Talk:The Rangers Football Club Ltd/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

treated as a completely new club by the SFL

Quote from this article : "That means that Friday is the deadline day for Sevco, who have been treated as a completely new club by the SFL in paying a £1,000 application fee and a £1,000 entrance fee to play in the Third Division."

'Treated as a completely new club by the SFL'...

Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Again this is a journalists words about the action of the SFL, yet if the SFL put on their website that the club was founded in 1872/3 then it clearly overwrites the wording of this journalist doesnt it? BritishWatcher (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

fisherhelper that open to intertupions, think about this, lets ingore the issue of whethr the club is liquidated or not, rangers have done match fixing, get booted out of the game, then 4 yeas later are allowed by in, but they have to apply to teh sfl, for teh sfl this will be a new club because it wasnt register prior to that but does that mean it a brand new club?Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is also a "new club" to the SFL because Rangers were not previously in the SFL... BritishWatcher (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No because a club relegated from the SPL to the SFL is not treated as a new club. It also specifically says the transfer of membership between the old club and the new one. Meaning two seperate clubs. You can try and spin things however you want but Wikipedia works of 'Journalists words' not Primary sources. Adam4267 (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The SFL statement said rangers FC would play in the third division.. yet the wikipedia article inaccurately says rangers football club no longer exists. Its a complete joke of a situation that highlights how useless wikipedia can be at times in terms of getting facts. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This confusion is caused by the new club using the same name as the old club. If wikipedia decides that separate articles are appropriate for each, the solution would be to rename the Rangers FC article as 'Rangers F.C. (1872)' or something similar. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The only reason they have the same name is because the SFL allows it. If it had been England they would have had to change their name. I don't see how that is wikipedia's fault. Adam4267 (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we really continueing this act of assessing the wording in every article writen by a journalist. How abotu this; "Treated AS a new club". Perhaps the journalist is saying they aren't a new club, but by paying a fee it's almost AS IF the SFL are TREATING them as they are a new club. Again Fishie, this evidence is as weak as your "association membership" arguement. Like i said before, if Hibs had their SPL membership terminated for cheating, or if Hearts simply chose to resign from the SPL, both these clubs would get an association membership and pay the £1000 entry fee. Both these clubs "would be treated like a NEW CLUB by the SFL". Does it mean they are a NEW CLUB? Or perhpahs the journalist simply means a new "SFL" club. Ricky072 (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You are assuming that is the case, but do you have any evidence for that assumption? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

its in teh sfl rules somewhere any club entering the 3rd divison has to pay for registrion fee because there treated lieka new club regardless if they are or not, annan and peterhead where new club in sfl minds but there history predates when they joined, if your relegated one divison form spl div1 or div2 to div3 yor not treated as a new club as it just normal change of teams due to winning an losing ie promotion relegationAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not 'assuming', it's 'interpretation'. I've been asking all along for evidence Rangers are a 'new club' beyodn the wording of a journalist. Thus far there has been none. Ricky072 (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

'Interpretation' then. In that case how do you interpret the fact that Rangers have had to enter into the first round of the communities cup when under the rules of the competition, if it were regarded as a continuation of the club that was second in the SPL last season, they would enter into the second round as one of the top seven clubs in the SPL & SFL in the preceding season that didn't qualify for European competition. [1] Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ricky072, I strongly suggest you read and understand WP:V as you are heading for another block. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

clavdia if that the case why are we not haivng one article until it is clear if it is anew club? do you want me to post verify reliable sources saying other thing liek it the same club inlcuding the bbc? and that charles green bough rangers? in fact i will just put the requst for comment live today i wont wait for the sfl or sfa judgement

Andrewcrawford, we are starting from a position where we have two article: one for the old club and one for the new club. Those editors who believe that the old club and the new club are the same club, and therefore that there should only be the one article, are the ones who need to build a consensus to change the current set up. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

im not talking about whether it should be one or two articles clavdia saidSources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say. but the sources aint just saying its new club they say it the same club to but we aint doign that ther eno point citing a wikipedia policy if you wont adhere to it, the fact is sources say both but on both sides of the rgument people have ther epov and arent willing to back ground accept they might be wrong i mean on bot sides, i have became mroe neutral because i can see its not a clear cut case regardless of ricky say it Middlesbrough or Leeds utd it aint, regardless of you saying its Gretna or a Halifax it aint, there similar situation but nothing is excately the same, i dnt think there is comparable situation it a first time event for Scottish football and world football, i think you will see the likes of Chelsea, man utd, real Madrid, Barcelona following in there footsteps to wipe there debt clean. at the end of the day major invovled in the argument havea bias and there own pov and will not back down and are not going to accept a middle ground i have said many times it will be arbcom that decides this the longer this goes on the more i think it, fisherhelper and others answer me this, if rangers do ge there sfa memebr ship transfer and then the sfl website adds rangers to it, and it says 187/1873 will you accept that? for ricky and others if it says on the same website 2012 for founding year will you accept that? or will you still argue it wrong? because bbc says so or something similar?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually Fishie it was you and other editors who decided to change the Rangers article without consensus and any attempts to revert back to a neutral status were reverted by same editors. It was up to those same editors to get consensus to justify why they wanted the article changed. Do not presume that because the article was locked in its vandalized state somehow means it has all been forgotten. BadSynergy (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, as you can easily check, I actually reverted one edit that replaced 'Rangers is a football club' with 'Rangers was a football club' as I thought the change was premature at that time. Anyway, the situation we are now in is that the Rangers FC article is fully protected on account of edit warring and is likely to have to stay fully protected unless a consensus can be built on the way forward. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Clavdia, why don;t you remove yoruself from the discussion instead of threatening me with a block. I was pointing out ways in which "treated as a new club" from the article could be intepreted. You, yourself have offered absolutely nothing to this debate and seem to be driven by agenda. Remind me again what evidenc you have posted to support your POV? At leats Fishie is putting forward sources worth debating. Ricky072 (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What I'm finding problematic about your contributions is the refusal to accept sources. WP:TRUTH does not trump Wikipedia policy. Get sources to support your own position, by all means. As long as they are reliable and independent they'll be given due weight. But it's not acceptable to think you know better than these types of sources provided by other editors. When you attempt a personal deconstruction of the content of news reports etc. you are veering into WP:OR territory. No offence, but Wikipedia readers don't care about your personal impressions (or mine, or anyone else here). Again – they just want a reasonably neutral reflection of the mainstream sources.

And how much does Wikipedia care about consistency? its very simple, Rangers is exactly the same as Leeds United, Luton, Charlton, Bournemouth, etc. We have conflicting reports within the media, but its to be expected in such widespread coverage over a complexed situation. My point is very simple, why should Wikipedia document Rangers differently from the clubs i just mentioned? Ricky072 (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why does so much of the mainstream media refer to newco Rangers or Rangers Newco when the same mainstream media did not make similar reference to Leeds United, Luton, Charlton Bournemouth? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you would liek the answer to be that they were somehow different, but they weren't. Rangers are by far the biggest club to go down such a route, I'm surprised if Ltuon or Bournemouth even made the mainstream papers such as the Sun. Even Leeds weren't all that widely covered with most media sources simply reporting that Bates baught them out and everyone moved on. Ricky072 (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not an answer - it was merely a comment on my question. Wikipedia is supposed to base articles on reliable sources and the mainstream media have made a very clear distinction between the club now going forward and the club that entered liquidation in a way that was not done for the clubs you mention. You asked above "why should Wikipedia document Rangers differently from the clubs i just mentioned?" Perhaps one obvious reason is because the Rangers case is being viewed and reported by the mainstream media in a very different way. Reliable sources state that Green' Rangers is a 'new club' which was not the case with the clubs you mentioned - hence the difference. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you would conceed the mainstraim media did not give such widespread coverage to Luton, or even Leeds. So your answer to the question of why Rangers shoudl be referenced differently to Leeds or Luton within wikiedpia is essentially 'well, some media sources use the term 'new club? Ricky072 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly one argument - wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, and reliable sources say that Rangers is a 'new club ' (which was not the case in the examples you like to quote). If we accept that reliable sources are key to wikipedia, then this must carry some weight. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget Middlesbrough , they done the same as Rangers , as claimed by the chairmen Steve Gibson, as I have previously mentioned, their Wikipedia page still says same club same history, Chalres green Said ranger are a newco, when it suits people and again and oldco when they want to impose a fine or rule. if rangers are a newco why do the need to be punished or the oldco.. I believe newco is new finiacial company operator . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.16.109 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Here, why have Portsmouth fans got their knickers in a twist? Haven't they heard that being liquidated is a minor inconvenience which only happens to "the company"? Surely "the club" itself is ensconced in glorious isolation, away from all this? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

