Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Edit request on 6 July 2012

Can you please update this page as the current Rangers Football Club as the club is still in existence it is the company that is in liquidation. Other clubs such as Leeds Utd and Charlton Athletic have done exactly the same process.

90.192.146.99 (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

To admin reviewing this please do not make any the changes the ip user is requested a consensus has yet to be reachedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andrewcrawford. (For the record, the club itself became a company in 1899 and therefore is the same entity. This club/company entity is now being liquidated) Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are there so many people who don't recognise that a club is a company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.78 (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Because any football club with a history is at once that and so much more. Britmax (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Because you rarely find people buying apparel in company colours they don't work for, or visiting it once a week to cheer it on going about its business. There therefore must be something more to it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A Club is not a company, that arguement is flawed, they are seperate entities. The club is made up of the club name (not to be confused by the name of the company which is usually the club name followed by PLC/LTD etc...), a badge, a stadium, colours & other brand identities, a squad of players, coaching staff, a stadium & other assets. The club is merely operated by a company, and it's common practice for sports clubs to be shuffled around during a corporate reorganisation. A fine example of this would be Rangers rivales Celtic who in 1994 underwent a corporate restrcuture where parts of the club & assets were moved to a new holding company entitled Pacific Shelf 595. To argue that the club becomes a company and the 2 aren't seperate entities is contrary to any club which has had a corporate restructure, or has been baught over. In the case of Rangers, the precedent has been set by Carlton Athletic, Leeds United, Napoli & Fiorentina where the CLUB has maintained it's recognition as the same club despite the previouse corporate entity being dissolved/liquidated. Perhaps the most obvious point that should be stressed is that within Charles Greens purchase, he also baught the rights to allow the club to use the name, and be recoginsed as "Rangers Football Club", which operates under the company Sevco (but will be changed shortly to The Rangers Football Club Ltd). The wikipedia page in dispute right now is entitled "Rangers Football Club". It's the club that the page documents, and within that page it's corporate history should be documented, including the administration period and subsequent reformation & purchase by Charles Greens Consortium. The page therefore takes the same structure as the afore mentioned clubs (Charlton, Leeds, Napoli & Fiorentina) that ultimatly, the page is a documentation of what is generally regarded as the recognised 'clubs'. Ricky072 (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Celtic began as an unincorporated association in 1888, they became a private limited company in 1897 and in 1994 that same company floated and becomes a public limited company, changing their name to merely 'Celtic Plc' in the process rather than the previous Celtic Football and Athletic Company. The old name was no longer in use and was subsequently used to rename the purchased shell company Pacific Shelf. Look at companies house and check the company number for Celtic Plc, you will see it changed to Plc in 1994 and changed from the old name to the new name, but it's the same company as it was back in 1897, the number is unique to a single company. There were no assets moved. By contrast Rangers were an unincorporated association in 1873 which became a public limited company in 1899, no name changes since, same unique company number. This unique number is not that of Sevco. It will never be that of Sevco. Jaikyboy 07 July 2012. 09:48

Senior Scottish judge Lord Glennie has confirmed that Rangers are the same club as before. In his Court of Session ruling on the transfer embargo he described the old company as one that "presently operates" the football club. Now, a few months on. the football club is operated by a new company ("newco"). Similarly, Malcolm Cohen of insolvency practitioners BDO who are liquidating the old company has said: “It’s important to understand that the appointment of liquidators will not mean the end of football at Ibrox – only the end of the company that ran the club”. Again, a new company now runs the club. Company and club are two separate entities. Moreover (and arguably this is all I need have said), as things stand, the old company has not been liquidated (the intention is to liquidate it but it hasn't actually happened). 23:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBO (talk • contribs)

Secco owner Charles Green has stated more than once the intent to offer the fans part ownership of the club via a share issue. Ths is only possible if the club IS the company. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/07/07/rangers-in-crisis-charles-green-to-give-fans-chance-to-own-half-of-ibrox-club-with-new-share-issue-86908-23905404/. The emotional arguments dont hold water when you've taken investment from people - it has to remain analytic. There are two trains of thought; club becomes company upon incorporation (look at every football clubs letters where the name the company unequivocally then immediately equate with the ubiquitous "the club") or club and company are forever separate. If they are separate then a share issue can only confer part ownership of the company. They can't have it both ways. Also, Lord Glennie's statement would have been closer to truth had it said Rangers Football Club Plc operate AS a football club. I am fairly sure Charles Green knows precisely he is running a new club, and is intent on equating this new club with the old so he can sell shares and profit. No problem with that but you can't sell shares in a club then upon liquidation say it was never really the club you sold shares in but a company, then afterwards reverse your position 180 degrees and try to sell shares on the basis of club and company being the same again. Also please look at various quotes from the main movers in the entire charade - Craig Whyte, Brian Kennedy and of course Charles Green. They ALL said more than once on record that it all ends with liquidation, that the club is gone and so too the history behind it. To use this as an argument to get a CVA then discard it after the CVA fails is pure PR and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Club and company are the same thing when the club itself incorporates. Have a look at Celtic's Articles of association where they define the first team as the "first team playing squad of the company" - to claim club isn't company is to simultaneously accuse every football club which has had a share issue of fraudulent misrepresentation because all of them have used the same argument Charles Green is attempting to use now, namely that you can own a part of the club through a share issue. This, I state again, is only possible when the club and the company are the same thing, shareholders do not own assets but they do own a part of the company. Repeating my correction of Lord Glennie's statement: the company operates AS a football club. Please let the charade end and report honestly taking into account the sources own statements and intentions. 07 July 2012.09:23 by Jaikyboy

You really think you can "correct" Lord Glennie, Principal Commercial Judge at the Court of Session, the highest Court in Scotland (a statement in a formal ruling from Lord Glennie at that)? And also senior insolvency practitioner Malcolm Cohen? (The emotional appeals people make when they are trying to sell shares or whatever carry nothing like the same weight.) BBO (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I just did. I didn't say L. Glennie was wrong, I corrected him though, and Malcolm Cohen also refrained from saying Rangers Football Club will still play at Ibrox, pointedly, he said 'football' will still be played at Ibrox. The emotional appeals are actually the opposite of what your taken from my writing - the fans of the club are the ones who have the emotional appeals, not the people trying to sell it via flotation. It's against the law to misrepresent what you're selling in a flotation of a company, and lawyers are paid handsomely to ensure the company for sale does not misrepresent its position. The emotional appeal is not being made - yet - by Charles Green because the obfuscation in the mass media has done it for him. If its Rangers in the minds of the fans then he doesn't needed to point out they'll be investing in a new club, he just carries on telling them they can invest the the club because technically its true they can, because the club and the company are the same thing one the club floats. It just won't be the same club they followed fist time around and the same club started as an unincorporated association back in 1872, it's a new club. It's is logically impossible for the old club and company not to have been one and the same thing whilst the new cub and company are. Green was, like Kennedy and Whyte before him, well aware of this. None of these guys feared the prospect of no European games for a few years on liquidation - go back and read their statements and watch the Green video right after the Blue Knights trashed his CVA appeal, they all say the exact same thing: liquidation is the end of the club. It's true. The fans CAN invest in the club, just like the share prospectus will tell them, legally, because it will be a new club they're investing in. Nothing emotional about that, just the law. 07 July 2012. 13:28 by Jaikyboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.201.67 (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Spot on. Charles Green's consortium could have bought the club if he wanted to secure its history, by buying Rangers Football Club PLC, but that would have meant buying the debt along with the history because he couldn't get a CVA agreed. He therefore chose NOT to buy the club - his consortium bought the club's assets instead, allowing him everything he needed to operate a club if he can get a SFA license and a league to play in. For all those who can't see this, please answer me this: why go to all the bother to try to exit administration by an agreed CVA if you could buy the club debt free by simply liquidating? Green's consortium had offered £8.5M as part of a CVA but only £5.5M for the assets if the club were liquidated. Why was he willing to offer £3M extra for the club under an agreed CVA if he could get the club with history etc for £3M less by liquidation? Truth is, that he was aware that after liquidation, he was buying the assets and not the club - hence paying £3M less. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

well he didnt want to lose potential eurpeon revenue which they wont get now for 4 years if they manage to qualify in the 3rd year, also it mean they would not lose the membership of spl or sfa so wouldnt need to reapply, doing it this way makes ita lot harder but a more interesting thing will be if they go into administration how this scenario will play out because it almost garnteed we will see a third article but with the same argument still existingAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes - that makes sense. However, there is still the point that since only 'clubs' can be members of the SFA, and since Green is now suggesting that 'the club' lives on transferred to his new company, then why does 'the club' not retain its SFA membership? Clearly the SFA must believe that 'the club' dies when 'the company' is liquidated and can not merely be transferred to a new company when it buys a liquidated club's assets. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

