Jump to content

Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

The company and the Club - same definition according to Administrators

Thanks to Ricky072 for posting this. As can be seen in the list of definitions, The company and Club are both defined as being the same thing - Rangers Football Club PLC (in administration). Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

indeed, they refer to the club as the company, before later explaining the business and assets, and most improtantly the history is sold to the newco, which the administrator explains, 'the club moves out of the old company, and into the new company'.[1] At no point does the document state that the 'club' cannot be broken apart from, or be moved out of the company. IF one were to take such an opinion, then even a simple corporate restructure would be imposible without creating an enitrely new club. Ricky072 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Why? WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The company and the Club - separate definitions according to the SFA, HMRC, etc.

Perhaps we can stop reiterating that debate exists among a variety of groups and individuals not vested with the authority to define what is and is not a scottish football club within the SFA? Duff and Phelps are required to have a handle on corporate law. For them to redefine the nature (and history) of an SFA member club in contradiction with the SFA itself is just a conceptual breach - an operational misuse of the term 'club.' it's also not at all evident that they are attempting to make any sort of lasting pronouncement on that matter, as Ricky 072 indicated above. Still, as for the fact that various non-authoritative groups have various opinions on the club/company distinction, this is already common knowledge. 173.81.158.246 (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is, we can only reflect what is in the relevant independent sources. We can lament that the national newspapers or the BBC etc. aren't as intelligent as us, or are operating to some nefarious agenda, or are "tarriers". BUT we can't simply ignore that all of them are reporting Green's newco as a new club: WP:VNT. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Have you managed to come up with a reason why HMRC would lie about the fact the club could be sold dispute liquidation of the company and evidence that is not what happened? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
What? Most third party sources are clear that the club was liquidated. I'm saying we should reflect that. The trouble with self published, "official" primary sources is that they are much less reliable, for reasons which ought to be obvious. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
So why did HMRC say the club could be sold despite the old company going into liquidation? BritishWatcher (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
To mollify bereaved supporters? To deter "social unrest"? Who cares? Unless we've got a decent quality third-party source supporting this, then we're wasting our time on WP:OR. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? Third-party reports of the SFA defining Rangers FC as being coterminous with oldco rangers don't exist. You're asking for something nonexistent. Why? What are you doing this for? Just let it out. If you're suggesting that it's up to blogs and STV to define the attributes - including previous honors and sanction able offenses - of SFA members, you're not going to fool anyone here, partisan or not. We need third-party sources to refer to when documenting most things. We don't need a third-party source to document the way the Encyclopedia Britannica defines X. It's less error-fraught to cite the encyclopedia itself - for reasons that are obvious. 173.81.158.246 (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Cladvia attempts to sidetrack the discussion again. Thanks! This distraction appeared productive for a second, but we really shouldn't assume third-parties more reliable on reporting the exact contents of an official, published source than the official source, right? And that's what's being questioned here. Is Rangers' history continuous in the eyes of the association that rules on a club's historical features? Apparently so. Westvirginia63 (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
But that's neither here nor there, because third-party independent reports also describe the pending SFA sanctions as a case of the SFA apparently penalizing newco Rangers for the oldco's crimes. Nor are there reports that the SFA or SFL have yet stripped any awards from Rangers. The idea that there are independent reports of the SFA treating sevco as operators of a previously nonexistent football club with no history is a figment in the imagination of at least one rather desperate 'neutral.'173.81.158.246 (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Everything that Clavdia has commented on in these posts is true, though? I am sure the fact that all of you are Rangers fans is just a massive coincidence. Look at things objectively guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andevaesen (talk • contribs) 10:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
And what about the fact two of the 3 main editors who are blocking reform at present have posted either a rant and a link to a celtic fans forum, or have posted a sectarian video. I cant believe that the only people in the world who view this as still a football club are rangers fans. The sources, and the multitude of precedents on wikipedia in the past shows that these articles are presently grossly inaccurate. And we have sadly been going round and round in circles for weeks. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Have you looked at the video with neil Doncaster posted in section SFA sanctions. where he clearly states they are an existing club. Oh and for the record I'm a Hearts fan.E W 14:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok so Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs issued a false statement in the hope of appeasing rangers fans and preventing social unrest. Now it is all clear.. i guess we have been wasting our time and the articles are indeed correct. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I live in the US and I've never been to a Scottish football match in my life. I'm a Cincinnati Reds fan. Incidentally, my club believes erroneously that the current franchise was founded in 1869, making it the oldest still-existing professional sports team in the Americas. I would love for that to be true. It's not. Check out my club's talk page, and you won't find me fighting consensus there. MLB takes the historically accurate view that my club's history begins in 1881, and I accept that position, as they're the authority looked to for such decisions about its member teams, and because its judgment in this case is in accordance with sourced historical facts. My interest in this page came about through the realization that Hibernian have been through a late-19th century death and rebirth very similar to Cincinnati's. I was interested in the fact that they include their pre-bankruptcy history, whereas the Reds don't. The SFA recognizes their oldest league honors. The MLB does not recognize my club's supposed oldest titles. I'm comfortable with that. I'm just arguing that it's silly to make an exception here in Rangers' case just because so many people would love to see them die. Granted, I'm more distant from this subject from others commenting here. But I will say that Rangers seem to be much more hated than loved, and the club's actions in the past perhaps justify that hatred. I just don't think such things should animate Wikipedia editors to break their own rules - i.e. ignoring relevant primary sources and the third-party sources which support them - in order to pacify those who hate this club. It's hard to imagine why else we have an exceptional, inconsistent approach to this page at the moment. There's no excuse for maintaining an incorrect article. Westvirginia63 (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It was a Celtic editor who started this whole mess if you remember by changing this article without consensus, creating a new team page and then trying to edit Rangers players clubs to Sevco Scotland. I could easily have started editing articles to suit my POV but I didn't. I reverted the Rangers article once to put it back to its original layout as consensus hadn't been reached and it was changed back. Instead I have been attempting to post relevant sources and took part in Afd's etc. I will say though that certain editors keep disagreeing with sources and their reasons are always the same, that it doesn't agree with what they think. That is why a few weeks back I said it would take an SFA statement to end this and it looks like one defining one might be on the way. BadSynergy (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This SFA statement supports the argument that they view it as the same club "Sevco Scotland Ltd bought Rangers Football Club PLC’s share in the SPL and membership of the Scottish FA as part of their acquisition of assets. Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements." http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10204. I suppose this is what the Administrators meant by the newco buying the 'history', as you get the good i.e. continuity of the club's identity, but also the bad i.e. the associated punishments of the oldco S2mhunter (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the authorities have said as much and if Green accepts the oldco's punishments it will be clear that it is a continuation of the same club. BadSynergy (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Any punishment is attached to the SFA membership, not the individual club which happens to own it at that point in time. It;s completely irrelevant in any case. If Rangers FC (IA) had moved to England, they would have had to have relinquished their SFA membership. Would this have meant that they lost their history? An SFA membership does not denote history in any way, shape, or form. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is the same club

Rangers are still known as the same club by SFA, SPL etc. They are getting punnishe by SFA for old clubs faults. This would not happen if it was a different club. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18873231 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talk • contribs) 14:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The punishment is attached to the SFA membership which was formerly held by Rangers FC(IA), and would apply to any new club which chose to apply for membership transferral. It is not attached to any specific club, only to the holders of that particular membership, whichever club that might be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.18.172 (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
You are confused by club and company, the two things are different thanks. The club and its assets were bought by the new company which is also seeking to hve its old membership of SFA transferred over too. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No, is the case of Rangers FC (IA), the club operated as a plc prior to entering into liquidation. Unless someone has managed to wrest the shares from Craig Whyte and come to an agreement with the clubs creditors, then Rangers FC (IA) have not been bought by anyone. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
That made no sense Rangers want their old companies share transferred to the new company. A condition of that it seems is accepting the old companies responsibilities. Any new club applying to SFA could not transfer Rangers' share because it would be just that, a new club. Once again people's POV coming into this the SFA are quite clear on this. http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/111126-rangers-league-place-at-risk-as-scottish-fa-insist-signing-ban-must-stand/BadSynergy (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not a share, it's a membership. Shares, by their very definition are stock of a limited company. This concerns the transfer of an SFA membership from one club to another. What on Earth makes you think that there are any barriers to any club applying for the membership, which was until recently, granted to Rangers FC (IA)? You could make an application for it yourself if you like, anyone can. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
So when the SFA constantly refer to transferring a companies share, in your mind it means club? BadSynergy (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll

Is rangers football club a football club that will play in division 3 in a few weeks time, or was it a football club that no longer exists and should be referred to in past tense? (this is not a binding vote so any attempt to stack it with new accounts or ips would be pointless and against the rules). BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers is a football club - and the article should be corrected to reflect this.

