Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

No protection needed

I don't feel the need for this page to be semi protected at the moment. Things seem to be very quiet right now and the article and edits are running as an article should right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbieranger (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

although there not much when protected indeifintely again it has been proved inteh past it not a good idea it best protected forever, but semi doesnt stop estbalsihed efditors editingAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Protecting the page for ever isn't a good idea. However indefinite doesn't mean that and given the way things are going unprotecting at this time isn't a good idea. The page has actually been semi protected since August 2010, long before this ever happened, although reading the entry probably was an oversite that it stayed so long.[1]. Anyway think the best idea is to leave it in place as nothing has really changed, i believe it is still a high profile target and the evidence has been every time lifted recently the vandalism restarts.Blethering Scot 20:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

i agree BS but even before the finical meltdown every attempt to remove it meant the followikng day it was back now with the new club problems i dnt see it ever being lifted more than a few days before right back onAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing semi protection will only lead to ridiculous levels of IP vandalism. Thats the reason both Old firm articles were indefinitely semi protected.Monkeymanman (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

IP Vandalism ? for what telling the truth ? If you Rangers fans who moderate the page did it from a non partial view there would be no need, there is no Rangers FC anymore,that is fact,you might not like it but thats the truth,and everyone knows it.you guys should be proud of the history Rangers had and remember the good times and at the same time embrace your new football club but you simply cannot become Rangers FC, they where liquidated,the assets sold,even the new company account details 'The Rangers registered in may states the business as a 'Sporting Club' you cannot be one without the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.154.57 (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Please try and contribute constructively to the discussion, instead of revisting unsupported opinions and claims that have been already worked over extensively and exhaustively in previous months. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

if you keep this up you will be banned, you have not provided reliable soruces that back up your claim, if you do and can providea good argument withte sources and not sources from june recent sources we can have discussion about wether that article should chane until then youra rival fan enjoying havinga go at rangers fans, no offence but this is not a forum and filled with rangers fans it discussion for article related problems so if you dnt have anything useful to say in the future with sources please dnt come here go to rangers forum there plenty out there if you wan ti can even find oyu someAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Andrewcrawford claimed that the current Rangers FC are regarded as the same entity as the previous Rangers FC by UEFA in the sense that they did not go into liquidation. That is wrong. The Rangers FC, founded in 2012 are not eligible to play in Europe for 3 years because they are regarded as a completely new club.

The evidence is there if you choose to accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padraig4545 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

stop using me as your tarrget, i was not the only one that formed a consenus in fact i nevr took part in the acutally decision only medatied it, there is plenty of evidence to say its new club i agree with oyu, but for that same amount of evidence there plenty mroe that says it the same club, the football authirty mean more than any news source, uefa regard them as the same club IF they are the same club explain how they have uefa coffienct of 15+ from the last 4 seasons, this season they have got a small percentage, i suggest if you want to use arguments look for better ones personal i see it as new club but wikipedia is not made of personal opinions soruces state it the same club and pretty soon i will make the FAQ and ever attempt to reopen it without good new evidence will be refered to the faq and closed for archiving, wikipedia isnt trying to sensor people make arguments but this argument has been brought millions of times and it not helping the article progress to featured articleAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is there if you choose to synthesis it. If you wish to present evidence about how UEFA regard Rangers, then please produce a link that states how UEFA regards Rangers. From a reliable source or UEFA itself. Otherwise, please stop wasting everyone's time. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Big Tax Case

Just heard that Rangers have won the appeal STV I am on my phone at moment so can't edit articles at present. BadSynergy (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, hugely significant news which will need to be written into several parts of the article, as the tax case was central to Rangers financial trouble, administration, liquidation, and current controversies surrounding dual contract investigations. Ricky072 (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I added a line on it to the ownership and liquidation articles. Whether the overall content of the articles need changed because of the verdict I don't know. Sparhelda 19:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

the overall content wont need to change as dual cotnracts are still being investigated regardles sof this decision the spl rules migh have been broke until that decision is ruled on we cant edit it vastly but we can put that they have won teh apeeal against it, but also need ot menation hmrc might apeal that decision, the liquidation article should also meantion that the liqudiators of the old company might now claim that money back from all people paiod with ebt Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The liquidators have no power to recall the money. The money was paid from RFC to the trust. IF the loans are repaid, they are repaid to the trust, not to RFC oldco. Every instance on wikipedia which mentions Rangers insolvency and "134m debt" should now be rectified to mention that HMRC lost the tax case, thus vindicating Rangers of wrongdoing with regard to the EBT scheme & tax laws. Ricky072 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

as long as the original figure is not removed but then backup with a statement saying that ranger have won the tax case so 90m odd of the 134m is no longer a debt for the old company. oh i suggest you look up about the trust fund because apperntly they might be able to get the trustees to pay it back but more information on that will come out laterAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thats not the case Andrew. HMRC have no power to recall the loans. When the FTTT announced the loans are 'repayable' they meant that the trusts could recall the loans as per the terms of the loan. In some cases, the loans aren't repayable until the player dies, when the money is taken from his estate. HMRC do not have the power to go after individual players and the loans they recieved. Ricky072 (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

i bever said hmrc i said the liquidators, there looking into where they can reclaim it, well i think what they mean is because david murray used it and there investigation him that they might take him to court to recall teh loans to pay the debt of the old co that he left in his legacy need to wait for the liquidators to come out and say fully what they mean have a look on teh bbc news article aboiut the tax case ruling what you have put is fine, although not sure whre th 2m came from as unless you mean teh wee tax case?Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Liquidators cannot reclaim it either. They money was paid into a trust. The trust is external from the oldco. In most cases, the players families are in control of the trusts. Neitehr HMRC or the liquidators have any claim at all to the money now. The only avenue open to HMRC is to appeal, they have 50 odd days to do so, but many believe they will not appeal - as it wasts more tax payers money on a court cases when the club has been liquidated anyway... meaning they don't get the money even if they win Ricky072 (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

ricky do you realise what you said???? you campaign for ages saying it is the same club and nto liquidated but now you are sayign ti is do you have new evidence???Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

When i said the "club" has been liquidated it was just conversational speak - a club, like a resteraunt or a supermarket can't be liquidated, only a company can. But a club, resteraunt, or supermarket can all be sold during the liquidation as a business of going concern. Ricky072 (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

LOL. So 'a club can not be liquidated'? What happened to Third Lanark then? Or was it a case of 'the club was not liquidated just the company that operated it'? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope you showing up isn't the start of the old debates again Fishie, as good as it is to see you. :) Sparhelda 01:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The company that owned Third Lanark folded which meant that the football club of that name had no financier and had to close. Acorn897 (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Going over old ground here Fishie? The company that ran ThirdLanark was dissolved. Bit like Gretna, it was dissolved. Unlike Rangers, nobody purchased the club. Unlike Gretna, nobody created a new phoenix version. Seems you still haven't grasped the basics, but maybe one day it will click......... Ricky072 (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

that not true ricky third lanark never got a phoiewnix club after it folded because of problems with the name and fans had already switched to new clubs years prior to there demise but a pheonix vclub was made in this century and had thought abouit applying for gretna slot a few years agoAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

