Talk:History of Rangers F.C.

False dawn

[1]

POV/Fancruft concerns

I see that tags added in good faith to this article have been removed, without any attempt to fix the problems. Please don't remove them again without reaching consensus here first. The whole article is beset with problems, but the following is a particular example of what I am talking about:

Due to a pitch invasion at the end of the match, the team were presented with the trophy in the dressing room. Following pressure exerted by the Spanish Government of Generalissimo Francisco Franco, UEFA banned Rangers from defending the cup. This was perceived by some as a disproportionate and politically-motivated decision, as evidenced by Barcelona's decision to invite Rangers to participate in their pre-season Trofeo Joan Gamper tournament (named after the club's founder) in 1974, alongside the Basque team Athletic Club de Bilbao.

Where in the source is Franco mentioned? It says in the source that Rangers supporters were drunk, invaded the pitch three times and then attacked the police with bottles - why is this information absent from the article? The second - completely unsourced - part of the paragraph above looks very much like WP:OR. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Still an issue. Examples:

• "By the turn of the century Rangers had won two league titles and three Scottish Cups and were well on their way to becoming one of Scotland's top clubs."
• "the Scottish FA withheld the Cup due to disgraceful scenes after a pitch invasion by drunken fans."
• "had written itself a sorry page in the history books, and both clubs were ordered to compensate hosts Queen's Park for the damage caused by their so-called fans."

etc.

And that's just from one paragraph. - Seasider53 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Fully agree this should be reviewed and cut. I have now edited the Franco stuff from above (10 years later it was still there); have to say, I don't think the particular paragraphs above are terrible - winning multiple trophies is demonstrable to being a 'top club', multiple sources on the event have described the 1909 scenes as disgraceful etc and the facts are generally correct, however what I would certainly be taking out is the "sorry page" phrase which adds nothing but a rather twee literary flourish, which is not what the site is for. This is the general issue with this article, its not horribly inaccurate or hugely embellished but there's far too much small-scale instances of opinion and analysis without external references to support them. IMO it needs many minor pruning snips (and refs!) rather than being chopped wholesale with an axe, but I think the sheer size of the thing has put people off fixing it in the past. I'd say feel free to attempt as much as you like and we'll deal with any adverse reaction afterwards. Crowsus (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

club or company

magiceagle is back from his ban and is changing to club from company before it changes get a consensus on here pleaseAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

UEFA who govern the game in Europe are unequivocal on what definition of a "Club" is. http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf

It clearly states - “A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions…”. The legal entity which is a requirement in order to be defined as a club in this scenario is "The Rangers Football Club". The Rangers Football Club are factually 6 months old. Rangers Football Club that was formed in 1872 became a company when they incorporated in 1899. That company is currently entering liquidation and therefor is now not recognised as an active club as far as UEFA are concerned as stated in their club licensing file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

First magiceagle i thank you for coming to talk and putting your argument forward and trying to achive a new consensus. firstly UEFA recongise rangers as teh same club have a look here

you will note that postion 84 they list for season 11/12 rangers have a coeffient of 2.050 and for season 12/13 they have a coeffiecent of 0.580, they also have co effiecent for season 08/09, /09/10 and 10/11 of 0.375, 6.533 and 12.270, if uefa regarded them as a new club why are they using the co effient for club founded in 1872/1873??? as much as you dnt like it the football authority deem them the same club. also the uefa rules governing clubs which says if they can play in europe means rangers are banned because they dnt have 3 years unbroken accounts. if you gaina consensus on here to change then i wont undo your editing if you dnt your basically vandalism to push your point of view, again thank you for engaging here :)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

i also like to point you to your own chairmen comments about rangers , he says they where relegated this is impossiable for a team that is a new club. as a fan you have the right to make a mockery of the rangers supporters but wikipedia is not here as tool to do that wikipedia onyl reports what the sources says, and since uefa and celtic chairmen say it the same club so does wikipedia if you have source that catergocial proves it anew club then i am happy to reopen this debate, note i do not own any these articles nor do i have any power on wikipedia but if there is signfcient evidence to prove its a new club i will look to see if a new consensus might be formed on thatAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears that recent information I put in here has been removed. I cited a counter argument on individual comments on the "Club" issue when the ex Rangers club captain and legend Richard Gough admitted that in fact the club did defunct. http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4369672/Culprits-must-pay-price-after-killing-off-my-club.html