The sources clearly show that Rangers is a football club still that will play in the 3rd division. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The more recent sources are coming to agreement on this and the sooner we know if SFA membership will be transferred over the better. BadSynergy (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What relevance do you believe the SFA membership transfer to have? It doesn't denote anything, other than of being a member of the SFA.

I think TheLightBlue puts it quite well below. I am not a Rangers supporter and I am not uncritical of aspects of their tradition, but I recognise that love them or loathe them they are a Scottish institution and it's going to take more than a financial crisis to make them go away. Whatever the legal and procedural niceties in practice most people in Scotland are perceiving them as the same club. The will continue to be called Rangers, play at Ibrox, retain most of the supporters and staff. As has been pointed out, in similar cases we have the one article. In the few cases where we have a separate article about a club which emerged in place of an old one e.g. Gretna 2008 F.C., Airdrie United F.C. the discontinuity was rather greater than normal. Also, when they start playing next season everybody will call them "Rangers" not "Newco Rangers", most references to "Rangers" in the papers and pub discussions will refer to the present team, so following WP:COMMONNAME if we do have separate articles we would have to call the article about the new team "Rangers F.C." and have another at something like "Oldco Rangers", I think most people would see the artificiality of this. The SFL press statement calls them "Rangers F.C.", I think this confirms my point. [1] I also note that we have a single article on Clydebank F.C., even though there may not be much continuity between the various clubs which have used this name over the years. PatGallacher (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Article should be reverted to present tense while a dispute is ongoing. Monkeymanman (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers was a football club - and the article should continue to refer to the club in the past tense.

Discussion

The debate has been going on for weeks now and there is no resolution in sight, several editors continue to refuse to allow any change to the article. The current version had NO consensus and was put in the article and locked in when the page was locked without consensus. The SFL have decided rangers will play in the 3rd division, unless the SFA suddenly decide they are going to prevent rangers from continuing there is no reason why the article should not be fixed. It maybe should not be implemented till we have that final confirmation, but we need to get this straw poll under way now so that we have a general idea of how people feel about what should happen. If the SFA stop rangers from playing then clearly it would change things. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this poll is a good idea - Wikipedia is about consensus, not random polling. Anyone can recruit a large amount of people to vote on a certain side of this poll. It won't determine who's correct. We're well on our way toward reaching the point where only one side of this argument remains fully coherent. With respect I'd ask you to consider deleting this poll and continuing to contribute productively to the debate as you have been. Cheers 173.81.158.246 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

we have tried getting consensus for a couple of weeks now, a small number of editors continue to block any progress. we need to see where people stand rather than the same 3 editors in particular continuing to refuse to let the article be fixed. I wont remove this poll, and if we cant do a poll this needs to go to an admins noticeboard, because this deadlock cannot be allowed to continue endlessly with such inaccurate articles misleading readers. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes IP your absolutely correct. Wikipedia is about consensus. Thats why the original version of the article (without the past tense) should be reverted to while discussions are ongoing about the future of the article. That edit was forced through without consensus by one of the 3 editors who refuse to allow for any other opinion on the debate to be heard.Monkeymanman (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Dickson view

"I post this as a Rangers employee and someone who has obviously followed this story very closely throughout. The issue of whether Wiki persevere with their current Rangers page or start a new one is one they quite frankly shouldn’t be putting themselves through.

As someone said to me the other day, a Kit Kat was still a Kit Kat when Rowntree’s was bought over by Nestle and production of the chocolate bar continued. It still used the same ingredients and tasted exactly the same, thus nobody talked of it being a new product. By the same token, Rangers is still the same football club which was formed in 1872 and it is simply the case that its holding company has changed.

Rangers were previously owned by Rangers Football Club plc, which was formed in 1899 and will soon be liquidated. Rangers is now owned by Sevco Scotland Ltd, which will shortly become The Rangers Football Club. It might be a new company which owns the club but the club itself is still the same one. It will still turn out a team which plays in blue called Rangers and which plays at Ibrox Stadium. The manager is still the same, as are most of the staff minus some of the playing squad from last season. Crucially, the club’s history has been retained in the same way as the histories of clubs such as Middlesbrough and Leed United were retained when they went through ‘newco’ situations.

Due to the nature of Glasgow’s ‘goldfish bowl’ environment, half the city is trying to push the belief Rangers is a brand new club while the other half argues against such a notion. The fact is it’s still exactly the same club it has been for the last 140 years but it is owned by a different company now to the one which owned it for the last 113 years, some 27 years after the club itself was formed." TheLightBlue (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you state you are a Rangers employee please say who you are so we can assess the weight we should give to your views? TerriersFan (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
He is not obliged to say who he is, he may have legitimate reasons for not doing so, although this may affect how much weight we give to his views, although a lot of what he says can be verified from news sources. PatGallacher (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you both please take part in the straw poll above then too, to help demonstrate the clear majority viewpoint is that a change is needed. Sadly the fact there is more support for a change is being lost by a small number of editors continuing to block any progress. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The Kit Kat analogy is flawed in that it fails to recognise that the producers of the Kit Kat are indeed an entirely separate entity from the entity which previously owned the assets. Rowntree and Nestle are indeed two completely separate companies, just as Rangers FC (IA) and Sevco Scotland Ltd. are two completely different clubs. Also "Rangers were previously owned by Rangers Football Club plc" is incorrect. A club cannot logically be an asset of itself. The people who were members of the private members association which Rangers FC was prior to 1899 traded in their share in the members association for those of a plc. Same shares, same club. The clubs history will always remain with the now defunct Rangers FC (IA), that is not disputed, but it certainly is not an asset which can be bought or sold. Think about it logically, if history is an asset, then what happens when it is bought by an individual? Does that make the individual person the holder of the trophies won by a football team? What if that person dies, and leaves all of their worldly good to their cat? Does that mean that their cat is now the holder of footballing trophies? Clearly that would be absolute nonsense. I have no idea why the author of that text wold choose to compare the situation to that of a completely different national association. The closest thing in recent times in Scotland would be what happened to Gretna. They went bust, and are no longer an active football team, the same as what is happening to Rangers FC (IA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk • contribs) 09:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify SFA membership

Thought I'd nip this in the bud seeing as a new ip editor has appeared.

In a statement, the governing body said: “Sevco Scotland Ltd bought Rangers Football Club PLC’s share in the SPL and membership of the Scottish FA as part of their acquisition of assets.

“Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements.” [2] BadSynergy (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, didn't the now defunct Rangers FC (IA) also fail to submit their accounts? I've a feeling that's why they were ineligible for Europe for one year. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's wait and see if Sevco can get the membership transferred first. They seem to be having great difficulty with the conditions attached. Again, it's complicated because we are talking about two different clubs, there's no continuity there. Obviously if Rangers FC (IA) were still the same club, there wouldn't be any question of having to transfer the membership - they would still have it. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Case For Rangers F.C to Remain Within the Same Wikipedia Article

Summary: On the 14th of June, 'The Rangers Football Club Plc', a company formed in 1899 entered liquidation proceedings. Liquidation is the process of selling of the assets of an insolvent business to recoup as much funds as possible to raise funds for the companies creditors. Charles Green led a consortium which purchased the 'history, business & assets' (as sources show) from 'The Rangers Football Club Plc' as a means to continue 'Rangers F.C' within a new company (NewCo).

So what is the debate? Well, this process has thrown up some questions. Is it the same club, or an entirely new club? Does this club retain it's history? Does a club operate within a company, or are they as 1? And should the club have a seperate Wikipedia page to be represented as a new club, or do we recognise it within the 1 Wikipedia page as teh same club but simply under new ownership?

