Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 20 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

The demise of, but doesn't 'demise' mean death?

From the scotsman: "The new SPL season kicks off tomorrow and the demise of Rangers this summer has led many to assume the top flight now faces the prospect of becoming a one-horse race for the foreseeable future."

Check demise in your dictionaries...Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well how about.. The demise of Leeds United by the BBC in 2007. Yet despite that demise they still have a BBC teams football page (click Leeds which is highlighted on the menu on the left) which has a story just from a day ago. Funny that. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way that article mentions the potential of stripping rangers of titles from between 2001 and 2011. I was unaware the "new club" existed at that point, so when that investigation is underway, i take it this "new club" will not be involved or represented at any of the proceedings ? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Interesting headline from the BBC in 2010 in relation to Liverpool as well. [1]. Liverpool played a game of football just tonight as far as I know!? Sparhelda 22:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Good find, Britishwatcher - I grant you that. As for the new club not existing between 2001 and 2011 - correct. They do however claim to have bought the old Rangers' history so will feel justified in fighting to retain the record as it stands. Funny how Green argued that the investigation should be dropped - as though his club were not responsible for past wrongs but wanted to keep past glories! Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Yet more Original synthesis to be ignored. Check your dictionaries? Seriously?? You are wasting your time here. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Whilst legally newco cannot be held responsible for oldco’s debts and legal wrongs, the SFA and SPL are clubs which can choose whom to admit as members. They can set their own conditions. The position Mr Doncaster, and one would assume Mr Regan, would be moving towards would be based on a simple question to whoever runs “Rangers”. If newco Rangers wants the good parts of oldco, such as the history, it has to accept the bad parts, such as the penalties for bringing the game into disrepute and any penalty for the illegal payments/dual contracts inquiry. If newco wants to be treated as a new entity, with no penalty for what happened to oldco, it would have to divest itself of its history. If it wanted to keep the history, then it pays the penalties for wrong-doing. Whilst I am sure that many fans would maintain the history, it would come against a backcloth of the club itself acknowledging it was in fact a new entity, or at best a cousin to the oldco. A business decision would be a no-brainer. In return for avoiding penalties that could include suspension from the League, just accept that you are a new company? In any field other than sport, that choice would take 1 second (on a slow day). But history matters, and fear of alienating some loyal fans might provoke the owner of newco into formal acceptance of any penalties, as long as this enables the new business plan still to work. subject to the possibility that past titles won during the operation of the alleged illegal payments might be stripped, the football record books will show that Rangers won many prizes, culminating in the European Cup Winners’ Cup in 1972. They will remain whatever happens to Rangers. For example, Renton, St Bernard’s, Vale of Leven and Third Lanark Rifle Volunteers/Third Lanark all remain listed as winners of the Scottish Cup.Which Rangers being a Newco company as of 30 june 2012 suggests there history does not carry over to The Rangers Football Club LTD.Any suggestion after the fact is pure hyperbole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allen231 (talkcontribs) 23:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I checked "demise" in the dictionary and it can mean 'failure' as well as 'death'. As for the history, taking the bad i.e. newco is being held responsible for oldco’s debts and legal wrongs by the SFA, means that the newco is entitled to also take the good i.e. membership transfer, formed date and trophies, otherwise you would be a new club, with a new name and new membership of the SFA. But we've already been over all this. Is there a source that says the club called Rangers playing in the 3rd division of the SFL was formed in 2012? Regards S2mhunter (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Utter madness, that's what this page has become. The SFL's club page for Rangers states quite clearly that the club that is now playing in the Third Division was formed in 1872 - that it is the same club as had played in the SPL last season, the same club that has won over 100 titles. Frankly, events and reality as interpreted by sports journalists who have found themselves wanting with regard to their journalistic endeavours over the past decade or so are secondary to what the SFL state as fact... and the fact is the SFL regard the Rangers we see playing in the Third Division as the same club. Any suggestion after that fact is pure hyperbole. And for the record, I'm a Livi and Celtic supporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

AFC Wimbledon

Funnily enough whilst i was on that football league website getting the link above, look what i came across as the most recent article... [2]. Its about a football club called AFC Wimbledon that has been mentioned above by SpiritofStGeorge. "We continue the four-part series with a club that has been making unprecedented progress since its birth in 2002 - AFC Wimbledon. 1 - AFC Wimbledon was the first club formed this century to make it into The Football League.". The contrast with the treatment by the English football league of Wimbledon and the treatment of Rangers by the SFL is interesting. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I quoted AFC Wimbledon because that is the team I support, and I confess I haven't got a clue what point you are trying to make. There is no doubt that AFC Wimbledon is a new club but it was formed by the fans of the old club to replace the club we believed was stolen from us. While we claim the history of the original Wimbledon as part of our story, we can accept that AFC Wimbledon is a new club. As for the treatment of Wimbledon and Rangers, the FA didn't care about the fans when they sanctioned the club moving to Milton Keynes and thought that our attempt to start AFC Wimbledon was "not in the wider interests of football". Compared to our treatment, I don't think Rangers fans can have any complaint. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The point i was making is simply that AFC wimbledon is a new club and treated as such by the football authorities.. in stark contrast to how the SFL treat Rangers, because it is the same club.. just under new ownership. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
If you want to judge how the league regarded the new Rangers, the SPL wouldn't admit them! It it had been the same club it wouldn't have had to apply to get in. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned the SFL, not the SPL. Do you accept the SFL view it as the same club? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned the SPL as it was clear that they felt sporting integrety meant that a new club could not start in the top division to replace its former self. As for the SFL, judging from the vote where 25 clubs out of 30 felt that the new Rangers, like any other new club, should start in the bottom league, I don't conclude that the SFL see them as the same club. That said, in the same way that Blue Square Conference North posted the history of FC Halifax Town as "Club Founded: Halifax Town FC 1911, reformed in 2008 as FC Halifax Town", the SFL website records Rangers as "Founded:1872". Perhaps they will eventually add 'reformed 2012'. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Even if they added that, it would still be treating it as the same club rather than a brand new club with no history. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
That's your interpretation. An analogy - was the UK a new state when it was formed in 1801? If so, do you think the history of the UK started in 1801? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
This is not about how we interpret things ourselves, this is about what the sources say. If the sources, such as the SFL, the administrators, the new owners and the SFA view it as the same club, along with the BBC and other media doing the same, wikipedia must follow the sources and do the same. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you now claiming that the BBC is treating it as the same club despite numerous references describing Rangers as a new club? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well they do here. Note that is about the club in the 3rd division, but notice where it says its last game was. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
And there are numerous articles where they treat it as the same club too. Yes on some articles they use the term "new club" but as has been discussed before, that is not a solid source saying this is a separate football club that was founded in 2012. I note this article from the BBC.. "EBTs were administered by the company that formerly ran Rangers and is now in the process of being liquidated." [3].. Clearly seeing it as the same club, just a new owner, and even pointing out its the old company being liquidated, not the club. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
And yet the BBC writes today: The new Rangers, who will begin life in Division Three, needed membership to play any competitive matches and negotiations over inheriting the old club's licence were protracted. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yet despite saying "new rangers" they put it on the rangers page which has a history talking about the SPL game months ago. They treat it as the club but at present regularly use terms like new, which will fade in time. It is a new company and it is a new start for the club. None of this justifies a separate article to act as though there are two separate football clubs. YOu need to provide sources saying Rangers FC was formed in 2012 to counter the SPL at least BritishWatcher (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
As I say, there are sources that say that Rangers was reformed - the difficulty is that some reformed clubs are regarded as new clubs but some reformed clubs are regarded as the same club, only reformed! Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangers' SFA membership rubber-stamped

From the BBC :"Rangers have received full membership of the Scottish Football Association, the governing body has confirmed. The relaunched Ibrox club have obtained the old Rangers' licence to play after the latter headed for liquidation." Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A common sense approach to how the rangers wiki page should look!