SPL team boycott

Rangers are due to travel to a SPL team for the first time since the summer events after drawing Dundee Utd away in the Scottish Cup 5th round. Supporters groups have already thrown their weight behind a Rangers fan boycott as a response to the decisions taken by SPL teams. Here, here, here. Is it worth talking about this in the article and/or the related ones, or should it wait until the game actually comes about? Sparhelda 19:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

firstly none of them pass reliable sources, secondly it isnt notable for any of them, and yes it best waiting untilthe match jus tbecause they say they will doesnt mean they will after the match if reliable news source meantion it put it in this one and the supporters oneAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used those sources anyway, no doubt the statements will be mentioned in newspapers etc soon enough. Sparhelda 20:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

More of a supporter issue this. No reflection on the club itself. Could be worth and inclusion here under rivalries if you can reliably source it.Monkeymanman (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

a brief statement on this page would be reuqired if aded tothe supporters page, this page is a summary of any main articles, but it cant be included until it happens the daily record has reported about it today so ther enotabilty and reliable source for it but until it happens it speculationAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Now the club have announced they won't be taking an allocation of tickets for the game. Does that change matters? Sparhelda 18:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

that makes it notable but we neec a 3rd party source before adding brief note here and details to the supporter articleAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

HMRC appealing BTC

HMRC are seeking permission to appeal the FTTT verdict. Sparhelda 14:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

FAQ

i have started the faq once it is complete including sources this can be used for future references to it being a new club unless its new debate with new evidence, can someone please fix the spelling erors and grammer errors i will get teh question added and sources but i need someone to copyedit itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, on the last FAQ point about ineligibility to play in Europe for 3 years, I understood it comes down to a decison by the SFA because the criteria for UEFA particiaption is that a club must have been a member of its respective FA for at least 3 years http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/300192-qa-what-happens-if-rangers-form-a-newco/ (see last bullet: this was before membership transfer took place)? Given Rangers FC SFA membership was transferred from the oldco to the newco, then it is continuous. The rule about 3 years worth of accounts I thought rather applies to SFA memebership, which was not needed given the transfer. S2mhunter (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, ignore my question above, as I have since found the following "However, the administrators acknowledge that European football governing body Uefa would not make any distinction between the old and new companies and that a newco Rangers would be barred from playing European football for three years" Regards S2mhunter (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

trust me it took me a while to find it and i plan to reference it, lets take a junior club say heriot watt univeristy football club, they are not incoorprated but eligiable to play in the scottish cup, if they won it they would not be granted teh eurpeon license to play in the europa league because uefa rules state they must have 3 years audit account, but this side already have 3 years sfa membership and are certianly not a new clubAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrew I have the link to the UEFA rules which state you have to have 3 consecutive years of accounts if you want to use that? BadSynergy (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

if you hve it post it ill add it as a reference in the faq as the faq is goign to be where you refer people in the future unless they are present new evidence ands a different arguementAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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.UEFA — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadSynergy (talk • contribs) 10:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

FAQ sections are Frequently Asked Questions. None of the statements in the FAQ are questions, they are rebuffs to Frequently Made Claims. I understand what this is trying to do, but the formatting of it in this fashion is all wrong. Apart from anything else it is essentially a collection of WP:OR. That's not to say it is wrong, but it can be challenged as such. If it was displayed as a summary of agreed consensus (and was an accurate reflection of it), however, it cannot be "wrong". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

fair point but i dnt know anything else we can use just know, the idea is for it to take common statements and provide a answer to why the discussion is closed without new evidence or arguments, i am still reference it and pointing to Wikipedia policies dnt forget my English is poor i welcome anyone that being constructive to edit it and improve it or find something else that we can instead of a faqAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrew I have altered your last inclusion for clarity because it was becoming a bit of an essay. I agree with EO in the fact that it should perhaps state a summary of agreed consensus rather than Questions and answers. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

i have no problems with it being altered, i have no problems with making it more consesnus that was archived but those are some of the common statements so by having them at the top of the talk page it clear that these issues have been discussed and a consensus agreed and without new evidence or new argument all new topic on teh matter will be hatted and closed for archiving with a note to read the common statements, i wish it was as simple as saying that we have achived a consensus if it was user who keep psting about it would not be constiely asking about it and wanting to change teh article this give somewhere to link to now that answer why these are getting rejected we just need to reference it more and put links to the talk archive but i am pretty busy so it aint easy for me to it quicklyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

ok i took on board what you have said and i agree compleeltely, so i have renamed the section common statements and responses, which you can point be to when these sort of things are reposted again rayther than giving a full reply, i will use the faq template as it tranclsude the data from teh page faq but it only getting used soa new template doesnt need createdAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

User reported for new club debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:MagicEagle67

im not getting involved so someone will need tp provide the informationAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The History of Rangers page alone should see him given a block. BadSynergy (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian attendance

Correction required to section 1 History. In the final paragraph of this section it is stated "Rangers' first home match in Division 3 was a 5–1 victory over East Stirlingshire in front of a crowd of 49,118 at Ibrox, a world record for a football match in a fourth tier league.[61]" The reference is to an Australian newspaper report. The claim is factually incorrect as three higher attendances were recorded by the Santa Cruz club playing in the fourth division of the Brazilian league in 2010 and 2011. Source is the , http://www.rsssfbrasil.com/miscellaneous/attbrasd.htm

Can I suggest the sentence is amended to read: "Rangers' first home match in Division 3 was a 5–1 victory over East Stirlingshire in front of a crowd of 49,118 at Ibrox, widely but incorrectly claimed as a world record for a football match in a fourth tier league." The footnote to the Sydney newspaper story could be retained to illustrate the misreporting of this fact, and the RSSSF link added to supply the correct world record information.FraserPettigrew (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This has been discussed before. I'm afraid there is problems with the reliability of the source you are using, and also the fact that the Brazilian match was not a normal league match, but a play-off. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Brazilian FA site confirms the attendance of the 20/11/2011 match of Santa Cruz v Tupi here: http://www2.cbf.com.br/News/2011/11/21/Tupi%20%C3%A9%20campe%C3%A3o%20da%20S%C3%A9rie%20D%202011 as 54,815. This is corroborated by GloboEsporte (surely as reliable a third-party source as that of the Rangers claim which is Rangers FC itself, repeated by media outlets who have not researched the claim themselves): http://globoesporte.globo.com/futebol/brasileirao-serie-d/noticia/2011/11/tupi-vence-estraga-festa-do-santa-cruz-e-conquista-o-titulo-da-serie-d.html

Brazil's Serie D is designed in a group and playoff structure. This does not alter the fact that it is the 4th tier of Brazilian league football. The playoff matches are therefore a 'normal' part of Brazilian 4th tier league football. The Rangers claim is still therefore incorrect unless it specifies 'non-playoff format league fixture'.FraserPettigrew (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. Unfortunately it's not what the sources say, and combining what they say, with what other sources say about the Brazilian match, to produce a new definition of the record would be original synthesis. It's not an unusual problem on Wikipedia when sources disagree. I don't see anything to suggest that GloboEsports are any more, or less, reliable than the sources that repeat Ranger's claim. Nothing to suggest that their research into the matter has been any more thorough or any less based on primary source claims.

