Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 25

SevCo

SevCo isn't actually Rangers. It is an entirely new club. Therefore, SevCo must make three years of accounts and three years of playing as a club and this means that it will be at least three years until SevCo are in even the third division or they will get sued by a team like Spartans or Civil Service Strollers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.35.188 (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well you are partly right.Sevco Scotland LTD is a newly incorporated company that has bought Rangers football club and currently operates under the trading name The Rangers Football Club. The Football club is a different thing to both this new company and the previous company that owned it between 1899 and 2012 when it went into liquidation. This article is not about Sevco or the liquidated company, the primary topic of this article is the club that existed decades before either of these incorporated companies came into existence. Note the article fails to even mention when the previous company was incorporated at all, it was so irrelevant. . BritishWatcher (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Firstly Sevco bought the assets of Rangers FC - not the club itself. Secondly, although the rules do requires 3 years of accounts, the rules also allow the league to admit members on whatever basis the member clubs think fit - so a simple majority vote is all that is required. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


You continue to try to enforce your point of view, as a matter of fact in regard to 'assets not the club', which is contrary to statements made by insolvency experts D&P, BDO, aswell as HMRC and other various media outlets, all of whom have stated Green purchased "the club". It should now be accepted that the debate boils down to the semantics of the word "club". The strongest arguement however is that legally, Charless Green has purchased the legal right to be recognised as the same "Rangers Football Club", as the legal identity & intellectual property was included in the purchase (as matter of fact). Ricky072 (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
As I stated above just now, the crucial point in this discussion is whether Green's consortium bought 'the club' or just 'the assets and business interests'. I disagree with you about the issue of proof. It is quite clear that Green's consortium offered £8.5M for 'the club' if part of a CVA, but that failing, offered £5.5M for 'the assets and business interests' - Green's own offer changed: what he was offering to buy was different. In the end he bought the 'assets and business interests' because he wouldn't buy the club without an agreed CVA. Don't now try to change focus off this crucial issue on to whether or not Green bought the right to be recognised as owning the same club. If you can prove that 'he bought the right to be recognised as owning the same club', prove it. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk)
In which case you have failed to 'prove as a matter off act' that point. Statements from D&P, BDO & HMRC have all stated that Charles Greens consortium purchased "the club". You are argueing that is factually incorrect but have offered no concrete prof, only your own point of view. HMRC also stated that the Newco route holds the same credence as a CVA purchase "the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation. So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route." Ricky072 (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You clearly won't accept proof. It is perfectly clear that Green's consortium has bought 'the assets and business interests' - you know that is very easy to prove. He originally wanted to buy the club, but had to settle for this when he couldn't buy the club with an agreed CVA in place. Can you find any example where a club has been bought over and the purchase has been described as buying 'the assets and business interests'? Of course not - if you buy a club, you state you are buying a club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Abramovich buys Chelsea's 'assets and business interest' - eh, no...he bought the club
Green's consortium buys Rangers' assets and business interests
See the difference? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You clearly won't accept proof. It is perfectly clear that Green's consortium has bought 'the assets and business interests' - you know that is very easy to prove. He originally wanted to buy the club, but had to settle for this when he couldn't buy the club with an agreed CVA in place. Can you find any example where a club has been bought over and the purchase has been described as buying 'the assets and business interests'? Of course not - if you buy a club, you state you are buying a club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You clearly won't accept that "the assets and business is the club. According to HMRC, he did buy "the club". As a matter of 'fact' the purchase has been described as both the purchase of 'business and assets' and also 'the club'. Charles Green also describes his purchase as the pruchase of the club; "....prior to our acquisition of the club on 14 June."Ricky072 (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course Charles Green says that he bought the club! I assume you are not relying on that as evidence to prove it actually happened! And no, I don't accept that buying the 'assets and business interests' is the same as buying 'the club'. I'm genuinely surprised if you really do accept that yourself. regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Charles Green states he purchased the club, as did Duff&Phelps, BDO, HMRC & various media outlets. If you do not accept that, then that is your opinion. 'The club' is a legal identity. Charles Green purchased the legal identity. Newco Leeds, Newco Napoli, Newco Fiorentina all purchased the OldCo's legal identity which allowed them from a legal standpoint, to identify themselves as the same 'club'. Ricky072 (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

How about a Straw poll

As the discussion above is going round and round in circles and sadly we have an article that is totally inaccurate if a number of editors are correct, i suggest we have a brief straw poll simply to discover where more peoples views are at present and to try and move forward, after that it may be necessary to take this matter somewhere else. I would like to propose that Ricky and FishieHelper each make a statement summarising the different positions, so that anyone who has not had the time to read through this entire debate can at least give initial reaction and opinion. I should just add that if a poll did take place it would be in no way binding and any efforts by either side to stack the poll with fake/new accounts or IPs would be completely pointless and ignored. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt but this might as well go 'somewhere else' immediately. It is clear that there is no consensus and a straw poll may just give an indication of the number of Rangers supports who are also editors of Wikipedia (or perhaps of non Rangers fans who are also editors.) Logic and sources does not appear to be settling this dispute, so it needs to be resolved by others who can look at all the evidence objectively. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree its important to try and get as neutral opinions as possible, perhaps the best starting place might be the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to see any additional input arrives from there, if not then dispute resolution or an admin noticeboard. This is such a significant issue in terms of "was" or "is", a request for comment that is open weeks on end would not resolve what i and others believe is a huge inaccuracy in anywhere near a reasonable timespan. it may also be important to factor in the potential outcomes on the 13th of July to try and determine what impact that will have to avoid an entirely new debate / key points being raised, delaying progress on the article for far longer. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The decisions on the 13th July could either lead to the reformed Rangers getting into the SFL, or not. If it does not, it would be no less a football club than it is now - at present it does not even has SFA membership - as it would still have contracted players, ground etc. However, the bigger concern would be its financial viability when it would have to shell out on wages without selling season tickets etc. Even as things stand, I have read it suggested that only 250 season tickets had been sold as most fans heed the advice of those who have said not to buy them for now, or merely wish wait to see what is going to happen. The sooner this dispute can be passed up to an appropriate, independent forum the better. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Ive made a new section on the wikiproject page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Rangers_F.C as a first starting point for outside views, hopefully people can summarise the views for them there too to save them a bit of time reading a very long debate. If that fails we will look somewhere else for input. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

New section on the Football wikiproject

I have started a new section Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Rangers_F.C to discuss this matter further and hopefully get additional views from those less involved in the current debate. If people could summarise their views on the problem / why the articles are correct it would probably save the other people from the project a lot of time. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - a sensible way forward. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Ok,

This is to say i am in process of making this, so please all those involved please add your arguments with references to this section within my user space User:Andrewcrawford/mydraft#Comments_about_the_situation_no_discussion do not respond to the question yet as this is still getting made. Just post any arguments you have about the problem and provide your sources to it, this way when it goes to request for comment non involved user can read through the problem and make a response to it and use the sources to make judgement themselves. if you have any other sources i have not put there please let me know i will add them.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

what is a club

Lets try to clear up this club / company issue a bit. As this club was founded decades before an incorporated company was formed, and as many clubs or groups exist without incorporation why when the company that operated rangers previous went into liquidation did the club cease to exist.. when clearly things associated with "the club", such as the fans, some of the players, the stadium, the website, the facebook page... etc etc all transferred over to the new company. Yes everyone accepts the new company is a new legal entity, but this article is NOT about a legal entity, (nobody even bothered to put when the company was formed showing its relevance), this is about the club. and that commonly known rangers club, clearly is still operating today trying to get itself into the SFL. Currently under the trading name The Rangers Football Club, which is close to this title of the article too. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it will be interesting to see if the debate concerning wether a club & company are seperate entities can be proven as a matter of fact either way, or if it will always come down to opinion. Many insolvency experts & firms seem to hold the view that they are seperate, and the company merely runs the club. SOURCE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18426943 QUOTE: 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 - Malcolm Cohen, Liquidator. Administrators Duff & Phelps also share this view http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/105851-in-full-duff-and-phelps-statement-on-rangers-cva-failure/ Ricky072 (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, a caterpillar turns into a butterfly, and is then squished. At the point of being squished, that entity is comprehensively squished in its entirety. It does not revert to caterpillar status or turn into anything else. Another butterfly can come along with the same pattern on its wings, it can flutter about in the same vicinity, we can even call it a similar name: but it remains fundamentally distinct from the first butterfly. Which was squished. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Analogies of butterflies and caterpillars don't add anythign to the debate. We're trying to establish here if a club being as one with a company, and a company merely running a club, are both reasonable points of view supported with evidence (as above) from insolvency experts, or if there is a definitive answer one way or another than can decide the debate, as a matter of fact and not opinion. Ricky072 (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs statement on rangers. "A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation. So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start."[1]