why i thought it be simple apart from peop.le saying there club is liquidated in a newco situition even if it isnt only truly liquidated if they form a new club with no assesst purchased ie gretna 2008, they will be banned from europe for 3 years 4 if you count they hve to win on the 3rd season out and only get back in the following season due to audited accounts which is a new fia rule within last 3 or 4 years, there not garanteed to get back to the cureent league there in, there not garanteed pplayers will tranfer via tupe, is that enough reason wehy they dnt want liquidation?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Knickers in a twist? Ofcourse they are, their club is facing extinction. I'm sure if a Charles Green/Ken Bates was waiting in the wings with a NewCo offer they would be delighted, but the reality facing Pompey fans is that the club may be dissolved and the fans may have to create a phoenix club and start from the 10th tier of the English Football system as a new club, with a new name & new badge. Ricky072 (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds awfully like New Rangers and Original Rangers to me Ricky. Remember when Rangers were first formed, they were just called "The Rangers Football Club", they had no League, no Stadium, no badge etc etc they only accumulated everything now taken for granted as being a Club such as a Stadium, training facilities, badges, players, trade-names and everything. Just like Sevco Scotland Limited once had nothing but they've bought trade-names, stadium, badges, players, training facilities and successfully applied to join a League.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you still not understand the difference between a 'phoenix club' like Halifax and a 'Newco purchase' like Luton? I've explained it several times now. If you still don;t understand the difference then you really have no place commenting on the debate. Ricky072 (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So Ricky if you bulk buy assets off of one Club you can claim to be that Club? What if I bought Barcelona and Real Madrids assets and assigned them to Celtic. Would Celtic suddenly have won 14 European Cups and 50 odd Spanish League Titles. Thats some laugh.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

no you couldnt for a few reasons, firstly there no in teh process of liqudiation you can onyl buy assesst liek that in liquidaiton process but you poetnialk can buy the company and then you own teh assesst yes and surpisely the titels to but you need to merge them both of fifa and uefa would have sometihn to say about it in europeon matches.secondly you can only buy aocmpany assesst and move them to another company in certian circumstances but io aint goign to bother explainAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

ONE QUESTION SUPERBHOY lets just assume the same process happens with say clyde fc will you be goign and making clyde fc 2012 article and goign sprouting the same reasons, or would you really care that much for htem, also if this new rangers team plays celtic will you call it old firm?Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ricky, Portsmouth fans would be "delighted" to end up like Rangers? Liquidated and their assets sold for peanuts to mysterious consortia of venture capitalists? I must have missed where the guy said that in the article! Andrewcrawford, the idea that Portsmouth fans, facing (at best) a points deduction in League One, are concerned about a four year ban from Europe is equally silly. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

clavdia i aint saying that be there primary concern the facvt the might not get bacjk in league and have to start from the bopttom like rangers and in england that a drop of about 5 or 6 leagues, newco route isnt the best wayout and also depentent on the a few pother thingsAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Tickets for a "Rangers" match

Feel free to call this an unreliable source, i'm honestly not sure how reliable it counts as. But tickets for the upcoming Challenge Cup tie have been printed like this: http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/6264/ayfotj6cqaa3qb3.jpg Note "Rangers FC", not Newco Rangers, The Rangers, Sevco or anything else. Sparhelda 12:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agh but wikipedia is a more reliable source that says rangers FC was a football club that now ceases to exist. Who to believe.. HMRC, the SFL, SFA, The club itself,, the old companies administrators, the media, the tickets for a game, and even photographic evidence from a match rangers took part in a few days ago.. or Wikipedia and a vandalised version which was locked in place without any consensus. Its a tough one isnt it? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the truth is that 'Rangers FC was a football club' as well as 'Rangers FC is a football club' - the first statement being about the original football club to bear that name, and the second about the reformed club. Therefore, providing evidence that 'Rangers FC is a football club' does not in itself prove that 'Ranger FC was a football club' is not also true. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sevco have taken part in two behind-closed-doors training matches. They can't play public matches without accepting the conditions attached to the old club's SFA membership. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't really see what that has got to do with my point. Sparhelda 21:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Rangers FC" is a trading name of Sevco Scotland Limited, which they bought from The Rangers Football Club PLC. They can call their Club it legally all they want. They also hold the copyrights of "The Rangers Football Club" and "Rangers Football Club". Likewise Celtic PLC own the names "Celtic Football Club", "Celtic FC", "The Celtic Football Club", "The Celtic Football and Athletic Club" and "The Celtic Football Club 1888", having names copyrighted and using names doesn't define who you are. Celtic could for example sell the copyright name of "Celtic FC" to Aberdeen, and Aberdeen could use the name "Celtic FC" to refer to themself as they would own that name, however if they ever tried to use any other of Celtic's names, Celtic could sue them. The only reason names are copyrighted are to stop other Clubs calling themselves the same name as your Club. But in the case of Rangers(1872) and Rangers(2012, Rangers(1872) are dying so were happy to sell the trading names to the New Club so that they can call their Club the same as the one they are copying, they are even going the whole way and re-naming their legal name, so that the New Club can use the same Legal Name as the Old Club used for 140 years.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

""Rangers FC" is a trading name of Sevco Scotland Limited, which they bought from The Rangers Football Club PLC." So when Sevco Scotland bought that from The Rangers Football Club PLC why did the article about Rangers FC need to change to say it cease to exist? When the name has been transferred over.. that is the club, along with the right to apply to have the old companies membership of the SFA transferred over as the new company got that too. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The name isnt the Club, the name is a name. If the name was a Club then Rangers FC never existed until it was created by a guy writing it down and applying to have it copyrighted probably around 100 years ago. The Club is actually named The Rangers Football Club PLC, maybe thats what the "Rangers F.C" article should be called. Remember you can only have 1 Legal Name, you can change it as many times as you like however you can only have 1 at a time. Rangers' has always been "The Rangers Football Club" then subsequently the same but with Ltd and then now with PLC at the end. Just the same as "John Smith" will legally be named John Smith but could be known as just "John" or "Smith" or "Johnny" or "Johno" or "Smithy" what a person would call a "nickname" a company will call a "Trading name" ie. Rangers is probably the most used name for The Rangers Football Club PLC, as you'd say for example "Did you hear Rangers are getting liquidated".--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

How can the club be " The Rangers Football Club PLC" when the club has existed before that company was formed. they are too separate things.. Yes of course the club is not just the name, its also the assets including things like the stadium etc. The club was known as Rangers and Rangers FC in the past, yet clearly the club that will be playing in div 3 is known as those two things too.. thats because they are the same club. And if the whole world treats it as the same club, and reliable sources say it is the same club? How is it not the same club? WP:DUCK sort of comes to mind. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your credibility diminshes with every post. The lengths you are going to, to try and convince yourself a club is a company is astonishing. Every club has a CLUB NAME. This is registered with the FA. It's also an asset, a piece of intellectual property that no-one can use. The Wikipedia article should not be entitled "The Rangers Football Club Plc" because Wikipedia documents clusb by the registered CLUB NAME. Otherwise Arsenal FC would be documented as "Arsenal Holdings plc". A Club is something different from a company. If i go back to the Coca-Cola example, have a lookat this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola is that about the drink, or is it about the company that owns the drink? It's very simple. It's about a drink, named Coca-Cola, if you want to read about the company that owns it, then see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coca-Cola_Company. Rangers F.C is a football club, The Rangers Football Club Plc is a company. Ricky072 (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