The problem is that the "record" doesn't have any official standing or administered by any authority, so clubs are free to claim whatever they like. It's not that it really matters. Wikipedia can't be the arbitrator of who is "right". So perhaps we could tone down what the article says to merely being a "claim", and something that many of the secondary sources distance themselves from? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

its already noted n the article as note down at records section that a unoffical record of the brazlian match is higher but unless a source can be found that reliable states it as the world record then it cant be removed from here, escape orbit is right the best we can do is put it is claimed to bea world record but we cqnt make our own judgements ont eh source we have to report it as it isAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

also i should have noted when i research it back in august i also foudn the match was not played at either teams home ground, and i think that why it isnt classed as world record, as it like saying english tier 4 playoff match at wembley coudl easily be higher than that of normal league match, i welcome any reference as i rather remove the world bit if i can get some reliable source confirming it but i think it because its a playoff at a ground not of either teamAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

i was reading the scottish mail today after comment on this, and it clearly states again that it is world record not only that but it now states average attendance and total attndance for tier 4 is a world record toAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Escape_Orbit, I don't understand what you mean about 'it's not what the sources say'. The Brazilian FA site and GloboEsporte quote the same attendance figure which is higher than any Rangers game this season, therefore it invalidates the Rangers claim. I agree with you however that at the very least the claim must be indicated as such in the text, not just in the footnotes. If it is allowable for people to make unsubstantiated or unqualified claims about such things then there will be no reliability in any statement. The line should indicate that it is a claim and the footnote should present the competing sources, surely? Wikipedia can't be the arbitrator of what is 'right' but it has to aim for accuracy and it shouldn't be the vector of misinformation. AndrewCrawford, the Estádio Arruda or Estádio José do Rego Maciel as it is also known is clearly the home ground of Santa Cruz. http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Est%C3%A1dio_Jos%C3%A9_do_Rego_Maciel The venue in any case does not invalidate the status of a game as a league fixture in a league competition. Arsenal's attendances at Wembley and Celtic's at Hampden stand as the official attendances at their home games in the seasons when they were rebuilding their 'home' stadia. The Scottish Daily Mail is not a reliable proof of anything. Its inaccuracy is legendary even in the unreliable world of newspapers. The average and aggregate claims probably have more substance, but shouldn't be recorded until the season is complete. Can we agree that the sentence in question ought to read: 'Rangers' first home match in Division 3 was a 5–1 victory over East Stirlingshire in front of a crowd of 49,118 at Ibrox, claimed as a world record for a football match in a fourth tier league.' Footnotes should indicate a published source for the claim and the competing claims of the Brazilian attendances, explaining the play-off structure in Brazil. The final sentence of the paragraph should read something like: 'The home attendance figure for the East Stirlingshire game has since been exceeded, with xx,xxx spectators attending the match against Xxxxxxx.' This final sentence will likely need amendment again before the end of the season.FraserPettigrew (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

ive got not problem changing it to claim, but there already is a fotonote about the brazilian attendance look at the reference at the bootm and look for the notes section ^ However this attendance was unofficially exceeded prior to this match with 59,966. But this attendance was not officially recorded[152] it also givesa link to the site but since the source is unreliable it cant be used, the other one you meantion is reliable but the problem is many sources claim rangers hold the record, and as you said we dnt decided what is right and what is wrong if the source states rangers as holding the record we say that and we can change it to claim and put a note about the other record which i have done already, the note however is linked to from the record section of the pgate i will copy the note above to this section toAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we can do a lot better than the footnote. There are other sources for claims of greater attendance - For example, the Santa Cruz - Tupi game on 20/11/11 has a reported attendance of 54,815 on that site which is confirmed and reported on the official Brazilian governing body's site here (in Portuguese, but the phrase "lotado por 54.815 espectadores" means "(the stadium) was packed with 54,815 spectators". So we have two sources confirming the same number for the attendance of that 4th tier league match (incidentally, the same number the Portuguese Wikipedia also uses). Obviously Wikipedia isn't a RS, but that's two sources now confirming the exact same attendance number for a 4th tier league game, and they seem pretty reliable to me - particularly the Brazilian governing body. What is Wikipedia policy when there is no concensus between RSs? I am continuing to search for media references to the Santa Cruz - Tupi figure, although my poor Portuguese is a hindrance. almightybob (pray) 00:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

We have to report what the sources say. Does the Portuguese source state that the attendance is a world record for a 4th tier league game?Monkeymanman (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

These attendances are 'playoff' matches. Much like the playoffs in the championship or English football league system. While they are an integral part of the season, a 'play-off' match is always a 'knock-out' format, and not a league format, making the comparisons invalid. If you wanted to break bones about it, you could specify the Rangers world record further by adding "World record for a 4th tier league match played under the normal guise of a league match and not a match deemed to be a play-off". Or you could reword the Brazilian record to be "A world record attendance for a 4th tier play-off match in the later stages of the Brazilian league set-up". I'm sure the record books differentiate between standard league games & play-off finals in the championship - i'm sure you could research that to find a precedent since you are looking to have the record removed. Ricky072 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

European Club Association recognises history

I know the debate was sorted long ago but people keep popping up with the same arguments so I feel this is worth a mention. Sparhelda 15:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes i noticed this popping up today and thought it should bolster any remaining doubt on the debate. "The ECA is the sole independent body recognised by UEFA and FIFA as representing clubs at European level." "Taking into account that the 'new entity' also acquired the goodwill of the 'old entity', it was held by the ECA executive board that the goodwill, taking into account legal and practical arguments, also included the history of the 'old company'." Ricky072 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Just read that as well pretty much covers every point raised from UEFA to the subject of company ownership. Been waiting for this kind of source hopefully things can calm down a bit. BadSynergy (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

it will never calm down because there is opposing fans out there that want to take the mickey out of rangers fans, end of the day sources confirm it the same club but i dnt deny there is still some that refer to it as new club but i mae this point ages ago news sources even teh bbc although reliable suffer from the fact the wrtier will have predujice one way or the other, only the ofical bodies can say if it the same club or notAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

source for sale of club and history and goodwille

can someone find a 3rd party reliable source that i can use in conjuncation with teh rangers administrators pdf so instead of primary it backed up with 3rd party i have been looking but cant find any that meantion it explicit but make reference to it, but i prefer to find one that says sevco scotland bought the assetsbla bla history, goodwill of of the plcAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

this one [2] can be used as a backup to any one that is found but i need one from around the time of the sale of the club saying the club was sold to charles green and that the club trasnferreed with it history and goodwill to newco to backup the primary source as a primary source being used for sucha controvisial content will not hold up in GA and will open teh debate to new club againAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

big tax case source

does anyone has a source that implicits states the rfc 2012 plc has won it case or refers to them as that when saying old rangers as teh current reference is dubious and put the article contetn into questionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

rejection of cva sources

can someone find a source that speficialy says rejection of the cva means teh plc enters liquidationAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This any good? Mr Green has previously stated that should the CVA fail his offer goes into an "automatic mode" to carry out a 'newco' switch at the Ibrox club, where all assets are sold to a new business entity for £5.5m and Rangers FC plc, incorporated in 1899, is liquidated. STV BadSynergy (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In June administrators Duff and Phelps confirmed it had failed to secure a route out of the insolvency event and the club's assets were sold to a newco owned by a Charles Green-led consortium in a £5.5m deal. The oldco, now RFC 2012 plc, formerly The Rangers Football Club plc, has been placed into liquidation. STV BadSynergy (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

the first oen sort of does the job but the second backs it up pretty well thanks still need sopurces for the above two things if they cant be found it leaves the article open to new club debate in serious way because the sources used to justify what i am looking for new source for basically says new club so it contrasdicting what is said in the article which will fail GA nevermind FA and leaves the article open to new club debate, i know the sources exists i proved the sources where down the middle and it wasnt until about august they started leaning to the same club but i have been doinga lot of work and it har for me to find the sourcesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