We're debating how wikipedia documents football clubs (and to a broader extent, sports clubs). There is an issue right now in how Rangers are documented. The 'new' page that documents them is entitled "Newco Rangers". Let's take a minute to establish something. Football clubs on wikipedia are referenced to within the page title as the CLUB name. For example, let's take Arsenal. Their main wikipedia page is "Arsenal F.C", however the company that operates Arsenal is known as "Arsenal Holdings plc". The company owns the rights to be called, and known as "Arsenal Football Club" and also owns the the badge/logo. When documented in the media, match reports, league tables, etc... they will always be universally known and recognised as either "Arsenal" or "Arsenal FC". OK so now we have established that Wikipedia documents football clubs by their 'club' name (what the club wishes to be known as, and owns the right to be known as), on that basis, Charles Green's Rangers MUST be documented on Wikipedia as "Rangers Football Club". He (his consortium) OWNS the rights to be known as Rangers, he owns that name, he also owns the badge, the strip and all other intellectual property. There is absolutely no precedent set to document a club with anythign other than the club name. If Wikipedia was to remain consistant in this approach we must reconstruct the current pages of; Charlton F.C, Leeds United F.C, Napoli & Fiorentina. These pages must reflect now defunct clubs in the past tense, and document them only until the point of when the old companies were abandoned & newco's formed. The new company must then be given it's own page and entitled "Newco Leeds". It's of the upmost importance that Wikipedia as an encyclopedic reference establishes consistency, and if the community and administrators of Wikipedia feel that this is the most accurate way to reflect the Rangers situation, I will request edits of the afore mentioned clubs, and any other clubs which have at some point in their history underwent any kind of insolvency process whereby they continued via a new company route, yet lay claim to the identity of the old club (aswell as Charlton, Leeds, Napoli & Fiorentina I think Midlesborough is also a company which has been liquidated and reformed via a new company). Ricky072 (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

First Ricky 072, repeating incorrect statements does not make them true. I'm sure you will have read it being pointed out to you that Leeds United were saved from being liquidated almost at the very last gasp when Ken Bates managed to get an agreed CVA with just over the required 75%. Anyway, to yor main point, the Newco Rangers is called that because that is how the 'club' is widely being referred to, with a view to changing the name of the article once a final name for the 'club' is settled upon. If Green's consortium gets an SFA license, and if it then gets into a league for next season - both 'ifs' at this stage (remember that Green's new company doesn't have three years of accounts which is supposed to be a relevant condition) - then we may find out what name the club is allowed to use. It may be allowed to use 'Rangers FC' or it may be told that it can only get membership if it agrees to something like 'Rangers AFC'. The point is that we don't know and it would be a bit of 'crystal ball gazing' to guess. Therefore, Newco Rangers seems the most appropriate title for the time being for the article about the newco. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect? It's not incorrect, it's a matter of fact which i have repeatedly proven. Leeds United "newco'd" and here is the evidence: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00170600 <- original company, established in 1920, status: "in liquidation", and the records for the present company operating the club: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06233875 That is solid, undeniable evidence that the 'Oldco' Leeds existed between 1920 until 2007 and was liquidated, and the current Leeds is operated by a Newco established in 2007. Do you deny this as a matter of fact? You are also incorrect on the point that the SFA hold the power to decide upon what the club can be called, Green owns the rights to "Rangers Football Club" and the badge and is/will be known as "Rangers" or "Rangers F.C". The term 'Newco' is merely a descriptive term (slang) being used to explain the current situation. I refer you to the BBC's up-to-date documentation on Rangers: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers The newco is still being referred to as "Rangers" with their own club page within the football section. If you notice the most recent article in both the headline & subheadline they are reffered to as "Rangers", there fore to argue they are widely being reffered to as "Newco Rangers", I would infact counter that by saying they are more widely being called simply "Rangers" and can provide literally thousands of reliable & respected journalistic sources like the BBC above who have at some point still reffered to the newco as "Rangers". The appropriate structure of Wikipedia at this time would be to structure the page "Rangers F.C" in the same manner as Leeds United, with an up-to-date account of the club in it's current form, and a link to another page entitled "Sevco Scotland Ltd" as a page that references Charles Greens consortium & owners of "Rangers Football Club". Do you feel that it's appropriate that charlton, Leeds, Fiorentina & Napoli are documented and represented in a different format from Rangers FC? Ricky072 (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to put forward another source to bolster any remaining doubt about the Leeds United situation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2312463/Bates-buys-back-relegated-Leeds.html QUOTE: "Leeds United have been relegated from the Championship after appointing administrators, who immediately agreed to sell the club back to a newly-formed company led by Ken Bates." And i'd also like to put forward yet another source with a detailed explanation to Ken Bates takeover of the club: http://www.mercerhole.co.uk/blog/article/phoenix-companies-leeds-united-did-ken-bates-break-the-law QUOTE: "Ken Bates was a director of the old Leeds United Football Club Limited (company number 05334247) ("Oldco") from 17 January 2005 until 7 March 2006. Oldco went into compulsory liquidation on 6 March 2006. He was also a director of The Leeds United Association Football Club Limited ("AFC") from 20 January 2005 until 4 May 2007. AFC went into administration on 4 May 2007. Since 21 January 2005 he has been a director of: Leeds United Stadium Limited ("Stadium"); Leeds United Retail Limited ("Retail"); and Leeds United Investments Limited ("Investments") . Stadium and Retail went into compulsory liquidation on 27 June 2007." QUOTE: "Shortly before AFC went into administration on 4 May 2007, Mr Bates became a director of Leeds United 2007 Limited (1 May 2007) and Leeds United Football Club Limited (company number 05765697) ("Newco") (3 May 2007)." And 1 final piece of evidence for you that confirms that no CVA took place when Bates baught the club via a Newco I reffer you to Leeds Uniteds own website: http://www.leedsunited.com/throughthedecades/20070605/2000s_2249413_1033248 QUOTE: "The administration saga and legacy lasted throughout the summer of 2007 and well into the new season. Despite Bates' buy-back plans receiving creditor approval, the Inland Revenue lodged an objection with the court rendering the CVA invalid. The administrators (KPMG) immediately offered the club for sale again - and the bid from Bates was again accepted. But, without a valid CVA in place, the Football League deemed the club's exit from administration to be a breach of their insolvency policy and initially refused the club a share of league membership throwing into doubt its future. That 'golden share' was finally handed back to the club less than two weeks before the start of the 2007/08 season, but it came at a price, with a 15-point sanction imposed by the League." Ricky072 (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ricky072. Back to Leeds. There is a difference between entering liquidation and being finally liquidated. A club can be saved from the liquidation process after the club has entered liquidation. That is what happened to Leeds United and Middlesbrough to name but two. Ken Bates did form a new company to buy 'the club' but what he was doing to buy 'the club' was buy the company (since the club was a company and the company was the club). Once his ne company owned the club/company that was Leeds United, he restructured the companies in the group, and then liquidated the original company. That is entirely different from the Rangers situation because his holding company owned the company/club that was Leeds United and therefore this restructuring was acceptable to the football authorities. In the case of Rangers, Green's company has not bought the company/club that is Rangers FC. Instead he has bought the assets of the club, the name etc and has transferred them to an entirely separate company that does not own the original company/club. This is the key difference: this difference means that while Leeds United could claim complete continuity, Rangers FC can not. Leeds United retained membership of the English Leagues through their process; the newco Rangers is having to apply for new membership of the SFA and having to apply to get in to a league. Do you not see the difference? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I wrote the above before I notice your additional point. Addressing that additional point, you are only partly correct: his attempt to get an agreed CVA was initially blocked by the HMRC - he had achieved over 75% but the HMRC went to court to contest the result. While that matter was moving through the courts, he proceeded as though he had won and transferred everything as would have happened anyway had the agreed CVA not been blocked by HMRC. This led to a 15 point penalty - but ultimately worked because the HMRC eventually lost and Bates move was vindicated. He had saved Leeds United from being liquidated, with its history intact. Rangers, however, is a different story: no-one will be buying the club/company last minute to save it from liquidation as its assets have now been sold to the newco. The break has been made newco starts off as a new entity. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