BritishWatcher The Rangers Football Club formed 1872, were Incorporated as a Limited Company and became The Rangers Football Club Ltd. It's the same entity. Could you tell me what you think happened in 1899?--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this link will help you: http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/The%20FA%20Club%20Structures.pdf it states that to incorporate a club, the current owner of the assets registers a new company, he then places all the assets which make up the club inside that company, so the company is now the owner of the assets (page 17). It also explains later in the document that the asstes can be moved out of the company and into another (page 20). Ricky072 (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You can be born before your birth is registered

A lot of people don't seem to understand that becoming Incorporated is a benefit, to become a legal entity and trade. Just because The Rangers Football Club did not register as a legal entity on the date of its birth doesn't mean it's different. If you have a child born on the 20th of March 2005, but you don't register its birth as a legal entity until the 30th of April 2005 with the Registers Office, it doesn't mean it wasn't the same person before they were registered.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Compairing companies to people isn't going to help the current debate. The 'club is a company' arguement has now been rendered invalid. We've seen Charlton & Middlesborough successfully sepearte club from company in 1984 & 1986 respectively, with the old companies that run the club now defunct. This theory that a club & company are as 1 and can never been undone has long been disproven. Ricky072 (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

you do realise how mucha fool you have made yourself look? with that statement i am assumign you do not have children if oyu did you know you have max 3 weeks after birth to register them or you will look ata prison sentance for breeaching the marriage birth death act--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Was going to say, i'm fairly certain that would be illegal. Sparhelda 21:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats irrelevant, plus the law is different in every country too. How do you know I wasn't talking about Bolivia or China or Mozambique? Anyway, the main point was that a person is still the same pre-birth registration as a company/club is pre-Incorporation. Point is - Something has to exist ie John Smith born 25th May 1967 has to actually have been born for John Smith's parents to register his birth on the 26th of May 1967. Just like The Rangers Football Club born 1872 had to exist for them to become Incorporated in 1899.For something to be incorporated it has to apply to be Incorporated and The Rangers Football Club applied. It was not as such people like Ricky above say, a Company called The Rangers Football Club Ltd who applied to be Incorporated and then Bought The Rangers Football Club--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

ok so if they called the company gooble gook ltd would the club then be called gooble gook? even by your own defintion of celtic fc it was called celtic fc and something ltd so was that the name of the club? and when they went celtic fc plc was thata new club again because it was new name?Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"For something to be incorporated it has to apply to be Incorporated and The Rangers Football Club applied." i only jsut realise the revelence of this i am goign to prove oyu wrong but i knwo you wont accept it, lets forget about rangers i am goign to prove for sometihng ot be incorprated it has to apply because that only partial trueAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Coca-Cola had to be invented first. Someone came up with a recipe and a method. Then the drink was registered as a company. What makes up a company? Assets. what are Assets? Well the recipe, the manufacturing rights, the name, the logo design, the brand name, employee contracts, etc. They can all be sold to another company, but it doesn't become a completely new drink. I've explained this to you numerous times, either you fail to grasp this basic concept or you just won't accept the facts. Ricky072 (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Very good point. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No its not. He is getting mixed up with the Company and the Drink, the Drinks are the liquid that are bought and sold ie. In Rangers scenario they would be the matches. The drink it's self is not a Company. The Company(Rangers) ownes the machines(Stadium) that is used by employees(players/staff) to make the drink(matches) which people pay to drink(watch).--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I despair. OK try this. The Rolling Stones (the band) formed a record label (Rolling Stones Records) in 1970. That owned 'the band', the band name, the logo, the ownership, rights & distribution to the music. Maybe a few recording studios. All of these are assets. In 1992 they went to Virgin Records, the band, contracts, all the assets, ownership of music etc.... was all trasnferred over and Rolling Stones Records now ceases to exists. 'New Band'? I'm hoping you'll have a 'eureka' moment and realise that all a company is really, is the legal entity which owns assets. Ricky072 (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The assets arent the Club though. The assets are just something needed for a football Club to function. Seee if there are two identical houses next to each other. But one has remained untouched for 140 years but the other was just built 5 months ago. Would you say if you moved all the furniture from the 140 year old house to the 5 month old house and vice versa and then traded the "goodwill" from one house to the other. Then the 5 month old house was now the 140 year old house?--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ofcourse the assets are the club. http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/The%20FA%20Club%20Structures.pdf page 17, it explains that to incorpate a club as a company you place the assets which make up a club into a newly registerd company. Page 20 explains that those assets can later be trasnferred out of 1 legal entity and into another. A football club could become a charity if it wanted to (again explained in that document). It could simply trasnfer all it's assets out of a limited company and into a charity. The Rolling Stones are a band, not a company. All a company is, is a legal entity which you can place assets into it's ownership. Ricky072 (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So what your saying is that Rangers are not something that exist. But something that people just percieve to exist if there are certain assets under the hood of a company functioning together?--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your almost getting there. A club can be defined as simply as 2 or more people with a common goal. A sports club is a team of players competing against another team. A Music band is a collective group of 2 or more people making music. All of these things can be defined by assets and placed into a company. If you create an ice-cream van business, you could go out and buy an icecream van, some stock, hire a staff member & come up with a brand name, say "superbhoy icecream". You could simply trade as your person (a sole trader) then you are liable for everything, including debt, insurance etc. Or you could register a limited company (gets it's name from 'limited liability' unlike a sole trader). You can call the company "The superbhoy icecream co limited". You then place your business (all the asstes) into the ownersip of the company. So that includes your brand name & logo, your employees contract, your icecream van, and your stock. Now i could come along and buy your business. I have 2 options, I could either buy the company from you, and i'll be the owner of "The superbhoy icecream co limited" and everything inside it, or, i could buy all the assets from you, or even just some of those assets (perhaps i might not need the stock & employee contract), and then move those assets into my own company which i create, entitled "Ricky icecream enterprised Ltd". Provided you include the goodwill, brand name & logo, i have the right to continue to trade as the brand you created. The business is still the same. This actually happened with McDonalds. Originally it was just a small resteraunt set-up by the McDonald brothers, but an entrepeneur with vision came along and baught them out, he carried on the brand name 'McDonalds'. Triumph Motorcycles is another example. In the 80's a company came along and purchased the brand and manufacturing rights, aswell as some other assets when the old company went bust. Noone cares about the legal entity which went bust, they just cae about the brand name, Triumph. On there website they are currently celebrating '110 years of Triumph!' showcasing all the old motorcycles created under the old ownership. That doesn't matter because the NewCo owns the brand and the property of the old company now. The brand, THE BUSINESS lives on. Ricky072 (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Article For Deletion

Although previsouly nominated for Deletion, we have a significant new step in that the Rangers F.C page has now been restored to the present tense to correctly describe the club as a going concern after achieving consensus. Arising from that situation is now we have 2 pages on Wikipedia presenting itself as the same football club.

1. I propose this article be deleted.
2. I feel a 2nd article is needed however to document what has happened as it would make the Rangers F.C page too long. I propose creating a page entitled "Sevco Scotland Ltd" (later to be renamed as appropriate).
3. This page structure/template will not be that of a football club, but will follow the structure of Leeds United Football Club Limited. In order to keep consistency within Wikipedia, Leeds have a seperate page documented to the Newco which purchased the assets of Leeds united. This article simply documents that period in the clubs history without presenting itself as a club. The 2 pages are then linked to each other.