1. What Do the Sources Say? Many journalistic sources have taken the viewpoint from both sides, the 'Talk' pages on the articles are littered with thm from each side of the arguement. The tabloid newspapers have often described the 'new company' as a "new club". Some ex-Rangers players even described it as so. However, many others have reffered to them as the same club, including Neil doncaster (SPL chairman), and even HMRC (whos decision to reject a CVA caused the liquidation). The 'new company' has often been refered to 'Rangers F.C' (the club name) within official documents from the SFA & SFL. Although it could be argued that the sources in favour of the "new club" arguement have only ever been journalistic view points and therefore documents from official governing bodies should take precedent, it is still a gray-area in regards to how the situation is being represented within the media. Therefore we need to evaluate further evidence.

2. Is 'A Club' a seperate thing from the company, or are they 1 and the same? 1 arguement being put forward by the "new club" camp, is that a club IS a company. That they are 1 and the same. It's a reasonable arguement as many official documents and sources purposefully define them as so, by stating the company name, and placing in brackets (the club). But perhaps this is simply to clarify to the readers that when they speak of 'the club' they are talking about the company. So what is 'a club' exactly? Well the FA in England produced this document on club structures: http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/The%20FA%20Club%20Structures.pdf says "The FA does not have any rules or requirements that specify that a club must be structured in one legal form or another." The term 'Club' is actually a pretty lose term, infact 2 people getting together to form any kind of association coudl call themselves a 'club'. Most professional football teams however are formed as companies. On page17 of the same document cited above, it details the process of turning a club into a corporate entity. After creating & registering a company, you then proceed to transfer the assets which make up the club, into the new company. If we move on to page20, it then outlines the rules regarding the transfer of membership from 1 legal entity to another. In other words, there is nothing to stop owners of a football club transferring all the assets out of 1 corporate entity to another, (if approved by the regulatory bodies). So, from that we can guage that a 'football club' is made up of certain assets (normally player contracts, a stadium, intellectual property), and these assets can be moved into a company during it's initial creation, and it can also be moved out of 1 company, and into another. So even if you take the viewpoint that club/company are 1 of the same, there is no evidence to suggest they cannot ever be broken apart, (otherwise a simple corproate restructure would be impossible without creating an entirely new club).

3. Precedents. Ofcourse, this is nothing new, it would be naive to believe Rangers F.C were the first club to suffer such fate. So what precedents can we draw upon? All of the following clubs have either been "liquidated" or "dissolved" and now function under new companies (NewCo's); Leeds United AFC Luton Town Charlton Athletic Middlesborough FC AFC Bournemouth Rotherham United

There are also examples of Clubs within Wikipedia which document clubs on different pages, such as;FC Halifax & Chester FC. So what's different? Well these are 2 examples of what is often described as 'Phoenix clubs'. When the old clubs were wound-up, fans groups got together and created these new clubs. The greatest fundamental difference is they did not acquire 'the business & assets' from the old clubs in liquidation. Therefore they have no legal link what-so-ever to the old clubs. They cannot lay claim to any of the intellectual property, use the same 'club name' or use the same cub badge/crest. In theory these clusb could have been created while the old clubs still in existence. So which sets precedent for Rangers F.C? Well since the NewCo purchased "the history, business & assets[2] " of the old company, it is NOT a 'phoenix club'.

There is 1 other issue regarding the sale of assets. Within the sale of the assets was membership to the SFA. Even though it was sold, it still must be sanctioned by the governing body, and we await that decision.


4. History & Goodwill Another arguement made by the 'new club' camp is that the history ends with the old company, and the 'new club' is starting a fresh. Well as we can see from the above precedents, this certainly isn;t the case of Leeds United AFC or Charlton Athletic, who lay claim to their respective histories even though they present companies operating them were formed in 2007 & 1984 respectively. A more robust piece of evidence however is this Interim Creditors Report produced by Rangers Administrators Duff&Phelps, which details the transaction of assets from the OldCo to NewCo.

"4.2 The continuation of trading operations enabled the Joint Administrators to put the CVA Proposal to the creditors of the Company and after the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors, the Joint Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the Company to Sevco (see Section 5 for further details)."

"4.4 Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club."

So within this document the administratos clearly state the new company has purchased "the history" aswell as the assets. It also goes on to state that "the club" is no under ownership & operation of "Sevco" (the new company).

If we move onto appendix 2, the document then details the transaction with exactly what was sold and to what value. It is here we can see the transaction of "goodwill".

what is 'Goodwill'? Goodwill is an intangible assets, which aims to encapture the value of a brand, inclusive of history. If i were to purchase 'Fanta' the soft drink from it's owners 'The coca-Cola Company' this would allow me to continue to trade as if nothing changed (same name, label, intellectual property) lay claim to the soft dirnks history, and ultimatly keep the same customers & same market share. Without the goodwill, i'd still have the manufacturing rights & recipe, but i'd need to come up with a new name, and be percieved by as a new product, thus likely to lose many customers & the current market share of Fanta. Even though "Goodwill" may be a concept hard to grasp, it has been common practice in business for a long time and applies here, with clear record of it's transaction.


5. Conclusion with the above evidence provided, it's difficult to see how a case for 'new club' to be substantiated. The above evidence has dealt with the 4 main arguements heard from otherside of the debate, which thus far have been;

  • Sources in the media describe it as a 'new club'. All of these sourcesare simply a journalistic point-of-view, and each one is contradicted by another source which states it's the same club. Where is the evidence beyond the wording of a news article?
  • Club & company are as one and cannot be broken. We have disproven that with a document from the FA and with the fact, such an opinion would mean even a simple corporate restructure would be impossible without forming an entirely 'new club'.
  • They are the same as Chester or Halifax. We have ruled these clubs as precedents as they did not acquire the business & assets as a going concern from the insolvent company (oldco), but instead are 'phoenix clubs'.
  • You cannot buy history, there is no such thing as goodwill. you cannot simply state goodwill does not exist because you dont fully understand it. I have provided evidence in the form of a formal administrative document which states the history was sold & goodwill was purchased.