SFA membership transfer

can anyone provide a source that says the membership was transferred from oldco plc to newco the rangers football ltd, as the ones here are more refering to old rangers and new rangers or new club so not clear the sfa one is primary so need a 3rd party one to back it upAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Rangers 9 celtic 1 1888

this will be reverted every time until a source is provide and the user warned, the user has been asked ot provide a source but does not provide one, google searchs of this suggest its a myth and the fact rangers own site does not meantion sucha scoreline against there arch rivals suggests it fakeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

FIFA on Rangers

Although not an official statement or anything it is still on FIFA website.

In Glasgow and Edinburgh, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism provide the backdrop, particularly the "Old Firm" fixture between Celtic and Rangers and to a lesser extent Hibernian and Heart of Midlothian. The former, though, has lost some of its lustre from a sporting perspective after Rangers went into liquidation and were demoted to the Scottish fourth tier in the close-season. FIFA BadSynergy (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

mmm that interesting as it basically saying its a new club but also that history adn goodwill have been transferred, ie "particularly the "Old Firm" fixture between Celtic and Rangers" "The former, though, has lost some of its lustre from a sporting perspective after Rangers went into liquidation" "were demoted to the Scottish fourth tier"Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not in any way make any statement on whether is a new club or its history. Its states a fact its lost some of its lustre as Rangers were liquidated and consequently are now in the fourth tier. Your reading into something thats not there at all it just states two facts.Blethering Scot 21:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

yes two facts in the way presented supports both sides of the argument but even if fifa come oiut and say its the same club or its a new club both sides will demise itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix club (association football)

Rangers are listed as a Phoenix club in this article. I am not sure that they should. Can someone who understands the situation have a look please. Op47 (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

ther enot i can assure there listed as the same club from 1872 consesnus and reliable sources state it so wikipedia does if it not pleas highlight the par tthat aint i will look at itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this does not agree with agreed sources or consensus and so Rangers should be removed from the Scotland table. I also note that both Hibernian clubs go to the same article page, which seem strange to me, so should they be there too? Regards S2mhunter (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

no there saying that this article says rangers are a peonix club if it does i want ot know whereAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, Perhaps we're not on the same page (pardon the pun) but I of course see that Rangers FC are not a Phoenix club and therefore should be removed from this article. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed Rangers from list I'm not too familiar with Hibs though I know they stopped playing for a year once. BadSynergy (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Some third party, reliable sources do refer to Rangers as a phoenix club - therefore wikipedia must at least acknowledge that some regard Rangers as a phoenix club. For example, from the Daily telegraph just last month: "Consequently, the Phoenix club accepted the transfer embargo which had been handed down during Craig Whyte’s brief and calamitous reign for bringing the game into disrepute." [3] Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

yip hence why the article specifically meantions it because source even now still refer to them as the same club and a pheonix club and that because the sources relay on there editors to write and they havea POV it unlikely ot ever to go away but if rangers win div 3 things might start to be more clear thn if they list it as first tile or first div 3 title to go along with there top divison titles and the footballing authoristes will be key to thisAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The football authorities already list all of Rangers' honours on their websites on the relevant team page. [4] Sparhelda 18:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

currently fifa position on this is unclear uefa position and sfl and spl and sfa postiions and eca are all clear its the same club but fifa isnt clear yet, dnt forget it was me that got the articel to where it is just now by relaying on the core priniplces of wikipediabut we cant just acklowedge it being the same club without acklocking it a new club in some views as fisherhelper has pointed out, as long as the football authority and some media keep saying it the same club that out weighs the pheonix club postion meaning this article wont talk in past tense but if that postion change sin teh future the discussion and consensus over it being the same club will have to reopen as consesnus can change. that why i say is rangers win the third division it will be critical because dependiing on how it listed will shape this article futureAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. This wont go away whatever the football authorities do. Some people - myself included - happen to believe that Rangers meet the definition of being a phoenix club while other disagree. When these different opinions are reflected in the media, we will get some sources describing Rangers as a phoenix club. Since we have to reflect what sources say, we must at least acknowledge in relevant articles that there is some dispute over whether Rangers is an example of a phoenic club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

to which i completely agree fisherhelper and i wont allow rangers fans to rremove that form the article there already been attempts consesnus agreed that it viewed as the same club esicpally by the authoritys but some media outlets say it is pheonix club so the article WILL ALWAYS REFLECT THAT no matter what rangers fans think of it, but at the same time rival fans will not get there way in saysing that it is apheonix club as again as you acklowedge sources from media are split down the middle as i said before that depends on the reporter prosepective and bias but we wont make informaiton up we will report wha tthe sources say, but i agree no matter what happens the issue will always remain but hopefully over time it will only be die hard rival supporters that will come to try change the articles and that wikipedia editors will be in agreement int eh future but the article might as i said above be reopened on new club in the future depending if rangers win the 3rd divisionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As the Supreme Courts of Scotland judge, specifically commissioned to rule the Rangers issue, Lord Nimmo Smith stated, Rangers Football Club "continues in existence despite it's transfer to another owner and operator", therefore it cannot be regarded as a "phoenix club". The integrity of this particular source of reference, in comparison with opinions of journalists mentioned above, speaks for itself. Gefetane (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Rangers by matter of fact are not a phoenix club, Fishiehelper won't accept that ofcourse because his bias is beyond all reason. The criteria for a phoenix club is a new club name, a new badge & a new FA membership. Like it's been said several times before, Rangers fall into the newco category along with Leeds, Charlton, Middlesborough, Luton etc... not Gretna or Chester. Simples. Ricky072 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