1. Let me point out that the UEFA co-efficient for any club is based on the previous 5 years participation and not the present. Let me also say that AT NO POINT HAVE UEFA DECLARED RANGERS ARE THE SAME CLUB. 2. The article describing comments made by the Celtic chairman Dermot Desmond is based on his own assertion and simply cannot be taken as fact. Dermot described Rangers as having been "Relegated" which is incorrect. At what point did Rangers get relegated? Their share in the SPL was given to Dundee FC. Charles Green's consortium then had to APPLY for an SFA Membership. In the End what they APPLIED for was for the "Transfer" of Rangers FC 1872 Membership which was duly allowed with conditions. If this is the same Club, why did the supposedly same Club have to apply for a transfer of the existing Membership of Rfc 1872? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

so the celtic chairmen comments should be disregarded because you believe he is wrong???? but richard gough comments should be used???? if you say to use one you have to use the other, this is hte problem for wikipedia there is contradicting soure, uefa have commented on rangers and said the history has trasnfered as well as the ECA to which celtic and rangers are founding members. you believe rangers are dead instead of using wikipedia for yoru proganda go to the rangers forum and take the mince out of them there you will get mroe a thrill that way, wikipedia wont change stance unless there a new consensus and a new consensus will require new evidence like a press release from fifa and uefa saying rangers in scottish div3 are a brand new club until that it wont changeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

At no point did I say that Richard Gough's comments should be used over anyone else's. However Dermot Desmonds comments were being used on here as a source to suggest Rangers were the same club. Where exactly have UEFA stated that Rangers are the same club? The ECA are in no way an association of a recognised body. The ECA were citing that Rangers were in fact "Relegated" which is factually incorrect so who are we to believe? In all honesty, to suggest that History was "Transferred" is risible. The only way Rangers history was to be preserved hinged on reaching agreement with creditors. This was not achieved. Now you say that the "History was transferred", so if it was "Transferred" for a nominal fee of £1, Does this mean that the "History" had in fact belonged to "The Company" and not the "Club"? And the "History" of Rangers FC 1872 now belongs to Rangers International FC Plc? The world governing body that is FIFA have issued a montage of 12 moments that defined 2012 http://touch.fifa.com/worldfootball/news/newsid=1977017.html?intcmp=fifacom_hp_module_news I think if you reach the section about Rangers you will find that they confirm that in FACT Rangers illustrious 140 year's "History" is now consigned to just that, History. You asked for a press release from FIFA on this issue. I have now provided the very thing. Have a good new year to you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

with that i wont object to you reopening the debate on the rangers f.c. talk page but you might not geta consesnsu to change it but you can certainly open it that is quite substainally a source and i wil lbe using it in teh articleAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

And yet during same month FIFA have Rangers just as demoted FIFA BadSynergy (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Simple question. How can you be demoted if you have to apply for membership using a different name? "THE RANGERS FC" is the name that was used to form a club/company using the assets from "RANGERS FC". It would be prevalent if you could actually answer that given you have body swerved a few of my last points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.180.50 (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Membership was transferred no application for new membership. To save me a lot of copy and pasting check the Rangers FC talk page archives for the answers to any queries you have. BadSynergy (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

wp:forum please read that, we do not need ot answer your questions the article only reports what the sources say. and if you are so smart you know that rangers fc where acutally called Th Rangers FC so it not a new name they chose to traded under the name rangers fc and the new club as you put it are doign the sameAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for copying and pasting or answering of questions. This is a talk page which is not restricted to pasting links to pages of source. When Charles Green's consortium bought the "Assets" of Rangers fc Plc, Rangers fc that was established in 1872 were still in administration. The liquidation process hadn't as yet been granted at the high court in Edinburgh. The structure of how a club can operate in Scotland http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/08/25144513/3# . This outlines that Charles Green's Consortium/Sevco 5088 Ltd cannot produce records of the club’s committee members going back to 1872. Nor will he be able to produce records of the club’s membership lists going back to 1872. A club must have a written record of a meeting at which it was decided to form a club, or a Memorandum of Articles of Association. That in Scot's law is fact. As far as having an SFA membership "Transferred" you will also note that this was in fact unprecedented and rules which were in place were ignored. The very fact that the SFA tried to "Cut a deal" with Charles Green's Consortium/Sevco Scotland Ltd http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-first/108222-rangers-newco-vote-sfl-clubs-outline-their-positions-on-the-issue/ to shoehorn them into SFL 1 showed the idea was motivated by a potential loss of huge finances if rangers were to disappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