Clearly "the club" continues and has been sold to Green, who now controls its assets under the new company. The more i read about all this, especially with the great points made by Ricky, the more stunned i am that this article has been allowed to state something so grossly bias and inaccurate for so long. This whole article needs rewording back to before someone inaccurately claimed the club no longer existed. The article at Newco Rangers should either be merged back into this article, or it should be renamed as suggested in the previous deletion attempt to cover the administration / liquidation issues. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Club was not sold to Green, look at the document that the Administrators gave to people partaking in the CVA. It says if a CVA is not agreed "then there will be a sale of the Club's business and assets", a sale of business and assets is not a sale of the Club. Selling the Club would be totally and utterly pointless as it is going to enter Liquidation and you'd be wasting whatever amount of money you were going to pay for it. Football Clubs NEED to be Legal Entities(Corporations) nowadays as it would be illegal if they were paying staff and recieving payments from sponsors etc and were not, that is why all Clubs became Incorporated, mostly in the lat 1800's as Football became a business in its own right.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The wording above suggests otherwise. Yes a club needs to have a legal entity to operate in the football league today, and that is why the club is now under the control of a new company. As HMRC statement above clearly implies and encourages. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quote above - it makes the case for me. "Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox" Notice that quote does not say ' ensuring that Rangers FC can continue' it only says that if the assets of the club get sold to another company that "football will continue at Ibrox". That is exactly what is happening - football will continue at Ibrox, but since the club was not sold to Green'c consortium, it is still being liquidated. The club that does continue at Ibrox will be a new club, even if it plays in the same colours before the same fans in the same stadium. If my father dies and I decide to move into his house, wear his clothes and sleep in his bed, it doesn't make me my father. However convincingly I look like him, he will still have dies and I am merely his replacement. Same as Rangers FC (1872-2012) and Rangers FC (2012 - ) if that's what the new Rangers chooses, or is allowed to call themselves. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The new company is not the same legal entity as the old company, but it is the same club. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
As I say, there is just no meeting of minds on this. Whatever argument or analogy I use, you insist that the club can exist even when its legal personality has been liquidated. You can not accept that the club BECAME a company in 1899 rather than 'created a company to own it'. For my part, I can not accept your claim that Rangers FC 'the club' and Rangers FC the company are two different entities. You will not accept any proof that I could bring forward that shows that the club and the company are the one, single, self-same entity, and any evidence you may be able to find that would suggest to support your view I would probably dismiss as not from reliable sources (eg - I wouldn't accept any claim on this matter from Charles Green who has a clear business interest in promoting the idea that 'he bought Rangers'.) I think we are at a total impass and despite hours of dialogue, we are making no headway towards consensus. Unless fresh points are made, I will simply respond briefly in future to restate by disagreement. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you will find that ricky has posted a number of sources on this page or on the other page showing the club and company are separate things. Short responses are fine with me but please do take the time to give a detailed reply to some of the points that ricky has made, especially under the liquidation/dissolution section. One thing is certain, there is no consensus for the grossly offensive and controversial wording in the article. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 09:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
'Grossly offensive'? That is very strong stuff. I can imagine people find it controversial to say that Rabgers FC is coming to an end - about as controversial to suggest that is can survive being liquidated! But grossly offensive? By the way, I read the comments Ricky made but he is not dealing with the key point: the distinction between a football club getting out of administration by getting an agreed CVA or failing to achieve that, entering liquidation, and selling on its assets to another company. Rangers FC is in the second category. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
If others are right and you are wrong when it comes to the terminology of if club/company are different things then clearly its going to offend and mislead people by saying the club is dead when only the company that ran it went into liquidation and now the club, its assets and brand continue under a new legal entity, BritishWatcher (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Rangers fans who may be offended by reading that Rangers FC is being liquidated will continue to be offended even if the current dispute were to conclude the way I believe it should. Against this, fans of other clubs may be offended if the articles were to be changed to suggest that Rangers FC is not being liquidated. My own view is that we should be seeking to build accurate articles without taking into consideration whether readers may be offended by what they read - we should never intend to give offensive, but if readers take offence... so be it! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Nobody should be offended by reading that The Rangers FC PLC is in administration or in liquidation. What they may be offended about is the article claiming Rangers Football club (which existed BEFORE that company was incorporated) somehow no longer exists. They would be offended because its wrong! BritishWatcher (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Newco RFC must be LEGALLY recognised as Rangers Football Club

The legal identity Rangers Football Club (the brand name and name of the club, not to be confused with the registered name of the OldCo "The Rangers Football Club PLC" (1899)) is now owned by Charles Greens consortium (Sevco Scotland Ltd). Inclusive of the consortiums purchase was the rights to the legal identity of Rangers Football Club. From a legal standpoint, they are recognised & trade as Rangers Football Club and maintain the old indentity inclusive of the name, brand, club crest, logo, badge, colours, strip, website and all other intellectual property & copyrights. Quote: "A company can go through the entire process of ceasing business operations, selling its assets and paying off creditors while not formally dissolving. A business may do this if it wants to keep the legal identity of a business for use in another venture. Read more: Differences in a Liquidation and a Dissolution | eHow.com ehow.com/info_8282875_differences-liquidation-dissolution.html#ixzz207pqrjdy"

The precedent has been set by Leeds, Napoli & Fiorentina, all are examples of Newco's that purchased the legal rights to the clubs legal identity & intellectual property from the OldCo. This should not be confused with the likes of FC Halifax Town or Chester City FC who did not purchase the legal identity or any of the intellectual property from the OldCo's which were dissolved. As a result, such clubs are described as 'pheonix' clubs which had to start again from scratch, and could not legally use the same 'club name', badge, logo or any copyright or legal identity owned by the dissolved company.

