Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

For sandbox editors

Just a reminder that today is the day shareholders vote to change name of The Rangers Football Club PLC to RFC2012 PLC so that Sevco Scotland Ltd can simultaneously change its name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd.[1] BadSynergy (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

According to wikipedia Rangers are a Phoenix company

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidation I know certain people with an anti wikipedia agenda on this wont like it, but facts are facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.75.25 (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If your planning to post again please click new section instead of adding yourself at the top of the talk page. BadSynergy (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is IP, the club has already been sold to a new company... so the old company being liquidated makes little difference. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs said, Liquidation of the company would not prevent the sale of the club. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this class as spam? Ricky072 (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

nothing here i see as spam what bit do you ean?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A different tack

As a neutral, the whole debate seems to be mired in partisan and/or technical debates; and the fact the page has been frozen for some time - and is blatantly out of date - doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia as a reliable and current source. May I suggest looking at it instead from a user point of view? Speaking for myself, if I go looking for "Rangers FC" on Wikipedia, I'd expect to find the Scottish football club that goes by that name, and their history from their formation until now. Might be there's room for additional articles about the companies that owned Rangers, mind, but I'd guess Joe Public would expect to find one article with all the main content in. Or am I just some naive idealist? MisterVodka (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

ill try some it up, no, you have one set of editors who want it to say it the same club, you have another set of editor who want it to say its new club witha new aritcle which they have newco rangers the problem is the media refers to it as both, we are trying to geta comprise article that contain boths but you have eidtors on both sides not willing to accept the other side argument being the article so we have impossible sitution havinga article that is both same and new--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Andrew. I picked this up from the talk page, having visited the main page a couple of weeks back to see what was happening. My (optimistic) hope is to steer people away from the rules-lawyering and so on, and perhaps to get some consensus by reference to what Wikipedia is: a source of online information. To my mind, your hypothetical average (non-partisan) visitor will simply expect the Rangers FC page to tell them about the football club that goes by that name, and generally really not care about who owns/owned it... and if they do, then we can point them to separate pages about the businesses behind the FC. MisterVodka (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed MisterVodka, it seems that would be the logical way forward. Unfortunatly we have been in state of 'stalemate' for some time with some editors insistant on creating this 'break' of continuaty of the football club. The evidence is becoming more and more one-sided however and I can only see the end result being restoring Rangers FC page to 1, factual article, but probably in need of permanent protection.Ricky072 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the status quo reflects poorly on Wikipedia, and an updated article built on consensus is required sooner rather than later. A compromise is possible if overtly contentious language, such as "new club" and "new Rangers", is avoided in favour of consensus terms such as "relaunched", which implies the "new", but also recognises continuance of identity.Gefetane (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

as ricky has said some editors will n0ot accept that, they say it is new club but the problem is wikipedia is about ferabilty reliable sources and unfortnalyl those reliable soruces say new club, say same club and say same club and ewn club in the same paragraph ther eno way to sort it out, the argument is abotu who owns it, it is whether the club was the company, the disptue centers around that completely is the club the company or is the club a assesst--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's engage these editors and discuss what makes a better online encyclopedia. Which is surely what we're all about. MisterVodka (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

i wish it was that easy, unless you udnerstand scottish football and what rangers and celtic are to other team and to each other oyu wont be able to do it, this is against wikipedia assume good faith but oppsing fans are not willing to accept one article because they want to mock rangers fans to say its new club, ranger fans are not willing to accep tther eclub might have died and are not willing to accept two articles it impossible they wont luisten we are workign on a way to try do it but it taking time--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that - despite being south of the border - but I'm trying to put some fresh impetus into it by assuming good faith - we ARE all working toward a better online encyclopedia, yeah? - and coming at it from a different angle... more in hope than expectation, mind. MisterVodka (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

if it works i congratulate you i realyl dnt think it will i have tried something similar, above there a consensus above tha tit is the same club so adding weight tha tit should be one article i propused we merge the newco article and at the moment ther eno consensus to do it , have a look on Talk:Newco Rangers and the merge i suggested and see the type of response and you will see your idea is unliekly to work but please give it a go--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is even the reliable sources that say newco or new club etc, also treat rangers as the same club contradicting them. Everyone is agreed above that there were reliable sources saying this is the same club, i suspect if we asked a similar straw poll on if there were reliable sources saying this is a different club, there would be no consensus. The article could mention that some dispute if its the same club, although that is a fringe view when you look at how the SFL treat this club, which shows it has the same history. Totally agree with MisterVodka, that this article should be about the club.. not the company which owns it. For example, at present nowhere in this article days it say the old company was formed in 1899.. showing how insignificant the company compared to the club in terms of what the article is about. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So, bringing it back: would anyone like to put the case that: a) Average, non-partisan, users wouldn't expect the Rangers FC article to include the history of any and all clubs (regardless of ownership) of that name in Scottish Football? b) Mention in the article of ownership/continuity controversies, with links to appropriate articles about the various owners, wouldn't allow those with a more business-inclined interest to easily find what they want? c) Either of the above would conflict with either Wikipedia's policies or its fundamental purpose as an online encyclopedia? MisterVodka (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed MisterVodka. In fact I suggested approximately the same thing some weeks ago whereby a neutral researcher would expect to find the story of the history about a team called Rangers in Wikipedia on the same page. In that sense, Wikipedia should be abstract to the whole club/company discussion. Stating "Relaunched 2012" in the right hand side box and referring out to a story about the more detailed liquidation page should work but... S2mhunter (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

All very encouraging, but strange that nobody from the contrary viewpoint has aired their opinion in this context... MisterVodka (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Same sanctions yet different club you say?