These proposals would be the most logical way forward and in keeping with standards already set by Wikipedia (in the case of Leeds United). Feel free to post your input on points 1,2 & 3. Ricky072 (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

how about we give this a week and see hwo it goes, instead of trying to delete it which will be proposed i will take geta conesus to rename to liqudiation of rangers fc plc once we can get aconsensus on the main aritlce which we appear to be oding now--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I Disagree with that wording Andrew, 1 thing i've tried to achieve throughout this process is consistency with Wikipedia. Leeds or Luton or Napoli or Charlton don't have articles entitled "liquidation of....". Indeed it raises the question if there is a need for a seperate article in the first place. Leeds do have a seperate article however, so this should be precedent. It's entitled by the NewCo's official name and used to describe the insolvency event that took place at Leeds in 2007. I think this is the best way forward in the quest for consistency within Wikipedia. I also fail to see why leaving it another week should be considered, we have all the sources & facts neccessary to create a good, factually accurate article right now which can be updated with any future developments. Ricky072 (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the path of renaming this to a liquidation article and focusing on the whole events would be more supported and have more use than having a new article for the new company, People will be too tempted to put club stuff on the company article which is what is meant to be avoided, there would end up being almost nothing on it. A liquidation article would be useful, if a reasonable title can be agreed on. We should wait until the issues with the main article are sorted over the coming days. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would support titles like Liquidation of Rangers Football Club PLC Or Administration and liquidation of The Rangers Football Club PLC etc BritishWatcher (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)we might havea consensus we might not we cant just jump teh gun you have complained about superbhoy doign that to create this article but you are willign to do it to get it the way you want, it doesnt harm to wait, secondly there is no predcent just because what leeds article does not mean it gets done here, the section in the rangers article on administration and liqudiation if it gets to big it then adds undue weight and needs spliting out the proper way to split would be to split top the topic of the section requiring spliting form the main aritlce which is the liqudiation of rangers fc or rangers fc plc

"just because leeds done it doesn't mean we should do it here"? Why not? thats what a precedent is. That's what consistency is. Also, i'm ot 'jumping any guns' i'm merely putting forward constructuive proposals to fix the mess of this current article.Ricky072 (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Its a case of needing to go for what is more likely to get consensus, considering how previous AFDs have gone, a move to liquidation would be more likely to get accepted. Surely an article on the liquidation itself is a better outcome than the status quo with the article trying to treat it as a new and separate club? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The content of the articles would be the same. Now if you look on the Rangers FC page, this article is linked to by "sevco 5088". If you click on that, you would expect to be taken to a page explaining what "Sevco" is, wouldn't you? I think the Article shoudl be called "sevco", explaining the company, why it was created, and a section within this page should be entitled "The Liquidation of The Rangers Football Club Plc". To me that is clearly the most logical approach, it makes sense to the reader coming from the RFC page, and it's in keeping with the precedent on Wikipedia set by Leeds. Ricky072 (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

as britihswatcher said we needa consensus on wha tto call it my gut feelign is just liqudiateion of rangers fc plc, but the link on the page can easily be fixed if we are movign to signle article, the company isnt really notable to have it own page--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Given this article has just had two failed AfDs within weeks of eachother, I think another would be viewed a disruptive. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

it most likely would but i dnt wee a need for a afd just a page move depending if a consensus is reach at rangers fc talk page which we are moving towartds now--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Administration and liquidation of The Rangers Football Club PLC could be developed into a very detailed and expansive article focussed directly on the events that unfolded over the last year since Craig Whyte took over and the fallout. This would gather fractured debates and arguments that have been spread over numerous articles.Monkeymanman (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed there has already been 2 afd's but we now have a significant new developemnt that consensus was achieved on the Rangers FC page which now surely justifies the deletion of this article. Ricky072 (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

why is it you wan tit deleted so much? if it redirect to anew article like liqudiation one and then full proctected it will only be a redierect nothing else and this is easier to achive than a deleteion--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this epidose has been well enough publicised, and substancial enough to justify a new article, however this 1 is a complete mess and should be deleted, with any new articles concerning Sevco or liquidation be created from scratch. Ricky072 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

ricky they would, what we ar ebest doign is if we have the liqudiation article ready redirect it there and nothing will remain here yes a google search woul find it but we can add __noindex__ then it wont even appear on google or elsewhere and if it is foudn it will either redirect to the liqudioaiton article so newco rangers goes to liqudaiton about plc, or goes to rangers fc article which might be better, ricky take it form me as experainced editor not only will this fail another afd the admins will start handing out bans to the one sbehind it, trust me on this one it bettter to redirect but lets get rangers article sorted firstAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To correct Ricky072, no consensus was achieved on the Rangers FC article and therefore his claimed justification for the deletion of this article is invalid. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

consensus was achieved, 100% of people agreed that reliable sources state that Rangers FC is the same club. Ricky072 (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

that doesnt mean a coinsensus but it means we are close to itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes Ricky072, but you're smarter than that - you realise that reliable sources also state the opposite! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers being the same club is heavily supported by sources, official & administrative document, and many precedents. Consensus was achieved that reliable sources and evidence support this. I do not agree that the opposite view is reliably supported beyond anythign other than journalist POV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content." & also states that news sources would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The BBC for example have on several occasions used the term 'new club', but not once has any editor been able to support this as being anything other than journalistic opinon, as it that statement cannot be backed up by any official evidence, or statements from the SFA, SPL, SFL or even HMRC, all of whom have stated the oppostie. Ricky072 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Are people allowed to remove my comments from this page?

As above? I posted a link to a new article and it got deleted. Is this normal practice around here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair point - that should not have happened. The editor who did this is relatively new to wikipedia and may not have realised that that is not how things are done around here. I'll revert his edit. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Even the BBC now say that it's a new club.

[2] - "led to the creation of a new club"

Seriously, how anyone can dispute this I have no idea. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

apart forma few fishiehelper no one has ever denyied even sources like bbc say its a new club but they also say it the same club, there was article not long ago within the last week that basically said tha thte plc is geting liqudiated and the club ocntunies unde rhte new ocmpany, that is the problem the media has no clue we have no clue, no one can make ther emind up that why it should be housed under one article and if we can relible say in teh future yes this club called rangers fc is a brand new club in the future we will makea new one but you have two people at the very least on both sides of the argument who will not accept that, one a wont accept anything less than it the same club the other wont accept anything less than it a new club, ive donea bit of research into wikipedia policies if this disptue contunies we might have to disregard there input as being disruptive and not willing to forma consensus that goes by the relible sources--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed it because your posting the same thing already posted, and debated, several times. Maybe before rehashing the same same sources you could take a moment to read what has already been posted & discussed, then we can all move forward. Ricky072 (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

ricky you never remove someoen else talk page post unless it clear vandelism whihc this wasnt, or something worse like someone threaten to kill someone and you also have to report that ato admin to be dealt with but you never rmeove another user tlak page postAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell that to adam4267 who has twice removed my contributions to talk pages. It's also important we keep the debate on the right path. New users popping up and posting the exact same sources already posted, discussed, and debated weeks ago is never going to move us forward. Perhaps I should apply for administrator status to help moderate the debate and keep it on track. Ricky072 (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it fun what you can do when you lift a snippet of a quotation out of context to suit yourself? Let's have a look at the full quote shall we? "Rangers have suffered a financial meltdown that has led to the creation of a new club reborn in Division Three and barred from Europe for three seasons." If we consider what is being said there, three things could be inferred;

• The club in Division Three led from "Rangers".
• This club is "reborn", so clearly not that new, as to be reborn you need to have a previous life.
• The Rangers that was liquidated was "barred from Europe". If this is a totally new club then what's events prior to its creation got to do with it? The writer of this article clearly thinks they do.

