate comment from other editors signifying agreement to remove the template, in order to have an admin remove the template under the "editprotected" request process.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the 'current' template should be removed. The Rangers FC story is almost over - it is goin to be liquidated,its assets have been sold, and all that remains is for the club to be wound up. Nearly all the 'current' developments are now about the new Rangers which is trying to get in to the SPL, and failing that will seek to join the SFL. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, the event remains current until the club has been liquidated or whatever else happens to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingowasher (talk • contribs) 15:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that the only matter to be added will be when it is finally liquidated. However, since the club now has no assets (having sold them) and debts of over £100m, no other outcome is even remotely possible. I'm not convinced that this one outstanding matter justifies 'current'. Anyway, since things are not being updated on this page, having 'current' seems pointless. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Insolvency practitioners Q&A

I'm still new to wikipedia but thought I would bring to notice that insolvency practioners MLM Solutions held an online Q&A on Rangers' situation. Here's the link http://mlm-solutions.blogspot.co.uk/p/live-event-page.html

The reason I bring it up is one question in particular caught my eye.

Q. After the liquidation/death of Rangers FC PLC and the creation of a brand new legal entity, when can/does the new company become a new club?

A. As of yesterday, the new company operates the club. Of course, it does not yet have membership of either the SPL or SFL, which is an essential rquirement for any professional football club.

Also to note that BDO, who are the liquidators of the old company, have also stated "CVA proposals have been rejected, so the next step for the Company will be to exit administration and enter liquidation. Once BDO is formally appointed, the joint liquidators will be seeking to protect any remaining assets, maximise recoveries for the benefit of creditors, and investigate the reasons behind the failure of the company.

The joint administrators intend to complete a transfer of the business and assets to a new company in the coming days, putting the future of the club on more secure footing. Once this is done, BDO will determine what can be recovered from the remains of the existing company."

There is a clear definition being made out that the company and the club are two separate entities. --BadSynergy (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is in the interests of the newco to create a fiction that the club is separate from the oldco and that there is a continuity, simply because this offers the best prospects for transferring customers, sponsors, reputation, staff, etc. It also increases the chance of the vacant slot in the SPL being granted to the newco. It is a fiction, though, because otherwise the history of overspending (i.e. the debts) would come across too. The club was the compay and it was in debt. It can't pick and choose what bits should continue and what should not, however much those connected with the club argue that they can and however much the customers of the oldco would like it to be so. The fact that the club and the company are indivisible could be demonstrated by what would have happened if Green had not come along with his newco. Rangers the club would not have continued to exist independently of Rangers FC plc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Leeds United, Charlton Athletic and Middlesborough have all set the UK precedent for liquidation of a holding company of a football club. Their holding company become a NewCo in the same way as Rangers and they are regarded as the same club. You can find the Oldco from Leeds united online, and it's current status is in Liquidation, meanwhile the NewCo, Incorporated in 2007, continues to own and run the current Leeds United, which is not a phoenix club, but the original club. Despite the fact that there are many who want to destroy the history of Rangers and revel in their demise, they shouldn't be treated any differently to other the aforementioned clubs just because they have more people who dislike them.92.0.106.29 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find that Middlesbrough was 'saved' despite liquidation, and saved its history, because the new company took on all the debts of the old company - 'Rangers' are trying to do something different:keeping the history without keeping the historical debt. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

STV did a live Q&A aswell and similar questions being answered the same. Guest : What happens to the trophies won as Rangers FC, do they get transferred to the Newco? Tuesday June 12, 2012 3:13

STV Andy: If the SPL approve a transfer of share to admit a New Rangers then yes, the league titles would transfer over. The same applies to other trophies if the SFA membership is approved.

However, it is worth bearing in mind that the investigation into dual contracts is still ongoing and the SPL have said that stripping titles is a possible sanction.

TheGreenMachine : STV Andy, I think you have that wrong...Once liquidated Rangers 1873 History ends...no transfer of honours....the newco is a newclub...and will have its own history.

Tuesday June 12, 2012 3:20

STV Grant: TheGreenMachine, with respect, you are wrong. The viewpoint of the SPL is that all SPL history of Rangers would move to the new company. That is also similar for the Scottish FA, provided New Rangers were given the current club's membership.

So if the vote goes newco's way the history stays then? 2.218.240.160 (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Page Needs Updated

They now have no players or manager, stadium, training ground, badge, website and technically unless they've had permission from Sevco Scotland shouldnt be allowed to use the name Rangers FC or Rangers Football Club as they(Sevco Scoland) now own the copyright. The page should be corrected and updated soon, before it ends up well behind whats happening. Should be moved to the page The Rangers Football Club PLC and corrections made for example the Clubs name is The Rangers Football Club PLC and it used the name Rangers FC until it sold the copyright. Start updating how all the Staffs contracts were sold during the asset sale, update their Stadium and Training to Former Stadium etc --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Superbhoy1888. I agree the page needs updating but the question is one of how. In the case of Halifax Town A.F.C., all that was required was to change the article into a past tense throughout, but keep details such as the club badge, detail of stadium etc. I see no reason why we could not do that here: "Rangers FC was a football club" rather than "is" and then still keep details of their crest, stadium they used to pay in etc. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I suggest that we first remove the statement in the first line that they play in the SPL.