I've made this point a few times in talks and it's never really got an answer. Punishments, any future punishments and debts to football clubs including those around Europe (remember football identity is the big issue) all belonging to 'oldco' have been given to 'newco'. I feel this is a fairly key point to the discussion that gets lost with people pointing out how a journalist has worded an article, and in particular with this case the sources vary. I realise wikipedia policy is to look at these sources but I cannot believe that justifies ignoring something as big as this. The question i've tried asking to those all for there being a totally new club: is there any type of precedent in football at all where a totally newly formed club has been given baggage from a totally unrelated club? Unless i'm very mistaken I think we all know the answer is no, it's never happened because a new club is a new club and that would just be like me getting a jail sentence but deciding to pass it on to someone else because they'd agreed. Saying it's just to do with the SFA membership is no proper answer either, when something such as the registration ban is given out it is not given to the SFA membership, Rangers Football Club were given it. Ditto, the SFA membership belonging to Rangers does not owe money to Hearts, Dundee Utd, Rapid Vienna, St Etienne etc, Rangers Football Club does. Those football debts pretty much retain football history, the registration ban for Craig Whyte's wrongdoings retains disciplinary history from the football governing body, so therefore I cannot see how there is any break in Rangers' overall history either. Sparhelda 04:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that Rangers has new and old about it - the new is the limited company (which some choose to call the "club"), the old is the brand, the traditions and history, and the fundamental assets.

My motivation lies with restoring one all-encompassing Rangers wikipedia article, and righting the wrongs of the outrageous edits that implied Rangers FC no longer existed. In order to achieve this, a version that is supported by broad consensus, and is robust against future 'attacks' by the "Rangers are dead" crowd, is essential.

Personally I think, thanks in no small part to the efforts of AndrewCrawford and Fishiehelper, whose positions have been in opposition on this matter more often than not, we are very close to achieving such a version in the Sandbox, hopefully to come live at the earliest opportunity.Gefetane (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

sandbox 2

ok now that we are getting somewhere something we also need to show this is a article on liquidation of rangers fc but i have been thinking maybe call it The collapse and Liquidation of Rangers F.C. note no plc in the title but the article name we can decide later so here is Talk:Rangers F.C./sandbox2 use this to create the article we make on liquidation.

i propose that the article covers from david murray time on big spending in the 90, then the use of the ebt which resulted in tax dispute with hmrc, then bank role in selling the club to craig whyte, then craig whyte actions leading up to administration, the administration period including the wage cuts and the bidding process and failed bids etc, rejection of the cva and the liquidation, the final charles green takeover with newco route and opposition--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Leeds United Football Club Limited and Middlesbrough: Survival from Liquidation are too existing models for supplementary articles detailing the chronology of oldco/liquidation/newco scenarios similar to Rangers.Gefetane (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The nam,e doesnt matter jsut now but makign the sanbox version does, edit the above one to make one this--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by the club

New statement by the club in the past hour about name changes. [2] BritishWatcher (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"As every fan knows, Rangers is Rangers - it always has been and it always will be. The Club still has its 140 years of history and we are now embarking on the next 140 years. We are back playing football and the Board is focused on rebuilding this great Club over the next few years." ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 13:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

bald zebra as a admin i would have tohught you know the wikipeid apolicie better than even me, but tha tis primary source and charles green has conflict of interest he not goign to prompt it as a new club even if it is, im not saying it is or isnt. if a 3rd party reliable source says it then we have more justicaiton to say it hsould be one article, but we will have to meantion things that i have on teh sandbox because reliable sources also state it as a new club we cant ignore that--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The important thing from this is the full name switch has now been agreed, although the fact the owner, manager, media and fans all see it as the same club still highlights that is the reality. and as we have all debated previously, many of these source that say new club or newco, still go and see it as the same football club with a history. I have yet to see any reliable sources explicitly stating Rangers FC is a an entirely different club with no contradictions or blatant biases. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

the problem is can you rpve there is bias? not saying your wrong i say ther ebias on both sides in scotland but the argument could be the ones that say it the same club in the news are bias to rangers so it not quite simple, yes it is importan tbaout the name hange but not respect to the article since we have been arguing the company shouldbt be part of it other than to meantion asset bought by them from the old--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Bias or not, Green would be risking legal action if it is a totally new club. Sparhelda 13:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Or should be considering legal action against the old company if he has bought what he thought was a football club, but turns out he didnt get it after all. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I can prove that there are contradictions with almost every source saying newco or new club also having something that clearly treats rangers as the same company. The only explicit source saying the club is not the same ive seen recently is that law blog, which someone else noticed there was a praise of Celtic post previously which did at least cast in doubt the neutrality of that a bit. And yes this article is about the club, it just needs to have brief references to the old and new company names etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

i was goign to counter yoru argumetns with the new club camp arguments but i rather we get back on topic cn you reply to teh chang ei have made on sandboc britiswatcher again i ask all concerned to review it and decide if you agree or disagree and if you disagre say what wrong and we can look to fix it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It is generally the principle as far as naming goes that the primary source's wishes are paramount. The Rangers Football Club Limited can call their club anything they please, and it is not in Wikipedia's power to say "We shall not do that, because we know better." As it happens, they wish to call the club "Rangers" (as they do in the above statement). And generally speaking sources are doing the same. End of discussion. Various Wikipedia editors can discuss and analyse the pros and cons, the whys and wherefores, the rights and wrongs, until the end of time if they wish. But that's how it is. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Another section of the same