This is a tough one because there has been so much information and misinformation put into the public domain.

I have read all manner of articles, rules, regulations, opinion (legal and otherwise) on this topic.

I feel that for wiki to retail the credibility of information, it needs to be accurat, impartial, informed and come from the right area of expertise.

We can start to rule out certain sources such as scottish media, who on the whole do not have the relevant expertise and generally have a vested interest in providing attractive news stories to targeted audience based on maximising income and profitability for their business.

I feel we can also rule out the sfa, spl & sfl are they have a product to sell and they will be able to put a bigger price on it if it contains "rangers" as opposed to sevco.

I have heard the argument that "the club" was sold to sevco so it is now rangers and that is what is recognised by the governing bodies. The facts of this area that the fixed assets of thenow in liquidation rangers fc were sold to sevco. Although players and spl membership were also included in the sale, this was quickly found not to be legal as the administrators had no power to sell the share held by old rangers and the players, legally, had no obligation to transfer to the new club.

I have heard people say that because sevco have received sanctions and have to repay football debt related to old rangers, that this too means that they are one and the same. The reality is that sevco do not need to take ownership of old rangers sfa membership which would mean, no transfer embargo, fines, etc. However, this would also mean that sevco would need to wait 3 years until they had produced the required nuber of years of audited accounts to qualify for sfa membership of their own. When faced with the 2 options on the table, it is easy to see why sevco picked the sanction route. This also suits the governing body, as they get to retain a "rangers" in some form, and also appear to be handing out a punishment for wrongdoing.

Uefa should be viewed as an impartial source. As the european governing body, they have to be seen to be impartial and show no bias or favouritism to any club. Sevcodo not qualify for access to european competition for 3 years because they are a new club.

Legally, when a club is liquidated, that is the end. The assets may be sold off but the company does not live on. If the company had a football team and the team bus was sold off in the liquidation, this does not mean that the team live on.

I would like to see an accurate rangers fc wiki page (locked for future editing) that explains exactly what happened to the club and includes a not at the bottom which advised that rangers fc were replaced my "the rangers fc" as they now want to be known and then a link to "the rangers fc" wiki page.

If i knew nothing about the whole saga and wanted to come to wiki for info, i would want to know that i was getting accurate, untainted or bias information. I am sure there will always be a team called rangers, in glasgow, however, it should be clear that it is not the same team. Stuart "legal research student and football fanatic" (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I would view uefa as an inpartial source. The european governing body can not be seen to give preferencial treatment to anyone, therefore, rangers liquidated, sevco are new club, equals 3 years omit

The UEFA issue is to do with accounts, it confirms nothing about 'new club'. Sparhelda 23:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
A legal research student and yet can't read UEFA rules. Chapter 2 Article 12 - The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision. BadSynergy (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
You are totally incorrect to rule out the SFA and SPL. Whatever you may determine as their interests, they are the ruling bodies in Scottish Football. It doesn't matter one bit whether what their motivations are. Estimations by Wikipedia editors are a not within a million miles of discounting their decisions. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest rangers are a new club. Only when reliable sources are shown to show the club was formed in 2012 is when it will change. As it stands it is the same club, and the sources are proving that it is. It is the same club — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talkcontribs) 03:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

They never wanted to be, and are no longer, called "The Rangers FC". It was until the legal issues were resolved - check. The players didn't need to transfer because Mr Green made a mess of the the notification period he needed to give the players. Leeds Utd's company and others were liquidated but their Wiki pages are the same. S2mhunter (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The players don't have to transfer even if they are given the correct notification period. The purpose of getting a notification period is to give them time to decide whether they wish to transfer. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC);
Seriously, there's such uninformed crap written on this page. Find out what TUPE is before pontificating, & this will help. Oh, and it's worth understanding in what circumstances TUPE applies. sheesh DeCausa (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The New Statesman's analysis of Rangers

Key quotes from the article:

"On 12 June, HMRC signalled its intention to oppose a company voluntary arran­gement (CVA) that the club’s new owners hoped would be accepted by its hundreds of creditors. In so doing, HMRC has brought the curtain down on the 140-year history of one of the world’s most successful football clubs. Rangers will now be liquidated and their assets sold. The next few weeks will determine what form any new club rising from the ashes will take."

Comments: 'brought the curtain down on the 140-year history' - that is the length of the club's history and not that of the company. Also, what arises post-liquidation will be a 'new club'.

"HMRC and Ticketus together are owed 86 per cent of the Rangers debt, and as a CVA requires agreement from creditors owed 75 per cent of a firm’s debt, the approval of both is a prerequisite. If either demurs, a winding up of the assets and liquidation will follow. In such circumstances a newco (a new club) would need to be formed. It might look like Rangers and sound like Ran­gers, but would it be accepted as Rangers?"

Comments: the phrase 'a newco' can also be used to refer to a new club and not just a new company as some have suggested. That is how it is used here.
'It might look like Rangers and sound like Ran­gers, but would it be accepted as Rangers?' - implication, even though it isn't Rangers.

"Rangers are much more than just a football club."