It is therefore undisputable, and a matter of fact, that from a legal standpoint Rangers Football Club will maintain it's legal identity, as is owned by Sevco Scotland Ltd. Wikipedia must therefore recognise it as such and document the legal identity 'Rangers F.C' within the same page. Ricky072 (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. If Green's consortium has indeed purchased the right to use the name Rangers Football Club, well and good. That means that the club he is establishing can be called Rangers. That will mean that Wikipedia can easily accommodate this situation by changing the name of the article Rangers FC to 'Rangers FC (1872)' or something similar, and then the Newco Rangers page can be changed to 'Rangers FC'. I don't particularly mind if Rangers fans can not accept that their club is being liquidated, and wish to argue that the newco Rangers is the same club - but Wikipedia should not accommodate those views just because Rangers happens to have huge numbers of supporters. Bottom line in the UK - a club that exits administration by a CVA continues as the same club, history intact. a club that goes into liquidation and its assets are sold off to another company finishes, perhaps to be relaunched as a new club with same/similar name, perhaps the same players, perhaps the same stadium, largely the same fans. Wikipedia should reflect that difference properly with relaunched clubs having separate pages. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry your wrong factually and legally. 'Rangers FC (1872)' does not represent Rangers FC as thats something you just made up. Legally, "Rangers Football Club" is a legal identity owned by Charles Greens consortium, sold to him by administrators Duff&Phelps, previously owned by "The Rangers Football Club PLC". Your proposed structure is the correct way for wikipedia to document "pheonix" clubs. If you cannot understand the difference between a "pheonix" club and a club that was via purchased 'liquidation (the process of selling the business & assets)' then that is your issue, but it is clearly explained above. From a legal stand point, Leeds, Napoli & Fiorentina all OWN the legal identities of the clubs & intellectual property, inclusive of history, the club name, club badge, etc. They have the legal right to be represented as the same clubs. "Pheonix clubs" do not own those legal rights, and are subsequently not identified as the same club, cannot represent themselves or trade as the same club, use the same club name, nor the same club logo/badge/website (and any other intellectual property, as that was all dissolved with the OldCO and not purchased by the NewCo). This is not opinion, but fact. Ricky072 (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion of 'Rangers FC (1872)' is a perfectly reasonable suggestion for an article name. Accrington Stanley F.C. (1891) is the name used for that club, to distinguish it from the article about a different club with the same name, Accrington Stanley F.C.. Agreed they are not linked in any way as closely as the old Rangers FC from the new Rangers, but I am discussing the principle of getting a sensible name to distinguish between a predecessor club and a successor club when both use the same name.
As for your point about "Legally, "Rangers Football Club" is a legal identity" - don't confuse the legal identity with the legal entity that was Rangers FC/Rangers FC PLC. While the club/company is being liquidated, the right to use the name of the club/company that is being liquidated has been purchased by Charles Green to use with his club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There should be no distinction between the '2 clubs' because from a legal standpoint, they remain the same club. Charles green purchased the legal identity of Rangers Football Club and all other intellectual property of the club. The club is defined by a set of assets, inclusive of the name & legal identity "Rangers Football Club" and the badge/emblem/crest/logo and trades and present itself as "Rangers Foobtall Club". These assets were previously owned by Rangers Football Club Plc but were sold via a liquidation process to Sevco Scotland who are now theowners of Rangers Football Club, in the exact same manner as Leeds United and other such precedents. Ricky072 (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I basically disgree with your interpretation here. I also dispute yout characterisation of what happened at Leeds when 'the club' was bought rather than merely 'the assets and business'. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Then you need to read up and familiarise yourself with the process of 'liquidation' and what that entails. Leeds OldCo underwent "liquidation" which is the process of selling the 'business and assets' in order to get a return for the creditors. This is how both Leeds & Rangers were sold, this is not disputable, it's fact. Ricky072 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. Leeds were never liquidated: that's a very clear distinction between the two cases. HMRC were not very happy at all that Leeds successfully escaped from administration without being wound up, which is a key reason for the situation Rangers find themselves in (i.e. being liquidated). If you Google the phrase "Leeds were not liquidated" the whole first page is filled with discussions of the distinctions between the two. I would suggest that it isn't worth further pursuing this discussion until you've further familiarised yourself with the situation you're arguing over. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. Leeds were liquidated and is proven here, as matter of fact. HMRC filed legal proceedings to block a CVA in the courts, given the length of time it would take to resolve, the clubs administrators ditched the CVA completely, and sold the business and assets to Ken Bates NewCo via liquidation. The OldCo was liquidated which is factually proven in the link before, and this article from the Herald explains: "This is what happened to Leeds United in 2007. A CVA was agreed with the creditors, but a 28-day cooling off period follows the creditors' vote and, at the last minute, HMRC changed their position and blocked the CVA. The assets were then sold to a newco Leeds United set up by Ken Bates, and the Football League granted the club its place in the competition. "The CVA is the only insolvency mechanism we've got that preserves the legal entity," says Richard Fleming, head of restructuring at KPMG, who was the administrator at Leeds United. "If it fails, the sale to a newco becomes the only viable option. So then they have the concept of granting the newco the share to play in the competition. "It is a new legal entity, but in reality from one day to the next the club was playing football at the same ground in the same competition." Ricky072 (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You're quoting a from a source which doesn't say what you think (wish?) it says. It doesn't say that Leeds were liquidated: it simply says that the newco bought Leeds United. The important distinction in the case of Leeds is that the newco bought the business as well as the assets: Sevco bought only the assets, leaving the business to be liquidated.
And to add to that: Leeds didn't go through a CVA, which according to your KPMG source means that they aren't the same legal entity. So not an especially good example to use in parallel with Rangers if one wants to make a case for the newco being the same entity as Rangers, all things considered. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The companies information states the company status is in liquidation. Just like the old rangers company is now in liquidation. Business and assets were sold to the Sevco company as sources show and the HMRC statement says the club could be sold despite liquidation of the old company. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The companies house status of Leeds OldCo "in liquidation" SOURCE: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00170600 you cannot argue with this, it's fact. Leeds OldCO (1920) were liquidated. Charles Green also purchased the "business and assets". http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/106282-in-full-charles-greens-statement-on-successful-rangers-takeover/ QUOTE: "the consortium I represent has fulfilled its agreement with the administrators and has completed the acquisition of the business and assets of The Rangers Football Club plc." and from Administrators Duff&Phleps: http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/rangers-takeover-duff-and-phelps-statement-in-full-1-2350865 QUOTE: "Mr Green’s consortium will move towards completion of an acquisition of the business and assets of The Rangers Football Club plc. " It's the exact same process. Leeds OldCO underwent liquidation meaning the business and assets were sold to a newco, with the proceeds going to the creditors. Rangers OldCo underwent liquidation meaning the business and assets were sold to a newco with the proceeds going to the creditors. Hope that clears this up for you. Ricky072 (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You have provided quotes that show that Green's consortium bought the aseets and business of Rangers - you have not provided similar quotes to suggest that Bates consortium also bought the 'assets and business' of Leeds United. Do you have any? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, The Herald, 3rd last paragraph: "If a CVA isn't agreed, then the assets can be transferred to a new company. In other industries, this is commonplace, but in football the newco requires a place in the league, and so has to apply for entry or ask for the registration that the old company held to be reassigned, but the administrators have no power over the registration. This is what happened to Leeds United in 2007. A CVA was agreed with the creditors, but a 28-day cooling off period follows the creditors' vote and, at the last minute, HMRC changed their position and blocked the CVA. The assets were then sold to a newco Leeds United set up by Ken Bates". This essential describes what the liquidation process is. Furtehrmore, it quotes a statement made by the administrators of Leeds who also explain that a CVA is the only way for current entity (oldco) to exit administration. The CVA was blocked by HMRC threfore the OldCo entity underwent the liquidation process, which means the assets (or "business & assets" or in some viewpoints the "club") is sold to a NewCo, and the proceeds of the sale is then split between the creditors of the OldCo. Ricky072 (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
And another source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2007/aug/03/newsstory.leedsunited?INTCMP=SRCH Judge Lord Mawhinnie was invovled in meetings with Leeds Newco & KPMG administrators in efforts to resolve the membership transfer from the OldCo to NewCo, he is quoted saying: ""One of the issues [the parties have] been wrestling with is that the administrators have sold to [Bates's] Leeds United 2007 [NewCo] certain assets and liabilities, including Elland Road and the players' contracts,"Ricky072 (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
So have a got this correct: Bates managed to agree a CVA with 75% of creditors for him to be able to buy 'the club', only for HMRC to then submit a legal challenge. Due to this objection the CVA was not official allowed to go ahead. However, the time for the legal process to be resolved would have meant that Leeds would be unable to start the following season so the administrators decided to proceed with the sale of all the assets as the best hope to keep the club alive. The FA objected to this and decided to allow Leeds to start the following season but with a 15 point penalty. Thereafter, HMRC eventually decided not pursue its legal complaint and allowed the matter to have been closed with the Leeds have left administration with an agreed CVA.
If that is the case, there are similarities with the Rangers case, but also major differences. Bottom line, Leeds did get an agreed CVA to leave administration (albeit delayed in full implementation); Rangers did not get an agreed CVA to exit administration - the fundamental difference. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
No, The CVA was abandoned compeltely & the OldCo was "liquidated". I think perhaps you don;t understadn what liquidation actually means. It doesnt mean 'obliterated from existence'. Liquidation means as much as the clubs assets as a possible are sold to raise money for creditors. It means it leaves the OldCo withn othing, no asstets, just an empty shell. When HMRC challenged the CVA they administrators of Leeds scrapped the CVA and sold Leeds to Bates consortium via liquidation. Meaning the OldCo became an empty shell and the money from the proceeds of the sale was spread between creditors. The biggest difference is that with a CVA the OldCo retains the assets and then continues to trade. The assets were sold meaning the OldCo is defunct. In the end HMRC dropped the court action against Leeds Newco & the administrators, meaning the eventually just settled on whatever figure they were due to recieve from the sale of the assets. Ricky072 (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Besides, what is the definition of a 'club', if not the assets and people, compared to a company? CLUB - a group of persons organised for a social, literary, athletic, political, or other purpose: the building or rooms occupied by such a group. COMPANY - a business enterprise. The two are no defined the same because they aren't. Therefore Rangers FC should be treated the same by Wikipedia as the other clubs e.g. Leeds Utd S2mhunter (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
So what if the club decides to be incorporated as a company? Does that not mean that the club is now a company and the company is now the club? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it means the club decides to financially exploit and account for its activity but the club still carriers on its core (athletic) purpose as before. It could later decide to wind up the business side and return to being just a club as it once was; the two have different purposes. S2mhunter (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I take it you have never helped run a football club even at juvenile level then! Part of running a club involves money, be it cost of hiring buses and fund raising to pay those cose, or perhaps at Junior level, taking in some gate receipts and paying modest wages to players. If the club fols with debts it folds whether it has company status or not. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
How patronising, yes I am involved in running a club but we do not have any form of company registered or not, which could be liquidated, we just collect our money and pay as we go. S2mhunter (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There is way, way, way too much original research and synthesis going on here. No one cares what Wikipedia editors make of company law and how it applies to football clubs, and all this blather is swamping what actually matters; what do the sources say? I've made my position clear; sources generally speak of newco Rangers being a refounding of Rangers Football Club, the subject of this article. Talk of a new article is therefore unwarranted. Should reliable sources in future start making a hard-line distinction between the club playing in season 2012-13, from the club that played season 2011-12, then the case can be made then. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2qlOISpN_4 - Charles Green admitting that a Newco holds no History and Tradition--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I think by posting an immature youtube clip followed in the end by a secterian message sums up your contribution to articles concerning Rangers. I request your contributions be removed from both Talk pages & the actual articles. Ricky072 (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Escape Orbit: Your argument is correct, but the conclusion you draw seems faulty to me. Most sources I've seen spoke of the death of the club and the end of its history when HMRC threw out the CVA. As I recall the administrators, fans were desperate to avoid the finality of liquidation precisley because they wanted to retain the old club and its history. If Man United or Liverpool met a similar end then got "relaunched" I think seperate articles would be in order there too. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
So you're saying that if I create my own self-employed company, based on my name, and it goes bust, I would lose all of my individual history on Wikipedia and get a new birthday on the date that I create my next self-employed company, because I am the company? Time to go to bed Superbhoy1888 S2mhunter (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Never said anything like it. Say your names Bomber Alkie Brown and you called your company Bomber Alkie Brown Ltd and they were liquidated, then you couldnt start up another company with the same name, it wouldnt affect you personally as the company is a Legal Entity of its own that would be the whole reason of it becoming a company. The reason Rangers became Ltd and then PLC companies is because they became professional and it would be illegal to recieve and give out payments tax free. Ricky072 whats immature about it? Its Charles Green admitting that a Newco holds no History and Tradition - never noticed anything sectarian in the video either although there were pictures laughing at Rangers death for about 1 second. --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