'Current squad' subsection should be deleted

It is clear that Rangers FC now has no players as all players' contracts were transferred to the 'newco' Rangers when Green's consortium bought Rangers' assets. As Charles Green stated "The transfer of contracts has already happened and the club's clear legal advice is that players' purported objection is ineffective." Even if his legal advice is wrong and players do not have to transfer to the new club, this would not affect the basic point that no players remain on the books of Rangers FC. This article should be updated to reflect this. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, we could just cull the entire section, but possibly copy a list of the players over to the newco page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingowasher (talk • contribs) 15:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually no. If we keep this article as the old club which is still debatable then the squad and everything should stay, we simply add a sentence in the section saying this was the squad at the time of Liqudation. That is the established preecident. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Not quite as simple as that. All the contracts were transferred (barring objections) on 14th June, prior to liquidators being appointed. Therefore 'at the time of liquidation' no squad will exist. Most other articles of clubs that were liquidated would have a section on 'notable players' - would that not be sufficient? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I do think we should follow the precident but we will need to think of the wording. Gretna used the title Gretnas last squad, I'm still not entirely convinced we should be treating as a seperate entity but if we are (looks likely) then we should do it properly. Let's not forget they did own the ground and players before they entered the Liqudation process. All we need to do is use past tense and explanatory text. It's the same with the SPL it should say who last played or who played in the SPL not removed all together. There is a lot of pov on both sides that can be avoided with more neutral wording and explanatory text. What we need to do is start working on a draft proposal and put forward. I fear that once the protection is lifted it will be re protected immediately because in terms of avoiding an edit war we are no further forward. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The Gretna article lists the squad at the time of the last league game and not at the point the club entered administration. That could easily be done here: the squad at the time of the last Rangers match of the season, rather than at the time the assets were sold. Unfortunately, that good idea may have to wait until some administrator decides to do it as none of us can edit the article. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea, why not put in an edit request?--Dingowasher (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

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

For other uses, see Talk:Rangers F.C. (disambiguation).

Rangers

Full name	The Rangers Football Club PLC
Nickname(s)	The Gers, Teddy Bears, Blues
Founded	1872
Owner	Craig Whyte
League	Scottish Premier League
Home colours Away colours Third colours

The Rangers Football Club PLC aka Rangers Football Club were a football club based in Glasgow, who played in the Scottish Premier League. The club's home was the all-seated 51,082-capacity Ibrox Stadium in south-west Glasgow. Rangers had a fierce rivalry with Celtic; the two Glasgow clubs were collectively known as the Old Firm.

Rangers won 54 League Championships, more top-flight national championships than any other club in the world. They won the Scottish League Cup 27 times – more than any other Scottish club – and the Scottish Cup 33 times. Rangers also won seven domestic trebles, more than any other club in the world. In 1961, Rangers reached the final of the European Cup Winners' Cup, becoming the first British club to reach the final of a UEFA club competition. They won the European Cup Winners' Cup in 1972, having been the runners-up in 1961 and 1967, and were also runners-up in the 2008 UEFA Cup Final.

In February 2012 Rangers entered administration as a result of a tax dispute with HM Revenue and Customs. On 14 June 2012 the club was forced into liquidation following the rejection of a proposed Company Voluntary Arrangement, and the club's assets, including Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park, were bought by The Rangers Football Club Ltd - a consortium led by Charles Green, a former chief executive of Sheffield United. This club has applied to register with the Scottish Football Association and to participate in the Scottish Premier League.

History

Main article: History of Rangers F.C.

Formation and early years

The four founders of Rangers – brothers Moses and Peter McNeil, Peter Campbell and William McBeath – met in 1872 and named their team after an English rugby club upon seeing the name in a book. In May of that year the first match was played, a 0–0 draw in a friendly against Callander F.C. on the public pitches of Glasgow Green. The only other match played that year was another friendly against a team called Clyde (not the present-day Clyde) resulting in an 11–0 victory and featuring the debut of the club's blue strip. The official founding of Rangers is recognised as taking place in 1873, when the club held its first annual meeting and staff were elected. The first season's fixtures were all friendlies, as the deadline for joining the Scottish Football Association had been missed, meaning the team did not take part in the inaugural Scottish Cup. By 1876 Rangers had their first international player, with Moses McNeil representing Scotland in a match against Wales, and by 1877 Rangers had reached a Scottish Cup final. The first ever Old Firm match took place in 1888, the year of Celtic's establishment. Rangers lost 5–2 in a friendly to a team composed largely of "guest players" from Hibernians.

The 1890–91 season saw the inception of the Scottish Football League, and Rangers were one of ten original members. By this time Rangers were playing at the first Ibrox Stadium. Rangers' first ever league match took place on 16 August 1890 and resulted in a 5–2 victory over Heart of Midlothian. After finishing equal-top with Dumbarton a play-off was held at Cathkin Park to decide who would be champions. The match finished 2–2 and the title was shared for the only time in its history, the first of Rangers' world record 54 championships. Rangers' first ever Scottish Cup win came in 1894 after a 3–1 victory over rivals Celtic in the final. By the turn of the century Rangers had won two league titles and three Scottish Cups.

The Struth years

The 1919/20 season heralded the dawn of a new era for Rangers as manager William Wilton and number two Bill Struth initiated a Rangers dominance that was to last until the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. Though winning this season with 31 wins out of 42 games and scoring 106 goals, it was overshadowed by the subsequent death of manager, William Wilton. Taking over the manager's mantle, Bill Struth guided Rangers to a further 14 titles before the war. This period was also noteworthy for the attendances. On 2 January 1939 a British league record was broken as 118,567 fans turned out to watch Rangers beat Celtic in the traditional new year holiday Old Firm match.

1970s

The 1971 Ibrox disaster overshadowed what happened on the pitch to a large extent in the early 1970s. On 2 January 1971, in the final minutes of the New Year's Day Old Firm game with the score set at 0–0, Jimmy Johnstone scored for Celtic. Within seconds Colin Stein had equalised for Rangers. As the 80,000 strong crowd was trying to disperse at full time, many fell down the stairway at the Copland Road end of the ground. Their momentum led to large scale crushing and 66 people died. It was initially thought the crush was caused by Rangers fans rushing back up the stairwell after the equaliser; however, a later enquiry said that the crush was likely to have happened ten minutes after the final whistle and to have been triggered by someone falling on the stairs. A benefit match to raise funds for the victims' families took place after the disaster. A joint Rangers and Celtic team took on a Scotland XI at Hampden watched by 81,405 fans.