Comment : which is why the true essence of 'Rangers' will survive the death of the old club and the transfer of the spirit/tradition to the new. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
"that the club’s new owners hoped would be accepted by its hundreds of creditors." Could you explain that... which club and who are the new owners that sentence refers to? Also this is a journalist or individual giving opinions on what happened.. I would rather trust the primary source of HMRC who said liquidation would not prevent the sale of the club. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
" It might look like Rangers and sound like Ran­gers, but would it be accepted as Rangers? " well the Scottish Football League certainly do, some wikipedia editors may not but im not entirely sure that is enough to justify pretending the club is dead. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's really quite ridiculous to keep on providing journalism to back up either sides' arguments on this. Headlines and journalese aren't going to provide any answer here and will only lead to confusion - which it obviously has. Wait until there's a source that's reliable on this particular issue and go from there. (Btw, as a lawyer, the answer is reasonably obvious to me - but I won't go down that OR path) DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Is a football governing body what you'd call reliable? Sparhelda 10:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The point is sources aren't reliable in every instance: it depends what they're talking about and how they said it. If a football governing body is making a statement about the club and in passing refers to it as the "new" club for ease of reference - that isn't to me RS that it is a new club. It's on a par with journalese. If however they made a focused statement on whether it is or isn't a new club then that clearly is RS for saying that the body regards it as a new club. (Although there are other considerations than that for whether it is a new club.) There's a difference between using terminology that is convenient (or readable/sellable in the case of newspapers) and specifically addressing the issue head on in a considered and informed manner. DeCausa (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to say that the New Statesman's article was published on 13th June, so a lot has happened it the meantime to doubt that it is a new club, particularly the SFL & UEFA sites. I still can't find an article that says Rangers was founded in 2012. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I still can't find a source to say that FC Halifax was formed in 2008 though this source says Halifax Town AFC was formed in 1911 and reformed as FC Halifax Town in 2008. Does that make FC Halifax the same club as Halifax Town AFC? They have separate articles on wikipedia. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Why about some sources showing rangers were formed in 2012? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice if they provided us with a source actually saying that yes. incredible this has been going on for weeks, but all they depend on is a few loose words by journalists or the SFA chiefs comment in an interview, despite other sources (and in many cases the same article) completely contradicting the idea its different clubs. They have provided NO reliable sources at all to justify two separate articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
There are sources that say Rangers was 'reformed' such as "The club could not be saved from liquidation and were reformed by a new company". [4] Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Spiritofstgeorge, we've gone over a dozen times previously already how the Halifax Town analogy is less correct than say Leeds Utd (see above). Where are the sources that say Rangers was "founded" in 2012, to contradict the SFL? Regards S2mhunter (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Saying reformed is very different to it being a different club. Infact "reformed" rather than "formed" implies its connected. And the wording used in that one sentence is insignificant compared to the fact the BBC treat it as the same club, with it clearly showing the football club that will be playing in div 3, with a history of playing in the premier league. How do you explain that? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Put "Newco Rangers" in google - look at all the articles - that's why we have a separate Wikipedia page. Put "Newco Leeds" in google - you get a few hits of Rangers fans mewling on web forums - that's why Wikipedia doesn't have two articles for Leeds. Is it really that difficult? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it that difficult for you guys to provide us sources saying this football club was created or founded in 2012? to counter what the SFL show. Im afraid the lack of "newco leeds" relates to it being nowhere near as notable a football club as rangers, with nowhere near as many articles about it. Besides, the fact there is a term newco rangers for a couple of months does not back up if the club was founded in 2012. And even if "newco rangers" have to have an article because of the number of sources.. it could simply be about a term used for a couple of months, rather than trying to make out like it is a full football article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh and this rather important looking document mentions "Leeds NewCo" almost a dozen times.[5] BritishWatcher (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Found this too "This offer is unconditional, subject to there being no challenge to the administration and the Football League transferring Leeds United's share to the NewCo" [6] S2mhunter (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Primary sources. There is an article today which explains the SFL position: namely they now have a lucrative TV deal off the back of the Newco. Obviously it suits them to market the new club as being the same. It strikes me that even after the transfer of SFA membership and the season kicking off - the quality sources are still making the distinction between old Rangers and new Rangers. [7] Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Google hit counting as a source is not only original research, but the epitome of desperation. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
But I didn't say "count the hits as a source," I said "look at all the articles". Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
So many articles have used an adjective in front of the noun "Rangers" in their headlines. So? Anything you are inferring from that is original research. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not counting google hits or doing original research based on headlines. I'm asking editors to consider reliable sources in the usual Wikipedia way. You seem unwilling or unable to do that.Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Darlington precedent

From the BBC "DFC 1883 Limited have completed the purchase of the assets of Darlington Football Club from administrators. The deal means the group will now take over the running of the club, while debts relating to it remain with Darlington 2009 Limited."

Sound familiar? The same approach Sevco took in buying the assets of Rangers FC. The only difference is the FA forced the reformed Darlington club to adopt a new name whereas the SFA didn't do that with Rangers. Wikipedia has two articles: one for the original club (Darlington F.C.) and one for the new club (Darlington 1883). Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It needed a new page because if you read Darlington page it says, 'In May 2012, the club was bought out of a period of administration without entering into a Creditors Voluntary Agreement (CVA). The Football Association ruled that it should be treated as a new club, which required a change of playing name.' BadSynergy (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
At this point I'd like to suggest that the term "clutching at straws" is applicable. Does anyone have any hard evidence at all that the club currently playing in the SFL was founded in 2012 and is therefore a totally different club from the club which was founded in 1872/3? Throw up all the examples you like of situations which may or may not be similar in the same or in different footballing jurisdictions, but unless it can be proven that the club currently playing in the SFL is a new entity - a 2012 entity rather than the 1872/3 entity - then it's utterly meaningless, and dragging out themes and arguments that have already run their course. Right now the SFL's website hosts an up-to-date club page for Rangers giving the founding date as 1872 along with all the current competitions the club is playing in this season, as well as the titles the club has won over the past 140 years. It doesn't matter if the SFA/SFL decided for purely financial reasons that this is the same club, it doesn't matter if they've decided that this is the same club because they see the purchase in the terms as suggested by HMRC, all that matters is that they see the club playing in the SFL this season as being the same club that played in the SPL last season, and we know this because of the founding date. Oh, and yes, I'm a Rangers supporter, my dad is a Celtic supporter, my brother an Aberdeen and Liverpool supporter, and my mother comes from, and is, a Darlington supporter. Not that any of that actually matters, because the only thing that really matters is how the governing body and the leagues in Scotland see Rangers, and apparently the club is seen as the same entity as it has always been.
So the SFL recorded Rangers as founded in 1872. Well the Northern League records Darlington 1883 as founded in 1883. [8] If the relaunched/refounded/reconstituted Darlington club has a separate article on wikipedia, the relaunched/refounded/reconstituted Rangers should be treated exactly the same way. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The difference being that with regard to the relaunched Darlington "The Football Association ruled that it should be treated as a new club". No such ruling has been issued by the SFA with regard to Rangers. This is why I suggested that it is pointless trying to use examples of what happened to other clubs to support your argument - they're just not valid. Now, if you can find a solid piece of evidence which points out that Rangers is a new club in the eyes of the governing body and leagues in Scotland - say, a new founding date - then you'd have something to support the suggestion that two pages are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The SFA has pointed refuse to answer if Rangers is the same club. All they have agreed to do is transfer Rangers membership of the SFA to the new club. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
So, you have no evidence from the governing body to support your claim. No edict demanding that the club playing in SFL3 be treated as a new club. No new founding date. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Infact if you read one of the sources on the Darlington 1883 page[9] there's a statement from the FA's league's manager Mike Appleby where he says, 'The decisions of The FA have not removed the history of Darlington FC. The history of the Club will remain.' So it obviously needs a new page because they had to change club name, however it would seem they kept their history etc. BadSynergy (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