The wikipedia article Rngers FC was changed to reflect the club in the past tense, as if no longer in existence, and a new article set-up to describe a new club (in the same manner as the above named Chester or Halifax). such change was done WITHOUT concensus. In order to make such a drastic & hotly disputed change without concensus, the onus is surely on those who believe we are dealing with a 'new club' to prove as a matter-of-fact, and beyond all doubt, that this is a new club. So far there has been very thin evidence, if any at all to lead us to believe undoubtebly we are dealign with an entirely new club, and this arguement seems to be based almost entirely on point-of-view. Ricky072 (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Goodwill does exist, but the idea of 'history' being an asset which can be bought or sold is nonsensical. Can an individual buy it and claim to have the history of Rangers FC (IA)? Can I buy it and give it to my cat, so that they can claim the history of Rangers FC (IA)? Can Poundland buy it, and claim that it Poundland who won their trophies? Obviously not, but that is the idea which you are suggesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk • contribs) 09:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
History is somethign that is encaptured within goodwill. If you bleive History is not somethign that cannot be baught or sold, i respect that vewpoint, but it works both ways. In that sense, the old company never 'owned' the history then, if it's something that cannot be baught/sold/owned/deemed as an asset. In that sense it's something more spiritual which belongs to whatever is percieved as being 'Rangers'. Ricky072 (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ricky072. Unfortunately the 'old Rangers' and 'new Rangers' articles have had to be fully protected as a result of edit warring. This means that the current versions of the articles will remain until consensus is achieved to changed them. Whether those articles are fully accurate or completely inaccurate is irrelevant - the onus is now on those who wish to see the articles changed to build a consensus for the changes they desire. That is how wikipedia works. I hope that consensus can be achieved within the next few days, perhaps following the SFA decision concerning a transfer of Rangers' SFA membership, but if not the articles will probably have to remain fully protected. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as you and other editors helped change this article without consensus, and reverted any attempts to change it back to neutral before protection applied the onus is on you and the same editors to prove why it should remain. 2.219.177.74 (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
No you misunderstand how wikipedia works. The cdurrent version is the 'status quo' and the onus is in those wishing to change it to build consensus. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
fisherhelper that aint entirely true, the content is in dispute it is for both sides to prove there case that it should be the way it is, or isnt the onious in on both sides now to get this sorted, one the sfa makea deciison on teh trasnfer of registrion the request for comment will come out, regardles sin what is said unless they come out and say caterogically it is brand new club we will still have tis dispute that will need a consensus as oyu say.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes Andrewcrawford, let me rephrase: The current version is the 'status quo' and the onus is on all of us to build consensus if it is to be changed. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
So your telling me I could find a few users intent on vandalising an article, editing the article to display innaccurate information and take a firm stance on the talk pages our edits are correct. After some edit warring, an admin deicides to lock the article without chosing sides so ends up locking it in the vadalised state, your telling me all it woudl take for it to remain permantly locked is to never agree concensus? Thats exactly what's happened here. Those aiming to potray Rangers as new club don't even seem to be trying to put forward a convincing case any more, otherwise someone would have countered the arguements made in my above post. Ricky072 (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Ricky072, firstly what you have said above is your interpretation of what I have said. What I said is my interpretation of wikipedia's policy. Perhaps you should check this aspect out for yourself.
Secondly, I have not bothered responding to your above post because you keep restating the same points that were responded to previously when you first posted them. I think we are all now just waiting to see how things develop over the next few days to see where we go from here. If I were a betting man, I would think it very likely that the SFA will agree to transfer the oldco membership with the sanctions due to the oldco. Of course, it is possible that Green may refuse that deal, and choose to submit a new application rather than seek Rangers' membership. I'm sure that even you would agree that if the latter were to happen, two separate articles would be appropriate. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Ricky, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is. We have to reflect the sources, which, until someone writes a book or a peer-reviewed academic work, means newspapers and websites. If you feel a sense of injustice about how they are reporting it: take your issues up with them! Uncritical or forelock-tugging Rangers fans may fervently wish to believe everything delivered from their "official sources" but here we need to be more objective. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's quite simple some editors changed this article without consensus and reverted any attempt at changing it back. The last I checked that is vandalism is it not?BadSynergy (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2012

Please can someone put the Pp-dispute template on the article. The dispute continues with few editors refusing to allow the article to be fixed. it currently is on a version that had no consensus or approval for being put on which has caused huge controversy and problems. Thank you BritishWatcher (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Header inaccuracy

the final line of the headder of this articles says "This company has applied to register with the Scottish Football Association and to participate in the Scottish Premier League" can someone please update this to say "This company applied to register with the Scottish Football Association and to participate in the Scottish Premier League which was rejected" as their SPL membership application was rejected.C. 22468 Talk to me 09:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Agree - this bit should be updated and should be not be a controversial improvement, even for editors who believe other aspects of the article are completely wrong. A similar request was made on 12th July but led to objections at that time. However, since then the SFA has ratified the decision to place the new Rangers in Division 3, so perhaps editors will not oppose this update now. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagree for now at the moment we are assuming this is about the old rangers club because that is how the precedent is set for now, so until consensus is change to say it should be one article if anything it should be removed completely not change as if we change it to say that we have to change the article to be about the club and since we dnt have a consensus on that we cant, for anyone wondering the request for comment is ready to go i am just waiting on the sfa membership transfer or not to happen before putting it live and i will request a extension of full protection until the request for comment is finished--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
So, just because the dispute as to whether there should be one or two articles is not resolved, you would prefer that one of those articles is left more wrong rather than less wrong? That is bizarre! Why would anyone actually prefer to leave an article more wrong if it could easily be fixed? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Is this article about rangers or the oldco? becuase if you say oldco it doesnt change, if you say rangers then it does, the fact remains no one can agree so there little point changign it when we dnt know if it about a defunt club which the statement is false, or about the same club which is it outdated, if we can agree to fix it then we should be looking at the rest of the context, the only thing i will agree to jsut now is to remove it completely since this is refering to past tense so since it is past tense it can not be happening the statement that is to be corrected--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Agree - I requested this here and still agree that removing outdated information is the obvious way to go here... Kennedy (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I do not support any alteration to the article until it is properly corrected to reflect the fact a football club still exists. Any other alteration is mere tinkering and pointless because it in no way fixes an article version that is complete garbage that has no place on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree - Those arguing to keep outdated information in are harming Wikipedia's encyclopedic integrity. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
are you saying "This company has applied to register with the Scottish Football Association and to participate in the Scottish Premier League" can someone please update this to say "This company applied to register with the Scottish Football Association and to participate in the Scottish Premier League which was rejected" i thought this article is about rangers football club plc which is getting liquidated and since th ecompany is the club then they cant be applying full stop, i agree to remove it but not change it to say div3--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
That integrity is at greater risk due to the article being locked in a vandalised state. Ricky072 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Let the admins get on with it

Can we please have proper wiki rules apply so it conforms to wikipedia rules and not the passions and perversions of either side of the old firm?Sologoal (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well im still waiting to see any progress or action made, this article version has been locked in place for a few weeks now despite NO consensus for the controversial, offensive, and grossly inaccurate version that has been locked in place. We have been debating this matter for weeks, yet a small number of editors refuse to accept the article is wrong for using past tense, when we all know this is about a football club that is going to be playing in Div 3 in a couple of weeks. When the wikipedia structures actually resolve this matter instead of creating a complete void and totally misleading people who read the article because of wikipedia page protection procedures.. maybe progress would be made. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
However you feel about how we got to where we are now is irrelevant. As there is No consensus to change the article from its current version, the article requires to stay protected because if protection were lifted edit warring would break out all over again. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The fact this grossly inaccurate version was put on without any consensus is an important fact that we should continue to remember. It is an utter disgrace it has been allowed to stand for so long because of your actions and those of another couple of editors.. one who has posted a sectarian video on this page, and the other who posted a link to a celtic fan forum and a rant along with it. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
"is an important fact that we should continue to remember" - even though irrelevant. This is now about moving on from where we are. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The fact this current version has never had consensus or majority support is notable.BritishWatcher (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
'Notable' if you want, but still irrelevant in terms of moving forward. Anyway, for the record, if you check the history of this article, you will notice that I did try to change that 'Rangers was a football club' to 'Rangers is a football club' on 30th June as I thought that change was premature. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Yet you are now the primary editor refusing to let the article be changed back to refer to the club in present tense, and updated to detail the change in ownership etc and information about rangers will be playing in div3. If you were ok with is on the 30th of June what has changed? considering the evidence that ranger still exists and will now play in a new division has grown. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Why can we not have "is a.." in the first paragraph, then put a second paragraph explaining club was orginally formed in 1872, old company incorporated in 1899 which went into administration and will be liquidated, whilst its assets were sold over to the new company Sevco Scotland limited, which is at present awaiting permission to transfer rangers old membership in the SFA etc. Surely that would be an improvement on the current version? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I pointed that out to you so you may realise that I am not following any agenda here. I just thought that the change from 'was' to 'is' was premature since the club had not been finally liquidated and retained membership of the SFA. However, as I take the view that the original club is coming to an end with a new club being created to carry forward the 'spirit' of the old, I would not agree with any information being added that was about Green's club as that club has its own article - Newco Rangers. If protection were lifted without consensus on the way forward, that is precisely what some editors would try to do. We therefore need protection until a consensus way forward is found. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If the SFA transfer Rangers' SFA membership - which could happen any day - at that point 'was' would be more appropriate as the old Rangers would no longer be a football club. Therefore, little point trying to get agreement to change that only to then have to try to get agreement to change it back again almost immediately. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The newco rangers is about a new company. Rangers F.C is about a football club, and that is the primary meaning.. .when rangers football club is playing in div3... clearly this article should be about that football club, it is the same club with a new company. AWhy would they transfer it over to the new company whilst it gets to keep the rangers name.. if its a different club? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The Newco Rangers article is supposed to be about the new club but a little bit of edit warring by Ricky072 changed it to describe it as a 'company' rather than a 'club' before page protection froze the article that way. This article is about the old Rangers - the club that is being liquidated. You ask "Why would they transfer it over to the new company whilst it gets to keep the rangers name.. if its a different club?" Obviously this is all an attempt to keep 'Rangers' alive and it requires Rangers fans to believe it is the same club (and buy season tickets) for this attempt to work. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
"newco rangers" is something that will not even be used much in the future, but it is clearly about the new company not a new club. what does the co in newco mean? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you buy shares in a Football Club