Hello Regarding the Rangers fc page,the club is now defunct and should be altered to reflect this.The cessation date of the company should be displayed on the page after the company as now been liquidated and the registered company name has been changed http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11781/7952714/Rangers-owners-change-name.With having two rangers fc names the old one simply must been shown to acknowledge the recent changes that the old rangers officially defunct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allen231 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers Football club still exists, it is merely the corporation that has changed. This article does not even state when the corporation was formed, showing this is about the football club, not a company incorporated decades later. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for the primary sources.. RFC 2012 PLC which is in administration and being liquidated. The Rangers Football Club Limited which owns and runs Rangers Football Club which will play in division 3 in a few days time. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers fc page is not updated then the Liquidation page must also be updated.defination of Liquidation (or "winding up") is a process by which a company’s existence is brought to an end.Rangers fc was liquidated not the parent company owned by Murray and whyte.The club does not exist in its own right,the company The Rangers Football Club Ltd bought the assets of Ibrox and Murray Park off the HRC and now play in the third level of Scottish football.Glasgow Rangers Fc does not exist anymore and thats official,the Green consortium is void from the original Glasgow Rangers and the only links among the two organizations are that the previous tenants also used Ibrox and Murray park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allen231 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as there is no such club as Glasgow Rangers leads me to believe you don't have full grasp of the facts here. Rangers FC does indeed exist and it is not wikipedia policy for us to declare it dead or alive. We relay what the sources say and that is currently ongoing on the sandbox. BadSynergy (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

more spam, can we delete posts on talk pages that rehash the same points debated for over a month now? Ricky072 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can delete it, but it would help everyone if new contributors to the conversation read some (I wouldn't ask my worse enemy to read it all) of the acres of text written previously before going back over the same old original research yet again. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Stewart Regan

I think the CEO of the SFA makes the sitution very clear here [3]:"The share of the CLUB transfers across from oldco." Sparhelda 16:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes very clear! He refused to answer whether Rangers was the same club and said it was for other's to debate! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You see what I quoted. Sparhelda 17:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

He clearly sees it as the same club, he simply says there will always be opinions and that is for others to debate. Also in that interview there was the point about potential stripping of titles because of the tribunal, now who is going to be representing "the club" in such things.. will it be the liquidators of the RFC 2012 PLC, or as clearly will be the case, The Rangers Football Club Limited who own the club, its share in the SFA, the stadium, website, brand, and have the same fans? It is so blindingly obvious, WP:DUCK really does come to mind. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, he basically says that people will always have their own POV whatever he or anyone else says. Sparhelda 18:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a transcript of that interview would be useful - he clearly and repeatedly refused to answer whether it was the same club. There is no doubt that the new company has managed to get the club's membership of the SFA from the old company, but that doesn't make it the same club! Anyway, we've been round this many times before. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The sanctions and debts do mean it is the same club, like I've said many times it isn't the membership that owes money or is given punishment. Sparhelda 23:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So if a mate of mine dies and I go to my local golf club and ask if I can have his membership rather than just apply for new membership and am told they will allow that if I agree to pay a sum he owed and accept a punishment he had coming... that means that I become my mate! No accepting a previous clubs debts and punishments in order to obtain their membership does not mean that club becomes the previous club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Something like a membership fee is very different considering that is actually for the membership. Rangers' football debts are from transfer and ticket transactions with other clubs, the sanctions are due to wrongdoings from the previous owners, sanctions given to the club. Sparhelda 00:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Kris Boyd

Anyone interested in improving this article. It is the only Rangers player at GA but clearly doesn't meet the criteria anymore. If anyone's interested in improving it I left some notes on the talk page but I will de-list it soon otherwise. Adam4267 (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

FIFA laws regard 'Newco Rangers' as a new club

Ah Ok,I cant fathom what's going on here in regard to the football club Rangers FC still not being dead despite being liquidated, heres a link, this is seriously the only way the club can still be here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_of_the_evil_dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.181.18 (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC) What is quite clear in all of this is that the world governing body (FIFA) regards 'Newco Rangers' as a new football club. Hence 'Newco Rangers' cannot compete in European competition for the first three years of their existance. FIFA and UEFA rules require that any club wishing to participate in FIFA or UEFA competitions must be in existance for three years in order to obtain the relevant UEFA licence. The test of the 'three years in existance' rule is wether or not a club can provide three years of accounts and as 'Newco Rangers' cannot provide these they are in fact a new club. This is why 'Newco Rangers' did not inherit the UEFA Chamions League qualification place that Rangers won through finishing second in the SPL in the 2011-12 season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.33.233 (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

go read the rulesa bit more you will find the company has to have 3 season worth of finaces hence why when last season audiot wher enot submit they where ban from europe for one year even if they have got a cva. its to do with teh company accoutn not the clubAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Andrew, do you support Rangers by any chance? I say that because if you are you may be breaching wikis impartiality,If you say your not Ill believe you,but some of the links yourve put up seem to be from just Rangers fans saying it and not from impartial so obviously youll understand the concern of the wiki editor.