So you conceed you were wrong that a CVA took place at Leeds and have now adjusted your stance accordingly? And how do you distinguish between an asset purchase and a purchase of 'the club'. I've sourced previously that Charles Green has claimed he "baught the business" and if you like can reference numerous sources that claim he "purchased the club". The fact of the matter is that, at some point, everything that could be transfferred out of 'LU Athletic FC Ltd', was transferred over to the newco 'LUFCltd' and the oldco was liquidated. Everything that could be transferred from RFCplc to Sevco, was (including the name 'Rangers Football Club' & badge). The point that you now base your "continuaty" arguement on is that the 'newco' method was acceptable to the footballing authorites. The football authorites were actually reluctant to transfer the membership as it was delayed for a considerable amount of time mid-season and when they did eventually decide to transfer it over. The application process differs with the Scottish footballing authorites who decided that it's members would vote on wether or not the membership could transfer, which was voted no. With relation to the SFA membership, this is still unclear at present, but what can be said is that a Football Membership cannot define a club, as membership constantly change. Gretna on several occasions changed membership to & from the SFA to English FA. You are also incorrect that HMRC 'lost' in the courts. They did not, they accepted a Bates purchase (eventually). HMRC could have challenged Green's take-over bid, as remember, his £5.5m is what will be split between the creditors in return for the club & it's assets (in the same way Bates purchase of an undisclosed sum would have been). It's reasonable to assume that HMRCs initial challenge to Bates takeover was that they felt that the administrators could have gotten a better 'sale' of the 'club & assets' than the amount Bates paid, but ultimately they dropped the challenge and accepted Bates bid. You're argueing here the semantics of an asset sale. When ultimately the same effect is achieved. There is no difference if Bates baught the club, transferred the assets to a newco, then liquidated, compared to adminsitrators simply transferring the assets out to a newco then liquidating. It's the same end result, and it's the same method of separating club & company. If you prefer, it may be more comparable to the Charlton method, where the Oldco was dissolved. When i've put forward precedents for how Wikipedia should document Rangers, naming 5 clubs; Leeds, Charlton, Napoli, Middlesborough & Fiorentina. The complexed intricacies of each case will differ, but the same basic principle remains.Ricky072 (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Ricky072 - wrong again on several fronts. Firstly, I did not concede that I was wrong that 'a CVA took place at Leeds and have now adjusted your stance accordingly'. I explained that a CVA DID take place, but was just held up for a while by HMRC going to court. You state "It's reasonable to assume that HMRCs initial challenge to Bates takeover was that they felt that the administrators could have gotten a better 'sale' of the 'club & assets' than the amount Bates paid, but ultimately they dropped the challenge and accepted Bates bid." Stop guessing: the reason HMRC challenged the CVA was because they disputed that the CVA vote had reached the 75% required. As for your attempted summation of my point explaining the differences bewteen what happened at Leeds United and what is happening at Rangers - you clearly don't get it, so I won't repeat it. However, let me give you a couple of pictures to imagine that might help:

Imagine I own a shed (Ranger FC formed in 1899) which I call 'blue shed'. The shed has a number of tools that are used and replaced regularly (the team/players). After 17 years it is decided to protect the shed more by adding thick felt to the roof (making it a limited company in 1899). The shed it still the shed though it now has a better roof! Then in 2012, I try to sell the shed as a complete package due to debts I have built up by buying tools I couldn't afford to pay for, but can't manage. However, a neighbour (Green's consortium) sees my plight and offers to buy my shed package if my creditors agree to a pence in the pound CVA he offers. The creditors do not agree to his offer. Therefore he offers to buy all the stuff in my shed but doesn't buy the shed itself. He moves all the stuff into a different shed he has newly built (the newco) and then calls his shed 'The blue shed'. He tries to persuade everyone that since he owns everything that was in the shed - even the name - it is the same shed that has existed for 140 years.

Now imagine I own a different shed (Leeds United). Once again the shed is fitted with thick felt (when it originally become a limited company.) Once again it build up debts and I try to sell it as a package to include contents. A neighbour (Ken Bates) offers to buy my shed plus contents as a package if the creditors agree to the pence in the pound CVA he offers. (This is a agreed but blocked while one creditor disputes the vote.) Anyway, the neighbour feels that the best way forward is to build a new shed that covers and contains my old shed inside - that will really protect it, he thinks. Once built, he decides to lift the old felt from my shed as it is safely within the new shed (eventual liquidation of 'oldco' Leeds United which was owned by his newco.) He argues that the shed he owns is a continuation of the original shed despite it now being within a new outer shell.

Can you see the difference between the two pictures? - One is continuation of the original shed, wheras one is only a continuation of the spirit of the original shed. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ricky and fisherhelper can you both do me a big favour, and make a new enter on my talk page one for ricky saying "Why the club survives" as the talk page title with all the examples above you have given and the reference please, and fisherhelper can you make one that says "Why the club and company are the same" as the topic title an give the examples of the ones you have previously stated and references, this will save me some time reading through all the posts to find it and help put to together the request for comment so we can get it out faster and hopefully get a consensus via wider community option. I am only stated both your names as your both the current ones that disputing this, but all other editors who have previously commented been in the dispute if you can make a similar title topic on my talk page with your arguments and references please, the best chance we can get a consensus is if we present the argument on both sides and then let other user who dnt have anything to do with this make a conclusion based on the evidence we submitAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, you are once again point blank wrong on the issue of Leeds CVA. It's rather ammusing to tell me to stop guessing when you early admitted to guessing the Italian insolvency laws may differ from the UK and that may be justification for Naploi & Fiorentina to retain the identity of the old club. I've already cited several sources which confirm that Leeds DID NOT exit administration via a CVA. On Wikipideas own paragraph on the matter of Leeds CVA, it cites the following source: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/taxman-pulls-out-of-leeds-united-court-challenge-1-2113182 here are some quotes from the source: QUOTE: "The CVA would have been worth just 1p-in-the-pound to creditors like the Revenue. Its opposition prompted KPMG to scrap the CVA and put the club on the open market before again agreeing to sell to Mr Bates." QUOTE "Yet the Football League claimed that, by failing to exit administration via a CVA, Leeds had breached its insolvency policy." QUOTE: "Today a spokeswoman for HM Revenue and Customs said its legal challenge had become "academic" when the CVA was ditched in early July." Now will you please admit that you conceed no CVA went through in the case of Leeds UAFC Ltd? If not, please supply a reliable source which states that a CVA did take place at Leeds. After admitting this, you can then explain Charlton Ahletic's reformation and how it allowed them to continue to trade as, and be recognised as Charlton Athletic 1902, despite being reformed by a new company with the oldco being dissolved.Ricky072 (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Club liquidated or not

This is invite to all users who contest this regardless if it for the club is liquidated or the club is not liquidated can you please, post on my talk page with topic for saying something similar to "Why the club survives" with your arguments and sources please, and user who believe the club is liquidated make a post saying something like "Why the club is liquidated" with your arguments and sources and post it on my talk page please. Then i will draw arguments together and sources and make Request for Comment which will get other user who do not have conflict of interest or POV to try help get a consensus on this.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts but the arguments are quite clear: on one side, people like me that point out that the club and the company are the same entity - the club formed in 1872 took on itself limited company status in 1899; and on the other side those who argue that the club is much more than the actual legal entity and it is that 'spirit' that will survive any liquidation. As a result, some us believe that entering liquidation followed by 'relaunched club' should lead to a new article on wikipedia, and other believe that entering liquidation followed by 'relaunched club' should lead to nothing more than a note on the same club article. Difficult to see how consensus can be achieved starting from these two directly opposing positions - but always willingto try through discussion. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

i know it goign to be very hard to get it, but that is what a dispute is about trying to reach compromise that is acceptable and complies to guidelines, im not saying currently it doesn't because it does but at the same time conesne can change and other politics can trump others. im interested in both sides arguments then it can be fair reflectingAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's very simple, from a legal stand point, Sevco Scotland (later to be renamed) has purchased the the legal rights to trade & represent itself as Rangers Football Club, the intellectual & brand rights such as the badge, colours, kit, aswell as it's tangible assets. There is also more than enough precedent set, as Rangers are not the first club to have underwent an asset purchase & reformation process yet still represent itself as the same club & identity. Wikipedia articles on football clubs pages are entitled by what the club is commonly known as, e.g Arsenal F.C, and NOT the company name (which would be Arsenal Holdings PLC). It means that in the future the 'new page' for Rangers on wikipedia will be entitled exactly as the old one 'Rangers F.C'. If Wikipedia is to have any consistency it will structure it's documentation on Rangers in the same manner as all other clubs. It will recognise Rangers F.C as commonly known football club regardless of it's current corporate status but it's history will be documented to include the administration/liquidation/reformation peroid accordingly. Ricky072 (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It will be no problem if Green's club does enter a league as 'Rangers FC' - the newco Rangers article could be renamed 'Rangers FC' with the original Rangers FC article remaned 'Rangers FC (1872)'. Most clubs reforming after the original club has been liquidated don't have this particular problem because they usually choose to use a slightly different name to signify the new beginning. The opposite appears to be the case here where there appears to be a real effort to play down the idea of any new beginning, and an attempt to play up notions of continuity. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Teams such as Chester chose to have a slighlty different name because they chose to be recognised as completely different clubs, and did not purchase the legal rights from administrators to trade as the previous club, use the previous badge/branding. In this case, and is the case with Leeds, both the respective consortiums purchased all these rights which were transferred to a newco, therefore maintain the right to be recognised as the same club if they wish so. On that basis, both Rangers F.C & Leeds United F.C should be housed on the same wikipedia page but have their corporate hisotry documented within, both specifically highlighting that the clubs reformed in 2007 & 2012 respectively. Ricky072 (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