read wp:truth we cant make our own judgements as to why the sfa done it, i will be honest i think your reasob is rigtht but we cant put it on wikipedia unless it can be sourced to prove that was the caseAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I can understand that but it is on wikipedia that they are the same club. The source of how a club is defined in scots law is contrary to how the SFA have handled the Rangers fiasco even by their own rules. If this cannot be put on wikipedia then why is it allowed to suggest it is the same club? It was admitted by Turnbull hutton (Chairman of Raith Rovers) that basically the game in Scotland was being manipulated to allow a new club into the association http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/109094-raith-director-we-are-being-bullied-and-lied-to-over-rangers-situation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

its because how wikipedia works, to many people use wikipedia as source and generally its wrong because it relies on 3rd party sources, you are right there is plenty of sources that say it is new club but there is equally as many that say it is the same club, because of wikipedia policices we can not make the judgement on wether it is a new club or the same club, the main rangers article clear states it is considered by some as new club club and the same by others. even fifa the world govern body say it is new club but also say in anotehr press release 1 week prior it is the same club, and it is that, that gives wikipedia a problem because wikipedia must say both and can not choose. i really wish it was clear cut either it a new club or the same and no ambigute caused by teh football governing bodies. as i say i think your reason as ot why sfa are going against it own rules are right, there also another scots law that says what has happened doesnt necessary mean a new club which makes it even harder to work out. i understand your frustration as you believe rangers fans have hi jacked the page to say there club hasnt died, but on the other hand rangers fans believe other supporters are hi jacking the page to makea mockery of them. as neutral i see both sides and unfortnally because of wikipeida core policies it not easy to settle the dispute because you cant have it is a new club and the same club because its psyhcially impossiable. this article is needing update big style to include more information on the sumer events but it low down on my list to get done. the only thing i can assure you off is no rangers fan is going to erase informaiton about the liqudiation events and new company the only problems comes as to how to present it that respresents the sources.

i hope you understand it nothing against you i follow the policies and it those policies that make this impossiable sitution to resolveAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah i agree with your assessment. My take on it is that accountability is key on the Rangers situation. Had they agreed a CVA there wouldn't be any dispute. Press releases pre CVA were about trying to preserve Rangers 140 year old history http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/air-of-unreality-as-140-years-of-history-is-formally-ended-in-less-than-nine-minutes.17876625 . The very same newspapers have done a u-turn http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/rangers-2-stirling-albion-0-140-years-marked-with-home-revenge.1354987212 and now declared them the same club in order to keep the Rangers demograph on side to keep the circulation figures of their newspapers. As far as UEFA and FIFA are concerned the "Club" and "Company" are one entity, hence financial fair play rules being revised http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/protectingthegame/financialfairplay/index.html which will try and prevent the meltdown Rangers had in 2012. Being one entity means that if you cannot pay your debts you simply do not have the right to declare the club is alive and well. FIFA and UEFA have possibly put out some strange soundbites regarding this issue. However, when Rangers fc 1872 incorporated in 1899 they ceased to be a club and became a legal entity responsible for a football team which is how UEFA and FIFA operate their associations and competitions. At no stage did Sevco Scotland buy a share in Rangers fc 1872. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Magiceagle, from your interpretation of a sentence within the rulebook, you are clearly very adamant that UEFA do not regard Rangers FC as a continuation of the founded-1872 football club, but as a "new club". *Why, in that case, is the original UEFA website page for Rangers, found here, listing details for Rangers FC derived from the CURRENT season 2012-13 (Scottish Cup Squad details)? *If they are two different clubs, as you assert they are in UEFA's eyes, can you explain why they are doing this? It would appear to the neutral observer that, although - as UEFA have clarified - they view Rangers as a new company ("newco" in their own words), therefore not eligible for participating in tournaments for 3 years, they still evidently recognise Rangers FC as the same football club. I'd welcome your thoughts on this piece of evidence from their Official website? Gefetane (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