Andrew can you post up evidence as to what you say as all I can see from UEFA is that a new club(UEFA specialise in Football BTW)cannot compete in European football for three years and whilst your at it please find a UEFA statement that identifies the defunct deceased dead Rangers as being the same as Sevco 5088 ???????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.75.25 (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2012‎ (UTC)

In that case, the SFL & SFA see Rangers as the same club. They also have rules that "new clubs" must start at the very bottom of the football pyramid. If Rangers were a 'new club' entirely, they would not be admitted straight into the SFL division 3. But they are not a new club, they are just like Leeds & Charlton. Operating under a new company. Ricky072 (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If and when we get hundreds of sources for Newco Charlton and Newco Leeds I'm sure Wikipedia articles will spring up for them too. 20:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Many if not most of those hundreds of articles about newco Rangers carry the 'same club, new company' undertones that you see in this recent FIFA article: http://touch.fifa.com/worldfootball/clubfootball/news/newsid=1672478.html?cid=rssfeed&att= . For the record, I think the argument is strong either way, but the idea that 'Newco Rangers' always means 'New Rangers' is false. The articles that want to refer to Rangers as a new club do so more explicitly than by just mentioning the new company running the show, which everyone here recognizes. PS- this is not to devalue your important point about FIFA laws above. LittleEdwyn (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Small point Ricky072: you say "They also have rules that "new clubs" must start at the very bottom of the football pyramid. If Rangers were a 'new club' entirely, they would not be admitted straight into the SFL division 3". Division 3 is the 'very bottom of the football pyramid' as there is no promotion/relegation linkage below that. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox version

Ok first of i am asking main parties invovled in this do you think the sandbox now reflects rangers fc as one article that reflects what sources say that it is new club and the same club, but not taking sides.

Reply with either Agree or Diagree

this is not a vote nor is it trying to gain consensus i am merely tryign to see if the sandbox version says whatever one wants it to say but still gets the poitns across if you disagree in fact even agree if there still some things you dnt think right please post them so we can then look to sor tthese out, once done we can move to getting the liqudiaiton aritcle done, i think this is crucically as we need that ready to go when we put whatever version we use live, but we will have to invite other users to debate on teh sandbox after we agree a version , any who do not provide a good enough reason for it not being one article considering this version is describing it as a new club and same club could potential be reported for being disruptive--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Close to agreeing- I still believe it would be better for us to address the whole recent developments with the old/new company etc in a separate 2nd or 3rd paragraph of the introduction, rather than in the first. However im close to agreeing with the current intro except this line " The club was relaunched in 2012 after the previous incarnation entered liquidation on 14th June". "previous incarnation" is rather problematic. that should be changed to incorporated company or something along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

ok i have changed incaration to " oldco (Rangers in Administration(reference goes here)) " does that seem better as people refering to the new rangers say newco and refer to the old one as oldco so anyone should know that is old company and by referencing rangers in administration oldco we are not syaing the club is alive or dead, im happy to work on another way jsut this is my first though on changing it, ill need to look at how we can move the inforamtion about so ill get back to you on that one--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

as for the liqudiation look above this post for sandbox 2 i am hopign we can create that artilce to--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks that is certainly better, but still more room for clarification i think with it sort of being in reverse order by saying relaunched after oldco problems. Im working on a suggestion now which ill post here, im not fixed on the wording but its to give an alternative approach that tries to provide more information within the intro about the developments. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I will support the method in the sandbox version, although i have done an example of an alternative introduction trying to go into a little more detail with a paragraph on the situation rather than simply a couple of sentences. This issue is clearly going to be relevant for some time, so a paragraph on a reasonably short introduction does not seem too much. But id rather the sandbox version be implemented if it can be agreed seen as it is far more up to date and accurate than the current version. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

i will loook at it, just to clarify if we can get teh sandbox version where we all agree we can put this live but the mergin of newco will require more work and consensus on that article, but if we have the consensus on this article it makes that a little easier to do, as i say ill look at your page and see if it can be added, it probally can might need tweking i wont know until i have looked it which i wont do until later busy watching the weightlifting--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agree - It's better than the current status quo of having two articles that are going to be similar to each other. BadSynergy (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agree - The article is now quite clear about the facts of administration, liquidation, relaunching under Sevco, etc, as well as referencing the identity dispute in an appropriate section. :