you tube is not a reliable source so regardless if charles green says it has no histoy is irrevelent here only reliable sources matter hereAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
How can word of mouth from the very person involved in creating Newco Rangers not be a source? Would Jim Traynor need to quote him in a Dailly Record article for it to become a fact?--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
ok so if i post a youtube video saying rangers are really celtic because it is word of mouth it is fine? youtube is not deemed a reliable source it doesnt matter if it is fact or not, yes if there is say daily record article quotiung what charles green says with the video it then be deemed relible because the daily record would unliekly fail reliabiltyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Firstly superboy, it's merely a comment from Charles Green stating that a CVA is a method that preserves the history. It is then followed by a secterian image of the queen with "haha huns". Wikipedia is no a football forum for posting such "banter" or "wind-ups" from Youtube. Ricky072 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, (Although it can be allowed per Wikipedia:YOUTUBE) the video is not being used as a source so not relevant. Also the material is clearly from STV and Charles Green himself so is reliable. And whatever may come after it is irrelevant. Adam4267 (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, posting youtube videos with secterian content is perfectly acceptable. Ricky072 (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Firstly, its not sectarian. Secondly, it is acceptable to post relevant youtube videos on a talk page. Adam4267 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It is secterian, it contains an image at the end with the words 'haha huns' a deragotory term for a Protestant http://nilbymouth.org/history/ "Offensive sectarian language is still used in Scotland on a daily basis, with abusive terms such as “Hun” and “Orange bastard” being used negatively against Protestants (or those perceived to be)".Ricky072 (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Theres nothing sectarian about the words Huns. For something to be considered a sect then it would have to be used solely for that purpose, the words Huns has been used for centuries to describe people. Such as the Scottish calling the Irish huns when the Irish moved to Scotland during the famine, the English calling the Germans huns during WW1 and the Irish calling the English huns at the same time during the Irish War of Independance. The word Huns has always been used to describe people perceived to act like scum for centuries like I said, well before Rangers became known as the Huns, its never been used to describe protestants as far as I know as Catholics can be huns too, I actually know atleast one Catholic Hun.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
By the same token "i know at least 1 person who refers to any percieved protestant as huns". What 1 person does is irrelevent. The term 'hun' is used in both Scotland and Northern Ireland as a derogatory term for a Protestant, it's recognised by Nil-By-Mouth as such (referenced above) and there has also been secterian related convictions in Scotland for the use fo the word. Ricky072 (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Who are Nil By Mouth though, anyone can create a group and say words are racist, sectarian or whatever. No-one has ever been convicted for religious prejudice or hate crimes or anything for using the words Huns. Breach of the peace, but thats nothing to do with the words Huns. You could get done for breach of the peace for calling someone a big whale or just singing in the streets at night. Rangers fans actually got a case to court this year of a Celtic fans banner saying "Huns FC" on it, originally the Rangers fans tried to get the Celtic fans done for Religious prejudice and sectarianism for the Huns FC bit of the banner, but that was thrown out and dropped to just a Breach of the peace as the banner was seen as provocative due to the slogan "Lets go to war" and the graphic of Ibrox on fire. Infact the Celtic fans won the case as they applied proof that "Lets go to war" was actually a quote of Neil Lennon's and that it was unproven what the building on fire was.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Date of formation of rangers 1872 - source, the gallant pioneers, book

Your website has been vandalised by supporters of Celtic football club determined to sabotage your excellent work by claiming that Rangers Football Club, formed 1872, was formed later. It is true that early indications suggested he club had been founder in 1873, but more rent research has confirmed that 1872 is in fact the true date of formation.

In addition, your site has also been vandalised by Celtic supporters suggesting Rangers Football club no longer exists. It would be fair to say that Rangers football club plc is currently in administration and going through a liquidation process, but that relates to the corporate holding company of the club and not e football club itself. angers Football Club, of course, still exists and will play in Scottish Football in the coming season. Consequently, the mischief being carried out by Celtic fans is simp,y a wind up to reer t Rangers Football Club in the past tense. the are don't this because they have always been envious of our position as the worlds most successful club, having won more domestic league titles than any other club in history. they are also song this because they have always objected to Rangers fans ridiculing them over their cover up of the nfamius child abuse acttivities that took place in their boys club and for which the club has never apologised, some 40 years later.

In view of this, I would be grateful if you could update the Rangers Football Club sie to show them as currently playing in Scotland and also update Celtic FC website to make reference t te child abides scandal of the late 1960's and early 1970's . Many thanks Allypaterson (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC) ally Paterson Allypaterson (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers(1872) are dead, time for you to face facts. Also "te child abides" scandal, wasn't anything to do with Celtic. Seems you've had too much Rangers brain washing, I think you'll find that was Celtic Boys Club, who are an Amateur Club and contrary to your thinking arent Celtic - two different Clubs just like Rangers and Sevco.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Note about the current version of the article

Hi, I am the admin who prevented the article from being edited by anyone until a consensus has been formed on the club-vs-company issue.

This is being actively discussed on this page and on the talk page of WikiProject Football, and Andrewcrawford is working on starting a Request for Comment.

As such, it is inappropriate to either revert the page to how it was before, or unprotect it. At the moment there is no consensus, and so the page will not be altered. This is standard practice with an content dispute - I am not in a position to judge the 'correct' version, as the consensus has not been decided - as such, I cannot revert it to the previous version - it could be that the consensus decides the current version is correct, in which case it would be wrong to revert it. If the consensus is that the previous version was correct, it can be reverted to that version by an admin.

Also, please note, I am not the person to contact about this, as I will not be the person who will be judging the consensus here! I protected the page from editing as the result of a valid request, but have no interest in the article itself.