They had to change their name because of FA rules. If Rangers had been in England they would have had to change their name to. Adam4267 (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Spot on, Adam4267. The owners of Darlington 1883 believe they are a continuation of Darlington Town FC, as do the fans - just like the owners and fans of the new Rangers believe they are a continuation of the old Rangers. However, the new Darlington has a separate article for the old and new club - Rangers should be no different. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Have you found any solid evidence from the governing bodies in Scotland which support your stance that this is a new club? I haven't seen anything. What we do have is the joint press statement from the SFA, SFL, SPL and Sevco Scotland, and from this we have the following from Stewart Regan, Chief Executive of the Scottish FA: "We are pleased for everyone involved in this process, and indeed the whole of Scottish football, that a conclusion has been reached. There were a number of complex and challenging issues involved but, primarily, the Scottish FA had to be satisfied that the new owners of Rangers would operate in the best interests of the club, its fans and Scottish football in general". Note the wording, 'the new owners of Rangers', and not 'the owners of the new Rangers' or any such indication that he views this club as being a new entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Rangers is not Darlington. The situation involving Darlington is not the situation involving Rangers. Source about Darlington do not say the say as sources on Rangers. What happens on the Darlington article are what is right for the Darlington article. What is right for the Darlington article is not necessarily what is right for the Rangers article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I am very curious that the user SpiritofStGeorge has evidently, and quite strangely, forgotten entirely the answer I gave to this EXACT misunderstanding of his four days ago on a different talk page (view history):

"Darlington, and other clubs like Gretna/Halifax/Chester etc, are red herrings, invalid comparisons to the case of Rangers. Their post-'oldco' application granted by the authorities was for a "New Club" membership, rather than a Rangers/Leeds/Middlesbrough style transfer of existing membership. This distinction is crucial to determining whether the rules allow name and identity to be retained, as in the case with Rangers/Leeds/Boro, or whether a new identity and team name must be adopted, as in Darlington 1883."

I will assume good faith and put it down to simple forgetfulness.Gefetane (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No more spam

I have fixed up the page to what it should be with Rangers are a football club. I have provided a link to prove that Rangers Football Club plc where a holding company of the club. Charles green confirmed that, i dont know how to link up the link to the section I wrote so i put the link in external linkd. I will also post it here I have a few more links if they are needed. Also can people please stop spamming the page its not fair on the people who have to go back and put it right again. If you want to add or change something please provide a solid source. Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talkcontribs) 05:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is heading in the right direction now i.e. decision left to reader, just needs a bit more updating and we're there. A remaining point is the "The Rangers FC " article, which should have its title changed to be about either the new comapany or the liquidation process, so that it can be hyperlinked to/from this article. S2mhunter (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. This again. Seriously. Wikipedia is meant to be unbiased - When are Rangers fans going to accept it? Seriously. This is getting tiresome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andevaesen (talkcontribs) 10:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
When are people going to accept that reliable sources, including the Scottish football authorities treat this as the same football club and wikipedia should reflect that. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
What is tiresome is editors ;
Wikipiedia is is neutral and verifiable. Please follow these core policies and neutrally present verifiable sources. Until this is done you've got nothing. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Non Playing Staff

Any reliable up to date refs that reflect who the new board members are? Monkeymanman (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Should be plenty of sources about Green being chief executive. Malcolm Murray appointed chairman, Brian Stockbridge financial director, also in same source mentions Imran Ahmad will join board as non-executive director. BadSynergy (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Tribunal to determine Naismith fee

Just noticed this would this be placed here or in the company page? BadSynergy (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Judgement call I'd say. More football than business, so probably here? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, football one although the general situation/issues regarding player contracts transferring over from the old company to the new one, is notable for the company article too. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I've put tribunal into the season article in Naismith's fee section. Sparhelda 17:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Spar I included it in this page aswell seeing Naismith was already used an example of players who left. BadSynergy (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


Will any mention of EBT's go on this page or company page? Just asking because David Murray has released a statement today talking about them[10]. BadSynergy (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly notable for this article rather than the company one. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Although would be more appropriate on an article like this Administration and Liquidation of Rangers F.C. PlcMonkeymanman (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Admin article probably best as there's so much information on it. BadSynergy (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Progress made

Glad to see this article finally coming together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talkcontribs) 17:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC) ;

Vandalising any Wikipedia article is the opposite of making progress. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
please stop the vandelism we are making progress but there is stilla lot of work to do behind the scenes with regards to the dispute this is only happened because i felt the heat has came off so edit warring wont be happening as much but if it does it will be locked down again--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't see the point in the "Newco Rangers" article being there and most of it is misleading information. Better no information than some false information in Wikipedia, thats why I had wiped its content. But for the sake to keep the heat off and get this sorted I shall leave it alone. Although in due course I believe the "Newco Rangers" article should be deleted as it is too misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talkcontribs) 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Charles Green as owner

Someone has asked over on the Charles Green (businessman) talkpage if its accurate to describe Green as the owner, or if he is just CEO and representing the consortium that owns it. Thought that was a rather important point worth raising and clarifying here seen as it reflects a number of articles so need a single approach. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Being a pedantic lawyer, my view is the company is the only entity that should be called the owner. DeCausa (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Sources describe him as owner and CEO however I remember reading he was making sure they would be no one owner of Rangers and that's why investors would only get 10-15% stake in the club. Could maybe go with something along they lines? BadSynergy (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
So for the infobox maybe if there is a CEO position available in that template it would be better to put CEO Green, Owner = The Rangers Football Club Ltd? There are certainly sources saying he is the owner, but also sources saying its a consortium simply led by him that got it. Been so distracted with if its the same club or not dont remember seeing anything saying what sort of stake he has in it, but i also have seen where Green said that no 1 person should be owner. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The statement on the day of the sale simply said he was the new CE and represents the consortium. So i think we probably should reflect that in the articles, and avoid saying owner.[11] BritishWatcher (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds about right. BadSynergy (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the infobox parameters it does not look like there is a CE line, but the owner title can be renamed. So the choice would be to keep Owner and put The Rangers Football Club Ltd or to change "owner" to "Chief Executive": Charles Green. Dont know which people feel is the more useful bit of information... the CE or company name. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Bring the article to GA and FA status

once all teh dispute over the club is dead or not is over, i think we should start to work to bring this article to top quailty article wikipedia strives for i am willign to do a lot of the work one of the main things is teh references need to be coverted to cite but we can also get peer review--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the first things to do would be sort out the opening paragraphs. In the club's accolades it mentions numerous runner-up finishes in the Euro cups, and hides the actual victory in 1972 at the end of a sentence. The 1972 victory should definitely be mentioned at the start of the sentence, and for a club of Ranger's stature I'm surprised that the article even mentions when they came runner up in something -- why not just drop that completely and focus on victories?--Dingowasher (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