UEFA website: Rangers FC are the same club

UEFA's official club page for Rangers FC, the original one, has now been updated with Season 2012-13 details, as can be seen by clicking on "Scottish Cup" (SQUAD). It should go without saying, but clearly if UEFA did not consider R.F.C. 2012-13 as the same club as pre-Summer 2012, they wouldn't be updating the pre-existing Rangers club page.Gefetane (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

yes this adds more weight to the same club arguement but you fail to understand wikipedia key policies and until news journlist always refer to it as the same club an dnt say new club it wont go away but to make this article as defunct club and to have a new phoenix club artilce will take a lot o work by anyone on the new club agenda but the new club arguments iwll never go from wikipedia but the article will nto change without a new consesnusAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Back to the same club discussion? Well in that case, someone will by now have an explanation why Rangers did not go straight into the 4th round of the cup this season. After all, if the Rangers that is now in the third division were the same club, it would have been exempted: the regulation states "The clubs which, in the previous season, were members of The Scottish Premier League and those clubs finishing in The Scottish Football League First Division league positions one to four, shall be exempt from playing in Round Three of the Competition." So the fact that Rangers were nor given exemption means that it was not viewed as the same Rangers that had been in the SPL the previous season - or it would have been exempted.Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

For the recond, the SFA stated that "Under the Scottish FA’s Cup Competition Rules, Rangers FC as a third division club will join the William Hill Scottish Cup at the second round." In other words, treated solely as a 3rd division club and not as one that had been in the SPL the previous season. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

And the SFA were right as per their own rules: RoundTwo The clubs which, in the current season, are members of The Scottish Premier League and those which participate in The Scottish Football League First and Second division Championships, shall be exempt from playing in Round Two of the Competition. SFA For Rangers to enter into the 4th round would be breaking the rules. BadSynergy (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Strange interpretation - if Rangers had been allowed to enter at the 4th round it would not have broken the rules: the rules state merely that clubs in the SPl, div 1 and div 2 shall be excempt and does not say that others could not also be exempt. In view of the section I quoted earlier, the SFA should have decided that Rangers had been in the SPL the previous season and so should also enter at the 4th round stage, even though they were now in the 3rd. So why didn't they, and why didn't Rangers push for that? Perhaps because the entry to the 4th round would only apply if it were the same club. The SFA had opportunity to show by its application of the cup rules that the present Rangers were seen as the same club - yet in their application of the rules they have treated the current Rangers as a club that had not been in the SPL the previous season. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No interpretation here. The rules of the round state Rangers play in Round 2 which subsequently happened. Not quite sure why you think not breaking the rules is wrong. BadSynergy (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well you may have noticed that according to the very next rule after the one you quote, Rangers would be exempted from playing in round 3 if it were the same club as had been in the SPL the previous season - but the SFA did not give them a bye, so either the SFA broke the rules of the competition or the SFA did not regard Rangers as the same club. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Now your not even making sense have to agree to disagree on this one. BadSynergy (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll try one more time: the rules state that clubs who were in the SPL or the top 4 spots of division 1 are exempted until round 4. Rangers were not exempted until round 4 - but they should have been if it was being regarded as the same club. Forcing Rangers to play at round 2 was not required by the rules as the rules for round 2 merely state clubs that should be exempted and not those who should not be - Rangers could easily have been exempted as well due to the rule that follows the one you quoting without contradicting the requirement of that rule. Therefore, for this season's Scottish Cup, Rangers have been treated as a new entity and not as a continuation of the club that was in the SPL last season. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

fishiehelper we know rangers never got the bye to round 4 who did? i have a feeling it is the 5th place team in div1, but by those rules they shouldnt have got it and what about the teams that benefited from rangers playing in div 3???Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The SFA obviously interpreted the intent of the rules to be that the 16 top placed sides from the previous season would get a bye to round 4, and since the Rangers that had been in the SPL the previous season no longer existed they included Livingston as the 5th placed club from division 1 instead. Had the SFA regarded the current Rangers as the same club, they should have been one of the 16 teams to hve been given a bye to round 4. Anyway, none of this will change anyone's opinion anyway so I suppose I am wasting my time raising the point. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

no no fisherhelper you aint wasting your time your bring up a good point but .... its wp:or so we cant use it as a way to develop the article, for all we know as for another punishment they wher enot allowed th bye, or for sport interigty they decided it wasnt appiorate, the top 16 teams would not have inclued livingston, when gretna went bust it was the top 15 teams so from yoru own personnal opinion how did you respond to wha ti have said???, bare in mind this is all original research and cant be used for th article but can be helped to maybe help form a new consesnsus in teh future only if new evidence does appear and fifa statement that says rangers where liquidated is substainalAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrewcrawford - when Gretna were liquidated the SFA acted in the same way as they have acted this season with Rangers: the remaining 11 SPL teams plus the 5 top in division 1 were given byes to round 4. Annan as the new club which replaced Gretna had to enter in round 2. This season, the SPL has treated the current Rangers as a new club that has joined division 3 to replace the old Rangers: the top 16 teams from the previous season (excluding the old Rangers) got a bye to round 4 and the new Rangers, as a new division 3 club, had to enter at round 2. Of course, had the new Rangers been viewed as the same club as the old Rangers, it would have been given a bye to round 4 as one of the top 16 clubs from the previous season. Perhaps original research unless we can find a source to explain why Rangers did not get a bye to round 4 as the rules required if it was being treated as the same club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Now your contradicting yourself Fishie you say yourself, 'Rangers, as a new division 3 club, had to enter at round 2.' That's exactly what the rules and I stated. BadSynergy (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi BadSynergy, please don't misquote me - what I said was "the new Rangers, as a new division 3 club, had to enter at round 2". The rules make clear that if the new Rangers were regarded as the same club as the Rangers that had played in the SPL the previous season, it would have been exempted until the 4th round. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Can i remind you all of the key wikipedia policies, wp:consensus wp:rs wp:nor wp:verifability wp:truth we havea consesnsus it backed up with reliable sources ther eno original research, it verifiable but it might nto be the truth but we dnt try to explain why rangers went into a different round tha tnot our jobs if the sfa publish why we can reference it otherwise it will have to just be accepted that is what it isAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are we back to this again anyway? Barring the odd bit of IP vandalism I thought it was sorted. Sparhelda 23:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

because it will never go away, and consensus can change new evidence can being new debates once there is a consensyus it doesnt mean it will stay that foreverAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 00:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, I'm somewhat surprised you mentioning this as it's very clear cut. As the SFA have already clarified, the rules stipulate that Rangers - as a CURRENT Sfl3 club - enter at Round 2. Although the rules specifically also state that Rangers - as a last season SPL club - were exempt from Round 3, this was made impossible as to do so would leave on 31 teams in the draw for Round 3. As such the SFA, as they are perfectly entited to do, were forced to find a solution to retain the integrity of the competition. I've heard some people say "why should the round 2 rule take precedence of the round 3 exemption?" The answer is simple - by the time of the latter, the former has already taken place!Gefetane (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought aswell Gefetane the rules are quite clear on it. BadSynergy (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would exempting Rangers until 4th round entry have left 31 teams in the draw for round 3? It would have been very easy to ensure 32 teams by allowing 17 teams to progress from round 2 by having 34 teams at round 1, which would have had the added benefit of eliminating the need for the preliminary round. Bottom line is that I accept that we are just guessing as to the reasons why the SFA acted as it did - and without some source to rely on we are just speculating - but the SFA actions are at least consistent with the view that Rangers may not have been viewed as the same club that played in the SPL the previous season. Similarly, had the SFA decided to exempt Rangers until round 4 (along with all the other clubs that had been in the SPL the previous season plus the top 4 in division 1) we could have conclusively concluded that the SFA did regard the new Rangers as the exact same club - but they didn't. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, the SFA's actions in this specific regard may be consistent with your 'new club' hypothesis, but the fact they are ALSO consistent with the opposing 'same club' hypothesis makes your raising the matter in support of your case an entirely pointless exercise. The fact you admit that any further - more useful - inferences, relevant to the question at hand, regarding the SFA's reasoning are "just guessing", it begs the question why you bothered bringing it up at all?Gefetane (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I raised it simply to make clear that this matter is not 'done and dusted' as some editors seem to believe or perhaps wish to believe. Anyway, for the record, I do not believe that the events described above are consistent with a same club analysis unless it is on the sole basis that the SFA have not applied the rules in this case - and since they have given no explanation of why Rangers did not get a bye to round 4 as the rules would require if it were being regarded as the same club, we can not judge whether the SFA a) does not regards the current Rangers as the same club as that which played in the SPL last season or b) just decided not to apply the rules for some reason. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