Once a sentence is included to reflect the name change from Sevco to The Rangers Football Club Ltd, then we should work towards getting the article live as soon as possible, adjusting the newco article, and bringing this whole mess to a satisfactory conclusion. Gefetane (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

it wont be that easy, we have to thn present this to the merger discussion on newco and convivnence the disagree to change to agree so there a consensus to merge otherwise we will still have to article, but this ia big step forward and if we dnt get ehconsensus we have other avenues like potential topic bans or goign full flow with teh request for ocmemnt then mediaiton and final arbcom who would overurle everyone, but we are mouch closer to get it as one article than we have been in over 6 weeks--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agree - It's certainly better to be getting on with than this farce with two articles. Sparhelda 16:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree at the moment - the version is presently largely written in a way that supports that 'same club' outlook, and I don't know how to make it more neutral in ways that would be still acceptable to the 'same club' editors. For example, the infobox speaks about being in the SPL last season (a 'same club' belief); the honours and records sections look as though 'same club' etc. However, if I were to put subheadings like '1872-2012' or whatever, I'm convinced it would be reverted. Maybe I'll try just to see... Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Agree - It's better than what is in the present article. Should sources in future indicate there should be a split then it can be addressed in the future. Presently they do not, though it's probably too early to say. Too many people here are wanting it their way or no way, when it's impossible to make any definite case yet. Time to move on and improve the article with what is verifiable from sources now. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to undo edits or make additional changes to that sandbox version to avoid getting into an edit war. But i strongly oppose some of the recent changes that have been made which fundamentally change the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC) "Originally formed in 1872, the club entered liquidation in 2012 but was immediately relaunched." - being the big problem. A company which owned rangers is going to be liquidated... but the club and assets have already been sold to a new company. It is there for incorrect to say the club entered liquidated and was immediately relaunched. RFC 2012 PLC which is in administration and going to be liquidated.. no longer owns this club. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

dnt worry ther eno edit warring ont eh sandbox its not live aritcle, it is a verson for us to work to agreement on im happy to do most of the changes and get version you all agree on, i will need to think how this can be worded, which isnt easy fo rme i am dsylexic and very badly english i really am poor at but ill think how to word it, that will convey both agruments which will be near impossible but ill try--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I take Britishwatcher's point and have changed my edit to "Originally formed in 1872, the club entered the liquidation process in 2012 but was immediately relaunched." I assume that is now acceptable because even if 'the club' was sold to Sevco, it would happened after the CVA had been rejected - therefore after the liquidation process had been entered. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Still cannot support that sorry. The club was originally formed in 1872, but the company which entered the liquidation process was only incorporated in 1899. That is notable. The Club not going to be liquidated, only the old company. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Why was the following sentence changed: "Formed in 1872, the club was relaunched in 2012 after entering liquidation"?? Fishiehelper stated a 'rewording', but did not give a reason.Gefetane (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll give a reason here: it makes more sense to put events in chronological order. Formed, entered liquidation process, relaunched. Why is that controversial? The argument about 'it was the company getting liquidated is irrelevant since everyone agrees that the club had not been sold at the time the CVA was rejected. Only after that event was the club relaunched, so I can't understand why editors should find this difficult to support. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You have legitimately introduced "the club entered the liquidation process", but this has aroused an "it was the company not the club..." type complaint (not from me I might add). Even if this protest is unjustified, if it is another little hurdle to consensus then why bother - unless you have another reason besides the one you state - as the previous sentence made perfect sense: "Formed in X, Relaunched in Y, reason for Y."Gefetane (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is how this sentence then relates to the following sentence. I am trying to link the sentences to make clear that the application to the SPL was consequential to the relaunch. I'll try to think of some other means of linking the sentences more clearly. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth, whilst i would prefer the introduction to make reference to company in 1899 before mentioning the liquidation/relaunched. I would support the current wording in the sandbox introduction, It is certainly better than the out of date previous article. But i cant see a couple of editors insistent on the articles remaining separate accepting any of this proposal so mediation would at least allow us to try and clear the whole issue up. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

When will the sandbox Rangers FC article go live?

The current situation is unacceptable. A high profile football club, now playing week in week out, does not have an all-encompassing article that is functioning and up-to-date. This situation has been the case for far too long, and needs rectifying with a degree of urgency, as the persistence of the current outdated content is, in my opinion, an embarrassment for Wikipedia.

The Rangers FC sandbox article is by no means perfect, and there are still some minor changes being discussed, but fundamentally it represents our best efforts to create an article, as neutral as is plausible (within a football club page) regarding the question of same/new club, that takes into account the facts of the whole saga - administration/liquidation/oldcos/newcos: it's all there. I accept that "both sides" still have reservations, but unless one incorrectly assumes a version will be created that satisfies every individual 100%, sooner or later these have to be placed to one side.

Can we please establish how close we are to getting this article live, and what needs to be formally done to bring that collective goal closer.

The time for spiralling around the same dispute has surely come to an end, and satisfying the demand for a product that restores the credibility of Wikipedia, and ends the current embarrassing impasse, should be at the forefront of our minds.

