Talk:Rangers F.C.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rangers F.C. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37: 30 days

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

Rangers F.C. was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 28, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 20, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
August 25, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Football: Scotland B‑class High‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Scottish football task force (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Scotland B‑class High‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Rangers. Please refer to this FAQ and the archives before repeating them.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Weren't Rangers liquidated on 14 June when the CVA was rejected? (No.)

No. What happened on 14 June was that the proposal for Rangers to exit administration via a CVA was rejected by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), the largest creditor. This meant that the CVA proposal failed and the company would have to be liquidated. A liquidator was appointed on 31 October 2012.^[1] The company is in liquidation but it will take some time before the company is dissolved.^[2] In June 2015, The Herald reported that the liquidator would propose an interim payment from the old company to its creditors.^[3] A final payment depended on the outcome of the "big tax case", which will determine how much is due to HMRC.^[3] That case was resolved in favour of HMRC in 2017,^[4] and in December 2022 the liquidator and HMRC agreed on a final liability of £56 million.^[5]

Is it not fact that Rangers Football Club that was founded in 1872/1873 no longer exist, and the club in division 3 this season 2012/2013 is a new football club? (Depends who you ask.)

No. Various news sources initially reported it as being a new club, but this question was subsequently addressed by the governing league body, the Scottish Professional Football League, who stated clearly that it is the same club.^[6]

Is it true that Rangers could not play in Europe for 3 years (after 2012) because they are a new club, even if they had won the Scottish Cup? (Yes, but not for that reason.)

Yes. because UEFA rules state that a club must have 3 years of audited accounts.^[7] Rangers did not have this accounts history because of the liquidation of the old company and creation of a new company. Even if the old company had not been liquidated, they would have still been banned from European football in the 2012–13 season because audited accounts for 2011 were not submitted by the deadline of 31 March 2012.^[8]^[9]

Were Rangers relegated to the Third Division? (No.)

Although some sources use the term "relegated" to describe Rangers playing in the 2012–13 Scottish Third Division,^[10] this is inaccurate. Rangers FC was a member of the Scottish Premier League and had a membership share in that organisation. The rules of the Scottish Premier League stated that any share transfer (except for the normal process of promotion and relegation with the First Division) had to be approved by a two thirds majority of the member clubs. The new company acquired the membership share from the administrators of the old company, but the proposed transfer was rejected by a 10-1 majority of the 12 clubs.^[11] Rangers then applied to join the Scottish Football League and were admitted to the Third Division^[12] as an associate member of the league.^[13]

Is Wikipedia allowing Rangers fans to lie that their club still exists, when it is dead? (No, it is following Wikipedia policy.)

Wikipedia is founded on the key policies of Consensus, reliable sources, neutral point of view, no censoring and no original research. Editors have come to a consensus regarding these key policies.

Surely no-one can buy Rangers' history or goodwill? (Not for us to decide.)

It is not for Wikipedia to decide if you can or can not "buy" history and goodwill. However there are many examples of companies buying other companies and taking on their history. Wikipedia relies on sources and if the source say Rangers' new company bought Rangers' history, then that is what Wikipedia will say.

Is Wikipedia reporting lies about Rangers F.C. because fans do not want to accept their club has folded? (No.)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and Rangers FC is therefore treated as the same club because this is what reliable sources say. Which is the ultimate truth is not something Wikipedia can dictate.