please all your arguments about it being the same club and the company is getting liqduaited to date can you please post all your argument with your sources pleaseAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Which administrator can i contact about rectifying this page? Ricky072 (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ricky072, an administrator will only alter this page if consensus has been established on the particular change you wish to make. If you have a specific suggestion for a change, post details under a new section and it can then be discussed. (As I did when I asked above about the foundation date of 1872.) Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the criteria for establishing consensus? It seems to me that contributors will be agenda driven or bias on this subjected given the emotions involved. It would seem the most logical step would be for a few administrators of Wikipedia with no prior knowledge or emotional attachment to the situation should read the arguements, and consider how other clubs in similar situations have been documented, and make the decision to edit the page. Ricky072 (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ricky072. You may find this helpful. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

ricky i keep telling you please post your arguments with examples and sources it will go to my request for comment which will get uninvolved editors involved to try establish a consensus, as for admin not attached what would you do if they review it and say no the article is correct by wikipedia policies if it is decided it is right you have to accept that wikipedia isnt here as fan site it is encyclopaedic that relies on sources so i ask again please present your arguments with examples and sources pleaseAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Every point i have put forward thus far has been supported by reliable sources. Do you want me to rewrite all the points i've posted already and post it elsewhere for administrators attention? Ricky072 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

no administrator will make the changes without a consensus which at the moment there is none, please post all your points and argument with sources herein one place for me i will be take club dead or not further in the dispute resolution process which might finally get a decisionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A fundamental point is that, as things stand, nothing has been liquidated - not the company, not the club, nothing. This can be checked at Companies House: The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. (incorporated in 1899) is in administration, not liquidation. Here is the specific link: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/99da7e368a7af5154a71b9b08ae39c35/compdetails - and here is the link to search the Companies House database: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/617731e19a364eeae3203c11f9a2a99c/wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo (I have put more material on your Talk page.) Edit: I see there are problems with Companies House links expiring. Try this (click "Search Company Information"): http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/toolsToHelp/WCInfo.shtml BBO (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, liquidation process has started but is not completed. The provisionally appointed liquidators are Malcolm Cohen and James Stephen from financial company BDO. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

NewCo not New Club

The reality is that while the old holding company - founded in 1899, 27 years after Rangers itself - is to be wound up, the club formed in 1872 remains. The page says is was founded in 1872 and this cannot change as the club has not been disbanded, only the company liquidated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2mhunter (talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but you incorrectly state "the old holding company - founded in 1899, 27 years after Rangers itself - is to be wound up" - it is not a 'holding company' that is being liquidated but the club itself that had taken on company status in 1899. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's widely documented that Charles Green purchased 'the club', transferring everything out of the old PLC leaving it only as an empty shelling housing debt. Source as fresh as today from Scotlands biggest sellign newspaper: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/07/07/rangers-in-crisis-charles-green-to-give-fans-chance-to-own-half-of-ibrox-club-with-new-share-issue-86908-23905404/ QUOTE "Many supporters questioned Green’s reasons for buying the stricken club for £5.5million " Ricky072 (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you really referencing the same article I used to prove the opposite point? The ONLY way that the fans an own part of the club via a share issue is if the club and the company are the same thing legally. Shareholders own a part of whichever company they own shares in, but NOT a part of any of the company's assets, only the legal entity of the company itself. You cannot strip out the club from underneath the company when they are the same thing. The club was already split into millions of parts (the shares) and the original club remains constituted by those shares today and until it is officially wound up, at which point those shares will be of nothing, they will literally be a part of something that has ceased to exist. Sevco are running a new club which has bought some buildings and some intangible assets like a brand name but they are a different company and they will be offering a different club to the fans when they float. It cannot logically occur one way first time around and another way this time, you must either accept the the club became a company when it incorporated and sold its shares far and wide and that club which became a company is soon to be liquidated, or the new share issue will not be bestow ownership of the club, only the company holding it. Make your mind up, which is it? Either the fans can indeed own a part of the club via a share issue which means the original shareholders too owned a part of the cub because club and company are one and the same, which in turn means by definition the new company is running a new club (the old shareholding still exists, with near zero value, but it still exists) OR the club wasn't the company first time around meaning it cannot be the company this time around meaning the fans cannot own it via the share issue, they will merely own a part of Sevco which just happens to run the club (bear in mind this too means that the club is just some intangible, ethereal and completely virtual thing which can never be truly owned by anyone. This chain of thought also means the club can never be responsible for anything, no wrongdoing, etc, because any transgressions are always linked to the company, the big nasty company which ran the club. Preposterous. There WAS a holding company, it was Wavetower, renamed as The Rangers FC Group, and before that it was Murray Sports, but those aren't what's being liquidated, that honor falls to The Rangers Football Club Plc, which has no legal entity underneath, it is the original Rangers Football Club, the Plc just means that The Rangers Football Club happens to be an incorporated company as well as a football club). Remember, you can't have it both ways. Either club and company are the same, in which case you can buy a part of the club in a share issue, but it's a new club cos the first one is still constituted by the original shareholding, or it's a share issue in a mere holding company which fans will buy but never ever own any part of the club, merely the holding company. Those share certificates on the wall would be somewhat hollow looking in that case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.201.67 (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This theory that a club becomes one with a company because of a share issue is contrary to wikipedia's own documentation of Charlton, Leeds, Napoli, Fiorentina. All of whom have set precedent of a newco maintaining the old identity of a club while the company that previously housed the club is liquidated/dissolved Ricky072 (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And Darlington F.C.? A 'newco' bought the assets of Darlington FC when it couldn't get an agreed CVA to exit administration. Sounds very similar to the Rangers situation doesn't it? Wikipedia has an article for the oldco and an article for the newco. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And by your reckoning Darlington FC situation which is being challenged on that page also, and almost running concurrently with the Rangers situation as it occurs in 2012, therfore is a stronger precedent than Charlton, Leeds, Napoli, Fiorentina? If concensus is agreed on this debate, that infact clubs who have 'newco'd' should be represented on 2 different wikipedia pages, then would you agree that the wikipedia entries for Charlton, Leeds, Napoli, Fiorentina all need to be restructured in the same manner to keep consistency within Wikipedia? Ricky072 (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 July 2012

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangers_F.C. is inaccurate and deeply offensive to Rangers fans. No body has even attempted to remove the CLUB's history and to have such an article listed as fact when it is clearly mischief by opposition fans discredits Wikipedia itself. Please amend to present tense immediately. 212.183.128.45 (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

note to admins there is no consensus as yet to do this it is on going dispute, please reject thisAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 July 2012

The statement of rangers being liquidated has not been made in the stat box please verify this

82.40.154.173 (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Status Quo

I thought that in the case of debate to establish a consensus the status quo was maintained until agreement was reached. As it has not been reached surely the article should say that the club exists, as we should default to the state that existed before the debate started until the debate ends, whichever way it goes? I shan't be taking any further part in this debate until it ends, with Rangers settled in whatever league they end up in as too many people taking part do not know what an encyclopedia is and is not and the full implications of it not being a news service. Britmax (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Britmax. As I understand the situation, the page is protected for the next couple of weeks to allow time for discussion that may lead to consensus about whether the article should be changed from the way it is at present. I am therefore assuming that the status quo is as the page is now. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As an editor from England (but a member of the Scottish football taskforce!) I really don't understand this "wait and see" attitude. If stuff is notable and citable, let's get it in. Why wait? There is huge gaps in the story on Wikipedia, which is embarrassing and failing our readers. For one, there is little or no mention of Rangers' misdeeds which brought about their demise. Incredibly - to an outsider - we now have officials from other clubs openly bandying about words like "corruption" and "bullying" about their own governing bodies. Again, we are strangely mute on all this.