" collectively known as the Old Firm, which dates back to the late 19th century; however the clubs will not be playing each other in the league until at least the 2015-16 season." - i think we should change this bit. Seems a little crystal-ball to definatevly state they will not play until 2015-16 season, with so much talk of recunstructing scottish football and perhaps an SPL 2. I would reccomend either ending the sentence at '19th century'. Ricky072 (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Totally speculative and unsourced. It also assumes that cup games some how don't count, or won't happen. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
any other things just post and we can work to get them made better, i wont start hte work on coverting until we have got the dispute settled nor will i do the peer review but it good to see that the eidt warring has stopppedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure good work andrew. I think this could be improved "As a result of the club's owner, The Rangers Football Club plc, entering administration the company's assets and Scottish Football Association membership transferred to a new owner, and Rangers began the 2012-13 season in the Third Division.". I think that "As a result of the clubs owner" is very vague so i'm going to expand this part of the sentence slightly in an edit to be a little more informative. Ricky072 (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I've edited that sentence to something i feels is slightly clearer and flows a little better: "As a result of the club's lengthy dispute with HMRC, The Rangers Football Club plc entered administration and subsequently liquidation proceedings, where the company's assets and Scottish Football Association membership transferred to a new owner, and Rangers began the 2012-13 season in the Third Division under new ownership" Ricky072 (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"subsequently liquidation proceedings". I think someone's reverted it anyway but: (1) terminolgy: it's not "proceedings", just "entered liquidation" (2) I don't think it has entered liquidation yet. Companies House is showing them (online) as "in administration" only not "in administration & liquidation". When the CVA failed the careful news reports said "will enter liquidation" as a result, but the sloppier ones said "gone into liquidation". This may have caused confusion. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, i dont dispute companies hosue status still formally recognises the company as in administration, but the process of liquidation, technically, has went underway with the sale of the assets. Adminitrators are still resolving issues and the company is not in control of the liquidators yet who will dispese the funds to creditors, but the i'm sure the assets sale was formally a part fo the process of liquidation. Either way i still think the sentence i editeded needs to be changed/improved. Ricky072 (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I have to disagree - and maybe this is pedantic. To enter liquidation is as much a formal status as is entering administration. The sale of the assets doesn't technically mark the beginning of liquidation - although it would make liquidation inevitable. It's true, I would have expected the company to be in liquidation by now, but companies house still is referring to the company being in administration not liquidation. I can't see how it can be in liquidation without it showing up at Companies House; the Companies House record is legally definitive and registration is mandatory. DeCausa (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── HMRC said that BDO where appointed as liqudiation proceeding have beguin, but i agree ther enot in liqudiation yet, but the proceeding have begun so they can be classed as formal proceeedings--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Now that progress seems to continue to be made with this article, some of the impacted articles are going to need checking and improving to try and avoid any contradictory wording. Scottish Football League Third Division is going to need some attention on how the transition is described on there, just had to undo a mass of changes which contradicted what is described in this article. It would be great if this article could get GA status, one step at a time but over the coming weeks ill try and help a bit. there is certainly a lot of improvements still needed at present. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

All invovled articles needing updated

Articles involved in the dispute

Main articles affected
Articles that will need altered depending on the outcome of this dispute

All the below articles are in dispute allow not having content wars, they are in dispute because depending on the consensus of whether it is new club or the same club affect what happens to the pages and templates below.

There could be many more articles relating to rangers in some way that might be affected in some way depending on the consensus.
There is also other articles relating to Scotland or Scottish football that are affect for example

Not directly related but affected

that all i can find so someoen will need to verify the tense and article links are right ie not newco rangers assumign onsensus stays the wya it is--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Not many of them should need changing assuming common sense takes place about this 'new club' takes place. Sparhelda 19:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Common sense isn't very common - Especially when half of the people debating the issue are fans of the club. Wikipedia = Non-biased. Remember it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andevaesen (talkcontribs) 06:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate information on this page

Why is there a need for the transfers and stats to be here when they are on this page. Also, there is no need for the reserve squad (fanscruff would be a good description) when there is a page here about that. Salty1984 (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There was no reason for the transfers to be on the page its totally irrelevant to the page. Ive changed it to the standard of other club articles including a link to the season article transfer section. As for the reserve and under 19's i don't see a problem with that being included as it is on many other pages.Blethering Scot 21:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangers rivalry with Celtic

Is it still fair to say that Rangers has "fierce rivalry" with Celtic in the opening paragraph, especially as the two teams are not scheduled to play until 2015 at the earliest, assuming that Rangers earns three successive promotions?--Dingowasher (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There are chances that they could play against each other in cup competitions, i believe the rivalry is still there although i would support an add on to that sentence about the rivalry mentioning the issue of them not playing in the same league like..Rangers has a fierce rivalry with Celtic, although the two no longer play in the same league since Rangers were put in division 3 etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

How can The Rangers have a rivalry with Celtic if they have never played them before or are even in the same division ? it does not make sense Andrew Crawford, oops sorry 'british watcher' — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read up Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and Wikipedia:Civility. BadSynergy (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It does give the impression they are neck-and-neck in the same league as of now. Maybe adding "long-standing" would give it the longer term perspective. DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"Long standing" sounds good. Monkeymanman (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Long standing rivalry rather than fierce rivalry id support too. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Good compromise. Was never keen on "fierce" anyway. Too POVy. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Celtic had a rivalry with Rangers, it was known as the Old Firm and dated back to 1888, Celtic as of yet do not have a rivalry with 'The Rangers' and its highly unlikely that fans of Celtic will view 'The Rangers' or Newco Rangers as rivals,as the rivalry died when Rangers where liquidated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


Charles Green, speaking in the Daily Record on the 13th of August 2012 declared that debts of Rangers were not debts of Sevco. This alone would prove that the two were not the same club, in his opinion.

"“They are not even my debts but I’ve paid them anyway as we want to put this behind us and rise again."


Sevco have no trophies. No history. Nothing.

No-one outwith the fans and staff of the club acknowledge anything written on this page. It is not factual, it is all in their minds.

They have not been relaunched, it is a new company hence the term NEWCO RANGERS. They will likely die again after paying £5-10k a week in the Third Division. Salty1984 (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read the talk page discussion before weighing in with the same old unsourced claims we've been over a hundred times already. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Please provide just ONE source that in any way is more notable and important than how the Scottish Football League view Rangers. If you can provide such a source, you will have accomplished something that others have failed for about a month. Thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The SFL website had players at various clubs five years after they left, and had players at my club that I'd never even heard of; it will never be a viable source of anything other than out of date news. Anyone that takes statistical proof from there knows nothing about Scottish football!

David Longmuir will simply be saving himself and his organisation from a hysterical backlash from the masses of orcs who can't see the bigger picture.

The BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation says the following.