Where are we, and how do we move forward?Gefetane (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Don't forget that if/when you do move the sandbox live, it will need to be history merged with the existing article to preserve the attribution history, for which you'll need an admin. If you drop a note on my talkpage I'll do it, if I'm not around you can ask at WP:AN. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume that to make the sandbox 'go live', what we are effectively asking for is a massive edit request - that the Sandbox version replaces the current Rangers FC version. For an admin to grant that edit request, we would have to establish that there was consensus for that edit request. I would suggest that is the next step. If consensus for the proposed version can not be achieved, then we will be trapped waiting for the dispute resolution procedure to determine the way forward. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not you consider it 100% perfect, the preferablity of the updated version over the outdated relic currently active seems to be a bit of no-brainer. How in theory can consensus for the required edit request be demonstrated sufficiently? Another straw poll?Gefetane (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

ok i have made some changes can both sides review pleaseAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Even those still proposing an article split into oldco/newco must see the sandbox version as an updared improvement, whatever your preference. And once the new season starts we will have a whole bunch of new reliable sources getting published that should establish, beyond doubt, whether the club is regarded as new, or a 'relaunch', or whatever. In the meantime can we move forward with what we do have? Do we really need another poll to drag it out? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

you know full well we cant just put it live if we are goign to do this we need ot do it by the book and fishierhelper need sot agree being on teh oppisite side as just now his opposition means no consensus do we really want to be like superbhoy?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

please take this into consideriation, over time if sources esicpally fifa who the new club camp says are the mos timprotant regard ranges as the same liek the sfl is doign with lisitng it history of from 1872 to now and if they win the 3rd diviosn add tha tot the history then we can alter it to be all in one for now the sources are sitll unclear so you have to comprose a abit it not goign to hurt the article to say 1872-2012 but it saying to the new club camp that lok we aint saying its anew club we aint saying it is but here is the one aritlce with it displaying the old stuff as serperrate to the relauinched club for now--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with adopting the sandbox version. I've been following the edits in the sandbox though I haven't bothered to contribute (as I think it is a waste of time) and it is clear that some editors idea of a compromise aticle means that any suggestion that the new Rangers could be anything other than a continuation of the same club has to be removed. Yet the sandbox version still has all the history set out as though it was all the same club! A genuine compromise article should be set out clearly with different sections for pre-liquidation and post liquidation or it just being presented as the same club. As things stand I am against the sandbox version and believe that the only way forward is to have two separate articles with one for the old rangers and one for the new Rangers. I appreciate that some editors like Fishie and Andrewcrawford have been trying to build a consensus article but there clearly is no consensus on how a single article can be written that does not favour the same club over the new club side. Therefore, I oppose the sandbox version as a way forward. I think I'll maybe go and produce a sandbox version for the newco Rangers article instead ready with all the updates for when protection is eventually lifted from that article. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

protection will not be lifted whilst this dispute is sitll on goign i am afraid we are heading toa request for comment and eventally arbcom--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As I have previously mentioned, sub-dividing the history section implies that there is no continuation of history, which is not only unjustified by consensus or sources, but is also guaranteed not to be accepted by one half of this dispute, including myself. Let's be pragmatic - this simply is not a problem for now, only if/when Rangers win another trophy does the debate about "is this added to their historical tally" become relevant. Then, we consult the sources and act accordingly. Prior to that eventuality, and mindful of the need to get this article approved and live asap, venturing into this no mans land is incendiary, and unnecessary. I hope you agree we should not derail the progress made so far if it can be avoided, which in this case it can.Gefetane (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What you seem to want is for the new club side to agree to a single article and trust that it won't then be changed to put across the same club viewpoint? From what I have seen happening in the sandbox, there is zero chance of a compromise article surviving in any pre-agreed form. It is therefore not a basis to move forward. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I still cannot support the current wording which fails to mention it was a company incorporated in 1899 that is going into liquidation, not the club which has already been sold to a new company. "Formed in 1872, Rangers were relaunched in 2012 after entering liquidation" is problematic. Personally i still believe an approach like this with a full paragraph explaining what has happened would be clearer. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