So not nearly as clear cut as you claim. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for being picky, but don't newly formed clubs also have to wait three years before being allowed to compete at European level? (Something to do with three years of accounts, I think.) Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

yes and no, the company does. here is some research for you guys for personnal not for this, lets say one f the amatuer or junior clubs that compete in the scottish win it, are they allowed to compete in europe the following season, even if they have been around for 4 or more years, and have the 3 plus year of accounts.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wee Jimmy, what stops you trying to have a fair debate instead of questioning the integrity of the dispute? Sparhelda 20:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

since no one as replied i am assumign you cant find the answer, no the amatuer or junior side that would have wont the scottish cup the prior season would not be allowed to compete in eurpeon football unless they have been registered asa company for 3 years because its not teh accounts that mattr it is audiot accounts which is only arequirement ofa ltd/pls company a solo business ie just aclub doesnt need to do it and they would as it cost a lot which for asmall club that size it would make it worthwhile, and no making a ltd company does not make it the club, teh club becaomes a assesst, i suggest some reasearch on ltd companioesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A strange argument. Are you suggesting that small clubs that are not limited companies don't have accounts? I have to tell you that even the smallest club needs to pay bills - if only the fee for the referee - and therefore has to raise the funds to pay these bills. Someone will be responsible for accounting for these funds and will produce an annual report. If a club gets sufficiently serious that it decides to seek the protections for its officials that being incorporated brings, the club may choose to become a company. Therefore, whether the club is a company or not, it will have accounts, and if it had 3 years of accounts would be entitled to compete at European level should it qualify. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, all sorts of organisations need audited accounts and not just companies - I should know as I've been treasurer to several over the years! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

ok lets take it a simpler way, lets forget football just now other than to relate things. ok a club is a business i do not deny that but it does not mean it is a company, now me i am solo trader so in essence you can call me a club, follow me so far, now these amateur an junior clubs would be like me a solo trader so the person who runs them is liable for the debt etc. however i do not need to provided audit accounts , i could do it and it gives me a bit more weight with the tax man etc but i do not need to pay accountant for it i can do it myself so saving myself money so in essence these clubs could be doing that they wont be getting that money.

so lets now move on, the club register a company ie company ltd etc, the company then owns all the assesst including the club, now if i was to turn my business into a ltd comnay i then have to provide audit accounts ever year by a accountant so do these club that register as companies that part of the reason professional clubs have a company so they have audited accounts and that is what uefa and fifa look for.

i am not trying to use this to justify the club isnt the company i am merely trying to explain why a club becomes a company as people put it but in essence they dnt the club is a asset and before anyone says why do the club not have a value, it does it the asset it owns but i aint going down this debate i am merely trying to explain the process of companies that ltd and generaly they owe the debt not the invivdual but that why in this case hmrc wants the company liquidated so they have the power to investigative to see if anything crinimal was done so getting more in return generally if your ltd/plc goes out of business if it was just down to your demand dropped you lost money and became insolvent the company is what owes the money but in this case inviduailks might if proven to have cause the insolvence event--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If this European thing is an issue it may be worth trying to find out about the likes of Leeds and their position after the whole 'newco' situation. Since Leeds had been in decline on the park for a while European participation wasn't something that got mentioned much at that time if at all, so I honestly can't remember if they'd have been able to get into Europe, it is after all still possible in the lower leagues via cup competitions. Sparhelda 14:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE stop talking about Leeds? This is becoming embarrassing. The Rangers-supporting editors who are in denial about what is happening here should leave the editing to those of us without any emotional investment. The comical Ali impression of a few 'true blues' on here is now preventing us turning this into a decent The Rangers F.C. article. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually starting to get a bit sick of your attitude towards people on a different side of this dispute to yours, open Celtic fans have contributed to this and no-one is surely going to claim they're totally impartial, but as long as people are putting up fair points and sources for discussion then it doesn't matter who they support or if they support anyone at all. If it was simply a bunch of fans spouting their beliefs then do you really think it would have got this far? Frankly your replies are starting to sound a bit like toys out of the pram. Sparhelda 18:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

why should we be moving on with making the rangers fc article a decent one when sources say the club is the same but also say it a new club??? why do we pick it is new, it can be argued that opposing fans are the ones prevent us getting on with making the rangers fc article the one and only one--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Clavdia, feel free to tell the rangers supporting editors, or the neurtral ones like myself, what the differences are between Leeds & Rangers. If you can't understand that both were liquated then perhaps Wikipedia isn't somthing you should be participating in. Ricky072 (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ricky072, you may indeed be a neutral editor as you claim, and the fact that you have only ever edited wikipedia related to Rangers may have a perfectly reasonable explanation, but to suggest to another editor that "perhaps Wikipedia isn't somthing you should be participating in" is bang out of order. You are entitled to your views as others are to their views. You are allowed to keep asking the same questions that have already been answered if you wish, but that is not going to get us further forward. Despite what you have said previously that there can be "no compromise", building consensus is a process that has to involve trying to find common ground, based on what reliable sources say. I have made a number of suggestions of ways forward, but you merely reject everything. How about some constructive suggestions from you, or are you merely going to continue with your "no compromise" position? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny that should commend my comments as "bang out of order" but the increasingly personal insults being contributed by Clavdia, such as 'embarrassing' seems to fly under your radar. As for my stance on their being 'no compromise', i still feel it's a fairly logical response. Wikipedia, im sure we both will agree, strives to be factually accurate. The compromise you suggest would lead to a half-baked article partially believing the club lives on, partially leading to believe it's gone. I'm sure we share a common goal of proving the issue either 1 way or the other, and not a mish-mash of both. Ricky072 (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishie, have you read some of the stuff from Clavdia? Worse than anything Ricky has said. Sparhelda 00:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If I have missed anything as bad, I apologise. I don't object to 'real' debate but when it reaches the level of suggesting another editor should cease to be an editor (especially one who has contributed to a number of articles) I think it has gone too far. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Gav - it is difficult now to follow the many, and varied arguments over newco/old club. Ultimately the determination will lie with sfa/uefa/fifa. Their rules are not in dispute. A PLAYER IS REGISTERED TO A CLUB, not a legal entity. Not a company. Not a quasi-sporting conglomeration. The rules are clear. A player is registered to a club. If that club legaly ceases to exist then the players contract, under SFA, UEFA and FIFa rules, is declared null and void. The only conclusion that can be derived is as follows: fifa rules a players registration to be legal if said player is not contracted to another club, or transfer is a mutual agreement between clubs within a recognised transfer window. If the player was previously contracted to a club, now liquidated, and player was not at end of contracted term then the player may exercise freedom of contract barring the exception of local employment law( not applicable here as UK employment law is in player's favour). Uefa sanctions registration of player to new club where player was previously contracted to liquidated club and contract was not at an end using the same statute. The SFA, in rejecting players registration at their new clubs are in breach of UK law, in breach of Uefa guidlines and in breach of Fifa guidelines. If Rangers' sevco incarnation are a continuation of the old club then the players registrations, under all governing bodies rules and regulations must be retained. If, however, this is not the case then the owners of rangers assets are indeed a NEW CLUB. This is unambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.33.215 (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Think you need to read up on TUPE. BadSynergy (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I've insulted anybody. If it was Celtic, or Barcelona or Arsenal, who'd folded in such humiliating circumstances I would be here quoting sources and policy against their supporters. Personally, I was here editing Wikipedia long before the Rangers WP:SPAs and I'll be here long after they've got bored or been blocked. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You would think such an experienced editor would be aware of WP:Assume Good Faith. Instead I've seen sarky replies and condescending comments about other editors. You may not be aware of it but you come across to me as arrogant and rude. Plus I've just read the SPA page you posted maybe you should apply WP:BITE to your future dealings with new editors. BadSynergy (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

bbc have said rangers Sevco from day one, because they have it in for them, only people calling them a new club are The BBC, daily record and Celtic fans.. SFA and SFL acknowledge Rangers As Rangers , Read MR Greens interview yesterday, no matter if it is Company A, company B that own the club, Rangers are Rangers and always will be Rangers. Celtic changed company name 3 times and there company structure is now more complicated than any other.Rangers then Rangers now, ask the people who actually own the club they are they only ones that can give the true actual facts that Wikipedia needs... Get it from the horses mouth... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.111.120 (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I propose that this article is renamed "The Rangers FC"?