These are facts, as Airdrie United bought the Bankies' place they got to keep Clydebank's history. Sevco did not buy Rangers place, they applied in the same way that Elgin, Peterhead, Gretna and Ross County did in recent years. It is a brand new club, not a continuation of the old one. If it were a continuation of the old one then HMRC could take up the debts with Charles Green. Salty1984 (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That source doesn't support your stance so I find it strange that you would use it. No one is disputing the old company will be liquidated however as the BBC article says its a new company not a new club. And as far as the SFL source that is your opinion on it something Wikipedia doesn't use. BadSynergy (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
(EC) Well thank you for at least trying to justify your position, although calling people "orcs" was hardly helpful.
The point about the Scottish Football League regarding keeping up to date with players at clubs is irrelevant, the point is the SFL say the football club that is playing in Div 3 was founded in 1873. That is a reliable source, and some of their articles have clearly reflected it is the same club.
You mention the BBC, well i suggest you look at their main Rangers page, which treats it as one club.. showing it will play in Div3, but highlighting their last match was in the Scottish Premier League.
You mention Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, well they specifically stated that liquidation of the company would not prevent the sale of the club.
It is not a bunch of rangers fans trying to pretend their club still exists. The sources overwhelmingly back the case for treating it as the same club and until you or others provide sources stating Rangers FC was founded in 2012, there is no case for treating them as separate ones. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
As a concerned admin (and a rugby-watching Englishman with no views either way on this argument) I have been watching this article and talk page closely. The consensus has clearly emerged that this is, in fact, the same club. Newly-arriving editors continually raising the same question after it has been resolved are not helping. I do realise that views on either side are strongly held, but the depth of feeling has no effect on the consensus. If there are any doubts about the validity of the consensus arrived at, then the right way forward is to go for a formal request for comment. Further informal debate here is not the way forward. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. it's clear that the continual arrival of new participants with strident views is not only non-productive but positively disruptive and tends to unnecessarily inflame the atmosphere. But there doesn't seem to be anything that can stop it. Is there anything you could suggest? DeCausa (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could put together a FAQ or notice at the top of the talk page at least a temporary one, which summarises the main sources and justification for why the articles are presently handled the way they are? And possibly even a brief edit note at the top of the article asking people to discuss on the talk page if they have issues with the current setup rather than them just making alterations that end up getting undone? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Would save us having to answer the same question everytime. BadSynergy (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
That's how the images issue is handled on the Muhammad talk page. Although it hasn't really stopped regular postings on the issue - but still worth a try here. There's also a secondary talk page to which any postings on images are transferred. DeCausa (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that common sense has prevailed. I am not a Rangers fan and I can understand that they have made many enemies over the years. However we still have to handle this issue in a fair and encyclopedic way. The bulk of the Scottish public, or at least those who follow football significantly, regards them as basically the same club, albeit one which has gone through a major crisis. PatGallacher (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

By sales alone, Michael Jackson is regarded as a musical genius. Does it make it true? "Basically the same club" kind of gives it away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andevaesen (talkcontribs) 05:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Fortunately Wikipedia does not contain what is "true". It contains what is verifiable. This policy wasn't established by accident, it was done in anticipation for exactly these kind of arguments, making them irrelevant. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As much as I don't agree with it, here is the explanation provided to me by the SFL.

"The Scottish Football League has accepted Rangers as an Associate Member.

The Scottish Football Association membership of Rangers FC was transferred from Rangers Football Club PLC (in Administration) ("Oldco") to Sevco Scotland Limited (now called The Rangers Football Club Limited) ("Newco") in terms of Article 14 of the Scottish FA's Articles and, therefore, it is entirely appropriate for the Scottish Football League to represent Rangers in the manner detailed on our website."

Salty1984 (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

excately it not for us to say, wikipedia onyl represent what the 3rd party source say and primary, sfa,sfl treat them as the same club so we have to regardless if they are or not--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing that with us despite disagreeing with their response. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Without doubt the newco which was established in May 2012 is not Rangers FC,its ludicrous to suggest the club is the same as the one which was liquidated, the liquidated club after all was Rangers football CLUB, its only the Rangers supporters on wiki who are despairate to cling to hope that theyll keep on perpetrating this incredible myth that somehow this new club is the same as the old club despite the old club being liquidated and the assets sold,you also cannot sell a history of the business as this would only leave the new club open to claim by the disgruntled creditors whom they stole money from,no make no mistake, Rangers FC died in disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

i think a topic ban on these subject for you is required your very biased and have very stong POV. sources describe it as the same club, you are personal welcome to sya its a new club but your accusing people who maintian this aritcle of being rangers fans, at least 3 of hte ones maintianing this article and updating it are not fans of the club or the new club as you put it, but we go with sources and they say it the same club take your pov to rangers forum not here and wikipedia is not a forum--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section is an overview of the article whilst it does not require to be technical, the words as a result of a tax dispute with HMRC are wholly relevant to an overview of the situation bearing in mind Rangers were only in the situation of liqudation because of the tax case. Blethering Scot 23:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could make the terms consistent throughout too. For example we have "Founded 1872" in the box but then in the summary there is "Formed in 1872..." and the first section title says "Formation and early years", so should this become "Founded in 1872..." and "Foundation and early years", respectively? Also, the summary says "allowing Rangers to reform within a new company" whereas later the section title says "Administration, liquidation and relaunched club" and then "...relaunched Rangers..." so what about changing the summary to "allowing Rangers to relaunch within a new company", as there are many sources are availbable that use this term? Regards S2mhunter (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be realised that this article is about a football club and the opening paragraph, whilst outlining concisely the fact that the club was relaunched, should be light on legal/financial detail to avoid unneccesary duplication of both

  • seperate sections within the club article
  • seperate articles detailing the saga.Gefetane (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

founding year

ok this has been discussed a few times, but the infobox nmeeds to reflect the article and sources and they say both as founding but relauncjhed need to be there tpo be constient with the rest of the article of it becoming a pov and fans trying to surpress it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, i believe that enough sources say founded in 1872 for us to keep it as that date alone rather than putting 1873, although that can be mentioned within the article. I also do not see the need for relaunched in the infobox. Incorporation of the old company is not mentioned, so why should we mention the transfer to a new company? Relaunched works well for the sentence in the article itself, but not in the infobox which takes it out of context. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
What we could do is put 1872 and then a link to a footnote going into specific details about the timeline.. forming, official start with the AGM, incorporation, administration/liquidation and the new company. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
footnote would prob ally work to but 1872 needs sources and the rest of the article mmade the same the lead says formed--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
for FA we willl probally have to meantion incoraptionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, Making a point about the content of an infobox is hardly grounds to insinuate "fans trying to surpress" x,y, or z, which sounds a little pejorative - especially in light of the fact "relaunched 2012", reference to "new company" etc, is explicitly mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article. My position would lean towards IF the "relaunched 2012" is mentioned clearly within the opening sentences, its slightly awkward placement within the founding box is at least unnecessary.Gefetane (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangers fans are trying to surpress what has happened, but equally rival fans are trying to makea mountain out of amole hole, relaunched in the infobox since that is how green described it, if i remmeber correctly he said the club has been relaunched, so its not a false statement but relaunched does not mean its new club, it does not mean it the same club, livingston was relaunched as livignston fc form meadoiw bank fc just becausea club is relaunched means nothing, any of hte spl clubs could come out today and say there relaunching it means nothing more than there reshapinga image, and rangers image within world football has been badly damaged so they have relaunched the club to try start a afresh, the foundign year will depending on sources, if we have say a balance fo source saying 1872 and 1873 we will need to put 1972/1873 with 3 or 4 refernece to each and then the reader decideds, i knwo there one source saying from june about the club 139 year history not 140 so it depends on the source preceter, i am happy to ocmpruse wiht footnote using reference group that clearly states why 1872 is seen as founding and formed year and tha tthe club is sen as relaunched but without meantion in the infobox it contricdict the article and would possible fail GA mnost definetly fail FA--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I can accept Relaunched 2012 in the infobox if it facilitates consensus. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Same here. If we keep it out, it'll just invite edit warring or a larger debate about this page than is justified. I would even be okay 'Relaunched 2012' being mentioned only parenthetically in the sidebar, as it was at some point before... (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not ideal, and a bit non-standard, but if it gets consensus and an end to the edit warring then I'm all for it. Frankly I don't see this as being that big a deal. Recognition that something very significant occurred in 2012 can't be wrong. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree also. As a side note, I agree that doing such things are non-standard, but this case is relatively unusual to begin with. And I know that wikipedia doesn't work on its own precedent, but in terms of uniformity of style, using 'relaunched' establishes a helpful precedent for other clubs which have gone or will go through corporate liquidation and relaunching. LittleEdwyn (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Founding Year - Let's get consensus

I've reverted this section back to it's original, 1872, twice now, as some users are editing this section without achieving consensus first. So lets open this up for debate and get a final answer.