^ "Lord Hodge approves liquidation of former Rangers FC". BBC News. BBC. 31 October 2012. Retrieved 1 November 2012.
^ "RFC 2012 Plc". Companies House. Retrieved 5 December 2012.
^ ^a ^b Williams, Martin (17 June 2015). "Dave King stands to get £1.4m out of £10m Rangers oldco creditors pot". The Herald. Herald & Times Group. Retrieved 23 June 2015.
^ "HMRC wins Rangers 'big tax case' ruling". BBC News. 5 July 2017. Retrieved 24 February 2023.
^ "Rangers: BDO reaches £56m agreement with HMRC to close tax case". BBC Sport. 9 December 2022. Retrieved 24 February 2023.
^ "SPFL Chief Executive: Rangers are the same club". BBC. Retrieved 23 February 2023.
^ "Uefa Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations" (PDF). uefa.com. UEFA. 2012. Retrieved 5 December 2012. Chapter 2 Article 12 - The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any alteration to the club's legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.
^ "Rangers administrators strive to meet Uefa accounts date". BBC Sport. BBC. 17 February 2012. Retrieved 27 January 2013.
^ "Rangers will not participate in European competition next season". BBC Sport. BBC. 7 March 2012. Retrieved 27 January 2013.
^ "Celtic backer Dermot Desmond misses rivalry with Rangers". BBC Sport. 3 October 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2012.
^ "Rangers newco refused SPL entry after chairmen vote". BBC Sport. BBC. 4 July 2012. Retrieved 27 January 2013.
^ "Rangers: Charles Green accepts Division Three vote". BBC Sport. BBC. 13 July 2012. Retrieved 27 January 2013.
^ "EXCLUSIVE: Gordon Smith says Rangers will have to accept change". Evening Times. Herald & Times Group. 10 January 2013. Retrieved 27 January 2013.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rangers F.C. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37: 30 days

Ok now we are starting to move towards a FA article

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

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

Please add things to the list to be done

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

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

To be done after the above is done

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your definitely no "moving towards a FA article",What you are doing though is perpetrating a myth using outlandish lies for no other reason because thats what you want to believe-to hell with the truth,Rangers FC where liquidated, by simply looking up the definition of club this point is easily attained, furthermore suggestions that "The Rangers" formerly "Sevco Scotland" formerly "Sevco 5088" bought the club is equally as ludicrous because that football club was liquidated, again see definition of Club,what was sold was the business assets such as the Umbro and Tennents agreements with Ibrox Stadium,Murray Park and the car park, intellectual property was also sold as part of the agreement,none other than Charles Green himself has said failing a CVA would mean the history would be wiped away and flushed down the toilet(you know that)Terry Butcher,a former Rangers captain has said its a different club,and umpteen others associated with "The Rangers" brand. Its not a personal attack on "The Rangers" in a lot of ways I admire the way they have taken on the mantle from the liquidated club and I hope they stay true to the football traditions set by Rangers,its still something the fans can look back on and admire with pride,,thats fine, but they are 100% not the same club,I could never be Elvis even if I bought Gracelands changed my name,adopted Lisa Marie and married Priscilla because he died in 1977, just as Rangers where liquidated in 2012, There are still plenty of Elvis fans though who follow his impersonators, but no matter how hard they try or how good they are, those impersonators can never be the king, its just not how things work.Accept what you are and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.204.149 (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information on the page

This entire page is written on the basis of The Rangers FC being the same entity as Glasgow Rangers FC which was dissolved. If this page is to talk about the team that currently is in the second division, there should not be mention of league or cup titles. Please see AFC Wimbledon for a comparable football club page which lists the history of the club linked to the old Wimbledon FC, but does not try to claim their titles.

This page, being as completely factually incorrect as it is, is acting as a political page by suggesting that the two Rangers clubs are one and the same. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be for, it is supposed to be a factual resource.

Please remove this page immediately and have it edited. Otherwise, Wikipedia can no longer claim to make any attempt to provide factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.20.31.38 (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See http://spfl.co.uk/clubs/rangers/ . Cheers, VanguardScot 19:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think Charlton Athletic & Middlesbrough are a better comparison for what happened with Rangers. They both created new companies and took over the running of the club. Rangers are not the first to do this and certainly wont be the last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.144.200 (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been debated, many many many times, and the best consensus that could be reached is detailed in the FAQs above etc. This article, and articles like it, are inevitably going to fall victim to one bias or another, but so long as things are suitably referenced I have no issue with this article. --Connelly90 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request that this page is edited to show the true history of rangers fc. The current club was formed in 2012 after the liquidation of the previous rangers fc who were formed in 1873 following investigations by HMRC and other creditors. The current club began life as Sevco 5088 on which an article can be found on Wikipedia. This in turn means that the whole page on rangers fc is wrong other than the entries from 2012. Thanks. Tee67 (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic decline, there are plenty discussion on this page showing the community consensus. As long as the SPFL & SFA consider them to be the same club, thats not likely to change and the article already provided extensive history on this as does the administration article.Blethering Scot 20:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richest Football Clubs?