correct we cant say what the reason for not giving them the bye it could be as you believe its a new club or it could be they decided to nto apply the rules or it could be to do with another SFA rule we dnt know and as such we cant say we can only say what the sources say but your right it wont ever go away some belive that sicne we have a consenssu it means that it, that it for now but things and consesnsus can changeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 00:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Fishiehelper. If, as you admit, you "cannot judge" (in this case) the substance of the very issue you assert is at stake, namely whether the SFA view them as a new club or not, clearly the use of this line of argument to prove they ARE a new club is a futile exercise. Gefetane (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gefetane, I raise the issue merely to make clear to those who seem to believe that the 'same club' argument has been 'won' that the matter is very much unresolved. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"Unresolved" in who's eyes? Do you think the Scottish Football League, the SFA, UEFA, the ECA, or even Lord Nimmo Smith and his independent commission, may suddenly change their minds, stop identifying Rangers FC as the same association football club, and reverse their opinions and information on their official resources? I presume in that case you are talking about some media voices, opposition football fans, other causal observers. They of course are within their rights to recognise Rangers however they like, but unless they can support their position by providing reliable sources that out-weigh the wealth of evidence from official 3rd party institutions in support of the opposing position, their opinions will remain unconventional. I have yet to see a single official source stating Rangers FC are a new football club born in 2012 and I don't expect that ever to change, but if you do, good luck waiting. Gefetane (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Some same club evidence

Since we seem to have gone back into the old debates again here is an article today from the Scotsman which backs up Rangers being the same club, since it talks about beating a club record from 1899. Sparhelda 13:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the usefulness of media interpretations is dwarfed by legal positions, as expressed by Right Hon. Lord Nimmo Smith/Independent Commission/Lord Glennie, and most of all the official football authorities explicitly treating Rangers FC as a continuing club. It's like a ref giving a penalty in a match for hand ball, even if one has the opinion that the decision was wrong, as the presiding authority on the matter that decision is final and the game proceeds on that basis. Likewise with the football authorities/legal opinion identifying Rangers as a continuing club. Like it or loathe it, the game is run according to those rules, and Wikipedia must reflect their authority. Gefetane (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

board of directors hidden1

can someoen find me source for those board of directors and heads of people i know there sources as most are new people in teh job but untila source is there they cant be displayedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The board of directors are outlined in the share prospectus, on page 18 and page 87 and 88, probably other pages. On the Rangers website as well. Here is the appointments of Ahmad and Mather and Traynor. Andrew Dickson has been at Ibrox for years. Surely this is enough? You say we can't display the board but those staff you've hidden are not on the board. Sparhelda 22:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

i assume there on the board since there title is director, even though some have been there for years without asource they cant be verified i will check those tomorrowAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Director may be in the titles but the share prospectus is a very official source and it lists the board members. Sparhelda 23:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 January 2013

"Rangers have had 15 managers during there 141 year history and 3 caretaker managers." There - > their 58.96.125.138 (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

((done)) thanks for pointing that out fixed nowAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This entire section needs a rewrite. The sentences are too long and rambling, there are a few other mistakes as well (Advocact?). The info itself is good though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.131.21.24 (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest complaint

The authors of the article have a clear conflict of interest when addressing the liquidation of Rangers F.C and the birth of The Rangers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.26.237 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)‎

Who's The Rangers? Ricky072 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

direct fc artile linkos instead of piped link with fc removed

although i have removed the piping of fc article name to club na\me without fc i have only done it on early years is there ant objections?Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

New Section Created

I'v created a hall of fame section, which would include the Rangers greatest starting 11, hall of fame in scottish fa for rangers players as requested above by AndrewCrawford. I will add it in to the article once I have auto confirmed or confirmed status. VanguardScot (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

post it here i will add it in you have credit for it since you will be posting it here, is it referenced to non primary sources if not i will have to source it later once i get to itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It is well referenced. For the 'greatest 11' I have a primary and a non primary source. It is in my sandbox so I suppose you can copy it across. I don't know why I am not autoconfirmed, I have been on for more than 4 days and have made more than 10 edits. VanguardScot (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

References

I disagree with Andrewcrawford that the references are more readable in one column. I personally find them much easier to read in 2 or 3 columns as it is easy to get lost on which line you are on when they go the whole length of the page. Most of the featured article football clubs I have looked at have 2 or 3 columns for the references and that is the standard we should be looking at for this page. I hope we can have at least two columns int he reference section but I would prefer three. It also takes up less space when they are in columns. Thanks VanguardScot (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

it harder to read it because quote is used in citation, just because one FA does it doesnt mean that it has to be done that way in all, you use a another feature article as a guide not absouluteAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I know. But personally I prefer it that way. If consensus is to keep it in one column then thats fine by me. VanguardScot (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

By far the worst thing about the references is their size! It's ridiculous.

• For such a sizeable page, to have HALF of it made up of references is far too much.
• The inclusion of reams of text quoted verbatim within the references - why? Other equivalent pages don't do this, does a unique standard have to apply to the Rangers article?