From my reading, the strangest thing of all is how this Green fella can "buy" the dead club's assets with a £5.5m loan from shadowy backers (no doubt at Wonga.com interest rates) when the CVA report valued them at north of £100m!? What happened to the previous owner's "floating charge"? Will the liquidators reverse or "unpick" the transaction? What of the administrators, currently dotting i's and crossing t's at £2000 per hour, and the investigation into their "conflict of interest"? Why is none of all this in our articles? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Article wording a disgrace

The past tense wording in this article is an absolute disgrace and blatant bias. The club itself still exists, it is simply now operating under and owned by a different company. The article should reflect this, not be stuck on a wording that pretends the thing does not even exist anymore. The media still sees this newco as "rangers" as should this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"The club...is owned by a different company"? Can you provide any sources to support the claim that another company bought the club? Or are you confusing the fact that another company bought the assets of Rangers FC when the administrator could not get an agreed CVA with creditors? Just like Darlington FC has recently had its assets bought by a newco when it couldn't get a CVA, and now oldco Darlington FC and newco Darlington 1883 have separate articles on wikipedia, so the same is appropriate for Rangers FC. Or can you think of a reason why Rangers FC should be treasted differently from Darlington FC by wikipedia? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why Chartlon, Fiorentina & Napoli are universally recognised as the same clubs, not only by FIFA, their respective FA's but mainly Wikipedia, as we strive for consistency? Ricky072 (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is "Rangers" as a club still exists as the media recognises, it is simply the company that ceased to exist. So the old company needs to either get its own article or it all needs to be dealt with in a single article. The club, with its assets and fans that exists today is clearly the primary topic and the one that should be at this article, not an article talking about a deceased company. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers universally recognised as Rangers FC despite semantics of Newco asset/club purchase

SOURCE: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/07/08/rangers-in-crisis-sfl-clubs-set-to-have-newco-decision-taken-out-of-their-hands-86908-23905880/ QUOTE: "RANGERS’ league status for next season could be decided upon by the SFL board and not its 30 member clubs." QUOTE from official document publsihed by SFL board: "“That Rangers FC shall play in the Third Division during season 2012/13 unless the board shall have to its satisfaction negotiated and reached agreement with the SPL and SFA on a series of measures which the board shall consider to be in the best interests of the game. “Whereupon the board shall be authorised to provide that Rangers FC shall play in the First Division of the SFL during season 2012/13.” Ricky072 (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The new company owns what is commonly known as Rangers as reflected in the media, so should be on this article yes. The article setup clearly needs changing to reflect this. All thats change is the ownership issues which are secondary to the primary topic of the Football club. A club or organisation can exists without being being registered as an official company. So the article needs to simply reflect that it operated as a company from ** to ** and from 2012... The current article simply will confuse the vast majority of readers when clearly rangers as a club still exists, its simply a different company. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC )

Check what is happening at Darlington FC and Darlington 1883 - a situation very similar to Rangers. A newco was formed that bought the assets of the oldco when the oldco couldn't exit administration by an agreed CVA. Therefore the old club died and a reformed club was born - same fans etc but a new club so a new article. Rangers should be no different: this article tells the story of the old club from 1872 to 2012 and the Newco Rangers article for the reformed club going forward - it can be changed to a better title once the final name of the reformed Rangers is confirmed (as it may be asked to change its name slightly - to Rangers AFC for example - and the media is referring to it as 'newco Rangers' so that does for now.) Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

For the moment, 'Rangers FC' is just a means for the media and others of identifying the defunct club. Green's company - page Rangers Newco - is actually called 'Sevco 5088', not Rangers. He's trying to get some form of the Rangers name moved over to Sevco, and this will presumably happen in due course, but Rangers FC as we knew it has ceased to be. --83.119.142.202 (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, this would be sourced from the same Daily Record whose front page screamed: "R.I.P. RFC; taxman passes death sentence on 140 years of Rangers history." Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly one source, but it's quite clear in numerous media reports that Green's 'Rangers' is a new club. I'll get you one or two to illustrate. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

For example "Mr Green has since formed a new club and is attempting to get access to the Scottish Premier League." from the | BBC Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the source is the document published by the SFL, and not the wording of a Daily Record journalist. There are multiple media outlets who have published this document, take your pick. On the issue of the new page entitled 'Sevco Scotland', this is contrary to every other Football Club documented on Wikipedia. The pages are entitled by what the club is known as, and not it's corporate holding company name (Otherwise the page Arsenal F.C would infact be entitled Arsenal Holdings PLC). The club even under Sevco is still universally recognised as Rangers FC by both media outlets & official governing bodies such as the SFL, as sourced above. On the issue of Darlington FC, this should not be set precedent as the situation with this club is almost concurrent with Rangers in the sense that it took place 2012, and concensus has yet to be reached on the respective Wikipedia pages, which under the 'Talk' section are having almost the exact same debate as this page. Clubs such as Charlton, Leeds, Napoli & Fiorentina should be precedents in this case because concensus is reached on how these clubs are documented within Wikipedia and have been documented in such formats for several years already. Ricky072 (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"which under the 'Talk' section are having almost the exact same debate as this page" - one comment by an ip plus an explanation is hardly "the exact same debate as this page"! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll see your BBC, Fishiehelper2, and raise you a Glasgow Herald. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Or how about The Telegraph? - ("the final whistle sounds on Rangers’ 140 years of history") Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

In reference to only 1 comment debatign the point on Darlington FC wikipedia page, Darlington is a much smaller club with far less publicity, therefore it seems obvious there would be less contributors debating the point than on the Rangers page. The fact remains it is being disputed. If you edit the Leeds, Charlton, Napoli & Fiorentina pages to the same structure of Rangers & Darlington in the interests of consistency within Wikipedia, then i'm sure many more contributors drawn to those respective articles would debate these points also. As for the sensationalised tabloids sourced above calling Rangers "dead", i'll dispute that with a statement from Duff & Phelps: http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/105851-in-full-duff-and-phelps-statement-on-rangers-cva-failure/ "Rangers Football Club will continue within a new company structure" Ricky072 (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please can someone add a Disputed template to this article. The current introduction and entire article is worded in a way that is deeply controversial and disputed by a number of editors on this talk page. At present the article is presenting factually inaccurate information to the reader and controversial POV. Until it is resolved, this one point of view should not be viewed as the accurate factual one. Thank you BritishWatcher (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

note to admins i do not object to this as the article is in dispute and is currently mid process of goign to a Request for Comment

but might be a few weeks away assuming there is a dispute tag that can be put on--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that there is a dispute, so Done, see here. Normally the "on the talk page" link in the banner would be pointed at the relevant talk page section, but there are several open discussions, so I've directed it to the top of this page. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Darlingon FC

Just reading that Darlington was in administration and could not get an agreed CVA. The assets of Darlington were then bought by a new, separate company that called itself 'Darlington 1883' and said it was now running the club, leaving the debt with the oldco. The following is from an article in the Northern Echo on 29th May 2012 [1]:

The FA have also confirmed that Darlington are effectively being treated as a 'new club' because they were unable to agree a CVA with their creditors before exiting administration and were unable to conduct an acceptable transference of the football share. The spokesman said: "The original Darlington FC are no longer members of the Football Conference and, under the regulations of the National League System, are now a 'new club'. As such, they are only allowed to make an application to join a league/division at Step Five."

Given that they are being treated as a new club, Darlington will almost certainly have to change their name before the start of next season. They are unable to carry over the old club's name, and all the history that goes with it, and must instead adopt a new moniker such as Darlington United or Darlington Town. The spokesman added: "It is very likely that the 'new club' will not be allowed to carry the name Darlington FC. This is a matter to be discussed with their County Football Association, Durham FA. As it stands, the 'new club' are not yet affiliated to Durham FA and have been advised to do so at the earliest opportunity by The Football Association."

Similarities with Rangers' situation: was in administration, assets bought out by newco without an agreed CVA, new company claims to be running same club. Outcome: regarded by FA as effectively a new club, and all the history of the old club is gone. And on Wikipedia? Two articles - one for the oldco and one for the newco. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the FA are not the SFA and Rangers are (were) not Darlington! By all accounts the SFA are bending every rule to give the Rangers newco special treatment. From the sources it seems partly financial and partly to do with potential "social unrest" from fans of the oldco. As I understand it, the newco will have to take on some of the debts and sanctions of the liquidated club, in exchange for being elevated directly into SFL1. Darlo get a fresh start. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is also wrong, what is the basis for Darlington to be known as Darlington FC on the original page and then Darlington 1883 on the next? It's nonsensical. Whoever created the page has made a basic error in that he has failed to recognise the difference between the company name & widely recognised club name. Darlington 1883 is the company name, but this club will always be widely known as Darlington F.C, thus both pages should be entitled the same. Once again Darlington Wikip age should be structured in the same vein as Charlton, Napoli, Leeds, Fiorentina.Ricky072 (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Did Leeds United go into liquidation, or a parent company? Did Charlton Athletic go into liquidation, or a parent company? Heywoodg ^talk 13:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

When was this club founded?