Please do not contact me on this subject, as future communications on this subject will probably be ignored. Feel free to contact me with any other problems (not connected to this issue!) that you may have. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You have followed correct procedures although as is often the case the procedures/rules are deeply flawed and have allowed a grossly controversial, offensive, inaccurate and misleading article to be left on the page to confuse readers. But that is certainly not your fault. Perhaps though we should also have the {{|pp-dispute}} added to specifically warn people about the current version. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Though I happen to diaagree with Britishwatch and feel that the current version is largely accurate and certainly not 'offensive', I think it is reasonable to add {{|pp-dispute}} until this dispute is resolved. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree that the article is 'offensive' however the article has clearly been vandalised. I may go and edit the Wikipedia entries for Leeds, Charlton, Napoli & Fiorentina to fit the same structure as Rangers (having the clubs defined in the past tense, and leading to new pages to coincide with their respective new companies, and entitle them "Newco XXX". What kind of reaction would it recieve if i were to vandalise those pages in such a manner? Ricky072 (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You would be Blocked. Adam4267 (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Therefore Celtic fans should be blocked for the current vandalisation of the RFC page. Ricky072 (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Some people take their football very seriously and care passionately about it, now i know it is not the same but to some people it would be as offensive as going to an article about a person someone cares about and it saying they were dead when they are not. Should football bring out such passion? no, but we all know that across all clubs there are hardcore fans. I believe the current article wording is deliberately provocative and grossly offensive. Offence is most certainly caused when someone claims something is dead when it clearly isnt. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned this about a week ago. While there is an ongoing dispute resolution procedure in process (there clearly is in this case) then the original version of the article should stand until a resolution is reached. Until there is a conclusion to having separate articles or not then this one should not have been changed to a past tense. That change was made without consensus and was/is disruptive. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

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,[9] and the club's assets, including Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park, were bought by Sevco 5088 - a consortium led by Charles Green, a former chief executive of Sheffield United.[10] This company has applied to register with the Scottish Football Association and to participate in the Scottish Premier League.[11]

Please change to In February 2012 Rangers entered administration as a result of a tax dispute with HM Revenue and Customs.[9] On 14 June 2012 the club's Company Voluntary Arrangement was rejected by creditors and the club began the process of liquidation.[10] The club's assets were bought by Newco Rangers who requested that Rangers' Scottish Premier League membership was transfered across to them.[11] This was rejected on 4 July and the new company is now trying to get into the Scottish Football League.[1]

This version more accurately summarises what has happened. The club has not been liquidated, yet. And also removes superfluous information about Charles Green and updates to the SPL vote on 4 July. Also a link is added to the Newco Rangers article. Adam4267 (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic

The 'club' will not be liquidated because it was sold. A more accurate reflection would be that "On June 14 2012 The Rangers Football Club Plc (1899) entered the process of liquidation, whereby Charles Greens consortium purchased Rangers business & assets for £5.5million". Ricky072 (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Business and assets are not the Club. If I sell you all the furniture in my house along with for example any catalogue bills for stuff needing to be paid for still. I am not selling you my house, If I was selling you the house with everything in it it would cost a lot more, just like for the club to be saved it would cost probably atleast £40million, not £5.5million hence why Green got the "furniture" and not the "house".--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Please explain why Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs said: "Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation. So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route." - that clearly says the club can be sold and it has been to the new company. Club and company are two different things. Was HMRC lying? If so why? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Superbhoy clearly have a complete lack of understanding of he process and should remove yourself from the debate. Charles Green purchased every tangible asset he could legally purchase, as did Ken Bates when he purchased Leeds in 2007. To correct your analogy, if you created a company called 'superbhoy property ltd' and purchased a house and furniture, both the house & all the furniture are tangible assets. I coudl either buy from you the company 'superbhoy property ltd', or i could purchase from you the assets (the house and furniture). Ricky072 (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
AS for the house / furniture, your analogy would actually work well if you look at it a slightly different way. The company = the house. The club = a single bit of furniture, perhaps a chest of draws, with the draws being the brand, the stadium, the website etc. Now you can sell that bit of furniture to another person and it is not the same thing as selling the house, you cant sell the house because it has been seized by the government (or in this case liquidated because of the taxman). Another way of looking at it is to think about the company a second. A company can do more than one thing cant it? A company can have a football club, but it could also run a furniture shop down the road. Is that furniture shop part of an integral part of a football club? or is it merely owned by a company that also owns a club? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Britishwatcher, the word "club" is not used in a legal sense there to actually describe what we know as the club. To use it in the legal way meaning the club they would have worded it as The Rangers Football Club PLC ("the Club") on an official document and then when reffering to "the Club" in that document they would be talking about the club in a legal sense. You can look at this on official Rangers documents. I dont have a lack of understanding on the process it seems you do. When something is incorporated into a single entity for the purpose of business transactions, then it is a company. Rangers is a company and they are dying, as a Football Club they are clinically dead as we speak. The Company is the Club also, unless the Club was an asset it could not be bought and sold and considering the Club is the biggest asset of all why has it never been valued in any Rangers Account, equally why has no "Club" ever valued the Club in their Annual Accounts? It's because the Club is the Company its self--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── the problem here is rangers fans dnt want to accept the club might have died, and rival fans dnt want to accept the club might be alive, we use sources as wikipedian it not our job to say wha tis fact or fiction we use soruces and this one for examples backs the claim the club was sold ok here is a source that support the club is alive [2] "The old Rangers is currently in administration and will be liquidated shortly. Charles Green transferred the assets to his newco Gers after buying the club for £5.5million.
Di Stefano wrote: “I’m aware the assets of the company were sold to Charles Green, but I have spoken with the registrar at Companies House that confirms The Rangers Football Club Plc is a company still ‘only in administration’ and is capable of acquisition, transfer and/or assignment." says charles green bought the club and only the plc is in administration, but i can easily coutner that one and give one that says teh club si liquidated so both sides are correct, the best way forward is to put Rangers FC PLC have enter liqudiated processes, but it is unclear if the club transfer to charles green consutrium or if charles green consutrium has formed a new club with both sources, can we agree to sometihng liek that, it means both sie are right and the article is more neutral and has sources to prove it, and when it more clear which is right we amend it is that ok with you all????--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Andrew I'm not quite sure what you are saying there. The old company is in administration as it has not been liquidated yet. The new company owns the assets. What exactly are you trying to say. Adam4267 (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
(EC) But the process is still on going, because the intention is for the old company to rename itself so the new company can take on a new name too. But the new company already owns the club and its assets. That has been transferred already. The HMRC statement clearly says liquidation would not prevent the sale of the club, and that is what has happened. Sources say that is the case. The football club is only dead if the company was dissolved and its assets including the club ceased to exist, but that is not what has happened. The switch has already been made. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)To clarify wha ti mean, Please change to In February 2012 Rangers entered administration as a result of a tax dispute with HM Revenue and Customs.[9] On 14 June 2012 Rangers F.C. PLC Company Voluntary Arrangement was rejected by creditors and the Rangers F.C. PLC began the process of liquidation.[10] The club was bought by charles green consutrium who requested that Rangers' Scottish Premier League membership was transfered across to them.[11] This was rejected on 4 July and the new company is now trying to get into the Scottish Football League. At the moment it is unclear if club was bought[3] or if charles green formed a new club.[4] if we can all agree to this change which states the club might be alive witha source and teh club is dead witha source then we can move forward, if both sides can not agree to this or something similar it shows nither sid eis willing to comprise or accept there right and wrong and that there is sbias here from both sides.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
adam i am saying the sources says the plc is liquidated and the club is liquidated please read the references i have putAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a basic misunderstanding here from contributors as to what liquidation actually means. TRFC plc has underwent the first part in the process of liquidation. The process of liquidation is when assets are sold to give a return to the companies creditors (this transaction has been completed). Officially though, the old company is still under the control of the administrators as they deem to recover as much funds as possible for the creditors, this process will include a lengthy court case against Collywer & Bristow, whom they are sueing for £25m. The result from the First Tier Tax Tribunal (the big tax case) will also effect the old company (TRFC Plc). It is likely that TRFC Plc will remain in a state of administration for potentially years (depending on court proceedings). Once all these matters are settled, the company will be officially 'liquidated' which means liquidators will take control of the company & then disperse whatever funds are available from 1. the club's sale to Charles Green & 2. proceeds from a potential lawsuit against C&B. Ricky072 (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
provide yoru legal source for this or it just original research and your pov, i ask if people coudl agree to my proprosal or not