This is the main point, yet hasnt been discussed as far as I can see. If you can then it's all the proof you need a Club and Company are one and the same. If you can't then it's all the proof you need that a Club is not a Company. Who want's to provide the proof? Lets go to Rangers themselves... http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/4d/76/0,,5~161357,00.pdf

  • "Dear Shareholder of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. (the “Club”)" Following the announcement made by The Rangers FC Group Limited (“The Rangers FC Group”) on 6 May 2011, in relation to its acquisition of 92,842,388 ordinary shares of 10 pence each, representing approximately 85.3 per cent. of the Club’s issued share capital
  • The Rangers FC Group acquired its shares in the Club from Murray MHL Limited (the “Vendor”) on 6vMay 2011.
  • Pursuant to the Acquisition, Phil Betts and I have been appointed as directors of the Club.
  • The Acquisition occurred on 6 May 2011 and was announced by The Rangers FC Group and the Club on that date.
  • Maintain the Club’s listing on PLUS Markets for at least a year from the date of the Acquisition.
  • Continue to run the Club as a football club from Ibrox Stadium in Glasgow.
  • The decision on the sale and purchase of the majority shareholding in the Club firmly and ultimately rests between Murray MHL Limited (“MHL”) and Lloyds Banking Group (“LBG”).
  • If the Club has not suffered an insolvency event within 90 days of the Club's appeal in relation to the tax claim brought against the Club by HM Revenue & Customs

It would seem the Club was wrongly reffered to, not only in this - their last Stock Exchange release but in every Stock Exchange they've ever released. As now people are claiming that a Club isnt a company. If the Club wasn't a company then they have released false information for decades. Just this one document says that a Club could suffer an insolvency event, only legal entities can suffer insolvency events, also says the Club has Directors, only companies can have Directors, also says the Club has shares, only companies can have shares, it says a Tax claim was broght against the Club, Tax claims can only be brought against Legal entities--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me, from having a brief read of the circular, that "the Club" is taken to be shorthand for The Rangers Football Club P.L.C., and that this has been done to simplify what could become overly complex sentences where reference is made to both the PLC and Green's Limited Company. It's standard practice to use shorthand rather than to constantly refer to a more length set of terms. Also, as has already been said before, the SPL hold that the football club Rangers continues to exist, and that they are doing their best to facilitate their move into the SFL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.215.177 (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Any contract and most legal documents contain what are called 'defined terms,' which in standard use are written as parenthetical terms in quotes that immediately follow a longer phrase for which they will be shorthand. This is just a simplified version of the older style for introducing defined terms, in which the longer phrase and shorthand term are separated by 'hereinafter refered to as' rather than by parentheses. So if the long phrase is x and the the shorthand defined term is y, the syntax is: x ('y'), or in the older syntax: x, hereinafter referred to as 'y.' Note that this does not suggest any equivalence between x and the literal meaning of y, whatever that might be. For legal purposes, the defined term could take any form, and is not meant to introduce intrinsic, independent meaning to the document; it merely serves as a more easily read symbol invoking its referrent. So if a document begins: "In response to recent health code violations at The Java Bean PLC ("The Bean")," it does not mean the document defines this PLC as being literally a bean plant and a company at the same time (as your logic above, when extended, would lead us to assume). It simply means that in the legal document, for the sake of simplicity, the defined term will be used as contextual shorthand for the longhand referrent. This string: The Rangers F.C. Ltd. ('The Club') bears the same legal significance as: The Rangers FC Ltd. ('RFC'). If the document quoted above had gone the latter route, as it equally could have, consider the consequences to your argument. You've used rather a lot of space here laboring to import literal meaning to what is essentially a convenient abbreviation, and drawing imaginary consequences from this equasion. See most any legal contract for an example of 'defined terms' properly used, but here's a quick style guide: http://books.google.com/books?id=n7-jxMskU9MC&pg=PA8&lpg=PP1&output=html_text Westvirginia63 Westvirginia63 (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
C'mon, Westvirginia63, that's pretty desperate. It isn't called "the bean" it was called the club – because it was a club! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be impolite here, but please re-read the last 4 sentences of my previous post. This is a simple concept to grasp, but I went to a bit of length describing it because I've noticed that certain editors here are fond of cheap shots that allow them to avoid really considering that they might be wrong. I have no doubt you've done good work elsewhere on Wikipedia, but your responses here are just unusual for a serious debate. Granted you've also had to deal with unusual, daft debaters here as well. Regardless - you've misunderstood the use of defined terms, and you seemed pretty excited to roll with it. The idea that a legalese nickname should actually be considered a literal description out of context is more than a stretch, it's just a mistake. Please take some time to read about this. Thanks. http://law.du.edu/documents/aap/writing-tips-abbreviations.pdf Westvirginia63 (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I read your whole first post two or three times to understand it, then once more to make sure you were serious. In summary, I think it is you who have "used rather a lot of space labouring to import" equivocation to what is perfectly clear. In the second pdf you posted, do you imagine that (the "ADA") has no semantic relation to The Americans with Disabilities Act? Seriously? Of course it does, that's exactly why those letters, in that order, were chosen. Just like they called Rangers PLC (the "Club") because it was to denote a football club! David Murray was chairman of the football club. Why embark on a flight of fancy by saying "If the document had gone the latter route" it would have meant something else? Well yes, I'm sure it might, but it didn't, so what? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Another paragraph of repetitive, impolite nonsense. Thanks. Starting at an even more basic level: A public listed company is easily identifiable because its name will end with 'public listed company.' A PLC might do any number of things. It might field a football club, and its name might reflect that. It might run a charity wing and operate a chain of stores, all at the same time. But it's still a PLC, whatever its name. The reason that you can tell that legally, the Rangers FC PLC is not a football club is that its name ends in PLC. PLC does not stand for football club. Like some but not all parent companies of Scottish or English football clubs, The Rangers FC PLC includes FC as part of the company's name.

One of your problems here - and I have to say that English is another of them - is that somehow you've you think that a PLC's name is somehow more than just descriptive of a company. A PLC's name, if related to the company's properties, doesn't mean that the company is one of its properties. It's still a company. Are you with me so far? Probably not, but we've got to press on. The document you've quoted from above involves things that can only be said about companies. How fitting, then, that it's a company we're talking about - again, by virtue of the fact that its name denotes it as a company. One more time, this is because the name culminates with 'company,' not club, and in English, a noun is normally preceded rather than followed by any descriptive names or adjectives meant to apply to it. Again, that's why The Java Bean PLC is not a bean, but a PLC, and why The Rangers FC PLC is not a squadron of army rangers, or a club, but a PLC. If you'd like me to prove that this is how English grammar works, I'll be happy to.