I've removed "Richest Football Clubs" from the "See Also" section. The last time Rangers appeared on this list was 5 years ago, and I think you'll have a hard time arguing they are in the same financial position now. --Connelly90 09:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would even attempt to argue they are now. However that page provides the richest club lists going back to 2007, as they were on the list then the link to it is still more than valid.Blethering Scot 17:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they should include lists so far back on that page either, and it seems like they added a "historic data" section back in 2009, but it was reverted for some reason. 2007 sounds like it was just "a couple years ago" still, and I'm guilty myself of thinking that from time-to-time, but that was 7 years ago! it's definitely no longer relevant in my opinion. --Connelly90 09:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been on here in the recent past (Pretty sure it was you that was trying to remove it/get it removed, but I don't have time to go through the archives to prove that). Whoever it was, was told to leave it as it was perfectly valid and as Rangers are mentioned in the article it is a valid 'see also' page. VanguardScot 18:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it was me who brought this forward back last summer, I thought that discussion was regarding the Celtic F.C. article tbh, so apologies for bringing it up again so soon on the same article. But a consensus was far from reached. The only "discussion" involved me and you stating our opinions on its relevance, and an IP telling me my "opinion didn't matter". These articles (i.e. Rangers F.C. and Celtic F.C. and all related articles) are plagued with POV issues caused by people trying to promote their chosen side, and I think this is clearly one of them.

Regardless of whether "The Big Two" (or anyone else for that matter) appear on the article for Richest Football Clubs, they are no longer on the actual current list, and are no longer one of the richest football clubs; therefore, I argue that it's not relevant to the current state of ANY football club to consider their financial position in 2007—much less a club who has changed so dramatically as this one—and doesn't improve the article to include "Richest Football Clubs" when they are clearly no longer included. This is a POV issue stemming from an editor wanting to promote their club. --Connelly90 09:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is nothing of the sort and is a perfectly reasonable see also page, as both clubs are involved in the page. There are two experienced editors here saying leave it and one saying get rid, if you want to take it further go to WP:Football to try to get some more input here from other experienced editors. Until then it stays as you have not given a good enough reason to remove it and you do not have a consensus to do so. Cheers, VanguardScot 10:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noticed your most recent edit, that seems like a good compromise. VanguardScot 10:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Lord Hodge approves liquidation of former Rangers FC". BBC News. BBC. 31 October 2012. Retrieved 1 November 2012.

[2] "RFC 2012 Plc". Companies House. Retrieved 5 December 2012.

[payment-3] Williams, Martin (17 June 2015). "Dave King stands to get £1.4m out of £10m Rangers oldco creditors pot". The Herald. Herald & Times Group. Retrieved 23 June 2015.

[4] "HMRC wins Rangers 'big tax case' ruling". BBC News. 5 July 2017. Retrieved 24 February 2023.

[5] "Rangers: BDO reaches £56m agreement with HMRC to close tax case". BBC Sport. 9 December 2022. Retrieved 24 February 2023.

[6] "SPFL Chief Executive: Rangers are the same club". BBC. Retrieved 23 February 2023.

[uefaclublicensingrules-7] "Uefa Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations" (PDF). uefa.com. UEFA. 2012. Retrieved 5 December 2012. Chapter 2 Article 12 - The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any alteration to the club's legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.

[8] "Rangers administrators strive to meet Uefa accounts date". BBC Sport. BBC. 17 February 2012. Retrieved 27 January 2013.

[9] "Rangers will not participate in European competition next season". BBC Sport. BBC. 7 March 2012. Retrieved 27 January 2013.

[10] "Celtic backer Dermot Desmond misses rivalry with Rangers". BBC Sport. 3 October 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2012.

[11] "Rangers newco refused SPL entry after chairmen vote". BBC Sport. BBC. 4 July 2012. Retrieved 27 January 2013.

[12] "Rangers: Charles Green accepts Division Three vote". BBC Sport. BBC. 13 July 2012. Retrieved 27 January 2013.

[13] "EXCLUSIVE: Gordon Smith says Rangers will have to accept change". Evening Times. Herald & Times Group. 10 January 2013. Retrieved 27 January 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]