In 1972, Rangers defeated FC Dynamo Moscow to win the Cup Winner's Cup, their first and only European trophy to date. Captain John Greig received the trophy in a small room within the Nou Camp due to a pitch invasion by Rangers fans.

Nine in a row

Every year from the 1988–89 season until the 1996–97 season, Rangers won the league title. This nine-in-a-row achievement meant that they equalled Celtic's record. The first three of these seasons the club was managed by Graeme Souness, the latter six under the stewardship of Walter Smith.

1998–2006

In 1998 Dick Advocaat accepted the invitation from then Rangers chairman David Murray to become the club's new manager. When Advocaat took charge of Rangers he became the first foreign manager to do so and only the tenth manager in the history of the club. Advocaat's European experience was the main reason behind his appointment. The previous season was the last of seven under Walter Smith, and the first time the club had finished without a trophy in twelve years. Long term members of the squad that had won nine league championships in a row left. With the financial backing from Murray, Advocaat invested heavily in the team and lead the club to the domestic treble, with the league championship was won at Celtic Park on 2 May 1999.

The following season the club won the league by a record 21 point margin, and also won the Scottish Cup. This season saw Rangers attempt to make forays into the latter stages of the UEFA Champions League. The Dutchman guided Rangers into the Champions League having beating the UEFA Cup winners Parma en route, sadly, Rangers went out of the group stage. The club then lost to Borussia Dortmund in a penalty shoot-out in the UEFA Cup. In his last season at Rangers, Advocaat guided Gers to the last 16 of the UEFA Cup in the 2001–02 season, but with Celtic leading the league championship by 12 points, Advocaat resigned from the manager's position on 12 December 2001. Advocaat, with the permission of Murray, had invested great sums into the side in an attempt to bring European success to the club. However, with little benefit from the major expenditure, Rangers became burdened with debt after spending £36m on players and ran up debts in the region of £52m.

Alex McLeish had become Rangers boss on 13 December 2001 and initially worked in association with Dick Advocaat who became Director of Football before leaving the Ibrox club later that year. Advocaat also managed the Netherlands national team in a part-time capacity McLeish seemed to encourage performances out of a squad that had under-achieved under Advocaat. McLeish was an instant success at Rangers, winning both the Scottish Cup and League Cup in his first season, but the big prize of the league title was essentially lost before his arrival. McLeish became the sixth Rangers manager to deliver a Treble when he swept the boards in season 2002/03 – his first full season in charge. The League was won on goal difference in a dramatic final day shootout, which delivered Rangers' 50th title.

Rangers' worsening financial state saw many of the team's top players leave in the summer of 2003. Celtic won the league comfortably in season 2003–04, and Rangers failed to win any trophies.

The Bosman signings of Jean-Alain Boumsong and Dado Pršo in the close season of 2004–05 gave Rangers renewed hope of regaining the title from Celtic's grasp. McLeish's team won the 2005 league title on a dramatic last day, an outcome that had looked highly unlikely after Rangers fell five points behind leaders Celtic with just four games remaining. Celtic losing to Motherwell at Fir Park, coupled with Rangers' win at Easter Road meant that the helicopter changed direction and delivered the SPL trophy to Rangers at the Leith ground.

After this success, McLeish and his Rangers team headed into the 2005–06 SPL campaign as favourites to retain the championship. After a reasonable start to the season, including a win over Celtic, Rangers suffered a series of poor results between September and November. This period included a club record of 10 games without a win. However the tenth match of this run, a 1–1 draw with Inter Milan in the Champions League, took Rangers into the last 16 of the Champions League. The club were defeated on the away goals rule by Villarreal. but in reaching this stage of the competition had become the first Scottish team to progress that far in the European Cup since 1993, and the first Scottish team to progress through a European group stage.

On 9 February 2006, it was announced by chairman David Murray that McLeish would be standing down as manager at the end of that season.

Paul Le Guen

Card display at Ibrox to welcome Paul Le Guen

Paul Le Guen replaced Alex McLeish as manager after season 2005–06.

The season started poorly for Rangers, with a number of losses and draws against teams lower in the league, as well as their being knocked out of the League Cup by Division One side St. Johnstone. Rivals Celtic built a lead at the top of the table, while Rangers fought for second place alongside Hearts and Aberdeen. The first Old Firm match of the season resulted in a 2–0 defeat; the second – at Ibrox – was a 1–1 draw.

In the UEFA Cup Rangers became the first Scottish side to qualify for the last 32 of the competition since the introduction of the group phase after finishing their group unbeaten.

There had been rumours during the season of disharmony at Rangers, between Scottish and foreign units, with players including captain Barry Ferguson disapproving of Le Guen's strict disciplinarian stance. It was announced on 4 January 2007 that Le Guen had left Rangers by mutual consent.

Walter Smith's return

The 2008 UEFA Cup Final in Manchester which Rangers contested.

On 10 January 2007, former manager Walter Smith was appointed the new manager of Rangers, with Ally McCoist as assistant manager and Kenny McDowall as first-team coach.

The following season Rangers embarked on a UEFA Cup adventure after dropping into the competition from the Champions League. The club progressed to the final, defeating Panathinaikos, Werder Bremen, Sporting Lisbon and Fiorentina along the way. The final was against Zenit St. Petersburg who were managed by former Rangers manager Dick Advocaat. They lost the match 2–0, amid serious disturbances caused by some supporters. Video evidence was released by the Greater Manchester Police of Rangers fans attacking officers and officers attacking the fans with batons and dogs, in Manchester city centre following the defeat.