From the same source that you have provided http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50121/profile/index.html you may not have noticed that at the foot of the page UEFA have declared Rangers FC 1872 last match as being a 4 - 0 away win against St Johnstone in the SPL 13th May 2012. This is also noted on UEFA webpage http://www.uefa.com/search/index.html#Rangers%20FC&c=50121&ob=c . Now if you want to compare, you can visit Celtic's UEFA page http://www.uefa.com/search/index.html#Celtic%20FC&c=50050&ob=c that will show that Celtic's match reports are up to date as the club is still an entity that UEFA regard as an associated "Club/Entity". Rangers FC founded in 1872 unfortunately lost the right to operate as a UEFA associated "Club/Entity" when a CVA was rejected. I have added links to sources above that highlights what and how UEFA and FIFA regard the distinction of what a "Club/Entity" is. As far as the term "Newco" is concerned, it was a media terminology coined in order to try preserve the utter myth that Rangers FC founded in 1872 were nothing to do with the company that "Operated" them since 1899. Rangers fc founded in 1872 BECAME A LEGAL ENTITY in 1899. That legal entity pre May 2012 included real estate [ibrox, murray park etc], players contracts and other associated business contracts and assets that Rangers FC owned. When the CVA was rejected, that LEGAL ENTITY ceased to operate as it could not pay it's creditors. Charles Green bought Ibrox park, Murray Park and Tupe'd players contracts to another LEGAL ENTITY namely Sevco 5088 Ltd. This talk page is getting beyond a joke because at the end of the day to try and to suggest that a "Club" that couldn't pay it's debts is alive and well is risible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

so are dunfermline a new club to?? look at there page there last match was on may 2012, uefa only list matches from the top flight of the country for the club, this doesnt mean it is a new club but it doesnt mean it isnt the same club, if that is the only reason yout hink its a new club i suggest you email uefa to confirmAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=53034/profile/index.html note they only list the scottish cup match and no first division matches, and when uefa update the rangers poage you will see the last match was in teh scottish cup toAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am wrong but did Charles Green's consortium apply to the SFA for a membership? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

that a different matter to the above you pointed out, i am only showing you that under your logic dunfermine are new club because the uefa page only shows one matcha scottish cup tie and no divison 1 matches, no matter how much i dnt liek it or you dnt the football authorise deem it the same club just owned by a new company if you have problem with that contact the football authority and ask them to regard rangers as new club and if they do that then wikipedia will update to reflect this, that your only way to get it in wikipedia rangers the club are in liquidation and new club is in division 3Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Magiceagle, any time you fancy actually answering my question within my last comment, feel free. I'll keep a look out on this page for when you feel up to it. Assuming you've got an answer that is. Gefetane (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"If that is the only reason yout hink its a new club i suggest you email uefa to confirm". Are you having a laugh? You are now suggesting that the only source I have used is a UEFA club page? Have you not read anything on here? I have produced links to the Scottish Government website that defines how a "Club" can legally operate in Scotland. I have produced UEFA and FIFA files that defined what they regard as a "Club". The fact that Rangers FC formed in 1872 being liquidated is clearly something that Rangers fans emotionally cannot accept. Creditors who "Loaned" that very club money and were given nothing in return will testify that there was nothing left at the end. As far as contacting the football authorities in Scotland I am afraid a link above I have already placed outlined that in fact the Scottish football authorities were to use Turnbull Huttons words "Corrupt". They tried to shoehorn a new club in for financial gain and that has been well documented. Lies like Rangers have been "Relegated" and "Banned" from European competition from media outlets have been proved to be factually incorrect. Rangers FC 2012 are "Ineligible" from European competition for one reason. They are a new club. UEFA regard a "Club" as a LEGAL ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR A FOOTBALL TEAM http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT you contact them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Gefante, to try answer your point on UEFA. To be honest you would have to ask them about how they operate pages on their website. What I do know is that Charles Green's "The Rangers FC 2012" were granted a temporary SFA license while Rangers FC 1872 still held a full license. What club at that point was Rangers fc ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