The article says the club was founded in 1872. Yet the company that went into administration this year was only incorporated in 1899 according to the companies house website.. [2] So if this article is about something that existed decades before incorporation, why does it now cease to exist simply because that incorporated company is liquidated? It is blatantly the case that the club and company are two separate things, the club is now under a new company trading as "The Rangers Football Club", a trading name of Sevco Scotland Limited. The article should clearly reflect this. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC was formed in 1872 (or 1873, depending on your view). In 1899, it, itself, became a limited company - therefore the club and the company were the same, single entity. This article tells the story of that same entity from 1872 until its liquidation. Since the club became the company, the end of the company is also the end of the club. Of course, the fans still exist and it is possible to relaunch Rangers - as is being attempted by Green's consortium - but it is a new legal entity. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What rule book are you reading that the end of a company = the end of the club, that is your own assumption and a POV. If a club can exist before it is incorporated as a company, why can it not exist after it is no longer incorporated or when it becomes a new company? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that its a new legal entity, the point is the primary topic of this article is about a football club, a club that existed before being incorporated in 1899 and clearly continues to exist after that company was liquidated in 2012. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The club vs company debate is an interesting one. If a club is viewed as being as one with a company, then the term 'club' because invalid & meaningless. Wikipedia's own definition of a 'club' & 'sports club' would leave us to believe that a club and company couldn't be the same thing. SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club QUOTE: "A sports club can thus comprise participants (not necessarily competitors) or spectator fans, or both." It's an interesting debate and involves the semantic of the word 'club'. The term can be loosely applied to almost any association of 2 or more people with a common goal, but can also have thousands of supporters & a fan base of that 'common goal'. The definition of a football 'club' therefore would be the collective term for everything tangible & intangible associated with the club, such as the team which competes in the game of Football to the fans who support that team. A company holds an entirely different definition, a company is a legal entity bound by laws that can only own tangible assets, for example they could never own a player, only the contract, nor can it own fans. Ricky072 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and in terms of wikipedia the key issue is what is the primary topic. Is Rangers FC a club that was formed in 1872 as the article suggests which continues to exist today with its own website, fans, stadium and other assets, along with being described as rangers in the numerous media sources. OR is the primary topic a company and legal entity incorporated in 1899 and liquidated in 2012. Surely common sense suggests its the club, not company and the article should simply make reference to the two companies with incorporation dates and ownership etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This article doesnt even appear to mention the company was incorporated in 1899 so the company that was liquidated is hardly the primary focus is it? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The club became a business company in 1899. Then the club and the company - together, incorporated - were liquidated in 2012. The SFA unambiguously regards an "insolvency event" as something which befalls a "member" (ie. club). For licensing purposes, UEFA rules define: a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A club can exist without the approval of a body SFA or UEFA, nor does a club have to be a registered organisation with companies house. This article talks about a club formed decades before incorporation. If it can exist prior to incorporation, it can clearly exist after that company is liquidated and assets are transferred to a new company. If the company is the primary topic of this article, why on earth does it not even mention the date of incorporation? This is clearly about a football club, not an incorporated company that existed between 1899 and 2012. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)"A club can exist without the approval of a body SFA or UEFA" - No, it can't. Except perhaps in the hearts and minds of its disappointed supporters. If a club is liquidated it is far from "clear" that it will carry on regardless just because it had existed prior to becoming a company. Prior to its demise, this club certainly did not enjoy a virtual autonomy with its company. Then the club, all of it, including the company, were liquidated. Most Rangers players cleared off, explicit that they wanted nothing to do with the new club. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Clavidia, reading the document you sourced, at no point have i seen FIFA give it's definiation of what a 'football club' is defined as. Can you give me an exact page number & paragraph for you're reference. Also, in the cases of Napoli & Fiorentina, FIFA seem to have set a precedent that it is willing to recognise those respective clubs & their history, despite suffering insolvency events & subsequently reborn as a new corporate entity. Ricky072 (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The article you linked to the rangers website shows that the club existed before incorporation, again if it can exist before it is incorporated in 1899, where are the rules saying it does not exist today? If the club continues to be known as rangers with the same fans,website, stadium, and history.. how is it not the same club simply part of a new company. The clubs history would read...

• 1872 rangers was formed.
• 1899 rangers was incorporated as THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB P.L.C.
• 14 February 2012 THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB P.L.C went into administration
• 14 June 2012 THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB P.L.C. went into liquidation with assets being acquired by the newly incorporated Sevco Scotland Limited , operating under the trading name The Rangers Football Club.
• (and in the future) 13 of July 2012, the Scottish Football League....

Something along those lines seems to make sense to me, rather than the intentionally offensive, provocative and incorrect POV the article currently says. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Britishwatcher. You are missing the point about 'the club existed before 1899 and therefore could exist afterwards - it could if it hadn't gone bankrupt! Rangers FC started as an unincorporated body, and then chose to become an incorporated body. The club, that now happens to be an incorporated body, is being liquidated. Perhaps I should ask you to think of it this way: if Rangers FC had not adopted company status but had merely continued trading as an unincorporated body, the only difference today would be that individuals could be pursued for the club's debts, but company status has limited the liability for the club's debts to the shareholders, and even then, only to the extent of the value of the shares they own. Rangers the club, which happens to be an incorporated organisation, has debts it can't pay and is being liquidated. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The club and the company are two separate things. The club known as rangers still has a website, a stadium, some players and other assets and is currently under the newly incorporated company Sevco Scotland operating under the trading name The Rangers Football Club. Yes it is a different legal entity, but its the same club. You have not explained how if something can exist before it is incorporated under one company name it cannot exist after that company goes into liquidation but its assets are all transferred to the new company which still uses the name rangers too? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Club and Company are one and the same. You are caught up in the semantics of it all, because something bought the rights to use the same emblems and name, doesn't mean it is the same. If Burger King bought the copyrights and trademarks of the liquidated McDonald's, it doesn't become McDonald's it may resemble McDonalds and have the same name but it is effectively "Burger King" with a new name and face. If you look on Rangers(1872)'s Plus Market(Stockexchange) it says that "The Rangers Football Club PLC" was founded in 1873(they have obviously not updated their website since Rangers changed it to 1872 about 5 or so years ago. How could "The Rangers Football Club PLC" have been founded in 1873 if they only came into existance, like you say in 1899? answer is because "Rangers FC" as you know them ARE "The Rangers Football Club PLC", Rangers FC or Rangers Football Club or merely just Rangers are just trade names of The Rangers Football Club PLC. Have you seen that Charles Green's "Rangers" want Duff and Phelps to change the real name of Original Rangers to Rangers 2012, so that they free up the name "The Rangers Football Club" so that he can then rename New Rangers as "The Rangers Football Club Ltd" the reason he wants to do this, is so that it looks even more like Original Rangers and so that he doesn't need to change the "famour Ibrox gate" which says "The Rangers Football Club Ltd" on it, as that would then become a liquidated name never able to be used again, meaning Rangers would have a gate on their stadium saying something that could never be used again and probably need to change the gate thats been on Ibrox for decades.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should records the story of Rangers FC

A team called Rangers will be playing in the SFL next season, whereby the media will speak of Rangers results and news etc. Creating a new page will only cause confusion when independent and objective readers wish to know the story of the team known as Rangers FC on Wikipedia. The fact that the Sevco 5088 page shares about 80% of the content as the Rangers FC page demonstrates that it is merely a continuation of the story of the history about a team called Rangers. The 20% of new information on the Sevco 5088 page should therefore be integrated into the Rangers FC page to make its 'story' content complete. The pages of football team's history in Wikipedia go by their team name, not their company name. S2mhunter (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC) shunter 08/07/12

You are correct. This article should be about the football club rangers which was formed in 1872 and continues to exist today and that will play in the Scottish Football League in the next season. That is the primary topic for Rangers FC. The primary topic is NOT about a company incorporated in 1899 and liquidated in 2012, that is merely one company that forms part of Rangers football clubs history. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the club - that's why the title is Rangers FC and not Rangers FC PLC. The history of of the club started with the club being an unincorporated organisation, but it then chose to become an incorporated organisation (a company). Unfortunately, the clubs' income has not been sufficient to pay for its expenditure and it is now being liquidated. Fortunately, since the club has incorporated status, the individuals running Rangers are not personally liable for these debts - that's the advantage of football clubs being companies. So does the Rangers story end with liquidation? Of course not! The fans still exist and the club is being reformed for them. If that team is called Rangers, fine, but it is a new Rangers - the old one is being liquidated. Loads of other clubs have been liquidated in the UK and reformed clubs have sprung up to replace them: Telford United AFC, Halifax Town AFC, Chester City FC, and most recently Darlington FC. Add Rangers FC to that list. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