The 2008–09 season saw Rangers make a below-par start to their UEFA Champions League campaign, losing out in the knock-out stage to FBK Kaunas of Lithuania. The financial consequences of the failures to qualify for the Champions League were revealed when the club posted a loss of £3.9m for the six months to December 2008, and in March decided to offer staff the option of voluntary redundancy as a way of cutting costs. Despite a tight title race, on the final day of the league, Rangers managed to claim their 52nd league title. With their title success, Rangers gained automatic entry into the following season's Champions League group stage. Rangers won the Scottish Cup for the 33rd time after defeating Falkirk 1–0 in the final, clinching a double in the process.

At the beginning of the 2009–10 season Rangers had to reduce their squad size by several players due to increasing costs while not having the finances to sign anyone. After a disappointing European campaign where they only picked up two points in the Champions League group stage they made a £13 million profit at the turn of the year. Rangers reached their fifth consecutive domestic cup final where they played St. Mirren in the Scottish League Cup. After having two players sent off in the second half Rangers won the final 1–0 through a goal from Kenny Miller.

On 25 April 2010, Rangers retained their league title with three matches remaining by defeating Hibernian 1–0 with a Kyle Lafferty goal. This was their 53rd Scottish League title. With this success, they again sealed their automatic entry into the 2010–11 Champions League.

During the close season Walter Smith announced the upcoming new season would be his last as manager of Rangers and that the intention was to replace him with Ally McCoist and assistant Kenny McDowall. Smith stated: "I am wholly committed to managing the club next season and when it comes to the end of next season I firmly believe that Ally and Kenny would do a great job and I am glad everybody at the club shares that view."

Smith led Rangers to victory in the League Cup Final over Celtic.

On 6 May 2011 it was confirmed that David Murray had sold his controlling interest in the club (85.3 percent) to Wavetower limited for £1. Wavetower Limited is owned by the company Liberty Capital which in turn is ultimately owned by businessman Craig Whyte, a lifelong supporter of the club.

On 15 May 2011 Rangers secured their third consecutive title by beating Kilmarnock 5–1. The win was Smith's final match in charge of the club.

Ally McCoist

Ally McCoist was announced as the new Rangers manager beginning in June 2011. McCoist's first competitive match in charge was against Hearts, ending in a 1–1 draw. Rangers were drawn against Swedish side Malmö FF in the Champions League third round qualifying match which they lost 2–1 on aggregate. Rangers were then knocked out of Europe in the Europa League qualifying match against Slovenian side Maribor 3–2 on aggregate. In the first Old Firm match of the 2011–12 season and McCoist's first in charge of the club Rangers won 4–2 at Ibrox. They were knocked out of the League Cup by Falkirk and the Scottish Cup by Dundee Utd at Ibrox.

Administration and liquidation

On 14 February 2012 Rangers entered administration over non-payment of £9 million in PAYE and VAT taxes to HM Revenue and Customs. On entering administration the team was deducted 10 points by the SPL, effectively ending its 2012 championship challenge. Rangers have not submitted accounts for 2011 and were not granted a licence to play in European football in season 2012–2013. HM Revenue and Customs voted against a Company Voluntary Arrangement.

The Club entered liquidation on 14 June 2012 following the rejection of a proposed CVA by HMRC.. HMRC are to appoint the BDO Insolvency firm to reveal why the Club failed. Following this the Club's assets were sold off to The Rangers Football Club owned by Charles Green. The Club was projected to be dissolved in around 6 to 8 weeks.

Colours and crest

Colours and kit

The light blue hoops, worn 1879–1883

The club colours of Rangers F.C. were royal blue, white and red. However, for the majority of the first forty-eight years of Rangers existence the club played in a plain light blue home shirt. The only deviation from this was a four season period from 1879 when the side wore a light blue hooped shirt.

The team's home strip invariably featured a royal blue shirt (often with white and/or red trim). Traditionally this was accompanied by white shorts (often with royal blue and/or red trim) and black socks with red turn-downs. Black socks were first included in 1883 for five seasons before disappearing for eight years but became a permanent fixture from 1896 onwards. When the red turn-downs were added to the socks in 1904, the strip began to look more like the modern day Rangers home kit. Occasionally the home kit was altered by the shorts and socks, sometimes replacing the black socks with white ones; or replacing the white shorts and black socks combination with royal blue shorts and socks.

The basic design of Rangers away strips changed far more than the traditional home strip. White and red have been the most common colours for Rangers alternate strips, though dark and light blue have also featured highly.

In 1994 Rangers introduced a third kit. This was usually worn if both the home and away kits clash with their opponents. The colours used in the third kits included combinations of white, red, dark and light blue as well as black.

Crest

File:Glasgow-Rangers-badge.png

Scroll crest worn from 1990–1994

Rangers used two different club crests. The scroll crest, representing letters RFC overlapping each other, which had been used since the club's formation in 1872 and was first introduced to Rangers kits in 1968; it was modified several times in the 1990s. After successful season 2002/03, which delivered Rangers a Treble and their 50th championship title, it was decided to add five stars above the scroll crest, one for every ten titles won by the club.

The circular crest was adopted in 1959 and features a lion rampant on an old-style football and the club's motto Ready, which was shortened from Aye Ready (meaning Always Ready in Scots) in 1966, all surrounded by the clubs copyrighted name, Rangers Football Club. The circular crest is mostly used on merchandise and by the media.