Q. What should be placed in the "founded section" of this info box?

--Post your view below here, and reasoning/sources--

A. "1872" . In my opinion editors want to make this section more complicated that what shoudl be placed here. Standard for wikipedia is to simply place a founding year here. I've just edited it back from 3 dates, 1872, 1873 & 2012. How can the same thing be 'founded' 3 times? This should be 1 single date, any additional significant dates can be placed within the article. On the issue of 1872 & 1873, the club themselves claim to be founded in 1872 and are celebrating 140 years in 2012. This is significant enough in my opinion. Also the club was established in 1872, played it's first game in 1872. Certain things were made 'official' and the club underwent official administrative procedures in 1873, but the brand, the club, the name, the football cluib, all of this was established and founded in 1872. Wioth the issue of pacing the club was 'relaunched' in the info bar, again i point toward the rpecedent of Leeds or Luton. The club wasn't "refounded" it was baught over. The wikipedia article itself words it as a 'purchase' therefore using the term 'relaunched' in the info box is a direct contradiction within the same article. I also think there was no 'break' in the history of Rangers, they did not miss out on a football season, nor even 1 single match, unlike, say, Napoli, or Hibernaian, both of whom have had breaks within their history of at least 1 year, or 2 in the case of Napoli. Neither fo these teams display multiple year dates within the info box. Personally i think it's common sense, if we establish consensus this is the 'same club' then place 1 founded date in the info box - and any other significant dates can be explained factually within the article. Ricky072 (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

as i keep saying it should be what ever the sources say there plenty of sources for 1872 and 1873 and charlress green desicribes it as relaunched so tha tis important the article has to be consisnt with what the sources say--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"1872" (or 1873). The foundation is of the FC (the subject of the article) not the owner of the FC. If 2012 is mentioned then so should 27/05/1899 (date of incorporation). Qualatively, it's not logical to include one without other. Btw a source for "re-launched" isn't "re-founded". DeCausa (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

relaunched isnt to do witht eh transfer toa new company, relaunched is the comprise for ht enw club camp it saying the club could be new or it could be the same it leaves it to the reader, wp:rs trumps the word founding, the question shoud be wht s meant by founding does it mean when the club started playing, when the club is recongise as a club, if it when teh club recongised as as club then its 1873 and 2012--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
"wp:rs trumps the word founding." My point is that unless the reliable source refers to "founded" or "re-founded" it's outside the scope of the infobox template parameter. An example of a source outside the scope of the infobox template parameter is one that refers to "re-launched". It may be a sourced fact it is "re-launched" but that is not relevant to a template parameter of "founded". DeCausa (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
that isa fair point to which i am goign to resaerch wha tthe rs are acutalyl saying no not wp:or i mean the exact phrases they use once finished i post back with my conculsiosn and we cna take it form there--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I originally supported 1873 (formed 1872) however that was before i realised this 1873 date was backed up by so few sources. The Scottish Football League page originally said 1873, but it now says founded 1872. The Scottish Premier league website says 1872 as does STV. I beleive for that reason we should simply put 1872, then a note.. which leads to a footnote giving a detailed timeline of events. So it can say 1872:, 1873: , 1899: , 2012 etc. I oppose inclusion of "relaunched" in the infobox, it would be better simply in the footnote, its already clearly mentioned in the introduction. Its wrong to put relaunched which relates to the transfer of the club to a new company, without covering things like the incorporation date and we cannot justify including all of those things in one parameter meant for the founding date. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

ok i am ogign to do some research into this and find sources, if as you says very few menation it then we can go the footnote way if not then we will have to look at this, im nuetral ill accept either way if rs states it that way. give me a few weeks ill post back with source si find, relaunched ill reply above about.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

1872 Rangers has one founding date and that is 1872. The club celebrated 140 years in 2012, so this 1873 number goes against the clubs own historians. As for "Relaunched", as long as this fact is made clear in the opening sentences, there is no justification for any argument that the events of 2012 are being ignored/discounted etc.Gefetane (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Other articles have "founded 19XX, reformed 19YY" where clubs have gone through similar things to Rangers - of course, some other examples of 'similar things to Rangers' have resulted in two articles (for the original club and the reformed club) but Rangers fans won't accept that! Seems they wont even accept 'reformed' though that is easily sourced. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Reverted back to 1872 once more, lets leave it at that until we reach consensus, please do not change this until we do - i'm sure we can reach consensus on this issue. Ricky072 (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Better still, let's leave it reflecting what the sources actually say unless a consensus emerges to ignore sources. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Would you both please stop edit warring and discuss i.e. not changing back to the version you prefer whilst discussing. Thats why the page was locked for some time and if either of you go over WP:3RR, which one of you are close to i will report you this isnt worth it.Blethering Scot 22:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Seconded. Edit warring while active and constructive (mostly) discussion is under way on the talk page is foolishness that only ends in blocks and locks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
As both have continued warring, I've added warnings to both their talk pages. The consequences are theirs alone. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Originally the article stated that 1872 was the founding date (this stood with consensus, the club states this is the founding date as do the SFL). This was followed by a footnote that expanded upon this to state that the first match was in 1873. We could include in the footnote that the club was re-launched in 2012 etc.Monkeymanman (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We should try and come up with a footnote that handles the 1873 date and the relaunch, but also needs to include the incorproation date of 1899 too. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there anything aginst the MOS to do a footnote like a timeline? rather than a paragraph of bulky text. Would seem to be a lot easier for people to understand if it was just something like...
  • 1872 - The club was founded
  • 1873 - Held first meeting etc
  • 1899 - Original company incorporated.
  • DATE 2012 - Company enters administration.
  • DATE 2012 - Business and assets sold to Sevco.
  • DATE 2012 - Company renamed The Rangers Football Club.
  • DATE 2012 - Accepted into division 3.
  • DATE 2012 - Given full license by the SFA.
Rather than one large paragraph for a footnote BritishWatcher (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
i dnt think there anything in the mos footnote that stop it, i think mos footnote basically says to provide addiotnal informaiton ins user friendly way, the user friendly way is open ot interuptions.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
i also add incorpation to PLC and changed 1899 to made a ltd company from a business, detaisl about the incorpation in 1899 and plc in 1994 will have to be in the article later on as we try to birng it up to FA statusAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The fact that the club became incorporated in 1899 is not particularly noteworthy - the club just took on a corporate identity. The fact that the club escaped from liquidation by having its assets etc bought by a new company - ie, it was reformed within a new company - is noteworthy and should be noted. What I find quite unacceptable is that editors are refusing to accept sourced relevant information and have been totally unable to justify why reliable sources should be ignored in this way. Simply repeating 'there is no consensus to add that information' is not an argument. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand the nature of this dispute. Users are in agreement on the broad fact that Rangers were relaunched in 2012 within a new company structure. What is in question is whether it is appropriate to place this information within the infobox besides the sub heading "Founded".
Besides erroneously claiming there is a consistent precedent in support of your position exhibited within equivalent liqudation/newco F.C. wikipedia articles (see Napoli, Middlesbrough F.C., Luton Town F.C., Charlton Athletic F.C., Leeds United A.F.C.), I cannot see what other "reliable sources" you have cited, specific to this dispute, that you believe are being ignored.Gefetane (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course, some comparable situations have resulted in two separate articles - but that approach has already been prevented. As for sources, there are a number of reliable third party sources that describe Rangers as being 'reformed within a new company'. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That is not relevant to whether "Relaunched 2012" should appear besides the infobox sub heading "Founded". Reliable sources saying Rangers were "Founded in 2012" would at least be relevant to the specific dispute at hand, and begin to count against the majority of sources that cite Rangers as being "founded" in 1872/73.
Do you have any?Gefetane (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
What I think would be appropriate is "Founded 1872 (reformed 2012)" - plenty sources support 'reformed'. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The dispute is not whether or not Rangers were reformed or relaunched, the dispute is whether or not such information should be included in the infobox under the sub-heading "founded". I am struggling to understand how you do not see that citing "sources" is irrelevant to resolving that question, which is essentially a question of Wikipedia layout and presentation. Gefetane (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── find me 10 articles on wikipedia about the same subject that are all alike, it doesnt need to be football nor does it need to be clubs goign downa newco route, i want 10 articles abouta subject where the layour and presentation about the same subject is the same as i dnt think you will find them as precdent only helps forma article it doesnt mean it gets done in ever article, you havent provide one go reason not to include 2012 as spirirt of george says ther eplenty of sources say reformed and reformed is ano0the way of saying ofunded--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not stated there is Wikipedia precedent on this specific matter, perhaps you are confusing me with SpiritofStGeorge, who has implied to that effect above. On the contrary, my provision of the links to other liquidation/newco pages on Wikipedia were to show that it is unsound to claim a uniform standard in such a way. I have provided a reason not to include 2012 within the "founded" sub heading, specifically that the club simply was not founded in 2012. I would not agree that "reformed" is another way of saying "founded", the terms are not synonymous. Other editors have tentatively supported the inclusion of "Relaunched 2012" for the reason that it will end a contentious matter and prevent edit-warring. I would be sceptical of this appeasement and point out some editors are determined to change this article to reflect their belief that Rangers (oldco) and Rangers (newco) are two different clubs rather than one club, and other aspects of the article are likely to be targeted in future. Gefetane (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC) kinda suggests that using one of them words is appiorate in this sitution, ok lets focus on 2012 ill start a new question.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 August 2012