IF this article is about the club not the company it should not use past tense. A club can exist without being a registered organisation of the same name it was originally incorporated under. A company existed between 1899 and 2012. That company went into liquidation. The club now is under the control a newly incorporated organisation operating under the trading name The Rangers Football Club. If it can exist for decades before a company was incorporated to run it, where is the rules saying it cannot exist as a club after? Wikipedia is meant to reflect common names and usage. Its very obvious and many sources already exist showing that "rangers" continues despite the former company going into liquidation. The company is so very relevant to this article it does not even mention the year of incorporation. This article is clearly about club, not a legal entity that controlled the club between 1899 and 14 of June 2012 BritishWatcher (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I said - I said it "is about the club". However, for the past 113 years the club has also been a company - 'the club' and 'the company' are the same entity! If the club had chosen to stop being a company, the club could have continued as an unincorporated organisation - but it did not chose to stop being incorporated. As a company, the club built up debts it could not pay and is now beoing liquidated. This article therefore covers the total life of this particular club from its foundation as a small unincorporated group of individuals to its demise as a corporate organisation with debts of tens of millions, leading to administration and then, when no buyer could be found, to liquidation. But the good news is that a newco was set up to buy the assets of Rangers FC so that a team could continue to play in Ibrox and carry forward the spirit of Rangers - probably even called Rangers. That new club is presently trying to acquire membership of the SFA, and a league to play in - the story of that new club is what the new article is for. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, when discussing precedents for Rangers you must provide proof that the reformations are comparable. For example, Chester City should not be used a precedent because their was no purchase from the administrators for the busines, any assets, or the rights to use the same name & badge. Instead the club was wound-up & dissolved and the supporters created a new club from scratch, selecting a new name, a new dientity, and a new badge. They did not own any of the old clubs assets or image rights, and rent the stadium out from the council. This is entirely different to the situation of Rangers FC & Leeds United FC, where a Newco purchased the club, inclusive of all assets and image rights, including the name & badge, leaving behind a shell of a company with the debt to be liquidated. Ricky072 (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ricky072 - I've got to go to bed, but I'll give you a quick reply first. There are two ways for a club to get out of administration: an agreed CVA or liquidation. If a club gets an agreed CVA, the club will survive but if it is liquidated it dies. Chester City, like Rangers, failed to exit administration by getting an agreed CVA. Of course the fans wanted 'their club' to continue so a new club was established and is playing in the same stadium. The name the Chester City fans chose was the original name of Chester City (for 98 years). Rangers failed to exit administration by an agreed CVA and is being liquidated. A new club is being established by a newco which has managed to acquire the former club's assets and a number of the former players. So Chester City and Rangers have in common that both failed to exit administration by an agreed CVA and were/is being liquidated. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but your getting club and company mixed up there again Fishie. A company can get a CVA or go through liquidation. The company incorporated in 1899 was liquidated but the club existed before incorporation, just as it continues to exist after that liquidation with the club now controlled under the trading name The Rangers Football Club of Sevco Scotland Ltd. The fans wanted "their club" to continue and a new company was established and took ownership of the clubs assets. Same club, different companies. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel I am having to repeat myself - the club became a company. Therefore the club/company is now being liquidated. Taking ownership of the clubs assets is not buying the club. It is a way of setting up a new club to replace the one being liquidated. Regards, and goodnight... Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

But above you said ". However, for the past 113 years the club has also been a company -".. Also, highlighting that club and company are two separate things. yes the club formed an incorporated company which ran the club between 1899 and June 14 2012, now the club with is assets are controlled by a new company. Pre incorporation , post liquidation of that company, all the way to the formation of the new company that now runs the club. I do not see how that is not the case, sorry. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've created an new section to explain the difference between Chester & Rangers for you below. The fundamental difference is that the NewCo owners of Rangers purchased the club/business/assets from the OldCo, with the proceeds being split among creditors. This entitles Rangers to keep the legal identity as before. Chester did not, they dissolved and legally cannot maintain the same identity. Further explanation given below. Ricky072 (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The club and company are not two seperate things, they are a single entity. "Incorporation - consolodating two or more things into a single body", Incorporation in legal terms is the forming of a legal entity, that is recogised as a person under the law.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A legal entity that was formed decades after the club was founded. The club and the company incorporated between 1899 and 2012 are two different things, as shown in links provided by Ricky. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Good morning. It seems we are making no progress in this discussion whatsoever. Britishwatcher let me try to explain the club company thing in another way. I was single until I was 25. I then got married. The single me from before my marriage became me after my marriage. After I changed status to being married, there was still only one of me - I wasn't a single person and a married person - just me! I could have got divorced and become a single person again, so it is possible to become single again after being married. However, if a bus hits me in the street while I am a married person, I can't say "ah well, that is just my married self that has been killed, I will carry on living as a single person! - That is what you are trying to suggest with Rangers FC. Rangers FC changed to being in a different form - it didn't form a company to 'own' it. It WAS it! Rangers FC has been hit by a bus. It can not say 'oh, that's my corporate identity bankrupt' - IT is bankrupt. The club abd the company are the same, single entity. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Liquidation vs Dissolution

In the debate of Rangers being recognised as a new club or a continuation of the old club, it's important to consider the closest precedents set by previous clubs. 1 contributor has put forward teams such as Chester & Halifax town. But it's important to recognise legal differences and intricacies within a reformation of a football club.

The greatest difference to be considered when establishing if Chester & Halifax set precedent for Rangers, is that there was no purchase of the OldCo or it's assets while the OldCo was in administration. These clubs were simply wound-up and then dissolved (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chester/8559704.stm). As a result, fans groups got together to create a 'pheonix' club, but from a legal standpoint could not use the same name, badge, or represent themselves as the OldCo.It is on this basis that Chester & Halifax should not be deemed appropraite precedent to Rangers due to the differing circumstances.

To find an accurate precedent when need to find a club that underwent Liquidation, after an Newco purchase, without ultimate dissolution. What is the difference between Liquidation & Dissolution? Well liquidation can be a part of the dissolution process but liquidation can take place without dissolution.

QUOTE: Liquidation Without Dissolution: The liquidation of a company does not require a formal dissolution. A company can go through the entire process of ceasing business operations, selling its assets and paying off creditors while not formally dissolving. A business may do this if it wants to keep the legal identity of a business for use in another venture. For example, the business may have a name with strong brand recognition that it wants to preserve or may simply want to reuse the current legal structure between the owners for a new venture. (SOURCE: ehow.com/info_8282875_differences-liquidation-dissolution.html )

The above would seem true to both Rangers, and Leeds United, who perhaps set the best precedent for Rangers. In both cases, a proposed CVA takeover failed and the clubs were sold to Newco's, the assets transferred over & the OldCo's placed into liquidation. Leeds United were placed into liquidation 6 years ago in 2006, but have never been formally dissolved (source: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00170600 "status: in liquidation"). This is the precedent that a business can "keep the legal identity for use in another venture" if it has paid off the OldCo's creditors via a NewCo purchase, with the proceeds of the purchase split between creditors.

Unlike Chester & Halifax, the purchase by Charles Greens consortium allows him to legally keep the identity of the old business, and the same method has allowed Ken Bates consortium to keep the legal identity of Leeds United. From a legal point of view, Chester and Halifax did not purchase the legal right to the identity of their old clubs, and the old clubs were subsequently dissolved. Therefore creating new clubs with similar names & new badges is what is considered to be 'pheonix' clubs, Rangers and Leeds are not.Ricky072 (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Good bit of research there well done. I have just been trying to read the details regarding Middlesbrough, now it has been mentioned above and Fishie says it was saved from liquidation at the last minute but from the article it sounds more like they simply managed to get the club registered for the next season under the new company in time, rather than stopping the liquidation. The Middlesbrough website says.. " Bruce Rioch takes over the helm as coach. A last day defeat at Shrewsbury sees Boro relegated to Division Three and the club goes into liquidation in July, suffering from massive debts. A consortium consisting of ICI, Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, Bulkhaul and Henry Moszkowicz saves the club and forms Middlesbrough Football and Athletic Company (1986) Ltd." Now i genuinely do not understand what the big difference is between this and the sort of situation facing rangers. the company goes into liquidation, a consortium steps in and saves the club which then applies to join the football league. Sounds similar.. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the coherent verifiable argument of Ricky072 presented above. Besides, from a neutral researchers point of view, when someone wishes to look up a team called Rangers FC on Wikipedia, which will be playing in Scottish football next season, the search engine will direct them to this page, so it must contain all of the Rangers' story to date and cannot therefore talk in the past tense because the team will still exist. We're talking about Wikpedia here, not an emotional argument. S2mhunter (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers(1872, Whyte owned) never kept their Legal Identity though, they are going to change their Legal name to "Rangers 2012 Ltd". So that Rangers(2012, Green owned) can then change their Legal name to "The Rangers Football Club". It's an above board way to keep the Original name of Rangers alive. If Rangers(1872, Whyte owned) entered Liquidation as "The Rangers Football Club" then that name wouldn't ever be able to be used again but since they're changing name at the death, then "The Rangers Football Club" is freed up for anyone to use but Green has obviously already applied for it for New Rangers.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That is another reason why this article should be about the football club that continues to exist, rather than a company controlled by Whyte that is changing its legal name to make way for the new company which is now in control of Rangers. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Superbhoy, the legal identity is not the name of the registered company. The legal identity is the brand identity & brand name. For example, Leeds CVA failed and was purchased by a Newco. The newco was simply entitled Leeds 2007 and purchased the club (or "business and assets" if you prefer) from Leeds United Association Football Club Limited (the). Newco Leeds later changed the company name Leeds United Football Club (the word "association" is dropped which was in the OldCo). All of this is irrelevent to the "legal identity". The "legal identity" of a football club is the club name (e.g Rangers F.C or Leeds United F.C). In theory, Rangers could legally operate under "Sevco 5088 ltd" but still be known as Rangers F.C, Celtic could trade under Pacific Shelf 595 and still be known as Celtic F.C. Arsenal operate under Arsenal Holding Plc, but are legally known as Arsenal F.C. Ricky072 (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No you have got mixed up there. The Legal name is the Official name, Celtic's is Celtic PLC, Rangers' is The Rangers Football Club PLC and New Rangers is Sevco Scotland Limited. However they play under trademarked names of Celtic FC and Celtic Football Club or just Celtic(although that cannot be trademarked) and Rangers FC and Rangers Football Club or just Rangers(Likewise, just Rangers cannot be trademarked). They are just names, Sevco Scotland have bought the trademarked names off of Rangers so that they can use them. But equally anyone could have bought those names, Aberdeen could have bought them and Aberdeen could have legally used the name Rangers FC and any new Rangers for example Green's New Rangers couldnt have used those names without Aberdeen's permission.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Clydebank FC present tense- Rangers past tense