Since you've read and re-read about defined terms now, you know that they only mean their definition. In that link, 'the ADA' is defined as the Americans with Disabiliities Act. Well done spotting that! In your quoted piece,'The Club' is similarly defined as meaning The Rangers FC PLC. So 'the Club' only means The Rangers FC PLC for the purposes of the document. Had the author intended it to mean 'Rangers FC,' he would have written 'The Rangers FC ("The Club"). RFC PLC, again, is a public listed company, whose name includes the word club because the company owned and operated a football club as its primary function. Of course it did other things, which is why the club is not equivalent with the company. Are we any closer to having you understand this? If it's that difficult, an easy reminder about the difference between clubs' names and companies' names is that clubs names end with club, full stop, and companies names end with company, full stop. Please try to remember your obligations as an editor and take time to really think through what you're responding to before you post next. This is absurd. Thanks, Westvirginia63 (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I see, so when it said Continue to run the Club as a football club from Ibrox Stadium in Glasgow what did that bit mean? Does football club mean football club? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, football club means football club. Thanks for asking - now we're getting somewhere. And The Rangers FC PLC means The Rangers FC PLC. No? Tesco runs as a chain of stores, among other things. It does so because it owns the stores, like The Rangers FC PLC owned the football club it ran as. But you don't 'buy shares in Tesco's stores' only, you buy shares in the company. And although the PLC fielded / owned / ran as / a football club, as well as a lessor of Ibrox, a merchandiser, a funnel for various charities, etc., it's still a company. One more time, my friend: you can tell that because it's called a company. Incidentally none of this was actually necessary to say due to what's already been said. Westvirginia63 (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Just another maddeningly obvious point to make here: if the authors intended the company to be understood no differently than the football club it operated and ran in the SPL as, it wouldn't need to use a defined term at all. Each use of "The Club" above could have simply read "the football club." But you can't buy shares in a football club as such (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/club_1), unless it's operated by a public listed company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company), which, it's disturbing to still have to repeat, is different from a football club. All of this, by the way, will require a bit more thought from your end if / when the SFA strips Green's consortium of 9 previous footballing honors. Why, it will seem as though the old PLC sold the club to Green! Strange, right? Much like Tesco can sell the group of stores it runs as. Keep it coming, you strange thing. Westvirginia63 (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll above

So far 4 people have agreed that rangers is a football club and the article should be changed to reflect that. Nobody as of yet has confirmed they believe that rangers was a football club so the articles should be kept as it is. If that is how people feel then a requested edit should perhaps be proposed that makes the necessary changes. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There's already been a couple of ill-advised AfDs on the Newco Rangers article - consensus at both is definately in favour of two articles. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
no it's not. Ricky072 (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
the current afd is not over so and the consensus isnt saying favour of 2 article but it not saying to delete or merge--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If the consensus is saying not to delete or merge the Newco Rangers article, then there will be two articles unless this article is deleted. Is anyone proposing that? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not about if two articles should exist or not, this is about if this article should refer to rangers football club which will play in the 3rd division in a few weeks time in the past tense or if it should be corrected BritishWatcher (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
That's the point - the dispute is about whether the club that may play in Division 3 next season is the same club that played in the SPL last season. Those who believe they are different clubs using the same name would take the view that 'was' is appropriate for the old Rangers. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping that this statement from SFA confirms that they view Rangers FC still in existence and distinguish it from an oldco and a newco http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10204. I suspect that the reference to newco will be transitional, to avoid mixing the 2 companies, but that only Rangers FC will be talked about in the media following the transfer of Rangers FC membership back to the club by the SFA. So I think we should refer to Rangers FC in the present tense on this page and modify the Newco Rangers page to be an article about the new company, as has been done with Leeds Utd. S2mhunter (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
"following the transfer of Rangers FC membership back to the club" - think about that phrase! Anyway, the new Rangers have applied to take over the old Rangers' membership, arguing that they are the same club. The SFA has responded by effectively stating 'if the same club, then the penalties of the old Rangers should be transferred along with the SFA membership'. The fact that the discussion is around whether the new Rangers is a continuation of the old Rangers is therefore taking place within the assumption that they are. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
"Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership" - think about that phrase! No other club could do this transfer apart from Rangers FC. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
"No other club could do this transfer apart from Rangers FC." The transfer is from Rangers FC - they are not 'doing' the transfer, the SFA is. It is indeed 'different from an application for a new membership' but so what - being a successor club does not mean it is a continuation of the previous club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"The SFA has responded by effectively stating 'if the same club, then the penalties of the old Rangers should be transferred along with the SFA membership'." You'll need to source that, otherwise you're acting as ventriloquist for the SFA. Where is the broader statement by the SFA which you think 'effectively' translates 'Fishiehelper is right - we're only pretending to believe newco Rangers to be the 1872 club"? Still no valid criticism has been made of the point that the SFA considers newco Rangers to have inherited the history, punishable sometimes and laudable at others, of oldco Rangers. Please, again let's use only primary sources and 3rd party independent reporting of real-life events to prove our points. Thanks, 173.81.99.95 (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


Just seen this article.. [3] from this morning. "FOOTBALL chiefs produced a secret plan to strip Rangers of five SPL titles and four Scottish Cups." .. now im sorry but that article seems to imply its going to be the same club, how can they strip trophies of certain seasons and impose draconian punishments on an entirely new company and club? it makes no sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

what happens when the media stop calling the company newco and just rangers again?

For those who support the use of past tense on this article, What will happen when all of the media stop using the term newco rangers and simply refer to it as Rangers/Rangers Football Club? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really a problem. If the eventual outcome of the dispute resolution was to keep two separate articles for the old Rangers and the new Rangers, it would make sense to move this article to 'Rangers F.C. (1872)' and then move Newco Rangers to 'Rangers F.C.' Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
So why treat Rangers FC differently on Wikipedioa than Charlton, Middlesborough, Napoli, Fiorentina, Bournemouth, Luton & Rotherham United? The sources are not yet convincing either way but are leaning towards seeing Rangers FC as the same club (talk of restarting the Glasgow Cup, playing Old Firm games, this can only happen if they are recognised as the same clubs as before). Regards S2mhunter (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
What happens when the media, and football authorities talk about rangers as though it is this football club? How can there possibly be two separate articles in such a scenario. Surely if the fans, the club itself, the media and the authorities all view it as the same at that time, we must treat it the same too? For example.. if the SFL put on their website [4] that the club was formed in 1872/3 rather than 2012 would you accept that suggests it is the same club, and would be more valid than many of the sources during the transition period where media has been using "newco rangers"? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
If the SFL do as you suggest, that would indeed be strong evidence of it being viewed as the same club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Fishiehelper, thanks for that clarification. 173.81.99.95 (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully the authorities will make it clear in such a way, I guess we will have to wait and see.. but if it is put in those sorts of terms i hope it will be easier to get consensus to altering the articles. thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
That would indeed end this mess Watcher good find. BadSynergy (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
as i said on the newco article i completely agree this would end this dispute beyond a doubt whether it is a new club or not and the statement from the sfa, but we might end up still have full protection because some users might still not want to accept itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Please can we put the WP:CRYSTALBALL away? Let's work with the mainstream sources we have now, instead of what sources (we hope) will come along in future. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
i have proven mainstream sources say both but you have refyte every one so the one thjing thay put this argument to bed is the sfl website and sfa judgement ion transfer of membership, give me a source that is law that proves the club is the company it will help support your case in the request for comment--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It is not about what we hope will happen its about what is expected to happen based on many of the sources which see this as the same club. I would like your view though on thi matter Clavdia, if the SFL do put 1872/3 do you accept that it would be a significant step in justifying that this is the same club and that there should not be two "club articles"? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
If the governing bodies do come out with something definitive, then I'm sure that will be relected in the mainstream third party sources. But they haven't so why speculate? At the moment we have one club who went down the tubes and a startup who only exist in potentia because they can't pay the piper for a licence. That is the concrete reality which should be reflected across both pages as of today. There should also, imo, be a third page demise/liquidation of Rangers (1872) detailing the whole sordid saga right from the 1990s to date. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