The notion that this page should be bestowed with any kind of recognition when literally half of it is made up of references seems absurd to me. Gefetane (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

the references are what verify it, and by quoting it you are taking away the part of a user not finding the information on the page, and it is recommended to use quote where possible, especially when this article has a big dispute with regards to a new club or not it makes it better to keep it then there no ambgoetAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is currently no ongoing "dispute".
• The large majority of the reams of quoted text has nothing to do with the alleged "dispute".
• Any "recommendation" over filling pages with vast expanses of verbatim-quoted references clearly is ignored by the great majority of editors in favour of the articles containing predominantly useful content, therefore it cannot be that important a guideline. Gefetane (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying we dnt get edits to rangers articles relating to it beinga new club??? and that we dnt get talk discussion ever 3 or 4 weeks or more often at times??? just because you dnt believe it doesnt mean it doesnt exists. using quote does no harm to the article it improves it, it means you can see what verifies what is said, and criteria for FA articles get more strintin as time goes by, articles about 5 years ago could be promoted to FA on what this articles was about 3 or 4 months aog now it much much harder because a FA should be a top quailty article well referenced and verfied, what harms is it doign having quote? it only shows up in the reference section at the bottom of the page the articles itself only has a link to itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we should keep the references until the peer review stage and see what feedback is given. I do feel they are too vast though personally. VanguardScot (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

totally agree the peer review will tell us if anythin should change but it the last peer review i have used to make the article betterAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

colours and badges

since this is getting changed without discussion i thought i start it, the reason for change was said to be because man u is fa and tha thwo they do it, but Arsenal_fc is fa and it does it this way so which way is right???? if we are goignt o change it discuss it first Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

ok sorry, the only thing changed is the gallery taken out. I'v also added quite a bit of info and references. I think it flows better this way rather than stopping and starting twice for the two galleries. Now there is only one gallery. Which way do you prefer andrew? VanguardScot (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

For anyone wondering what it looks like without the first gallery and with more important info added see my sandbox. VanguardScot (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

the reason for the gallery is the last peer review recommended it i aint againt the extra info and and refernces as long as the logos and kits pictures stay. i dnt really ghave a preference as person with dsylexicva it easier to read in the aresnal format but i wont oppose the man u way if the ictures all remainAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'll try to tweak my sandbox version over the next few days so as to include both of the scroll crests. I just feel the article doesn't flow at all with the two galleries one after the other as it is just now. VanguardScot (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree about taking at least one of the two galleries out. As long as all three badges are kept in the section. I think it would be a better flowing article that way. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Right I'v updated the section. Let me know what you think and if anything else can be added. I also added to the away kit section and the sponsors section. VanguardScot (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

ill look tomorrow bit busy tonight to look but if you have kept the badges then i cant see anything wrongAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

141 years

ok this is not about the club the same or not, currently the article is describing it as the same club, aradioham has changed it to 141 which i can see the reason behind we are now in 2013 but as yet ther enothing that acutally confirms tha tina source so should we keep it as 140 or leave it as 141 , i have no preference just thinking about sources is all. please do not respond if you are only wanting to say its a new club that is another debate in another part of this talk page not for thisAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC) The "selling of History" is a statement in itself a declaration that the football CLUB was liquidated,despite what Charles Green said pre liquidation about what liquidation meant only for the goalposts to be changed once the club was forced into insolvency.this 'sale' would not stand up in a court of law for sure for a number of reasons,one being Rangers FC where a football club which born from that came a business enterprise(one and the same thing)when Murray bought Rangers in 1988 he bought the football club,when he sold to Whyte,he also bought the club when the club was liquidated Charles Green bought the assets of that club,he certainly never bought the club.The evidence is plain and there for all to see,The Rangers, where not seeded in the Scottish League cup because they where a new football club, had they been the same theyd have been seeded because of last seasons placings,they would not be in division 3, they are there because they applied to join that league, they where NOT no way never relegated,how can a liquidated football club be relegated ?That Rangers played there last match in the SPL last may against St Johnstone. I understand the emotion involved but that doesnt make it right to lie,Lord Nimmo Smith's statement in regard to Rangers statement was that he views it as the same club because they play in the same colours,have the same support and play at Ibrox,that is all,from a legal viewpoint hed never reach that conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.125.170.170 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Rangers International Football Club plc

The infobox says that 'Rangers International Football Club plc' is the owner - that isn't right is it? The last I heard it was 'Rangers Football Club ltd' or has something happened that I missed? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Rangers International FC Plc is a listed company that own everything including:

• the stadium
• the training ground
• 100% of The Rangers Football Club Ltd
• 50% of Rangers Direct (merchandising operation)

The club is in essence incorporated as 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd' in the same way it was incorporated into the original 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd' in 1899. Rangers International FC Plc owns the club and is listed on the AIM market of the LSE. If there is ever a majority share holder in Rangers International FC Plc then that person can be listed as the owner, as happens with other clubs. (i.e. at Man United the Glazers own the majority of the company that is listed, and as such are listed as owners of the club). At present the largest share holder in the company owns less than 10% of the shares, so the company is listed as the owner as no one has outright control of that company. VanguardScot (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a reference needs to be added to confirm that Rangers International Football Club plc owns The Rangers Football Club Ltd. By the way, you are wrong when you say "The club is in essence incorporated as 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd' in the same way it was incorporated into the original 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd' in 1899". Completely different as in 1899 the club became a company but in 2012 a company that already existed bought the assets so as to be able to continue to run the club. The club is owned and operated by The Rangers Football Club Ltd. However, as said above, we need to reference that Rangers International Football Club plc owns The Rangers Football Club Ltd. regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This any good? BadSynergy (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Perfect - thanks. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Section name change

I propose changing the name of the section titled 'Ally McCoist and insolvency' possible better titles are:

• Ally McCoist, administration and Third Division
• Ally McCoist, insolvency and Third Division
• Ally McCoist and Third Division

I think the first or third options are better than we have. We need the title of that section to say something about playing in the 3rd division or playing outside the top tier for the first time. Any other suggestions? VanguardScot (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

what do we call it if they get promoted?? third divison and second diviosn??? i say number 2 with relegation at the end, we discussed this before and insolvancy covers it better, as administration doesnt cover liquidaiton and not meantion it doesnt cover it full stopAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ally McCoist, insolvency and the lower leagues ? VanguardScot (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The obvious title for the secition would be "Ally McCoist, insolvency and relaunch" as the club was relaunched in the 3rd Division. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If you call it that then it still doesn't portray the fact that the club are playing outside the top flight for the first time in their history. That was the main reason I wanted to change the title. "Ally McCoist" needs to be in there as that goes along with the other headings. The rest of the heading needs to portray the club playing in D3 or playing outside the top flight as football wise that is the main part of that section. I wont object to including relaunched in the heading if Andrew agrees, but Ally McCoist, insolvency and relaunch into the Third Division or Ally McCoist, insolvency and relaunch into the lower leagues both seem too long. Personally I think that: Ally McCoist, insolvency and the lower leagues would be a better heading.

One thing that is clear is the current heading isn't good enough. VanguardScot (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Liquidation and relaunch sounds about right. McCoist himself is not all that significant in the defining events of the period. --hippo43 (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Think what VS meant was since the page mentions each manager in their own section McCoist's name has to be in there. BadSynergy (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Hippo you need to learn to havea NPOV your being baised, this article is about the club, yes liqudoaitn is important to be meantioned here but since the history section is taking the form of hte managers then removing mccoist just because of the insolvancy is daft, i have no objection to relaunch in the title, i formed the title because if you look in talk history there where people opposed to relaunch, and saying insolvancy covered the events more accurately, but i dnt object to relaucnh, nor do i object to lower leagues, division 3 is to plane and wont cover any future changes, as they will probally be promoted at least once in the next ten 15 years. please be aware i dnt own this article as long as there a conensus amongest editors i wont oppose any changes, just for a future conversations alough i will give my opinions and thoughts at the end of the day the article is community one and it the community that matters not meAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok then - how about McCoist, liquidation and relaunch. That captures the essence of how McCoist remained at the helm throughout from before liquidation to after the relaunch in division 3. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not too bad, though for me liquidation and relaunch are more significant than McCoist. --hippo43 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

just to make clear these are the ones i oppose

• Ally McCoist, administration and Third Division
• Ally McCoist and Third Division
• Ally McCoist, insolvency and relaunch into the Third Division
• Liquidation and relaunch

If any other suggestion i would oppose come up i will put them above otherwise i support them, in case people are wondering my only interest in this article now is making it FA and it is referenced and whatg is said is what the sources say that my primary goal nothing else i repeat again i dnt own this article its a community article and only the community matters not meAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Badsynergy, just because managers names have been used in other sections doesn't mean it needs to be used in every case. Craig Whyte and Charles Green have obviously been more significant individuals in this period of the club's history than McCoist.