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In February 2012 Rangers entered administration as a result of a tax dispute with HM Revenue and Customs.[9] On 14 June 2012 Rangers F.C. PLC Company Voluntary Arrangement was rejected by creditors and the Rangers F.C. PLC began the process of liquidation.[10] The club was bought by charles green consutrium who requested that Rangers' Scottish Premier League membership was transfered across to them.[11] This was rejected on 4 July and the new company is now trying to get into the Scottish Football League. At the moment it is unclear if club was bought[5] or if charles green formed a new club.[6] can you all please respond to this to say if yout hink it is neutral and nonbiased, it says rangers fc plc because there is no one arguing it is not in the process of liqudiation, but it says the club si sold to charles green because a source that is relible say it and ther emany other, also it says charles green has formed anew club as there is many sources that confirm this to, the baove is not the final version it needs ot made better but is the basic of the change we should be requestingAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes i agree with that Andrew. Liquidation is when liquidators disperse cash recovered from the administrators. It is therefore the administrators job to get the best price for the club & retrieve as much funds as posible via legal proceedings. Once the administrators recover as much funds as they can, the 'administration' process ends and the 'liquidation' process begans. Ricky072 (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Andrew but how does that source to the sun suggest that the club was bought. it specifically says the assets of the company were sold to Charles Green Adam4267 (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
"The old Rangers is currently in administration and will be liquidated shortly. Charles Green transferred the assets to his newco Gers after buying the club for £5.5million.

Di Stefano wrote: “I’m aware the assets of the company were sold to Charles Green, but I have spoken with the registrar at Companies House that confirms The Rangers Football Club Plc is a company still ‘only in administration’ and is capable of acquisition, transfer and/or assignment." that is quote from the sun article, i did say read it., but the other sources says charles green has formed anew club and the old one is deadAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"At the moment it is unclear if club was bought[19] or if charles green formed a new club" - if that is to be added, it needs to be done at the same time as the past tense is removed from this article. At present the article boldly states the club is dead, and that so is the rivalry with celtic etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

that has to be agreed after lets take it one step at a time and get the article neutral and by consensusAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah I was confused to what you were talking about befor, I understand now. Rangers FC was a public limited company, Charles Green bought the assets of that company and has now formed a new company. The only way you can "buy a football club" is to buy the company (Which is what Craig Whyte did last year). Charles Green bought the assets which is different. That article in the Sun (and also the HMRC statement) both used the term "club" to refer to the footballing assets of the company. Adam4267 (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
adam there is more sources that say similar things, but to say teh sun means the club is it assesst is original research, this is the problem the sources are not clear what is the truth, hence why i am saying we should put the request for edit in to say something simialr to wha ti have put in italic that way we are not saying the club is alive but we are not sayign it is dead, but we are saying the plc is withouta doubt getting liquidated, the uncertain remains on whether teh club remians or is liqudiated as wikipedian we cant say the source is worng or means this or that, we have to go with wha tit says and it says he bought the club and assessts, the assesst coudl easily mean things liek ibrox etc and they then say club seems weird to say both but we cant say it is wrong or right, but i have also put a source that says the club is liqudiated so i am trying to plae both sides of the argument by saying it is unclear and amke the statement nutral and unbiased--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
If you put the opinion of every tabloid journalist in you'll get a terrible article. If you actually look at that Sun article the lawyer (an expert) says the assets of the company were sold. Whereas it is the Sun "journalist" who (cearly using a colloquialism) says the club (meanig footballing assets) was sold to Green. In any event what the lawyer says takes precedence over any journalist, never mind a Sun "journalist" who could barely be considered an expert in tying his own shoes. However, they are actually saying the same thing - the Sun "journalist" just says it in a more idiot friendly way. Not using woreds that might be confusing to their readers, like "assets" and "company". Adam4267 (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you believe Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is more informed than a sun journalist or a single lawyer/expert? If their opinion matters then please answer my question directly under this. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The sun article says teh club was boguth so why ar eyou arguing agianst it? HMRC will be more informed than say teh sun, as witht eh insolvnecy/liquidators, but it does nto mean the source where the hmrc says the club is bought trumps the rest, only when we can get say 80% or more sources saying the club is bought and alive or the club is dead can we say we can ingore or sources, jsut now it is about 60-40, please read up on wikipeida consensus, reliable sources, original resarch, pov, npov to namea few you do nto udnerstand the process of wikipedia, it is not here to make judgement only report wha tthe soruces say, no matter how much you dislike it sources say teh club is dead jsut as much as they say the club is alive and has been bought so wikipedica can not ingore that. i agree with you on thing the current article is wrong and needs update but not the way you want it has to reflect the club oudl be dead or it could be alive, and the bias comments on the page are removedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
please explain why Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs said the sale of the club can go ahead if the company went into liquidation? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
i never said they never it one of the source i have that says the club was sold but i have a lot of sources that say teh club was sold but a lot of sources that say the club is liquidated, wikipeida isnt about what you or i think as that is original resaerch it is about wha tthe sources say, and the soruces say bothAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Until the 4th word of the article is corrected the whole article is a pile of nonsense which people should avoid reading to not be misled or confused. I cant support the change you propose as i believe the club has clearly been sold to the new company, but even if it was a sentence i could entirely agree with i would oppose the change until the grossly offensive and inaccurate changes that were made without consensus are reversed because there would be no point.BritishWatcher (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
that isa very biased reason to be opposed for, because the rest of the article would be out of context, so rather than fix one bit you want it all fix at once when that is impossible because we wont geta conesensus on it any time soon and since sources say both are correct we wont get one either, the sentance i have put says both arguments are right which they are.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
if that sentence was added it would contradict the 4th word of the article which should say IS. I honestly do not sse how a single sentence even if it was fully agreeable would in any way improve the article. It would simply cause more confusion. I would support a revived first paragraph to the introduction that clearly states the whole position is not yet clear, but not a single line. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
as you have alreayd pointed out the article is completely confusion jsu tnow the way it is, make one sentance agreeable will not change that no, but it is the start to fixing the article, then if we agree on that we can then look to make a a agreed chane to the opening paragraph that is in disptue as well, i am saying lets take it a small step at a time rather thana big one, that way we rebuild it to agreeable format slowly and make the aritlce correct, yes a sentance sayign the siutition is not clear further up is needed to, again lets take one sentance at a time, this is the setenace adam propused to which i reject because it is not neutral or agreeable so i have propused one that is satting both sides ie unclearAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Also can you please point me to a source that explicitly states that the club has not been bought? A source saying the assets were bought does not deny the club was too, that is simply an assumption and not recognising some use different terms. This probably explains why HMRC stated very firmly that the club can be sold and that the new company could buy its assets. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
i will need to go thorugh all the sources that say the club is liquidated but i will get back to you on tha tone.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
If editors have reliable sources that say that Green's consortium has bought Rangers FC (- by reliable I am excluding anyone with a financial interest in promoting that version of events) - I would be interested to read them. My understanding is that Green's consortium just bought the 'assets and business interests' of Rangers FC rather than Rangers FC itself. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
[7] - "Green Consortium Buys Rangers Football Club" BritishWatcher (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That explicitly says on the first line Charles Green's consortium has completed the purchase of the business and assets of Rangers. I don't know whether this is an honest mistake or you are maliciously attempting to misrepresent facts, but you really need to try and stop this blatant POV BW. Adam4267 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 : I guess the URL is wrong then.. "green-consortium-buys-rangers-football-club" and the title "Green Consortium Buys Rangers Football Club", and the second sentence says "Green emerged as the frontrunner to assume control of the financially-crippled Scottish Premier League club in the wake of its administration troubles". Instead of claiming i have a point of view, i would like someone to explain to me where there is a source stating Green did NOT buy the club, or where it says that business and assets of rangers do not = the club. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Still also looking for an answer on if people think Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs was lying or wrong, when they said the club could be sold despite the previous company going into liquidation. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
He did buy the club (i.e the saleable assets) He did not buy the company. Although the club is a company, in this context the term club means "assets and business interests". However, because of SFA rules he was not able to buy all the assets (League membership). Whereas if he had bought the company (like Whyte did), even if he transfered the assets to a new company, then he would have been able to own the league membership. Adam4267 (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou! I agree with He did buy the club (i.e the saleable assets) He did not buy the company. I absolutely believe that is the case. Its the next bit where it goes wrong.. The club is a company.. if another company can buy the club, how is the club the company. Is the club with two companies now? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec)No but in this case the word 'club' is being used as a colloquialism to mean "assets and business of Rangers". Green can buy the club (assets and interests) but he cannot buy the club (company). Its the double meaning of club which is confusing. If he had bought the club (company) like Whyte did then he would have owned the league membership. However, because he bought the club (saleable assets) he does not own the league membership. Adam4267 (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is saying Green owns the former company or has any right to an automatic position in any league. But you said yourself, he bought the club. The club now belongs to an entirely new company formed this year. The club existed before the company was incorporated in 1899, and it exists today under the new company. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you agree with my above comment, if so do you agree the article should not talk in past terms as if the club is dead, because its not dead.. as green bought it. This article is about a football club founded in 1872. Its not about the company that was incorporated in 1899, something that is not even mentioned anywhere in the article because this is about club, not company. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Although I don't entirely agree with what you're saying there, I think your underlying point is that there should only be one Rangers page. Something I've already said I agree with. Adam4267 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
This 'Green's consortium bought the club' stuff is clearly nonsense. Let me use a little logic to explain why: Once Green's consortium had bought 'the assets and business interests', the one obvious thing that was not part of the transaction was the SFA membership which the 'oldco' retained. However, since only clubs can be members of the SFA - and the SFA have not moved to expel the 'oldco' from membership - this 'empty shell' oldco must still be recognised as 'a club' by the SFA. If it is 'a club', the only club it could be is the club that formerly had the legal identity of Rangers FC. Therefore, if the company the administrator controls still holds 'the club that formerly had the legal identity of Rangers FC', what Green's consortium bought was all the things needed to run a club, but not 'the club' itself. Green is now seeking run a club using all the assets and business interests he bought from Rangers FC PLC, and has applied for membership of the SFA for his new club. Specifically he wants his club to replace 'the club formally known as Rangers FC'. So in summary, Green's consortium didn't buy the club - just everything needed to run a club, and he wants to call that club Rangers FC, and hopes that nobody will notice that it is actually a new club to replace the old club that is being liquidated. That is why we need two article on wikipedia - one for the original club, and one for the reborn club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything you say up until and hopes that. Just because it is technically a new club doesn't mean it needs a new page on Wikipedia. Although I agree it is a completely new entity, it still has the identity of Rangers FC. Meaning that it can still be on the Rangers FC page because it is the sam identity. Of course it should be mentioned that they reformed but to put it simply - a football club playing in Scotland, at Ibrox, in blue, is Rangers FC. Regardless of its ownership. Adam4267 (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Question for those who claim a club and company are the same thing?