}

You still have not respond to my comment that i have proved 3rd party reliable sources say it is the same club and you refute them even though the same 3rd party reliable ie say daily record one news reporter might say there dead but another says there alive but you refute any sources that says it the same club because it doesn't suit your POV so why do you insist there dead when you say we use reliable 3rd party sources say there alive to????--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC) But i do agree a article on the Liquidation of Rangers F.C. is required because it will be to large undue weight for this article a summary for this article is all that is require but details one in teh article about it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting: Beith Juniors F.C. reporting BEITH JUNIORS V THE RANGERS - an HISTORICAL GAME, the first game played under the name "The Rangers" as the name is changed that day. SAY YOU WERE THERE!!! Hmmm, same club eh? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
mmm it about a junior team in my local area, it has no revenlence to The Rangers that your talking about in div3 if they get in--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
See: - http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2832728 "Duff and Phelps, administrators of The Rangers Football Club plc (in administration) issued the following statement today. We have written to all shareholders of The Rangers Football Club plc (in administration) to provide notice of a general meeting of the Company to be held at Ibrox Stadium on July 31. The resolution to be put forward at that meeting is to change the name of the Company to RFC 2012 plc and there will be no other business on the day. This is a procedural measure in order for Sevco Scotland Limited - which acquired the business and assets of the Company from the administrators on June 14 - to change its name simultaneously to The Rangers Football Club Limited." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.215.177 (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as Rangers already have played Airdrie Utd recently the person who wrote up that info on Beith site has already made an error. BadSynergy (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning that, did not know (heres a link for others who missed it, they even provide photographic evidence for those on this page who refuse to believe text) [5]. So we now have a dead football club playing football.. it gets better and better doesnt it? lol BritishWatcher (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Should also mention Watcher Rangers are scheduled to play Brechin City in the Ramsdens Cup on the 29th of July if they get SFA membership [6].BadSynergy (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Oldest football rivalry revived against queens park

ok before anyone goes cant be revived it the club is dead it a new rivalry bla bla, i dnt care whether it is or not, i am looking for is if someoen can post me a link toa news article i was reading that said about the revivial of the football oldest rivarely with ranger sin division 3 if you can help please post it, if you want to comment its not possible please dnt comment i am only looking for a link--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Could it be this from the Daily Record: "He said: “We’re the original Old Firm, Queen’s Park and Rangers. And now the two Glasgow teams meet again. It has been a while since we met." Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
not the exact one i am looking for ie not the one i read but it what i am looking for thanks i appendices it fisherhelper--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

wikipedia articles

ok i am still trying to collet a list of all articles where rangers either are describe in past or present tense or says liquidated or not etc, in other words every wikipedia articles that could be affect by the outcome of the consensus here so far i have found about 40 or 50 so please post any you know of rangers ie this club in this aritlce is presented in--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont think a collection of journalistic sources are going to lead to a solution here. Infact some of the articles I have read have contradicted themselves within the article. The case for Rangers being a New Club and worthy of 2 Wiki articles has to present stronger evidence than the wording of some BBC articles, which are directly contradicted with other reputable journalistic sources. The onus is on the 'new club' camp to tell us how Rangers are any different from Leeds or Charlton. Ricky072 (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
ricky you misunderstand i mean i am trying to find all wikipedia articles that are refering to rangers in one form or the other when the decision about if it a new club or not is made all other articles will need updated to reflect ill give a example of a few * Rangers F.C. Under-20s and Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The issue of contradictions is a good point, many articles being used to justify "newco rangers" still actually imply its the same club which is in part a problem with this two page issue. If someone says "newco rangers" they are not saying its a new club despite what some suggest and even when they say "new club" they often go on to recognise it has rangers history. From today for example.. this article mentions newco rangers, yet the article clearly is worded in a way that recognises its the same club.."If Rangers were big box office in the SPL, they certainly will be in the bottom tier." [7] BritishWatcher (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention in some of the papers today, in the build up to Rangers being in the draw for the League cup, they say 'Rangers are the most successfull side In Scottish League cup history'. I stopped posting news articles for reasons stated above and instead await SFA/SFL statements. BadSynergy (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
badsnergy please post all sources you have found i will review and add them to the request for comment same goes for the club is dead camp if oyu have sources post them for me for the request for ocmment it helps make your cases stronger--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It's an admirable idea, especially because a number of editors here are under the false impression that a sweeping majority of news articles backs up the page staying as it is now. There is no agreement on the subject, and if you really want to review all the articles, go to http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Sport/Football/Scottish+League/Rangers and use the drop-down menus at the bottom to go to previous days, weeks, months, etc. It would be a very difficult task, it's often not completely clear what side an article falls on, and indeed some articles are internally contradictory. Kevin McKenna, for instance overtly changed his view 180 degrees in subsequent Guardian articles that were barely a week apart (in the latter of the two, he explicitly states that Green's consortium operates the 1872 club: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/jul/14/sfl-rangers-optimism). I would guess that 1/3 or so of the articles would have to be labeled too ambiguous to use in any comparison. An attempted analysis couldn't hurt, though, as long as your findings are easy to double-check by editors. 206.248.205.66 (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
im not talking about news articles i am talkign about wikipedia articles but thanks for those references--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault there. 206.248.205.66 (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

206.248.205.66, did you post the correct link? http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/jul/14/sfl-rangers-optimism In this one McKenna says the club (note: not an ethereally detached company) were liquidated and uses the noun "demise" in terms of the oldco. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

since it is a blog it isnt really reliable, but yoru still dogging ym question above in teh section regarding sfl website update--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

never mind my above post i am wrong it is the newspaper i jsu read blog in the link but it jsut hwo they make ther ewebsite it a news article so is reliable--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Clavdia, that Guardian article also has the sentence: "Thus Rangers, winners of more domestic league titles than any other club in world football, will kick off the new season on 28 July in the Ramsdens Cup, against Brechin City." which more than just suggests continuity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.215.177 (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I found this one here where someone's added in the introduction about Rangers FC as a new club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airdrie_United_F.C. and so would need to be changed in the event we agree Rangers FC are the same club. S2mhunter (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
tahnks--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please remember all that i need to try find all wikipedia articles that meant ion rangers in some way in the present tense or wikipedia articles that in some way say rangers in past tense, as when a consensus is reached regardless if it is two or 1 articles we need to update all the rest to reflect this and possible full protection might be needed to--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Complaint about 'Rangers Football Club was a football club'

If we are dealing purely on facts it is clear that the club this article deals with is a different club to the one that has been set up this year. If they are the same club how could 'the Rangers football club' and 'Rangers football club' have existed at the same time ?. Before Rangers football club were liquidated the Rangers football club were formed. The Rangers football club then bought Ibrox stadium. Rangers had not being liquidated at that time. Had the names not been so similar this debate would not be even happening. If fans of Rangers football club want to support the new club formed this year that is their business. But just like 'Leeds City' (disbanded in 1919) and 'Leeds United' (formed 1919) the 2 clubs being talked about here may have strong links but from a factual point of view are 2 different clubs. --Leo1977 (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The past tense of this article is incorrect, even the mere suggestion of sanctions by the governing body(the SFA) proves the club in its current form is a continuation of the original club. Bigblueyonder (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Then see the AFD at Newco Rangers. That is trying to determine whether the second article is correct or it should be one.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely it's 'Rangers Football Club were a football club', using the singular here doesn't sound right.--188.223.14.24 (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Football club" is singular. "It is a club". Not, "it were a club". The same way it would be "X was a player", not "X were a player". 130.88.141.34 (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Either is correct in British English; a mass noun can be referred to as either singular or plural, cf. Pink Floyd.--Astonmartini (?) 22:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A Player only stops being a player when he stops playing. A club is always a club — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.42.117 (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC) British English treats football clubs as both singular or plural entities. Various pages on Wikipedia reflect both uses. In the past, I've used singular for corporate club and plural for team, but that's neither more or less right than any other methodology. In cases like that, we go with the status quo, unless there's consensus to change. --Dweller (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers are still a club so this is a clear joke by Celtic fans, get it back to normal. (Celtic name change in 1994 needs applicating if this is the case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterio2012 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers and its history remains so speaking of the club in a past tense is not and accurate description of what is actually happening, we can mention the company name change (just like Leeds, firoentina and Celtic (pacific shelf 595)) in the Rangers section but to say 'Were' is totally disrespectful to all ther fans who STILL follow and know that the club is still here and so is its history and future. Lets be honest not knowing this is more of a lack of knowledge to be honest. Mysterio 02:37, 9 July 2012‎ (UTC)

This being discussed here. Monkeymanman (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In reply to dweller,maybe your unaware but Rangers FC where liquidated and thus do not exist,the assets of that liquidated club where them sold to a Mr Charles Green who has since registered a new football club The Rangers FC or Sevco5096,these are facts,wikipedia is about the truth and as such the facts speak for themselve,its not about one upmanship with your rivals its about keeping the integrity of wikipedia and call call The Rangers in the same consequence as Rangers FC would be a lie and goes against integrity,its widely accepted amongst the wider football community that RangersFC dont exist anymore,its heartbreaking for the Rangers support to accept but facts are fact. Consistency on Wikipedia regarding liquidated/reformed Football Clubs

The Rangers F.C wikipedia page needs to be changed to be factual and without bias. Referring to the club in the past-tense is clearly a wind-up from rival fans of the club. (Totally true so why isnt it changed?).