ok i am sic tired of this argument, i am goign to rewrite this to include both sides, i will put cite in wiht using quoite to quote the source in excately what they say to show that the plc is considered liquidtion and the club si considered liqudiated if nither side can accept that then the sandbox is a failure and the request for comment will have to go live and protection extend for a few months--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Britishwatcher makes my case entirely! You want a compromise article to say that "the club and assets were sold to Sevco Scotland Limited" when we all know that the club itself could not be sold without an agreed CVA as the debts were massive! You also want to say applied to be re-admitted into the SPL - that could only mean it was the same club! There is therefore no chance of a compromise article being agreed. This will have to go all the way to dispute resolution, or remove protection from both articles and be prepared for all out edit warring. Not good, but genuine willingness to seek compromise is not widespread enough to make this work. Andrewcrawford - you might as well give up. You've tried your best but too many partisan editors make your task impossible. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So why are there sources saying the club was sold? Why did Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs say liquidation of the company would not prevent sale of the club? It is the same club, the consensus agreed above showed unanimous agreement that sources said it was the same club. Try asking if people agree that sources say its a different club. I think you will find no such consensus. It is a blatantWP:FRINGE view that these are separate clubs, and as such must not be given WP:UNDUE weight. Whilst there are certainly sources using terms like "new club" or "new rangers" or "newco rangers".. within those articles or within other articles of the same news source, they clearly treat rangers as the same football club. The Scottish Football league website clearly does stating the div 3 team was founded in 1873. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You are reinventing history as well as being blinkered to reality! There was no consensus that this is the same club - there was consensus that sources described it as the same club becuase that happens to be true. What you refuse to accept is that sources also clearly state the view that it is a new club and not the same Rangers as before. There is therefore NO consensus that wikipedia should treat Rangers post-relaunch as the same club. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am reinventing history? Name any bit of that paragraph i linked to which is inaccurate and ill provide sources backing it up.. Again please answer my question... If the SFL show it as the same club, if HMRC say its the same club how it is not the same club? And how does the SPL intend to strip titles from this club if it is a different club? Its absolutely barmy. I accept its a new legal entity, i accept sources have used terms like "new club". I do not accept there are reliable sources saying there are two separate clubs, they are the same. There is consensus that sources say it is the same club, there is no consensus that sources say its a different club. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Spiritofstgeroge, other examples of oldco/newco football clubs on wikipedia, a few being Charlton, Leeds, Luton, Middlesbrough, Livingston, Fiorentina, Napoli, all have one page per club. That is because, regardless of technical interpretations of whether they are "new" clubs or not, the continuation in identity entailed by retention of name, colours, stadium, supporters, brand name, etc... is sufficient cause for collating all information in one place. Your pessimism regarding the "impossibility" of arriving at one consensus article that reflects the dispute regarding identity, but retains the continuity between Rangers (2011-12) and Rangers (2012-13), is unwarranted. Indeed excellent progress has been made so far, and there is no reason to think further progress will not be made, providing users do not share your unjustified dismissal of the 'one page' notion.Gefetane (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus whatsoever for this. Two AfDs at Newco Rangers failed fair and square and this is yet another attempt to bring about the same result. I am considering starting a Newco Rangers sandbox so we can continue to give the new club the coverage it deserves and stop all this timewasting. A single sentence along the lines of "Supporters and owners of the new club feel strongly that it is a continuation of the liquidated club" is all that is needed. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why the SFL view it as the same club? We have to go with what sources say, not what a few editors want. there have been major developments since the last AFD closed, and that second article may be better transformed into a general article on the recent situation or strictly about the the company that owns this club. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What happened to Halifax Town A.F.C. and F.C. Halifax Town is very similar to what happened with Rangers FC. and they still just call themselves 'Halifax Town'. However, they are quite happy to admit they have a new club to replace the old one. But Rangers is different - it is too big to be treated like that! Forget the fact that the media refer to it as being a new club - as long as Green pushes the view that Rangers is still Rangers, and those with a commercial interest in perpetuating that idea (like the SFL) go along with it, then business as usual! Oh and let's forget about the fact that Regan refused to answer whether Rangers were the same club - he dare not say!

This article should be about the Rangers FC up to it entering liquidation (which the club and company did prior to Green buying the assets) and the Newco Rangers article should be about the Rangers FC going forward. Of course, Rangers fans will not accept this because they believe what they are told by Green! Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So are people not meant to believe what they are told by impartial governing bodies such as the SFL, why should they be dismissed? Also, how is this like Halifax and not like Leeds? Sparhelda 13:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your flawed position. I suggest you also start Assumig Good Faith too rather than just branding this about rangers fans preventing something. The facts speak for themself, and you like some other editors on here refuse to respond to some of the key points when challenged. Such as the SFL clearly treating this as the same club, such as who are they stripping trophies from, such as why HMRC said the club sale could go ahead despite liquidation of the company, such as how this club existed between 1873 and 1899 if company / club are the same thing. Are the SFL and HMRC all just rangers fans who have infiltrated positions there? And which rangers fans do you mean if you honestly believe these are two separate clubs because its a little confusing. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

When will they be paying back the £134m they stole from the UK taxpayer then? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well rangers will be paying back some of the clubs debts to other teams, and its accepted the clubs sanctions despite it dating back to before the new company was formed. Her Majesty's Customs and Revenue issued a statement saying liquidation was the best route to allow them to get money back for the taxpayer from the people responsible, but that it would not prevent the sale of the club.. something that has since happened. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Britishwatcher - read my post! I did respond to the point you made about the SFL. I said "and those with a commercial interest in perpetuating that idea (like the SFL)". You may not like the answer but I did not ignore the point you made. As for 'assuming good faith', is it surpising that I have doubts over the impartiality of a number of editors have only ever edited Rangers related articles? As for you, I notice that you make great play of 'Long live the United Kingdom' and 'God save the Queen' beside a huge union jack. Be straight with us all - are you a Rangers support by any chance? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So you accept that the SFL view this as the same club, they just do this for commercial interests. What their motives are is irrelevant, the key point is its the same club which is backed up by the sources and which makes your position a fringe view. I have doubts over a number of editors arguing that these are separate clubs, but we must try to assume good faith and go by what the sources say. You ask me to be straight with people, my user page and name is entirely open and clear about my main personal views, something i have never hidden. Im not really a football fan, especially Scottish football, but i certainly support the patriotism of the fans of this club towards the nation and because of that i know there will be the usual anti British bias that exists across wikipedia. The disgraceful article version locked in place last month without consensus being yet another example. That is what makes this article of interest to me. Our personal views are irrelevant though which is why i mentioned AGF, it does not matter if people are fans of the club or fans of its opponent. Its what the sources say. If the SFL, SFA, the media and everyone else viewed and treated this club as a different club, i would not be here now arguing about it. People have opinions, and i will openly state my opinions on talkpages, but i do not add unsourced bias information to articles and have removed bias material bias against celtic football club in recent weeks too. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do debts due to other teams belong to the club not the company? But the tax liabilities belong to the old company not the club? Sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it. No wonder most reliable sources aren't buying the official line. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The new company had to accept the debts to other football clubs, and the past punishment like the transfer ban in order to get membership of the SFA transferred over. The new company was not automatically liable to accept those past debts, but if they didnt... they would not have been allowed to play football. You claim most reliable sources are not buying the "official line". Give me some sources saying there are two separate football clubs and that the club that will play in div 3 does not hve rangers history/trophies etc? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Again? We could start by looking at the newspapers from the day after the CVA was blocked: [4] Clavdia chauchat (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet on the day the CVA was rejected Green Consortium Buys Rangers Football Club and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 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. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