Sponsors and manufacturers

The club had five main shirt sponsors. Tennent's were the last main shirt sponsors of Rangers, and as part of the sponsorship deal, their logo wass displayed on the front of the club's shirts and on merchandise. The first shirt sponsor was Scottish double glazing firm CR Smith. In 1984, Rangers signed a three-year deal with CR Smith, who also had a similar deal with Celtic. At the end of the contract both Old Firm clubs were offered terms by brewers Scottish & Newcastle to become their new sponsor. The deal would have seen Rangers bear the McEwan's Lager and Celtic sport the Harp Lager logo on their shirts. The latter club rejected the deal but Rangers accepted and in 1987 began what would become a twelve-year association with the drinks company. The club wore the McEwan's Lager logo on the front its shirts for all but two matches during the Nine in a row era. When Rangers played French sides AJ Auxerre and RC Strasbourg in the 1996–97 UEFA Champions League and the 1996–97 UEFA Cup respectively, due to a French ban on alcohol advertising the team wore the logo of Center Parcs. In 1999, both Old Firm clubs signed a joint sponsorship deal with telecommunications company NTL. The four-year deal was worth £13 million but ended in mid-2003.

Rangers then signed a contract with Carling. The deal was the second joint Old Firm sponsorship agreement. It was announced on 3 January 2003 and began at the start of the 2003–04 season, initially for three years and worth a total of £12 million pounds. On 21 July 2005 the contract was extended. The new deal was five years in length and worth a basic £18 million but with substantial bonuses should either club meet performance targets. As Rangers and Celtic both reached the last 16 of the Champions League during this period, plus the Ibrox club's 2008 UEFA Cup Final appearance, the deal proved to be lucrative. On 3 February 2010, Rangers and Celtic announced a three-year contract with Tennent's brewery. The deal is worth around £1.5 million per season to each club.

The club had five independent kit manufacturers, the first being English sportswear company Umbro, which became the first company to place their logo on a Rangers shirt in 1978. Admiral took over in 1990, but only manufactured one strip. German company Adidas followed in 1992 then American company Nike in 1997 and Italian manufacturer Diadora in 2002, before Umbro began their second and last spell as the club's kit manufacturers in 2005.

Year	Kit manufacturer	Shirt Sponsor
1978–1984	Umbro	None
1984–1987		CR Smith
1987–1990		McEwan's Lager
1990–1992	Admiral
1992–1997	Adidas
1997–1999	Nike
1999–2002		NTL
2002–2003	Diadora
2003–2005		Carling
2005–2010	Umbro
2010–2012		Tennent's

Ownership and finances

Between 1988 and 2011 Scottish steel magnate David Murray was the owner of Rangers, after he had purchased the club for £6 million.

After protracted takeover negotiations, the club was bought by Scottish businessman Craig Whyte on 6 May 2011 for £1. The reason for such a small fee was because of Rangers' outstanding debt of around £22 million, of which £18million was subsequently cleared, owed to the clubs bankers Lloyds as well as several debt cases which, if successfully prosecuted, could total over £55 million. It is possible that Rangers will be made insolvent if they lose the biggest debt case against Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, which is for £49 million. On 13 February 2012 Rangers filed legal papers at the Court of Session giving notice of their intention to appoint administrators. The following day HMRC made a bid to be allowed to appoint the administrators, but this was unsuccessful, and they withdrew the petition. Rangers officially entered administration on 14 February 2012, after appointing London-based financial advisers Duff and Phelps as administrators. The administrators estimated that total debts, as of 6 April 2012, could be as much as £134m. On 12 June 2012 a proposed CVA to exit administration was rejected by HMRC. On 14 June 2012 the club was forced into liquidation following the formal rejection of the proposed Company Voluntary Arrangement, and the club's assets, including Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park, were bought by The Rangers Football Club Ltd - a consortium led by Charles Green, a former chief executive of Sheffield United. This club has applied to register with the Scottish Football Association and to participate in the Scottish Premier League.

Rivalries

The club's most distinct rivalry was with Celtic F.C, the major football club based in Glasgow; the two clubs were collectively known as the Old Firm. Rangers' traditional support was largely come from the Protestant Unionist community, meanwhile Celtic's traditional support has largely come from the Catholic republican community. The first Old Firm match was won by Celtic and there have been nearly four hundred matches played to date. The Old Firm rivalry has fuelled many assaults and many deaths on Old Firm derby days; an activist group that monitors sectarian activity in Glasgow has reported that on Old Firm weekends, admissions to hospital emergency rooms have increased over normal levels and journalist Franklin Foer noted that in the period from 1996 to 2003, eight deaths in Glasgow were directly linked to Old Firm matches, as well as hundreds of assaults. The last Derby was played in 2012 and was also won by Celtic by a scorline of 3-0 at Celtic Park.

A rivalry with Aberdeen began in the late 1970s when the two clubs were among the strongest in Scotland. Relations between fans were further soured during a league match on 8 October 1988, when Aberdeen player Neil Simpson's tackle on Rangers' Ian Durrant resulted in Durrant being injured for two years. Resentment continued and in 1998 an article in Rangers pre-match programme branded Aberdeen fans "scum". Rangers stated that they had "issued a full and unreserved apology" to Aberdeen and their supporters, and this was accepted by Aberdeen. In another incident, then Rangers captain Richard Gough accused Aberdeen of only playing when it was against Rangers. This further increased the hostility between supporters of both clubs, which has continued.

Issues with sectarianism

See also: Sectarianism in Glasgow

Examples of sectarianism

During the late 19th century, many immigrants came to Glasgow from Ireland – this was a time of considerable anti-Catholic and anti-Irish sentiment in Scotland. By the early 20th century, Catholic players were asked to leave the club. Between World War I and the 1980s, Rangers did not knowingly sign any Catholic players. Many have written about the club's refusal to sign Catholic players, or employ Catholics in other roles, and the discrimination against employees who married Catholics. Particularly from the 1970s, Rangers came under increasing media pressure over their policy. Although general manager Willie Waddell stated that the club would change its stance, several of the club's directors publicly defended its position, and the policy continued until the late 1980s.