For those who say the club and company are entirely the same thing and use that to conclude that the company going into liquidation means the football club ceases to exist, i have a question. If a company owns a football club and a furniture store, is that furniture store an integral part of a football club because its owned by the company? or is it simply a furniture store owned by a company that owns a football club? And this is a genuine question that i am unsure on and would like to know... Can a company own two football clubs? (not necessarily in the same league or country). But if it is possible for a single company to own two football clubs, would the second club become the same club as the first club? or just maybe.. would it be one company owning two separate clubs? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not support either the club and company are the same or the club is not part of the company, but to answer your question, i think fifa would have something to say with someone owning two clubs i think, but yes in thoery it is possible a company to own two clubs and n0o the company going out of business would nto mean both clubs ceast exists ans the company is effectily a holding company, but wikipeida is not about original research and wha ti have said is that original researchAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, i agree this sort of issue does not determine how the article should be handled as its not to do with sources, was just an attempt to show the two would have to be separate clubs, because the alternative simply makes no sense at all. FIFA may have a rule, but if they didnt.. it would demonstrate how the two things are separate. You said you do not support the view that "The Club is not part of the company", it was part of the company from 1899 to June 14th 2012, but the club was then sold to the new company. something HMRC gave explicit approval of in their statement. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Dont play in Scottish Premier League

I think its importen to explede wy they not play in Scottish Premier League.Epicwolfman (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Leeds United Set Precedent

Leeds United, Bates Takeover, Administration & Liquidation

I've been researching the complexed administration & subsequent exit that took place at Leeds United in an effort to establish a precedent in the debate surrounding Rangers F.C. I also feel that the Leeds United Wikipedia page could document this episode with greater clarity.


1. Bates Takover 2005 & 'Roman Heavies' Liquidation 2006


2. Administration


3. Liquidation & continuation as the same club


Feel free to answer the above questions put forward relating to the uncertainty surrounding the Leeds takeover, corporate structure & administration/liquidation processes.

I would argue that the this sets precedent for the Rangers situation, as neither club was able to achieve a CVA, instead, a purchase of 'the business and assets' took place and was placed into a newly formed company in both instances. How the situations were handled afterwards by their respective governing bodies has varied however, with Leeds United being granted their membership transfer, while Rangers were not. Ricky072 (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't see much difference in either situation. What I find strange is this sudden effort to do a new page for newco clubs. BadSynergy (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Because i's 'Rangers' who have such intense rivalry with other fans in Scotland (Aberdeen, Celtic, etc..). I'm confident that I can establish on Wikipedia the difference between a club to have underwent a 'business and asset' purchase via Newco & a 'phoenix club'. When a club purchases the asstes from the OldCo it purchase the legal identity of the club, such is the case of Leeds, Rangers, Napoli, Fiorentina, etc. Currently Wikipedia is trying to document Rangers a 'phoenix club' such as Halifax Town & Chester. The factual difference is that a 'phoenix club' does not purchase any of the assets from the OldCo, therefore does not own the legal identity of the Old Club. It therefore has to form a new company AND a new club with a new name & new badge. A phoenix club cannot legally represent itself as the same club as before. A Newco club such as Rangers, Leeds, Fiorentina & Napoli CAN. This is very clear and precedent has been set for sports clubs on this issue, i'm therfore confident this can be recognised and Rangers documented appropriatly on Wikipedia Ricky072 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thank you ricky i will read thorugh this and add the information to the request for commentAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thank you andrew, the above information & research should be suffient to establish that Rangers F.C should be documented in the same manner as Leeds United A.F.C on Wikipedia. Regards Ricky072 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
It could be Ricky I did laugh a little when I seen superbhoys newco rangers page hopefully common sense will prevail BadSynergy (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Im compelled to agree with you although there is other instances where this hasn't been the case. However until the naming issues and licences have actually been sorted we cant actually one hundred percent say this will be the case or to be honest they are a separate phoenix club. To be honest Rangers aren't actually a club at the moment as they don't hold any football licence, well the oldco unless I'm mistaken still hold the SFA licence but have no way of actually playing. I was about to say hopefully we will no more on friday after the SFL vote takes place but i actually doubt that will be the case. Is the Newco page actually that bad gave up looking at it because it was massively full of pov.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed EW, the 'Newco' Page is highly prejudicial & bias. It is linked to by clicking on 'Sevco 5088' on the main Rangers article. Sevco is a company. Yet you are directed to the page which represents itself as a football club. This page should be a short description of the company Sevco Scotland Ltd and not present in te structure of a football club (if it should even exist at all).Ricky072 (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I tried reverting the page back to original state as there was no discussion or consensus on turning it to past tense but was reverted back by Fishiehelper. I know I am still new to wikipedia but even I know your supposed to discuss on talk page before changing an article. BadSynergy (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Why Leeds and not Darlington?, Darlington is the most similar to Rangers as neither Club could transfer or "keep" their membership to their New Clubs, unlike Rangers and Darlington Leeds were simply able to pass registration across and be recognised as the same Club under the English FA. New Rangers and New Darlington both had to apply to get into the Leagues. Darlington 1883 and Darlington F.C.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

'The FA ruled that the club be demoted to step five of the pyramid, and as the former club no longer exists would need to change their name.' How is that similar to Rangers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadSynergy (talkcontribs) 19:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Because New Rangers couldnt use the same name either. Thats why they have asked Duff and Phelps to change Original Rangers' name to Rangers FC 2012, so that they can rename New Rangers as Original Rangers old name. If Original Rangers kept their name, then New Rangers couldnt have used them.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Your confusing 'company name' with 'club name'. Sevco own the righs to the club name 'Rangers FC'. Ricky072 (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Companies House spokesperson told BBC Scotland: "Sevco 5088 would not be able to apply to change its name to 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd' until either the original company is fully dissolved, a process which can take about a year to complete, or the receivers give the go-ahead for the name change to take place.