see magiceagle i have contacted uefa, fifa they have both confirme the paperwork they recieved confirmed teh club was sold to new company but there relugations ban them from europe because the company needs 3 years of audited accounts, teh sfa and sfl confirmed that its teh saem club jsut owned by a new company and the club itself was intangiable assest of the company so i assume that why it never appeared in accoutns or agms etc. and you say the media outlets that says rangers are the same club are wrong this is only your opinion no one really knows and probally never will its kennedy assingtion type things only the ones in teh know, truly know. its your problem not mine the articles are fine by wikipedia policies so p[lease go to the rangers forum and spout this off i aint reply to you again because you are on agenda and are pushing your povAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I will put it to you that UEFA nor FIFA have not confirmed to you or anyone that is the case. If so you will certainly be the first and I fully expect you to produce this mythical documentaion on here, although I won't hold my breath. At what point does a "Club" become intangible? Charles Green bought "Fixed" assets. "intangiable assest of the company so i assume that why it never appeared in accoutns or agms etc"? Are you really making this up as you go along? The "Club" doesn't appear in the accounts because the "Club" is the company. It really is that simple. You say that I have an agenda? No I just want accountability and clarity. That is why the wikipedia page in itself has suggested this page has been possibly hijacked from a fans point of view. You don't have to rep[ly to me again because you last statement about UEFA and FIFA replying to you is nothing other than a complete lie and you know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, check out these bits of evidence from STV journalist Grant Russell. This is the response he got from UEFA, specifically in reference to Rangers FC, that explains that "the creation of a newco" is sufficient for a football club to be ineligible for 3 years from their tournaments. Note no mention of "new club". Secondly, this image shows an email response to another question about Rangers FC that receives a direct answer: "Rangers FC are categorised as a newco". I know these aren't wikipedia compatible sources per se but it's interesting information - direct from UEFA - none the less. Gefetane (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Magiceagle, if I could divert your attention from calling a fellow editor a liar for a second, I am disappointed in your answer to my question. Indeed, you have emphatically failed to offer an answer. Stating "ask [UEFA] about how they operate pages on their website" does nothing whatsoever to defend your position against what is, at face value, hugely significant evidence of UEFA recognising Rangers FC continuing, namely, by adding current season details to the their pre-Summer/original Rangers FC page. Gefetane (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Gefetane are you actually serious with those 2 images there? Do you not think that if they were in fact real they would have made it into the mainstream media? And where is any article complement them? They are beyond parody.

Under CURRENT UEFA RULES Article 12.1 of UEFA’s Club Licensing and Fair PlayRegulations states: “A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions…”.

Do you note the piece about LEGAL ENTITY? Thats rights. Thats what Rangers FC 1872 became in 1899. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You think those emails are not "real"? Some approach you're taking here, label your opponents liars or dishonest. Interesting strategy... risky, but interesting. 00:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gefetane (talk • contribs)

Gefetane, I felt the manner and timing of his comments were simply unbelievable. I don't feel it's risky because he hasn't produced any evidence of it. Or is he away to photoshop some emails just now? I am not an opponent neither, I am someone who again is looking for accountability and clarity not myths and kidology. You are now labouring on a point about a UEFA page that you feel can make me out to be wrong in my assessment of this saga. I cannot answer how UEFA operate their webpages I am not that important enough to divulge that information unfortunately. I have provided articles from UEFA documents that proves how they view a club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

yes gefatane it is similar emails i got back from uefa, and i got something similar from uefa. well the sfa and sfl ones where strange in they basically said rangers have been a member since 1872 for sfa and sfl was it is only a new club in teh form that rangers have never played for teh sfl before but it is the same club from spl , we would nto describe it as a straight relegation but ourself placing a club in the league we se fit, the spl had teh options to forcefully relgaet rangers to div1 but that would have require change in there rulesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Rangers have been a member since 1872? The SFA weren't formed until a year later in 1873 so how can this be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