"Clydebank Football Club is a Scottish football club based in the town of Clydebank, West Dunbartonshire, near Yoker."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clydebank_F.C. Why are Clydebank afforded this (correct) opening but Rangers are not? Ludicrous attempt by Celtic fans to erase history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welcomethechase (talk • contribs) 07:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Because Clydebank were Liquidated as a Football Club. Rangers have given up their right to be a Football Club, by losing it's licenses and selling off all of it's assets. Remember Rangers are still alive at the moment, they are technically still in Administration although they are not a Football Club any more.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The company that was incorporated in 1899 may have, but this is about the football club at was founded decades before the creation of the legal entity that is now in liquidation. This article is about the club not the company/legal entity. And that club is under the control of a new company, trading under the name The Rangers Football Club.BritishWatcher (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers are not a Football Club but have applied to play in the SFL? Clydebank have changed entity several times but are afforded present tense, Rangers are still at the same ground, employing football players but no longer exist? Incoherent rambling.

We used to have an ASDA store in my town, until it was bought by Tesco. Tesco continued to run the store with the same staff, in the same building - was it still an ASDA?

Rangers FC used to be a football club based in Ibrox Stadium. It went into liquidation and sold all its assets to another company. This other company wants to continue playing football in Ibrox Stadium with many of the same staff. Is it still Rangers FC?

If you are arguing that 'it is still Rangers FC', I suppose you also think my town still has an ASDA? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Did Tescos continue to operate the store they purchased under ASDA branding? In the way that The Rangers Football Club still clearly is using rangers logo, website etc? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And to answer your question. YES it is still the club, because the club existed before incorporation, and continues to exist today despite being controlled by a new legal entity. Again.. if this article is about a company rather than the club, why does it not even bother to say when the company was incorporated? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Brief response: the club became a company and that single club/company entity is being liquidated. Green's consortium bought the assets (not the club itself) to allow him to reform the club. Therefore, a successor club and appropriate that Wikipedia should has a seperate article for the old and the successor club as it does for other clubs that have been liquidated and been reformed. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Your example is irrelevant and so ridiculous it hardly warrants discussion. A football club is not a supermarket. Individual supermarkets (such as your town's ASDA) are not notable and do not have Wikipedia articles. Your one-size-fits all approach is patently not appropriate. Readers do not expect football club articles to read like company articles. Reliable sources do regard them in the same manner and report on a football club as a sporting entity, only referencing the corporate entity on occasion. This article, and club articles in Wikipedia, do not begin "Rangers FC is a sports and leisure company focussed on association football. Its main product is provision of football matches in association with Scottish Premier League PLC, under the 'Rangers' brand. It also has occasional interests in the European market. It conducts business at its premises in Ibrox and Murrayfield." --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, you have failed to prove that a club/company is a single entity & Green did not purchase the club, as a matter of fact. You must accept this is merely your point of view. Evidence to this comes from Statements from HMRC, Insolvency experts & RFC Administrators Duff&Phelps, and Liquidators BDO (soon to be appointed), all of whom have said that Charles Green purchased "the club". Ricky072 (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well if Charles Green purchased 'the club', he will be getting chased by HMRC becuse it has not paid its taxes! On a more serious note, what evidence would you accept that Rangers FC became a company in 1899? (Note - not, formed a company to own it.) I honestly don't believe that you will accept ant evidence that is produced that happens to disagree with your POV on this - and I'm sure you feel the same about me. I find this really depressing. I have been an editor for years and have always tried to use discussion to move towards consensus, but I just don't see consensus emerging here at all. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

HMRC statement clearly says liquidation does not stop the club being sold and says that the new company will not be liable for the clubs past debts.BritishWatcher (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, many clubs are bought during liquidation, and therefore saved from being liquidated. That is usually with an agreed CVA as part of the package. That didn't happen to Rangers FC. No-one came in to buy the club once it entered liquidation, and no-one now will because Green's consortium did a deal with D&F to buy the assets of the club for £5.5M as soon as it entered administration. Green's consortium is not liable for the club's past debt because he has not bought the club - just its assets. From a business point of view, what Green has done is brilliant: he has bought all the assets of the club without buying the club, thereby avoiding the need to deal with the debts of the club. However, the cost of his clear business deal is to effectively kill off the old club and reform it as a new club to carry on in its place - of course, he is doing his best to suggest otherwise and to suggest that 'he bought the club'. But he didn't - he would had had to pay a great deal more to buy the club as part of an agreed CVA so he took the route that allowed him to get the assets on the cheap. The losers in this are the genuine fans who see he was willing to allow their club to be killed off and reborn, because he makes more money that way. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion and is clearly disputed by a number of editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Prove any claim I am making untrue or challenge me to support any claim I have made, because everything I have said can be proved. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

When HMRC said.. " Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation. So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. " were they lying to people about liquidation impacting on the proposed sale of the club? And are you 100% sure that the proposed sale they are referencing is not relating to the sale to the Green consortium? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Concensus is unlikely but it should be noted that both sides of the arguement (wether Green purchased "the club" or not) cannot be proven as matter of fact, because the term 'club' is rather loosely applied and would seem to be open to interpretation. One could reasonably argue that the club is the assets. It's also been widely reported Green baught "the business & assets" which could also be argued that is the club. This arguement is supported by evidence from both HMRC & insolvency experts D&P and BDO, all of whom have said in statements it was the club that Charles Green purchased, which would back-up the opinion that what Charles Green purchased from the administrators constitutes "the club". One may argue however that a "club" is more than and cannot be defined by a "business and assets" (e.g it has a spirit or a soul, aswell as 'history' and an emotional connection with fans). All of these 'points of view' could be deemed acceptable as they all relate to the semantics of the word 'club'. The most important factors here is that there is an arguement that can be given and proven as a matter of fact. That fact is that Charles Green's consortium has purchased the legal right to identity of same 'Rangers Football Club', which is also true of Leeds, Napoli & Fiorentina, all of whom have at some point "purchased" the legal right to present themselves as the respective clubs, and more importantly, presented on Wikipedia as such (Same page but documented corporate history of insolvency leading to Newco's).Ricky072 (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If you read what else the HMRC said in thesame statement, you will see what they are saying here. They said "Rangers assets could now be sold, allowing it 'a fresh start'" - not 'the club could now be sold, but its assets. They concluded "Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox." - it did not say "ensuring that Rangers FC will continue at Ibrox" but 'football will continue.' It also said "Rangers can make a fresh start." Fresh start: the end of 140 years, and now a frech start. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

But in the previous sentence they say sale of the club.. So both the club and its assets could be sold to the new company. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ricky072. I agree the crucial point in this discussion is whether Green's consortium bought 'the club' or just 'the assets and business interests'. I disagree with you about the issue of proof. It is quite clear that Green's consortium offered £8.5M for 'the club' if part of a CVA, but that failing, offered £5.5M for 'the assets and business interests' - Green's own offer changed: what he was offering to buy was different. In the end he bought the 'assets and business interests' because he wouldn't buy the club without an agreed CVA. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

HMRC in tis case define the 'club' as the assets, which i mentioned above, is a reasonable 'point of view'. The firstly state that the sale of "the club" can take place "through a CVA or liquidation". They then say that the "sale is not being undermined" meaning that the sale maintains the same credibility through the liquidation route, as it would the CVA route, and that "the iquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club." The "fresh start" isa throw away comment is clearly in reference to the corporate entity having explained that the Newco is now free from toxic debt & potential future litigation. I'm sure you will accept that "charles green purchased the club" is an acceptable point of view (which cannot be proven 'wrong' as matter of fact) and can be backed up with sources including the said statement from HMRC, Duff&Phelps, BDO and various other media outlets. Ricky072 (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)