The page needs to follow that of Napoli - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.S.C._Napoli Exiting via a newco purchase isn't much different from exiting administration via a CVA, both methods require a buy-out of the business by new owners leaving the creditors with the proceeds fo the sale.

the precedent has been set already that a club retains it's identity and history through such insolvency processes.

Napoli has been given as an example above, but others include;

Fiorentina, who retain their identity and history recognised by both Wikipedia & FIFA.

Leeds United.

Charlton Athletic reformed in 1984.

Middlesbrough F.C. reformed liquidated and reformed in 1986.

In reply to the above statement, there are many many differences as to what happened to those said clubs and what happened to Rangers FC, again I understand this is more of an emotional issue thats hard to come to terms with however Rangers FC do not exist and emotion shouldnt come into it when dealing with facts, you might not like it but wikipedia is supposed to be factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.103.225 (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2012‎ (UTC)

In years to come, like the above clubs, Rangers FC regardless of the corporate entity that owns them, will continue to recognise the history of the club formed in 1872 (and not the plc formed 27 years later) and that history will continue to be recognised by the governing bodies, including FIFA. http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=31067/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky072 (talk • contribs)

Apart from Rangers fans, no-one seems very sure about the answer to these questions. To take Leeds as an example, they didn't need to scrabble around to find a new League, so something is different. Tackling another of your assertions, it seems liquidation is indeed different from exiting administration via CVA, as clubs do the latter from time to time without these issues arising. --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
A few corrections: Leeds, Charlton and Middlesbrough didn't get completely liquidated as will happen to Rangers FC - those clubs were actually saved from final liquidation at the last minute. Yes new companies were created to buy out the old company, but this is not what is happening to Rangers: Charles Green's consortium didn't buy the old company - it bought the assets, leaving the company to be liquidated. As for Italian clubs, there bankruptcy laws are very different to what happens in the UK. If you really want to get consistent treatment on Wikipedia, perhaps have a read of the following pairs of articles: Halifax Town A.F.C. and F.C. Halifax Town; Chester City FC and Chester FC; Telford United FC and A.F.C. Telford United. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
ok i am goign to celar something up for both sides of the argument, what another article does on wikpedia does not mean it has to be done on all similar articles, each case is depentent on sources, there is clear argument that both sides are right so that why i am goign toa rfc hopefulyl avoiding the need for a formal medation that could be looked at by the hgiher up of wikipeida and the deicision instead of being a conesus taken out of our hands, gopefully the rfc will draw neutral people in whop dnt really knwo the siution and will review the sources and make non bias conesus and hopefulyl we can all agree on it regrardless if it doesnt suit our own personal agenda wikipedia is about source and conesus and i hope we all can appericate thatAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Andrew Crawford, yourve cleared nothing up, your assertions are based on you being a supporter of Rangers FC and wanting something to cling too, Im sorry your club are no more but please for the sake of fairness and honesty, get over it,this is wikipedia for goodness sake,its not about emotion,its about cold hard fact, and the FACT is 100% that Rangers FC are now liquidated, end off, dead as a dodo, no more finished kaput... end off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.103.225 (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Andrew Crawford - That cleared nothing up. And also, yes, articles on wikipedia need to be consistent. That is the whole point of having a universal encyclopaedia, is it not?

See Vale of Leven F.C. for another case where we have a single article on a club which folded and a new club re-emerged with the same name, and the article explicitly mentions a few other Scottish clubs where this happened. In practice a crucial factor seems to be that the new club is effectively regarded as a continuation of the old club if it carries on playing at the same ground, which happened with most of these clubs but not Gretna. PatGallacher (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And there lies the crux of the matter. Many here have done an awful lot of personal research about company law, and reckon they're quite experts. It is all very interesting, but this article is not about just a company. It is about a football club, a football team and a cultural landmark. Wikipedia doesn't care what some editor's expert analysis of company law concludes. What is important is what reliable sources generally regard the situation to be. No-one, but no-one, is reporting this story as if the new company's Rangers is some new invention, imagined out of nothing. Everyone is reporting it as a continuation of Rangers Football club. A much reduced and humbled version, certainly, but essentially the same club, with the exact same manager, the exact same ground, the exact same fans and many of the same players and staff. The idea that some new suits sitting in the director's box with a different company name on the letter heading means it's a totally different club, meriting a totally different article, is perverse and not in line with sources. Anyone who thinks that having an end date on the info box here is going to in anyway resemble reality is dreaming. Rangers will be generally regarded as having continued on under a new company and no-one will care what company law says. It won't matter because a football club is not just a company.
No reader is going to come to Wikipedia wanting to read about Oldco Rangers, to the exclusion of Newco Rangers, and every reader who wishes to read about Newco Rangers has every right to read about Oldco Rangers. Their stories cannot be told separately, they are integral to each other, having them in separate articles makes absolutely no sense.
Reference to other teams' articles is interesting, but not binding. Each situation is different. What matters is what the sources say and what is right for this article.
Emotion and the love of your team is different from fact, wikipedia needs to keep its integrity,Rangers FC are no more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.103.225 (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2012‎ (UTC)
And before we get yet more irrelevant talk about who's a fan of whom; I am not a fan of Rangers and I would argue the exact same about any major league team of any sport. The club is more than the company that runs it. If it was just another company we wouldn't be having this discussion. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
What you say is equally true of other football clubs that have gone into liquidation, though of course Rangers FC is much more significant than those on any measure - but surely size isn't the important difference here is it? As for your point about people wanting to read about oldco as well as newco - yes, that's why all articles for clubs that have reformed from liquidation have clear links to the related articles. There is a great deal of ignorance about what is really going on - and that is exhibited in some of the newspapers as well as on blogs and forums - and the role of an encyclopaedia is to provide clear and accurate infomation. Having a single article for oldco Rangers and newco Rangers would add to the misunderstandings about the differences between administration and liquidation. As a coomment above said "Exiting via a newco purchase isn't much different from exiting administration via a CVA"...help!!! The newco Rangers may carry the 'spirit' of Rangers - just like other newcos have carried forward the spirit of those clubs as well - but a newco is a new incarnation, and should be a new article to reflect that, as has been done for several other British clubs that have been liquidated. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
In any way the article should not have been changed to a past tense without consensus and a formal result from Dispute resolution.
There are clearly precedents that have been set already on wikipedia and conflicting reliable sources to back up whatever opinion we may have.
In all respects the article before and after liquidation of the parent company should be the same (like with Fiorentina). A separate article can be clearly created which explains (in vast detail) the circumstances of the administration and liquidation process and subsequent formation of the new company. This way a link can be made between the "Rangers FC" article and the "Administration and Liquidation of the PLC" for readers who have an interest in that.
This would be far less confusing and would make common sense for the wikipedia community and readers who would like to know more about Rangers FC. Monkeymanman (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well put monkeymanman, to suggest that Napoli & Fiorentina are different because the italian insolvency laws are different is not only an absurd view, but a bias one. Wikipedia documents football clubs across the globe with a similar consistency. It documents Fiorentina as a singular club but also documents them founded 1926, and then in brackets, 2002. Napoli also mentions the club was "founded in 1926 (refounded in 2004)".

And to the above mentioend examples of British clubs being reformed, Fishihelper mentions they clubs didn't actually 'liquidate' which is contrary to Wikipedia's own information from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_%28British_football%29 In this case of Charlton, the club is run by Charlton Athletic Football Company LTD (1984) which is housed by Charlton Athletic Holdings Limited (1992). There is no record of the old company what-so-ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky072 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Uefa is the Governing body of European Football. http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=52817/profile/index.html shows that Fiorentina of Italy who were placed in the 4th tier of Italian Football are deemed to be the same Club with history intact. The attempts by people to show Rangers Fc as a defunct Club merely show hatred within Scotland's football community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andydbeattie (talk • contribs) 01:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/18417312. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/a2/b6/0,,5~177826,00.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rangers_F.C./Archive_23&oldid=1143714912"