I would like to propose that this article is renamed to be "The Rangers FC", seeing as this is now what it is being called, and is being used as the trading name of Sevco Scotland Ltd. I'm not sure of thr protocol for this motion, but is there any objection to it being done? WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think renaming the old article "Rangers F.C (1873-2012)", then renaming this article to "Rangers F.C" is more in line with Wikipedia policy. It won't happen though. At least not yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andevaesen (talk • contribs) 02:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I indeed do object. The trading name is temporary, the 'oldco' as it were is changing it's name to allow 'Rangers FC' to be used, I know this from shareholders that were informed. No doubt you're coming to this conclusion based on the likes of the BBC league table even though the BBC itself still has the club page titled 'Rangers' and the naming varies including on the official tickets printed by Brechin for the Ramsdens Cup match taking place later today, where there is no sign of 'The Rangers FC'. [3]. Sparhelda 03:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

And there's still the strong possibility of this article not exisiting in the future anyway. Sparhelda 03:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

When any of that takes place, it can be amended at that time. At this moment in time, this new club is being called 'The Rangers FC' by the authorities. Although I have to say, the idea proposed by Andevaesen seems to make sense as well. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

They have always been caled "The Rangers Football Club". They are simply reffered to s 'Rangers' by the majority of third party sources however, looking at how the bookmakers have listed them for todays game int he Ramsden cup, every 1 have checked today has them simply listed as Rangers, shorthand for the rangers football club. Ricky072 (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox

I invite everyone to particulate in creating this sandbox version of rangers fc as one article, it will describe rangers as same club and a new club and references will be used that are from 3rd party not rangers own website unless there is no other source.

Any attempt to edit it to say it as only the same club or only as deceased club or clear vandalism will be revert. We are wikipedians do not decided if the club is alive or dead e report what the media says and the media still refers to them as new and the same we cant pick and choose, as editors adding stuff you can pick to add references supporting your pov but you can not remove stuff that does nto support your point of view that is referenced or is challenged. please remember the sandbox version is not live and can not be seen apart from using the talk page so does not reflect outside on the web.

--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Number 12 Shirt not retired

Rangers FC retired the number 12 shirt? Am I correct?

The Rangers FC, havent, a sub who came on is wearing it against Brechin in the ***** Cup.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

so you can not unretire a shirt funny i always thought it is at the club discretion, plus they have not annouced squad numebr and i dnt think they will it will be cheaper to just have players not have a spefic squad numbered shirt. come on superbhoy you believe there new club, you have produced creditable sources that hold weight but this is jsut ridiclous if you need something as obsecure as this to fight your argument the the new club camp must be dying--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Im just making a point, Rangers(old) retired the number 12 in honour of fans? Rangers(2012, Sevco Scotland, Newco, the Tribute Act) are using it, they've clearly not retired anything.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, please self revert your edit of Superbhoy's post and refrain from doing so again, Wikipedia is not censored. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

wikipedia is not censored but edits that are deem to be defractior can be removed or just deleted, i choose to delet ethe words not remove the post--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you've typed here at all. But you should not be changing others' talk page posts per WP:TPO. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

you can edit another user talk page posts if ther eoffence or certian other things, wikipedia does not censor but user talk page post if offence can be removed like if i was to use the word to describe blakc people in bad way someoen can remove the bad word or can remove my talk page psot compeltely.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Squad numbers not actually being used could have an influence on this, the numbers have to be 1-16 in that situation. Sparhelda 17:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

also if oyu look at the sfl rules there is no squad numebrs they must use 1-16 so they cant retire it if they want to, unless there happy to have one sub less ot choose from but the rules state it has to up in numebrs so 12 is after 11 they cant jump to 13--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Support - the club is not the company

Rangers FC was founded in 1872 and first incorporation was 1899. The parent company was re-incorporated in the 1960s and most recently Rangers were transferred to a new corporation.

Since the time before incorporation, through and beyond today, the team is Rangers FC. This position is supported by the Scottish Football League which lists Rangers and their titles. http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers-fc/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.79.125 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

wikipedia doesnt take side, nor does it take a point of view, we are working on having one article but wikipedia is driven by consensus an reliable source, the merged article will describe rangers as being the same club and new club because reliable sources in the media state both--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This point has been gone over so many times already. One and the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andevaesen (talk • contribs) 15:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

and this point has been made countless times the media view it as a same club depending on where it reported and the media view it as new club , it is new club and the same club, everyone on both sides of the argument just have to accept that, because wikipedia doesnt take sides, and if th reliable sorues say it the same club and enw club we do as well--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 July 2012

Please Can I Edit Parts Of This Page. From A Rangers Fan Wanting To Help, Aradioham Aradioham (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Specific changes to the article need to be proposed and then if there is consensus someone will put it onto the article. There is currently a wide ranging discussion on what should happen with this article and the article at Rangers F.C so join in with the discussions and make suggestions, but at this stage it is unlikely there will be agreement to implement any changes. thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Rangers F.C.

{{Merge|Newco Rangers|The Rangers Football Club Ltd|Sevco 5088|The Rangers F.C.|target=Rangers F.C.|discuss=Talk:Rangers F.C.#Merger proposal|date=July 2012}}

Since now the sfl website has been updated and we now have the bbc website saying that company that owned the club that is liquidated and the new company owns the club i think it time we get the ball moving.

Please do not canvas votes

This discussion will be closed by non involved admin and decision on a consensus decided impartial for each question

Question

No discussion in this area just a plain vote.
Do you support the merger of this article into the Rangers F.C. article so forming one article.

Please respond with Support or Oppose, please bold your response using '''answer''', with short summary and source or sources enclosing links with [], please sign your response, for general discussion see below.

Please respond below here:

• Support - i think the evidence & precedent that it is a continuation of the same club is now overwhelming. This episode in Rangers history was a lengthy one with huge media coverage so including everything within he original article is too much and worthy of it's own article, linked to the Rangers FC page. Ricky072 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Having read the footballing authorities statements plus the fact the SFL recognises Rangers as still having their honours I can't see how it could be viewed as a brand new club. Should be one article however I would support an article detailing the old companies demise as there is so much data on it. BadSynergy (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The implementing of sanctions and football debts belonging to Rangers as well as the SFL saying it's the same club formed in 1873 (or 1872) with their honours, I think this is the obvious move. I'd also agree an article to describe Rangers' financial problems would be appropriate. Sparhelda 15:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - until a consensus way forward is agreed that gives due recognition to what independent reliable sources say, such as this "The SPL, which rejected the new club's application to stay in the top flight, wants further sanctions and a share of Rangers' Division Three media rights." Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sources supplied above are highly selective: SFL refer to the new club as "The Rangers". While it was the BBC themselves who popularised the term "newco Rangers". This is now becoming disruptive: four or five overtly biased Rangers editors are seeking to overturn consensus – two knee-jerk AfDs have already been comfortably seen off. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The transfer of the the club's SFA membership from the PLC in administration to Sevco Scotland Ltd justifies the view that this is a continuation of the same club. The joint statement of the SFA, SPL, SFL and Sevco from 27/7/12 confirmed that the transfer meant that Sevco were the new owners of Rangers Football Club, rather than a new club [4].The use of the terminology "The Rangers" by the SFL does not contradict this proposition as the Club's official name has always been The Rangers Football Club (as indeed the old company's was - The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. SC004276)The SFL website records the full history of the club's honours [5] --DeRichleau (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - quite clearly separately notable. Rangers FC were the trading name of the old company. The fact that the new company has adopted the same trading name doesn't make it the same entity. We take our lead from RS and a majority of these refer consistently to 'Newco Rangers' or 'Ranger newco' to distinguish the new club from the old. TerriersFan (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - This isn't the correct forum. An RFC and probably dispute resolution is required to solve the issue. Adam4267 (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Rename it to 'The Rangers FC', so as to distinguish it from the previous entity. Also, that box below this section doesn't register my vote.WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - as I've said elsewhere, considering them separate is hairsplitting in the extreme. The fans, players, Scottish Football bodies and popular press (Guardian at least) consider them a continuation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The evidence is clear for all to see. Really. I can't be bothered arguing over this anymore. If the club wasn't a new club, why on earth would anyone, let alone investigative journalists be referring to it as new? Done and done. Andevaesen (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - reliable sources (STV, Guardian) clearly believe that the "new Rangers" is a continuation, having taken their lead from the decision to transfer the SFA membership to the new corporate entity. An article like Liquidation of Rangers F.C. should then be set up to explain the recent process in more detail. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's established that the old Rangers F.C. was liquidated and that this is a new entity which doesn't own the history of the old club. Find me a reliable source which proves that Newco Rangers has been granted the oldco's history and I'll reconsider, but so far all I can find is that oldco has liquidated and the newco is a separate entity.VampireKilla (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - In reliable sources the club that recently played a match in the Ramsdens Cup is treated as the same one that finished second in the SPL in season 2011-12. From a wikipedia POV the club should be treated as one article with another article titled Administration and Liquidation of Rangers F.C. Plc which would cover the entire situation since the club was taken over in May 2011. This article could also describe the fallout since with the takeover led by Charles Green. Monkeymanman (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - new club which had to apply as a new club for membership of the SFA and Scottish leagues. New club = new page .

Discussion

Vote for this proposed merger discussion only hereAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of the year Rangers were founded, Rangers themselves have always claimed to be formed in 1872: http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495808 they then state the "official" founding date was 1873 because that is when board members/officers became elected. Rangers do however have recorded results from 1872, and were clearly a football team, playing football matches since 1872. I think Wikipedia should recognise the date the founding date as 1872, celebrating 140 years in 2012, but could include that the club were formally founded in 1873. Ricky072 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Assuming this is a genuine attempt to seek consensus, this straw poll should be left open for several days before a judgement is made as to whether sufficient consensus has been achieved - think how long the discussions have lasted and the number of editors who have contributed. Infact, it may be worth posting personal messages to everyone who has contributed to see their opinion. (excluding ips) It is important that any decision to merge is a only taken if genuine consensus is achieved or edit warring will just continue as soon as protection is lift - which we all wish to avoid. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

give mea lis tof the editors who you think should be contacted i will do it, ive got no problem with that as long as it editors on both sides of the argument, but anyone canvasing for there side of the argument will be reported at admin noticeboard, i plan to it opn minimum 1 week probally longer--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to have a list of editors who have contributed to this article or discussions on this page, the best idea I can think of is to go down the names on the history pages. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• I thought there was going to be an RFC, this isn't really the correct way to find consensus. Adam4267 (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

im trying to gain a consensus without the need of the request for comment--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Andrew has called one of these straw polls with a laughably biased "question". At the oldco page, one of these tempted an involved admin into misusing his tools and changing the tense on the locked page. Given the admin's lack of neutrality, I thought this was a quite incredible conflict of interest. I've actually asked them for an explanation on their talk page several days ago but haven't had a response yet which is disappointing. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

ive no problem rewording the question, the fact remains it claims bbc is reliable yet they rfer to it asa new club dependong the juranlist and the same club dependign on teh journalist, this page was created withouta consesnsuis i am not propusing deleting merely merging it as was suggested int eh alst afd--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds disingenuous Andrew; you guys are bent on getting rid of this article anyway you can. Can you remove the part where it says "here are the sources"? Or change it to "Here are the sources I selected to push my POV"? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

removed it all togerther iui was also goimg to suggest adding ones that say the club is liquited but i think best leaving it to people to look themself rather than cherry pickiungAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Clavdia, frankly you're coming across as bitter and even seeming to have slight tantrums due to not getting everything your own way, you seem more interested in having a pop at the people on the other side of the dispute to you rather than just discussing the matter amicably. I'll be looking at channels to officially complain if it keeps up, how worthy it is of complaint I don't know but I don't believe it's right, and can only put people off contributing to wikipedia. Sparhelda 20:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The right decision Andrew, thank you. I'd note that your vaunted WP:RFC sadly suffers from the same deficiency but that's an argument for another day. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think RFC will be needed as some editors have their mind set and no amount of sources will make them sway. BadSynergy (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

i rather avoid it is i can but it coudl go live any timeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Result

Do not edit this section it will be updated to reflect the current voting ever now and then
This is only saying the total number of response and the amount for each reply this does not necessarily make a consensus

Support	Oppose	Total	Support Percentage	Oppose Percentage
7	7	14	Support 50%	Oppose 50%

STV (Scottish Television) website stating that "newco" is now "Rangers"

A guide written a few days ago [6]

Why do you keep referring to Sevco Scotland?

Sevco Scotland Limited purchased the assets of The Rangers Football Club plc, and took over the contracts of its employees. At present, it does not hold the right to use the Scottish FA membership it purchased.

Therefore, STV are continuing to make the clear distinction between “Rangers”, the team which plays football, and Sevco Scotland Limited, which is a company which currently does not operate a football club.

Should the Scottish FA transfer Rangers’ membership to Sevco Scotland Limited, there is no longer the necessity to make such a distinction. All future reference would be to Rangers.

ie When Sevco Scotland bought the Rangers F.C. business and assets, one of the assets it bought was the Rangers F.C. membership of the Scottish FA. What happened on Friday night was that the Scottish FA authorised Sevco Scotland to use that membership, which is the same one Rangers have had since they first registered with the Scottish FA in the mid 1870s. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

SFA , SFL calling them Rangers not Sevco.. Only BBC and daily record calling them newco, however in today's column of news both now referring them as Rangers., since Charles green stated wither company A or company B own the club, the club was and still is Rangers, it's time for the media to stop their cult and refer to the club respectively as Rangers... Rangers then Rangers now.. SFA membership transferred , history intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.111.120 (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh, doesn't that actually confirm they view them as two separate clubs? The first one, which is Rangers, and who are in liquidation, and the other club, Sevco Scotland Ltd., who are currently seeking a membership of the SFA. Indeed, all through that article it specifically mentions Sevco when referring to the new club. Additionally, it has never actually been explained why it is that people expect that SFA membership carried some sort of history with it anyway. It never has done previously, why should it now? WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how as the media always keep referring to Sevco as a company (which it is) and Rangers as the club. BadSynergy (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

a company does not equal a club, a company owns the club and the club can be sold to new company, only if in liqudiation term the club being sold is for the best value in return for creditors so if green had offer 1m for the club with reject cva the administrator could not have sold to him as it would not bring the best return for the creditors, it the way the law works, so i assume a person who goes through bankrupty preceeding is no long that person but a new person. teh fact remains all more evidence is turning to it being the same club including the bbc--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, the transfer of membership is only "conditional" at this stage. It is due to be rubber-stamped next week, IF Sevco can prove they meet all the legal and financial requirements, some of which Ally McCoist has been complaining about. The SPL investigation into the dual contracts is also due next week, which could well be the coup de grace - presumably this will involve even more fines, points deductions etc for the newco and stripping of some or all titles won unfairly by the oldco. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