As a new club founded by an independant company in the wake of the liquidation of Glasgow Rangers PLC "the rangers football club" exist only as of the inseption of the new club under the former Sevco scotland lmt. If the newco was founded at any point before 2012 it very well could within scottish law be treated as an attempt to de-fault its debts. The founding of the new club is not as listed a follow on from the previous club as a pheonix as both clubs existed at the same time chronologically. If the two clubs are as one as suggested in the article, liquidation of a parent company would not write-off the debt of the club leaving the club within insolvency. If the two are one, who would sevco scotland purchase assets or trade marks from, ect ect ect. The page is bias, and deeply corrupted by the short sighted ignorance which is rife in scottish sporting politics.

BigmanSJH1981 (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read prior discussion before going over the same old arguments. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, please see Halifax or chester for examples of "phoenix clubs". Rangers are not a phoenix club, they are a newco in the vein of Leeds, Charlton & Luton (to name only a few). Ricky072 (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Your premise that "both clubs existed at the same time" is false and you misunderstand the distinction between a football club and registered company. Whilst both registered companies have existed at the same time, only one Club membership licence from the SFA (which in this context is what distinguishes a company that happens to own assets like stadium, players etc. from an active, licenced football club) has existed at any one time, the licence for Rangers Football Club, which has transferred from the oldco to the newco. You have no grounds for your position. Your argument is unsound as it contains a false premise and misunderstandings regarding the terms of reference.Gefetane (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong Oppose goes against wha the sources are sayign this is editor POV not waht is veribable--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Did a important event happen in 2012 to rangers

  • DO reliable sources confirm a major restrucuting and change to rangers fc happened in 2012?

Please reply with agree or disagree

  • Do reliable sources refer to rangers as being relaunched in 2012 sometimes as the company sometimes as the club?

Please reply with agree or disagree

  • Do reliable sources sometimes refer to the club as reformed/refounded?

Please reply with agree or disagree

Andrew, I appreciate your frustration regarding the disagreement regarding this infobox issue, and your unyielding desire to be constructive. However, I fail to see what is to be achieved by a series of questions that require trawling through the same old sources for particular terms of reference like "reformed", "relaunched", "refounded". Quibbling over which terms we use to describe an event, the facts of which are not generally in dispute, is arguing over semantics.
Surely the only pertinent question that will solve this dispute is the one asked above: "What should appear besides the infobox subheading: "founded".
Furthermore, if it is consensus we are seeking, from experience it lies with the general agreement over the facts and chronology of events rather than the more contentious, catch-all phrases, the use of which can - and in my opinion should - be avoided where possible, such as in the case of this "founded" sub heading. Gefetane (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Have to agree with Gefetane. If we are to get anywhere we need to concentrate directly on questions about what should be in the article. Asking what individual editors agree/disagree with in general terms is just a small step to no where in particular. I think it's obvious to everyone that a selective trawl through sources can get you whatever cherry-picked semantics you wish. But I think that just demonstrates whatever turn of phrase a journalist happened to favour that day. Refounded, Relaunched, Reformed, Restructured; all words that mean much the same to me.
The real question, to get to the nub of the issue, is what should appear in the info box next to "Founded". My answer to that is ; not bothered, one or both dates, does it really matter? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiments of the above. We could be here all day lsiting every turn of phrase a journalist throws into the mix 'relaunched', 'saved from exticntion', 'baught over' etc... I can find sources that say all of those, but would you really want an info box to red "Founded: 1872 (saved from complete extinction 2012)" ?. If consensus is reached that it is the same club, then it's very simple, what date was the club founded? Remember this article documetns a football club, not a company. What date was THE CLUB founded? Not the company. The answer is 1872. When discussing the corporate governance of the club (presuming we are in agreement it's the same club) then we have many significant dates. 1872 was the creation, 1873 it became officialy registered and appointed a board, in 1899 it was incorporated as a company, then more recently the company became a PLC, and in 2012 we have the administration and the creation of a newco. In theory, all of those dates are significant, but are we going to clog the info box up with all of them? For example; "Founded: 1823, official 1873, incorporated company 1899, as a plc 19xx, newco 2012" ? Ofcourse not, the info box asks 1 question, What is teh foudned date. All these other significant dates can be included within the article & clubs history. Ricky072 (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
ok then this is more a question for football wiki in general so i will drop this and moe over to there later--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)