Andrewcrawford, please stop talking nonsense about NPOV and bias. The club's liquidation is obviously one of the most significant things to happen in its history, surely the most significant event since at least the early 1970s. Not mentioning it here is ridiculous, as it was in the lead. --hippo43 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

So you think calling the section liqudiaotion is aqudaute i suggest you rearead mos for football it isnt, to comply it need to be Liqudiaotn of The Rangers Football Club Plc and New Company Ownership which is far to big a section name and uneccessary are you saying insolvancy is not liqduaiotion????? because chek the sources the plc filed for insolvancy and entered liqudaiotn, , and your suggested title is not Nuetral it is biased because liqdaiton has to be meantion in context, because liqdauiotn can be made to thought the club is liqudiated i am sick and tired of saying this but wikipedia doesnt choose the sources say both the article says both it aint for us to decided, as for anyone who say the football authority deem it the same club although this is important they are primary sources so as such need backed up with reliable 3rd party sources to which i am slowly doingAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

the only title oi can think that satify both side arguments would be

McCoist, Liquidation and Lower LeaguesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The title I suggested is factual and neutral, but not really all that important. Why are you still arguing about "liquidation of the company" etc etc? Rangers Football Club plc (Rangers FC, for short) was liquidated - why are you trying to avoid that? Please stop trying to guess what people might think and stick to the facts. SPL and SFA rules allowed the Rangers brand/franchise/whatever to continue, but the club/company was liquidated. Can you provide a link to the MOS for football? --92.26.96.140 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

its on the porject home page. the company is in liquidation i dont dispute that, but 3rd party sources clearly state the club as liquidate and not liqdauited and as such if you dnt make it clear you are confussing the reader because we dnt decide if the club has been liqduaited the is original research, hippo if you dnt want to be neutral dnt get involved, facutal is not waht wikipedia is, the truth isnt always what wikipedia says it only says what reliable soruces say, and as such its split down the middle as to whether the club has been put into liquidation, i say in liqduiation because there not liqduiated yet. lets be clear i aint avoiding anything, i havent opposed using the word liquidation, i only opposed to teh context it is written in, the oldco is in liquidation again its up in the air if the club are to,, jus tbecause you believe the clbu and ciompany are one doesnt make it the truth, nor does it mean you are wrong, your opinions dnt matter here only what can be sourced, but for every source you can put saying the club is liquicated the same club camop can produce one sayign the club is the same so that why the article wont say if it is the same club or new club and by saying the club is liquidated means you are implying its a new clubAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point and getting caught up in the minutiae of this. If the club was liquidated, it's a hugely significant event. And if the company was liquidated, it's a hugely significant event. Same club/new club, it doesn't matter - liquidation is the key event. If you are arguing that some sources say that the company which owns the club was liquidated and therefore this is not especially significant in the history of the club, I think you are delusional.

Again, could you paste a link to the manual of style for football which deals with section titles like these? I can't find this page anywhere. --hippo43 (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

i will try get the link for tha tlater for you. the page meantiosn teh company is in liquidation not liquidated yet, it also meantions that it is seen as new club and the same club, for it to be new club it implys the old club was liquidated, i have nothing against it saying that, as long as it in context, we dnt make the decision as you are implying, we report what sources say and they samy both which makes the article hard to deal with because it cant be both but we cant puick and choose we have to make the article as per the sources whether you like it or notAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

i just checked up on this and i am worng, but at the same time you are to because liquidation does not cover the content. MOS fr football says the section name should cover evertything in the content, but it doesnt need to include hte manager name. so in this case it need to be insolvancy and the low leagues minimum as liquidations does not take into accoutn administration, insolvanmcy does, the lower leagues is important because it covers that as well, mccoist i admit might nto be so important it be nice to keep it there as mccoist did have aot to do with the hings prior and after administrationAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Newco club?

I know this won't be popular but when Scottish FA chief executive Stewart Regan talks of Rangers as a newco club, it should not be ignored.[5]

Whe asked about 'the turbulence of last summer...', he stated:

"It was a changing mood every day. The situation was made worse because Rangers moved from being a club in administration trying to do a company voluntary arrangement, to a club facing liquidation and becoming a newco."

and then ended this answer by stating:

"When you look at how newcos are dealt with in leagues around the world there aren't any common approaches, there aren't automatic plans that say a newco club has to be taken down the very lowest level of football."

So, evidence to suggest that Rangers is a newco club? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

fisherhelper as many of these type things that say it is a new club even fifa says it a new club there also teh same number that say it the same club hence why the article has to say both, in fact fifa say its a new club but another statement says it the same club, when will people relaise it aint for wikipedia to decided yes we meantion it as it important but not for us to decided personal views can be made but not on wikipedia.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This off the cuff remark is not evidence of anything. It's the same club run by a new company. Happens all the time. Get over it and find something useful to do. Britmax (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Newco club doesn't mean it is a new club, or that is what he would have said. A newco club is a club that has been transferred to a new company. same club different company. Like Leeds United, Middlesborough etc. Clearly not even a good enough point to add to the 'new club' argument. VanguardScot (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Calling Rangers a "newco club" doesn't change a thing in the article, so I don't see why you think this statement is notable. If anything it just confirms that Rangers is an old club, with a new company running it. Otherwise Regan would just call Rangers a "new club", wouldn't he? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

you are all reading to much into it, the fact remains wikipedia does nto say whether it is new club or not, the sources sas New Club at times still about 30-40% of the times and that all down to th writer preseptive and bias, but the same is the for the one that say it is the same club. the simple matter is no one is goign to come out and openly say this a New club or this is the same club, they leave it delibrate to be implied in whatever way the people want, but commerical reaosn it means they dnt lose anything. it will be some years down the line before we might get the truth if rangers fc in div 3 is the same as rangers fc in spl last season, we all have our own opinions and pov but those are not for wikipedia only reliable soured information the article apart from one statement which i am still trying to get a reliable 3rd party source for is fineAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This statement by Regan merely states what (some of us) have known all along - that Rangers FC continues but within a new company structure. Whilst I appreciate that Fishiehelper has not been as fast as others in grasping the facts regarding this case, and so this revelation may come as a surprise to him, I think the article itself adequately describes Rangers "new company" status and so I do not see the need to add anything in regard to these comments. Gefetane (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)