In 1989, when Rangers signed Maurice "Mo" Johnston, "their first major Roman Catholic signing", David Miller, the general secretary of the Rangers' Supporters' Association condemned the signing, saying "It is a sad day for Rangers... I don't want to see a Roman Catholic at Ibrox." Johnston was the highest-profile Catholic to sign for the club since the World War I era; other Catholics signed prior to Johnston but since the end of World War I include Laurie Blyth (1951–1952), Don Kitchenbrand (1955–1956), Hugh O'Neill (1976) and John Spencer (1985–1992).

In 1999, Rangers' vice-chairman Donald Findlay was forced to resign after he was filmed singing sectarian songs, whilst celebrating Rangers' victory in the Scottish Cup. Findlay sang The Sash, The Billy Boys and Follow Follow during a supporters club event. The Faculty of Advocates also fined Findlay £3,500.

In 2002 the club dropped their controversial orange away strip though the club said their decision was "a commercial decision, not based on politics. We change the shirt every season with new designs to try to make it new and fresh". Anti-sectarianism campaigners and politicians had criticised the club's decision to market an orange shirt, as the colour is associated with the Orange Institution.

In 2006, after a UEFA Champions League tie against Villarreal, UEFA's Control and Disciplinary Body initially found Rangers' fans guilty of violent behaviour but not guilty of discriminatory chanting. UEFA subsequently challenged the ruling, and the Appeals Body partially upheld the appeal, fining Rangers €19,500 and issuing a warning to the club regarding any future misconduct. In 2007, Rangers were fined again after some of their fans were filmed making sectarian chants at a UEFA Cup match against Osasuna. This time the fine was €12,000 but Osasuna were fined nearly four times this amount due to errors in the match organisation and the segregation of the fans.

In 2008, Rangers fans' singing of the "Famine song", containing the lyrics "The famine's over now / Why don't you go home", caused controversy. The football club urged fans to stop singing the song and warned they could be arrested for it. Rangers' chief executive Martin Bain also warned fans they could be arrested for singing the song, but would not condemn the chanting. He also said "Clearly some supporters feel aggrieved that a song they believe to be no more than a tit-for-tat 'wind up' of Celtic supporters should be singled out in this way and merit the attention of police, governments and anti-racist organisations".

The song was condemned as racist by anti-racism group Show Racism the Red Card and described as "vile, vicious and racist" by Celtic chairman John Reid. Also, after a complaint from a Celtic fan, Irish diplomats contacted the Scottish government to raise the issue with them. The Rangers Supporters Trust however rejected claims that the song was racist, claiming that it was only a distasteful wind-up of Celtic fans.

In November 2008, a Rangers fan was found guilty of a breach of the peace, aggravated by religious and racial prejudice, by singing the "Famine Song" during a game against Kilmarnock. In February 2009, sectarian chanting by some Rangers fans during an Old Firm match at Celtic Park was reported to the SPL by the match delegate, again relating to the chanting of the "Famine Song".

Both the club and its fans are disparagingly nicknamed "the Huns" by some fans of Celtic. The Rangers Supporters Trust, in their statement defending the singing of the "Famine Song", described the nickname as "sectarian abuse". The anti-sectarian charity Nil by Mouth also considers "Huns" to be a sectarian insult. In 2008, a Celtic fan was convicted of a religiously aggravated breach of the peace for wearing a t-shirt with the slogan "dirty horrible huns".

In March 2011, Rangers fans were accused by UEFA of sectarian singing during the away leg of their Europa League match with PSV Eindhoven. In April, further charges of sectarian singing were made against them concerning the home tie. Rangers were fined €40,000 and had their fans banned for one away European match as a result of the UEFA hearing.

Former Stadium and training facility

Main articles: Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park

The facade of the Bill Struth Main Stand

The club used a variety of grounds in Glasgow as a venue for home matches in the years between 1872 and 1899. The first was Flesher's Haugh, situated on Glasgow Green, followed by Burnbank in the Kelvinbridge area of the city, and then Kinning Park for ten years from the mid-1870s to the mid-1880s. From February of the 1886–87 season, Cathkin Park was used until the first Ibrox Park, in the Ibrox area of south-west Glasgow, was inaugurated for the following season. Ibrox Stadium in its current incarnation was originally designed by the architect Archibald Leitch, a Rangers fan who also played a part in the design of, among others, Old Trafford in Manchester and Highbury in London. The stadium was inaugurated on 30 December 1899, and Rangers defeated Hearts 3–1 in the first match held there.

Since 1899, two major disasters have taken place at the stadium. The first occurred in 1902 during a Scotland vs England international match, when a section of terracing collapsed, leading to the deaths of 26 people and over 500 injuries. The second disaster took place in 1971, during the traditional New Year's Day Old Firm match. As the crowd were leaving the match, barriers on the stairway to the rear of passageway 13 at the Copland End collapsed, causing a crush and resulting in the deaths of 66 people, with over 200 injuries. This led to a major redevelopment of Ibrox, overseen by the general manager Willie Waddell, including its conversion to an all-seater stadium. Ibrox was awarded UEFA five-star stadium status, which has since been replaced by a different classification system.

Rangers' under-19 team warming up at Murray Park before a game

The stands in Ibrox are: The Bill Struth Main Stand (south; three tiers; the top one known as the Club Deck), Govan Stand (north; two tiers), and the Copland (east) and Broomloan (west) Stands (both two tiers), which are behind the goals. In addition to these, there are also the East and West Enclosures (in the lower tier of the Main Stand), and the two corners adjacent to the Govan Stand are filled in. As a result of work completed in the summer of 2006 to make the Bar 72 area situated in the Govan Stand, the total capacity of Ibrox is 51,082. On 22 August 2006, Rangers announced that the Main Stand would be renamed The Bill Struth Main Stand in September 2006 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the death of their former manager, who served Rangers for 34 years. There were plans underway for a redevelopment of Ibrox stadium which would have resulted in Ibrox being rebuilt as a 70,000 seated stadium – which would have made it the second largest club football stadium in Britain after Old Trafford. The official Rangers Website was quoted as saying: "We are analysing three strategies which would enhance the development of the existing outline planning proposals for the Hinshelwood area to the south of the stadium. One of the strategies includes the total rebuilding of Ibrox Stadium while retaining the brick facade, the tradition and the integrity of the Bill Struth Main Stand".