"From a regulations standpoint, once the receivers or the liquidators/administrators for the current PLC agree to a name change, Sevco 5088 could then apply to change its name to 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd'. "If they apply without following this procedure, systems are in place to flag up names which are too similar." Article 10.7 of the Scottish FA's Articles of Association states that the name of a club cannot be changed without SFA board approval, while Article 74.2 states that a club's name cannot be changed to anything linked with sponsorship. The Scottish Premier League has no specific regulations regarding the naming of clubs or their parent companies. As of today there has no mention of changing a club name so again I fail to see the similarity with Darlington BadSynergy (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a good bit of work Ricky072. One point I should add, which may (or may not) be relevant was the justification for Bates having to acquire the assets and business interests: I believe that having won the CVA vote, only to see HMRC lodge a legal challenge, the reality facing Bates was that if he then waited for the legal process to either uphold or dismiss the HMRC legal challenge, Leeds United would lose their place in the league and end up bankrupt. Therefore he could have potentially found himself in a situation where an agreed CVA to save Leeds United was upheld by the courts, but the waiting for that court judgement prevented their salvation! Faced with this, he felt he had no option but to go ahead in the way he did and plead his case to the League to have the share in the league transferred from oldco to newco. Under these particular, and highly unusual circumstances, the League allowed the transfer but thought it appropriate to deduct 15 points as a penalty for technically not emerging from administration by means of an agreed CVA. (I'm not sure but I seem to recall that following this, HMRC eventually dropped their objections and Bates acted as though the agreed CVA was in place, paying creditors etc - but I'm not totally sure.)

Anyway, there are differences between the Leeds United case and that of Rangers FC:

Firstly, Bates did get an agreed CVA for taking Leeds United out of administration whereas Rangers FC didn't - Bates was then prevented from delivering his CVA by court action.

Secondly, it could be argued that Bates had no choice but to take over the day to day running of the club by acquiring the 'assets and business' as to wait for the legal process would have killed the club (even if he eventually won in court): this was different from the Rangers situation where Green struck an agreement with the administrators to purchase the assets and business of Rangers FC in the event that his proposed CVA was rejected. By doing this, he made it clear to the creditors that there was no possibility of him coming back with a more generous CVA proposal, or of another bidder being able to offer a more generous CVA, in the case of rejection of the first CVA proposal.

Thirdly, 'sporting integrety': every case of a club going into administration is seen as 'inappropriate conduct' in the sense that clubs have often been benefitting from signing players when they could not afford either the fees or wages, and obtained a sporting advantage unfairly. That is why clubs are punished for going into administration by having points deducted. Once in administration, it is expected that clubs should leave administration by means of an agreed CVA. Clubs which followed this rule carried on without further penaly, history intact. Generally clubs that didn't, and were liquidated, had to start as 'new' clubs. Leeds United 'got away' with coming out of administration by buying the club's 'assets and business' because of the particularly unique circumstances in their case - and that led to an additional penalty of 15 points deducted. but the same club carrying on. Rangers are not in a particularly unique situation like Leeds United were. Rangers proposed CVA was rejected - not agreed and then blocked by legal action. What Green's consortium has done is essentially an attempt to 'ditch debt' without getting an agreed CVA. Should Rangers FC be allowed to 'get away' with not being liquidated like other clubs have, merely because they have chosen not to exit via an agreed CVA? Would that not be a form of rewarding cheating?

In summary, I don't believe Leeds United sets a precedent for Rangers FC because of the unique nature of the Leeds United case. I think a better precedent would be Halifax Town AFC who couldn't manage to get an agreed CVA, were then liquidated and reformed as FC Halifax Town, starting a few leagues lower in the English pyramid as a 'new' club. (Of course, under FA rules they have had to adopt a slightly different name but they were playing in the same ground, for the same fans who supported the 'brand' 'Halifax Town'.)

Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

But Charles Green DID try to exit via a CVA which HMRC blocked. Therefore his vehicle was then to purchase the business and asstes. Perhaps your right, maybe the footballing authorites were lenient on them because they 'almost' got a CVA through, but the matter of fact is that both consortiums purchased the clubs (or business and asstes depending on your pov) through a liquidation/newco process. Halifax does not offer precedent because it's a'Phoenix club'. LEt me explain what a 'Phoenix club' is. A Phoenix club does not purchase the assets from the OldCo, therefore it has no legal right to represent itself as the same club, it cannot use the same 'club' name as before, nor can it use the same badge, the same website etc... There are 3 possible roads for a club to go down when in administration. 1. Exit via CVA (e.g Motherwell) and continue under the same company. 2. A Newco purchases the assets from the OldCo which is liquidated (Rangers & Leeeds). 3. The club is completely wound up, including the name & intellectual property. Supporters groups start a 'phoenix club' under a new company & a slightly different 'club name'. (e.g Halifax, chester). I hope that explains the difference Ricky072 (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ricky I wasnt confusing Legal name with Trademarked names. Both had to be changed before Rangers go into Liquidation for New Rangers to use them. Hence why Rangers are changing their Legal name to Rangers FC 2012 and why they sold the Trademarked names.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
No, both dont have to change. 'Rangers F.C' and the club crest badge was property of oldco, now owned by newco. Ricky072 (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ricky072 - a basic difference: Bates got over a 75% vote for his CVA - HMRC then tried to challenge that in court. Green's proposed CVA didn't get 75%. That's one significant difference. In the first case, the CVA was approved but the time to deal with the court case would have killed the club even if Bates eventually won against the HMRC technical objection. In Green's case, he lost the CVA vote and chose to exercise an agreement to purchase the 'assets and business interests' rather than try to come up with an improved offer that could have achieved an agreed CVA. Bates at least was trying to go through the correct procedure and was only held up by a legal challenge whereas Green was agreeing plans to buy the assets and business interests for only £5.5M if the CVA was rejected at the time he was offering only £8M for a CVA. One case could be viewed as a genuine attempt to follow an acceptable route out of administration whereas the other looks like an attempt to get the club or its assets and 'dump the debt' on the very cheap, one way or another. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishie, with all due respect it seems almost as if you are 'making excuses' to fit your 'point of view' without fairly assessing the facts in this case. Part of Bates "75%" was that 1 creditor completely wrote off debt of around £17m and HMRC flagged this up as being dodgy (potential collusion between Bates and creditor to pass the CVA), and this was 1 of thier reasons for objection. Bates original offer was 1p/£ then 8p/£ (meaning he wanted to 'dump' (in your words) up to 99% of the debt). But these are all 'reasons why' and you yourself are making exceptions why you think it's OK for Leeds to retain identity via a liquidation process, but not Rangers. It's almost like 2 students failing an exam, yet you are looking for 'exceptions' or 'excuses' why 1 student should recieve a pass anyway, but the other should not because you dislike the other 1. Lets try to deal only in undisputable facts & not point-of-view. The facts are:

  • Leeds UAFC Ltd did not exit administration via a CVA
  • Leeds UAFC Ltd then sold its business and assets via liquidation to NewCo Leeds
  • The EFL granted the transfer of membership from Leeds OldCO to NewCO but imposed 15 point penalty
  • The Rangers FC Plc did not exit administration via a CVA
  • The Rangers FC Plc then sold its business and assets via liquidation to Newco Rangers
  • The SPL refused to transfer the share
  • Halifax Town was given a winding-up order by HMRC and was 'wound up' in court
  • There was no sale of the 'business and assets' to a new co
  • Supporters groups formed a new phoenix club with a different club name, badge, etc... and has no legal link to the old club or old company as they did not purchase the assets.

Those are the undsiputable facts. Yet somehow you maintain that Hailfax is precedent for Rangers, not Leeds? Even though Halifax did not purchase the business and assets. That is the most important point in the whole debate - that because the NewCo's purchased the business and assets, some people & media outlets percieve the 'busines and assets' to mean 'the club', even if that is not your perception, another undisputable fact is that by 'purchasing the business and assets' you have purchased the legal rights to trade as, & maintain the same legal identity as the club. Halifax did not do this. Ricky072 (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Celtic voted no to Rangers' SPL bid to 'protect the integrity' of Scottish football". Daily Mail. 4 July 2012. Retrieved 10 July 2012.