Talk:Administration and liquidation of the Rangers Football Club plc

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Scottish football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Scotland Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

according to Lorraine Fraser media the money was stolen by Martin bain

PLC, plc or Plc

The company was incorporated as 'The Rangers Football Club PLC', not 'Rangers Football Club plc'. The title and introduction need changed to say this. The company is now known as 'RFC 2012 PLC' and will undergo the liquidation procedures in the coming months. companies house link. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Question - Can a club that is to be Liquidated transfere it's history to another Club? If so that would mean Airdrieonians history would have transfered over to Airdrie United, two different Clubs with the same history, it does'nt sit well with me. Airdrie United for example are not Airdrieonians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Les blues1998 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

different scenario, firstly airdie uttd is in fact lcydebanlk so they did by hsitory of clyudebank. however a club can never be liquidated it is assest of the company that owns it which in this case was rangers plc and secodnly rangers plc isnt liqudiated yet and it might take years for it to be dissolvedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked on this and it appears to be purely a style issue (i.e.: it's a matter of Wikipedia's style, sources are irrelevant). Lowercase "plc" seems to be used in legal contexts in the UK, and so it tends to appear that way on formal documents for most companies. The Guardian style guide recommends lower-case, and Wikipedia's language reference desk agrees. The Manual of Style accepts lowercase or uppercase – but not "Plc". It is the practice in the majority of articles (90% based on article titles) to use lower-case. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liquidation starting soon

http://www.rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/administratorsinformation/RFC_2012_PLC_(Formerly_The_Rangers_Football_Club_plc)_Final_Progress_Report_to_Creditors.pdf BadSynergy (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ownership of Rangers F.C. and correct Aftermath sentence

Given there is a proposal to merge the article on The Rangers Football Club Ltd into the article Ownership of Rangers F.C., should this article also be considered, since a lot of duplicated information exists between them even already? Also, we have consensus that the identity of Rangers F.C. is separate, and the same, from that of the old & new companies operating it, the opening sentence of the Section on Aftermath should be changed from "The liquidation of the company holding the rights to (oldco) Rangers and the subsequent entry of The Rangers F.C. ("Rangers Newco") into division 3 resulted in a great deal of discussion within Scottish football." to something like "The liquidation of The Rangers Football Club Plc company and the subsequent entry of Rangers F.C. into division 3, operated by its new company The Rangers Football Club Ltd, resulted in a great deal of discussion within Scottish football."? S2mhunter (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This is a specific article about the one-off event of Rangers becoming insolvent, as per Middlesbrough F.C. survival from liquidation. The ownership of Rangers F.C. is a separate issue entirely, which could be a general article about the various owners of Rangers with details of each period. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that parts of the article could be re-written in a better way then I agree. The majority of the main body was directly copied to relieve the unnecessary weight that was placed on other articles. Monkeymanman (talk) 05:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, however can we get a consensus on how to rewrite the opening paragraph of Aftermath, given it conflicts with what the other articles say and that the 2nd hyperlink will soon not exist? Regards S2mhunter (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

aftermath should cover everything from june 14th to first match in challenge cup that way it is covering everything after the liquidation proceeding begin, liquidation process properly beging middle of october when the amdinistrators hand it over to bdo that when this article will start to take off, as the judgement on the ebt is due and then the liquidators are goign to be investigating, a premilary judgement from the indepent board to investigate dual contracts is due soon to which will be on this one. this article should never be merged it needs ot be indepent it is a very important part of rangers historyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never say never Andrew. You never know how the articles may be more appropriately grouped / merged in the future. However at the moment I think its important to make sure that there is as little repetition as possible across the articles concerning Rangers and the admin / liquidation. I think there is still too much. S2mhunter if you feel you can efficiently rewrite the opening section of the aftermath in a neutral and consistent manner then fire away. Monkeymanman (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I gave it a go. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 08:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the above comment - "we have consensus that the identity of Rangers F.C. is separate, and the same, from that of the old & new companies operating it". Consensus from who exactly? The Rangers pages on wikipedia have been completely hijacked by fans of RFC 1872 to create the same myth that the Scottish media have been peddling post CVA rejection. The identity 'In Common Speech' (Lord Nimmo Smith) is that the 'Club' can have a separate identity i.e. Brand than that of the legal entity. However incorporation in 1899 made the club and company intrinsically combined as one legal entity. No unincorporation event took place and when the legal entity entered liquidation, the club was part of it.

Wiki relies on reliable sources and sources state it is the same club. If that changes then the relevant pages will be updated. WP:CON hopefully this will explain what consensus is about. BadSynergy (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

The aftermath topic states that the actual continuation of the club has been open to interpretation. Why has the recent edit which gave referenced examples and quotes from major figures and media who believed a non continuation scenario been removed. Yet quotes supporting the continuation remain. The article lacks balance.Bennyfactoring (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Bennyfactoring[reply]

I have reverted your edit because it is poorly sourced (blogs, Daily Mail, Daily Record) - please read WP:RS - and it is poorly written. Please adopt a neutral point of view and avoid weasel words. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jmorrison. Thanks for the feedback and guidance. Should I consider Daily Mail and Daily Record as poor sources when lifting quotes from the people involved ? |The same quotes are available in other newspapers and broadcasters. Would you allow the edit if these quotes were from the other sources used in the article Telegraph, Herald, STV BBC ?.I take your point about a reference to a blog , however the blog contents were all multiple quotes from the mainstream media and the relevant people involved, not original thoughts or comments. The article makes reference to the debate of club continuation but does not provide the reader with any reference to the sizable parties who do have an alternative viewpoint to the one promoted in the article.( Falkirk announcer being the exception)I don't see anything that meets the definition of weasel words as everything is backed up by quotes. I am trying to give the article a more balanced and neutral point of view.Bennyfactoring (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes article about Rangers' financial decline and fall

Quite a good overview here. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which the new Rangers regime responded to (here) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scots Company Law

Under Scot's Law - under liquidation of an incorporated company, the entire business and trading history of that company terminates, even if that company's business, was football.

When Rangers FC Plc was wound up, so were the football activities of Rangers FC Plc i.e. the football club and associated merchandising etc. The BBC recognised this fact when they observed that “The Rangers Football Club PLC is a public limited company registered in Scotland (company number: SC004276) and was incorporated on 27 May, 1899. When the current company is officially liquidated, all of its corporate business history will come to an end.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18413384 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangerhead (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Nimmo Smith said otherwise. 2.124.194.104 (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Administration and liquidation of The Rangers Football Club plc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA "same club" / "new club" argument

The supposed intervention by FIFA was reported in the Scottish media in May 2015, Daily Record, Evening Times and The Herald. Ergo it is noteworthy, although it should be pointed out that this was not an official view expressed by FIFA as the magazine disclaimer indicates. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Useful source

The article at [1], which is likely a useful source, says in a footnote which links to this article:

The otherwise comprehensive Wikipedia article on the collapse of Rangers is curiously light on how the club came to sign up to the schemes.

I'm busy with a domestic crisis, so cannot attend to this myself. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]