Rangers' training facility is located in Auchenhowie, near Milngavie in Glasgow. The facility is known as Murray Park after former chairman and owner Sir David Murray. It was proposed by then-manager Dick Advocaat upon his arrival at the club in 1998. It was completed in 2001 at a cost of £14 million. Murray Park was the first purpose-built facility of its kind in Scotland, and incorporates features including nine football pitches, a state of the art gym, a hydrotherapy pool, and a video-editing suite. Rangers' youth teams are also accommodated at Murray Park, with around 140 players between under-10 and under-19 age groups using the training centre. Various first-team players have come through the ranks at Murray Park, including Alan Hutton, Chris Burke, Stevie Smith, John Fleck and Charlie Adam. International club teams playing in Scotland, as well as national sides, have previously used Murray Park for training, and Advocaat's South Korea team used it for training prior to the 2006 World Cup.

As a result of Rangers entering liquidation on June 14th, 2012, both Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park, along with other club assets, were sold to the consortium led by Charles Green trading under the name The Rangers Football Club Ltd.

List of Former Notable Players

Main article: List of Rangers F.C. players

Retired Numbers

Main article: Retired numbers in football

12 – Club Supporters (the 12th Man)

International players

For a list of Rangers' past and present international players, see List of Rangers F.C. international footballers.

Former managers

Main article: List of Rangers F.C. managers

Board

Position	Name
Non-Executive Director	Dave King
Non-Executive Director	Andrew Ellis

Records

Main article: Rangers F.C. records

Club

Record home attendance

118,567 vs Celtic, January 1939

Record victory

13–0 vs Possilpark, Scottish Cup, 6 October 1877

Record league victory

10–0 vs Hibernian, 24 December 1898

Record defeat

2–10 vs Airdrieonians, 6 February 1886

Record league defeat

0–6 vs Dumbarton, 4 May 1892

Record appearances

John Greig, 755, 1960–1978

Record league appearances

Sandy Archibald, 513, 1917–1934

Record Scottish Cup appearances

Alec Smith, 74

Record Scottish League Cup appearances

John Greig, 121

Record European competition appearances

Barry Ferguson, 82

Record goalscorer

Ally McCoist, 355 goals, 1983–1998

Most goals in one season

Jim Forrest, 57 goals, 1964–65

Most league goals in one season

Sam English, 44 goals, 1931–32

Most league goals

Ally McCoist, 251 goals

Most Scottish Cup goals

Jimmy Fleming, 44 goals

Most League Cup goals

Ally McCoist, 54 goals

Most European goals

Ally McCoist, 21 goals

Shutout record

Chris Woods, 1196 minutes, 1986–87 (British record)

Most capped player

Frank de Boer, 112 caps for The Netherlands

Highest transfer fee received

Alan Hutton, £9m, Tottenham Hotspur, 2008

Highest transfer fee paid

Tore André Flo, £12m, Chelsea, 2000

Individual

All players are from Scotland unless otherwise stated.

Top goalscorers

Rank	Name	Career	Apps	Goals	Average
1	Ally McCoist	1983–1998	581	355	0.61
2	Bob McPhail	1927–1940	408	261	0.64
3	Jimmy Smith	1930–1946	259	249	0.96
4	Jimmy Fleming	1925–1934	268	223	0.83
5	Derek Johnstone	1970–1982 1985–1986	546	210	0.38
6	Ralph Brand	1954–1965	317	206	0.65
7	Willie Reid	1909–1920	230	195	0.84
8	Willie Thornton	1936–1954	308	194	0.63
9	RC Hamilton	1897–1908	209	184	0.88
10	Andy Cunningham	1914–1929	389	182	0.47

Most appearances

Rank	Name	Career	Apps	Goals
1	John Greig	1961–1978	755	120
2	Sandy Jardine	1964–1982	674	77
3	Ally McCoist	1983–1998	581	355
4	Sandy Archibald	1917–1934	580	148
5	Davie Meiklejohn	1919–1936	563	46
6	Dougie Gray	1925–1947	555	2
7	Derek Johnstone	1970–1982 1985–1986	546	210
8	Davie Cooper	1977–1989	540	75
9	Peter McCloy	1970–1986	535	0
10	Ian McColl	1945–1960	526	14

Managerial

Name	League	Scottish Cup	League Cup	Europe	Total
William Wilton (1899–1920)	8	1	0	0	9
Bill Struth (1920–1954)	18	10	2	0	30
Scot Symon (1954–1967)	6	5	4	0	15
David White (1967–1969)	0	0	0	0	0
William Waddell (1969–1972)	0	0	1	1	2
Jock Wallace (1972–1978, 1983–1986)	3	3	4	0	10
John Greig (1978–1983)	0	2	2	0	4
Graeme Souness (1986–1991)	3	0	4	0	7
Walter Smith (1991–1998, 2007–2011)	10	5	6	0	21
Dick Advocaat (1998–2002)	2	2	1	0	5
Alex McLeish (2001–2006)	2	2	3	0	7
Paul Le Guen (2006–2007)	0	0	0	0	0
Ally McCoist (2011–2012)	0	0	0	0	0

Europe

Main article: Rangers F.C. in Europe

Honours

Main article: List of Rangers F.C. records and statistics § Honours

Domestic honours

• Scottish League Championships: 54

1891, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1918, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1937, 1939, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1953, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2011

• Scottish Cup: 33

1894, 1897, 1898, 1903, 1928, 1930, 1932, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1953, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1973, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2009

• Scottish League Cup: 27

1947, 1949, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1971, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011

European honours

• UEFA Cup Winners' Cup: 1

1972

Commerical interests

Merchandise licencing

[9] [10]

Superleague Formula

Main article: Rangers F.C. (Superleague Formula team)

The Rangers F.C. showcar displayed outside for the fans at Donington Park, 2008

Rangers Football Club has a team in the Superleague Formula race car series. The Rangers F.C. team has been operated by Alan Docking Racing. In 2008 Ryan Dalziel drove for Rangers F.C. in the teams maiden sason. James Walker also drove for the team in one round of the 2008 season and posted their best result, a fourth place finish.