that condtional membership is so they can play today game if you read the sfl statement it will be transfer next week, the invesgation in dual contract will not be deicded next week it will be months before that decision is decided, and teh sfa are happy with the new company finances and business planAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"title won unfairly" Clavdia your bias seems to know no ends, and you consistantly post opinion rather than fact, and ultimatly offer no substantial evidence to the debate. Ricky072 (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The stripping of titles is well-documented as a likely outcome of the dual contracts investigation - why pretend that it isn't? Neil Doncaster says that there'll be an announcement about that next week. I liked McCoist on Question of Sport but he comes across really delusional, arrogant and aggressive now. His position is ludicrous: "drop the investigation, please ... er, not that we were guilty." This idea they've been "punished enough" is also bizarre, because they haven't been punished at all! If I go into work tomorrow, smash the place up, steal everyone's money and roll about in excrement, could I claim to be "punished enough" because I was humiliated and out of a job? Get real Ally! Seems like they want to have their cake and eat it: drop the £150m debts and the legacy of cheating but keep the "history" and pretend to have continuity. That's not how the world works, which is perhaps why RSs continue to make such a clear newco/oldco distinction. [7] Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wether you liked McCoist on Question of Sport or not is irrelevant. A "likely outcome", do you have a source for that? Right now it's merely 'under investigation'. For you to state "titles won unfairly" WP:CRYSTALBALL, POV & guilty before proven so. Ricky072 (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There was reportedly a draft document from the SFA/SPL proposing the removal of titles when the investigation concludes. The BBC published a lot of quite detailed evidence and Hugh Adam, a former director of the oldco, issued a mea culpa. The governing bodies also said there is a "prima facie" case to answer. Added to this, unless I'm mistaken the defence to the investigation seems to be: "Please can we drop the investigation? We've been punished enough". This curious approach doesn't seem to have worked, since Green caved in to all the sanctions in order to secure conditional use of the old club's membership. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Which has involved taking on sanctions based on 'oldco' crimes and debts to other clubs, yet you insist on this different club idea? I've asked a few times for an example of a totally new club being given punishments of a completely different one, shockingly it's never been answered. Sparhelda 03:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Email to the SFA

How do Wikipedians feel about the suggestion of emailing the SFA? I'm not proposing we use any response as reference/evidence on any articles as it may constitute original research or violate other such Wikipedia policies. I'm suggesting using it simply for the purpose of the talk pages debate, to get some input and clarity from the SFA themselves on certain issues we have been debating on this page. I'm sure we all share the common goal of chieving consensus 1 way or the other, and restoring Wikipedia's integrity with a good, factually accurate article. In the interest of fairness i propose that any Wikipedians who have been actively contributing to the debate should be allowed input into the emails contents, and which questions we should put to the the SFA.

Points to raise to the SFA (feel free to add below if you would like to contribute):

• Will Rangers in their current format, under the ownership of Charles Green, been recognised by the SFA as the same club founded in 1872 or a new club, founded in 2012?
• Will Rangers in their current format, maintain the history established by the club since 1872? Will the SFA recognise that history?
• What is the official registered 'club name' of Rangers? Is this registered 'club name' the same, or different from before the creation & purchase of the 'newco'?

Regards, Ricky072 (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

io already have and there reply does not shed any light on it, they jsut reer to the press release, but it wouldnt be any help for the talk pages either because we can only use what is in the public domain they need to make a press release of whatever they respond for it to be any use--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The CEO of the SFA, Stewart Regan, pointedly refused to answer whether he considered the "new" Rangers to be the same club in this interview today (11:30). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting to see you come to that conclusion - editors are suggesting on the Rangers talk page that he was quite clear that it was the same club! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Game Today

After today their isn't any reason for "Newco Rangers" page to be deleted because even if they don't receive membership they have still been able to play a game against Brechin City in the Scottish Challenge Cup. Skyblueshaun,. 29/07/2012 15:41 (UTC).

mmm i dnt see where there refered to as newco rangers it rangers fc you have moved a page without consensus so will be undone if you disagree start a talk page about it and prove oyur case--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Plenty references to suggest that Newco Rangers is playing its first match today against Brechin. For example this starts "Rangers newco to play first match". Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Or this "Newco Rangers' Ramsdens Cup clash with Brechin to be shown live on BBC Alba" Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

And BBCjust say relaunched club media still split. BadSynergy (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

not doubting what you say fishiehlper and that why we have to refer to both senses new and same, but the poriginal poster is suggesting something else--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Decent article in the Herald today too: For actually becoming insolvent – ie, a football club being killed off by its negligent owners – oldco Rangers were deducted 10 points by the SPL. Hmm. We were told on here it was "inevitable" that media references to Newco would stop after the SFA membership was transferred? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

i never said they would it was ricky, and the membership hasnt trasnferred and that iwll be ricky reason for it, but i think they might still use it, newco as by what wikipedia describes it and anyone who is willing to accept means new company, and at the end of the day, regardless if you could newco rangers as a new club or same it under new company so callign it newco isnt wrong but doesn tmena new club--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Herald writer explicitly said the club died - "self immolation" I think were his words. In this case it is perfectly clear what he means when he says newco Rangers. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

clavdia answer me this one question DO YOU DISAGREE THAT MEDIA SOURCES ALSO STATE IT AS ONE CLUB WITH THE HISTORY? either agree or disagree if you disagree if you get shown a source that says it the same will you accept the media is undecided and say both?

No major media outlets seem to be uncritically reporting the official Sevco "same club" line. The Beeb report of today's match: The new Rangers... and their account a strange post-match outburst from Green: Charles Green has suggested that bigotry was among the motives for punishing the new Rangers for the misdemeanours of the old Ibrox club. Just because there are two conflicting viewpoints here does not mean that they are equal. What we need to do is ascribe due weight to each side. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

[8] "Rangers, who have been relaunched by Green's Sevco Scotland consortium after the company that formerly ran the club headed for liquidation, also agreed to incur penalties in order to acquire the old Rangers' licence to play competitive matches." note it says old company heading for liqudiation and that it is relaunched club now it is owned by a enw company and not the old

[9] "Little was contracted to Rangers before the club was relaunched by a new company but he too was out of contract." again says he was contracted to rangers before relaunchign by a new company thbere is plenty more but there also as main saying it is new club, the media is undecided [10]--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Your first source closes with: starting the new season in the bottom tier, after having their bid to replace the old Ibrox club in the SPL rejected. So I don't think your interpretation is correct. No-one here is arguing that the old company will not be liquidated at the same time as the old club. The Little and Black article hinges on the word "relaunched" (which we've been over). The last source you post calls the Newco a different name: The Rangers FC! None of these sources do anything but support the continued existence of our Newco Rangers article. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

i note oyu never responded to [11] and it says founded 1873, im not saying it is anew club im not saying it aint, the faact is the media is undecided and as such it should be one article, if it was clear cut and new club beyond a doubt i would be on your side but it not clear cut, the fact article say two differnet things in teh same one saysa lotAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem for both sides of the debate in citing reports from the media is that generally the reporters concerned are sports reporters, who aren't necessarily qualified to give an opinion on the nuances of any distinction between the club and the company as a matter of law. I'd hoped the SFA might give a definitive answer to the question, but in Stewart Regan's interview today, he gave an ambiguous answer - stating that the club's "share" (by which he presumably meant "membership") had transferred, but that the implications of that on the club's history and continuation were a matter for debate between fans [12].

I would imagine that over time the views of the SFA, SFL and UEFA will become clearer, and there may be a definitive answer. Once RFC are playing in Europe again, it will be interesting to see how UEFA treat the club's history for example. For now though the appropriate course might be as per the sandbox below, and set out that there is a dispute on the implications of the transfer of Rangers Football Club's share/membership between the old and new companies, but in a single article. As has been said before, that would seem to be at least broadly consistent with the entries in wikipedia for clubs which have undergone exactly the same process, such as Luton and Rotherham, (although it's noteworthy that the entries for neither of these clubs go into any detail about the liquidation of their previous companies and asset and business transfer to a newco)DeRichleau (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)