yes i refuse to prove emails to you for two reasons, firstly i am not going to indulge you by scanning and uploading them for you, because you will refute them and say tehre fake bla bla bla and this isnt a forum. secondly i would need to photshop them to remove personal details like my company, email, adress, telephone numebrs and few other things and then you say i altered it to look the way i want so i aint going to do the work for oyu, your the one with the problem you email them an see how they respond to youAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 00:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Magiceagle, the emails I provided were from an STV journalist, Grant Russell, who claimed he received them from UEFA after emailing them directly regarding Rangers. If your position is that these are fake, that's your choice, but to me that is attributing dishonesty to somebody purely on the basis of them sourcing evidence against your position - frankly it smacks of desperation and only serves to undermine your case. This is not to mention stating that a fellow editor is lying, again, without any proof. I don't think there's much point in proceeding with this exchange if this is how you wish to operate within the discussion. Gefetane (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It was well documented on twitter that Grant Russell was "At It" with his supposed correspondence from UEFA because when challenged on twitter about their authenticity he backed down. And at what source did this"Information" make it's way onto STV? You made a blunder by stating Rangers FC have been a member of SFA since 1872, as I say above, the SFA formed in 1873 so if your email is to be true then they have fed you incorrect information. And you take the word of an organisation that the Rangers fans themselves had declared unfit for purpose. Turnbull Hutton got it right with his words - http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/109094-raith-director-we-are-being-bullied-and-lied-to-over-rangers-situation/ Do you reckon if the SFA thought his comments were libellous they wouldn't have sued? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Also editorialy speaking I would hardly take the word from STV where anything Rangers are concerned. The "Club" entered into a "Partnership" with STV that was derided by other media outlets as being a catalyst for bias reporting http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/dec/28/stv-group-rangers — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

rofl and stv have depending o the journalust reported rangers as a new club, and you use stv to backup up your points lolAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 00:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

i dnt care about rangers fans and not trusting the sfa nowt to do with me, i trust the sfa authority even if i dnt liek there response, it could easily been a typo or they gave me the wrong information as oyu said, but it seems strange to me that they be refering to the 1800's about a team supposely created in 2012 that would have been easy for them to say, i am off ot bed (note to admins i apogolise for taking this further than i should have and abusing wp:forum but i was trying to engaged in meanly consation at the begining to look to potenial change the article content but after getting hit with some remarks about my counter arguments i just forgot about the policie so i apogolise and accept any ban i might get)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 00:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as using stv is concerned Turnbull Huttons comments were fact. Grant Russell's correspondence with UEFA never made it to the stv website not the stv news program so why was that if this information was crucial and authentic? Again if you look further up this page I sourced what the herald newspaper printed that rangers 140 year history had vanished yet months later the very same newspaper tell us they celebrated 140 years of "History"? What changed? They change their argument in order to preserve their audience and thats why the sales of newspapers in Scotland had dramatically dropped since they started telling porkies about Rangers being still the same club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FORUM#OR Magic read these, Gain a consensus, No original research, Present your case with reliable sources, Neutral point of view no personal opinions, verify what is said is right but not necessary the truth, Wikipedia is not about the truth only what sources say and can be verified. BadSynergy (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bill Struth & Scott Symon

I've added expansion tags to both these sections. Given their success and length of time in charge (34 yrs and 13 yrs respectively), much more detail and information should be in these sections. FFS - the section on David White's two year spell is longer than both the previous sections combined!

I'm sure there's plenty Bluenoses out there with a copy of a book(s) on Rangers history who can improve these sections. Also, I'd say the David White section on the other hand needs a bit of trimming. ShugSty (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Rangers F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815035018/http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/special-reports/exprofootballers/2008/01/30/adrian-sprott-ex-hamilton-accies-86908-20303652/ to http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/special-reports/exprofootballers/2008/01/30/adrian-sprott-ex-hamilton-accies-86908-20303652/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6A9hwF9BH?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyrecord.co.uk%2Fsport%2Ffootball%2Frangers-in-crisis-administration-was-sparked-by-9million-1116762 to http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/02/14/rangers-in-crisis-administration-was-sparked-by-9m-unpaid-vat-and-paye-bill-taxman-reveals-86908-23748868/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Rangers F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150526003828/http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/9346-king-appointed-chairman to http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/9346-king-appointed-chairman

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)