For the 2009 season, the team were much more successful with Australian driver John Martin posting three podium places including one win at Donington Park.

The Rangers team did not compete in the 2010 Superleague Formula season as it was not named in the provisional entry list, which included which race teams might operate each car.

External links

• Official Website
• Rangers on BBC Sport: Club news – Recent results and fixtures

af:Glasgow Rangers ar:نادي رينجرز be-x-old:Рэйнджарз Глазга bg:ФК Рейнджърс ca:Rangers Football Club cs:Rangers FC cy:Glasgow Rangers F.C. da:Rangers F.C. de:Glasgow Rangers et:Rangers FC el:Ρέιντζερς Γλασκόβης es:The Rangers Football Club eu:Rangers F.C. fa:باشگاه فوتبال رنجرز fr:Rangers Football Club ga:Rangers Football Club gd:C.B. Rangers gl:Rangers F.C. ko:레인저스 FC hr:Rangers F.C. id:Glasgow Rangers F.C. is:Glasgow Rangers it:Rangers Football Club he:גלאזגו ריינג'רס kn:ರೇಂಜರ್ಸ್ ಫುಟ್ಬಾಲ್ ಕ್ಲಬ್ ku:Rangers F.C. lv:Glāzgovas "Rangers" lt:Rangers FC hu:Rangers FC mr:रेंजर्स एफ.सी. nl:Glasgow Rangers ja:グラスゴー・レンジャーズFC no:Rangers FC pl:Rangers F.C. pt:Rangers Football Club ro:Rangers FC ru:Рейнджерс (футбольный клуб) sco:Rangers F.C. simple:Rangers F.C. sk:Rangers FC sl:Glasgow Rangers sr:ФК Ренџерс fi:Rangers FC sv:Rangers FC th:สโมสรฟุตบอลเรนเจอส์ tr:Rangers FC uk:Рейнджерс (футбольний клуб) vi:Rangers F.C. zh:流浪者足球俱乐部

there seems to be bias on this and it does nto meet with no one can agree if the club si the company, as sources still conflictAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You will always find sources that say that 'Rangers the club' is continuing as before as some will refuse to accept otherwise, and some have a vested interest in promoting that myth, but the truth is the truth and has to be the basis for what is written in Wikipedia. For information, two comment you may find interesting: Quote from Steven Whittaker ""We owe no loyalty to the new club. There is no history there for us." Quote from Steven Naismith "My loyalty is with Rangers, not with Sevco [Green's company name], who I don't know anything about."[11] Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

yes and that is my arguiement the sources are conflicitng, yes teh truth ius the truth, but wikipeida isnt abotu opinion or pov it about wha thte sources say that why i said we best put both tha tsome source say the club is alive with history and source sayign the club is dead, i have said aloong my opnion is it is deeadAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

We should set up a user draft subpage to work on cant really do it here on the talk page. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That is dangerously close to using a fake article as a content fork. I think we should remember that we are not a news service and leave the information as it is with a reminder that we are not a news service, until the meeting on the fourth of July, when things will become clearer. Anyone who thinks that there is an incontinent need to report the news instantly does not understand that wikipedia is not an instant news service but an encyclopedia. Britmax (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No we are not a news service and neither we should be but given we have two articles that are inaccurate and not neutral which defeats your point then we have to do something, A userspace draft is not inappropriate or a fake article. It is something that we can use to work towards a neutral consensus rather than doing nothing and then starting an edit war the minute the page is unprotected.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

We certainly need to do something and I don't really see how waiting until July 4th will make a difference. Whether or not Green's application to the SPL is successful, some editors will refuse to accept, for example, that the players' contracts were transferred from Rangers FC on June 14th, and will revert changes to the article that seek to make this clear. The newco article does not appear to have edit warring at present, despite not having any level of protection, so this is the article we need to find a solution for. Your suggestion may work. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it might be a solution in this less than ideal world. I still think the problems I pointed out need an eye kept open but you're right, people will want things done and this is a way of doing it. Britmax (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC Dispute

Just a notice to anyone who wish to discuss the dispute including ip users the page is at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rangers_FC_club_dead_or_not the discussion in how to take this page further--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Potential legal issue

I think that, pending agreement on how best to move this page forward, it would be wise to address a possible legal issue with the current wording. The company which has bought Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park - Sevco 5088 Ltd - has been legally barred from changing its name to "The Rangers Football Club Ltd", at least until the conclusion of liquidation of the present club (The Rangers Football Club PLC). Therefore to knowingly continue to refer to Sevco 5088 Ltd by the debarred name "The Rangers Football Club Ltd" could potentially be unlawful.

It is likely the disputes surrounding this page will drag on for months to come, and I feel it would be unwise to leave this factual issue outstanding, since it is also a legal issue. The issue is particularly sensitive as it has been announced today that criminal charges are to be brought regarding the acquisition.

I would therefore counsel that the phrase "the club's assets, including Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park, were bought by The Rangers Football Club Ltd - a consortium led by Charles Green" be changed as a matter of urgency to "the club's assets, including Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park, were bought by Sevco 5088 Ltd - a consortium led by Charles Green"