'Stole from the UK taxpayer' when a huge chunk of that isn't even decided yet by a tribunal. Clavdia you clearly have something against Rangers as much as some editors may have bias towards Rangers. Sparhelda 14:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

converting to cite in sandbox

since we are trying to create one article and we are relying ont eh sources to confirm what we are syaing i suggest we convert all sources to cite new cite web etc, and then use the paramete quote to quot ethe text that will be cruically to the argument--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

SFL website changed

Thought it was worth pointing out 'The Rangers FC' has been changed to simply Rangers with the founding date and history in tact. [5] Sparhelda 12:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted. Also i note this recent news story on the SFL website. [6] which says " The clubs have met 8 times in Cup ties in the Scottish, League and Dryborough competitions with Berwick famously winning 1-0 in 1967, Rangers winning 6 games and a January 2002 match drawn." - How on earth did a company that has existed for just a month or two managed to play 8 cup ties, and drawn in a match in 2002. Is Charles Green the new Doctor Who? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Good spot there as well. This is all starting to become blatant. Sparhelda 12:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So the "different club, different article" proponents want us to believe that media hacks using terms like "new Rangers" and "new club" counter balances the website of the Scottish Football League - the very governing body to which the club is affiliated - associating the history of post-1872 Rangers to... oddly enough, "Rangers". I simply do not find that degree of faith in the Scottish media, whose track record in reporting facts during this whole saga is not exactly commendable, in the least bit convincing.Gefetane (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, if you feel "the media" is against you, sorry, but tough luck. These are the mainstream sources we'll be reflecting on Wikipedia, not trying to put our own spin on primary sources. Craig Whyte had all the Rangers fans onside with the same sort of crude dog-whistling now being employed by Green. As well as being Walter Mitty characters, both men have demonstrably and citably talked total nonsense in the pursuit of lining their own pockets. We are not here to uncritically parrot them, but to reflect as neutrally and objectively as possible what independent mainstream sources say about the issues. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally missing out how these mainstream sources vary again. Sparhelda 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be premature to act on one primary source's lead, however reliable. But what this does do is hit the reset button on the point at which secondary sources should be considered current. If in the coming days the balance of media sources swings towards one club, then we will have the clarity we're after. —WFC— 14:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Media sources are not going to tell us much more than they have already done in their reporting of ther events this summer. We all expect the media to start referring to the new club as Rangers at some point because that is what the club calls itself. The point from this episode is that the mainstream media regarded the club we are now calling Rangers as a new club. That is not going to change even if they stop referring to it as new. When I bought my new house last year, I spoke about my 'new house' for a week or two and then just referred to it as 'my house'. That didn't suddenly make my house the same house as my old house! It was a new house at the time. Rangers had to be relaunched as a new club. That it will soon just be referred to as Rangers doesn't make it the same club as the previous Rangers. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

'New' can very much refer to the company change in this case, nobody is denying a new company was involved. And as STV explained on their website there were some legal reasons for distinctions, rather than believing it is a new club. Sparhelda 15:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, much as Aldershot Town are often called Aldershot. Accrington Stanley are called Accrington Stanley, but they are not the same entity as the original liquidated club. It would be disingenuous to use this shorthand usage as "evidence" that somehow they were. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So sources are only reliable when it suits your argument? Sparhelda 15:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the BBC is probably more reliable than STV, if that's what you mean. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"The new Rangers' participation in Scottish football next season is not certain despite accepting a 12-month transfer ban from the Scottish FA. Sevco Scotland, which now owns Rangers' assets after the old club headed for liquidation, needs SFA membership. But it must also reach agreement with the Scottish Premier League. The SPL, which rejected the new club's application to stay in the top flight, wants further sanctions and a share of Rangers' Division Three media rights." How can any editor suggest that the BBC is not an idependent, reliable source, and it CLEARLY states that the old club headed for liquidation and the new club's application to stay in the top flight. The refusal to accept sources like this is beyond incredible. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet the BBC treat this all as the same club under the name rangers which has stories before the club was sold and its past history.. [7] BritishWatcher (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are treating it as the same club - it doesn't follow from being treated as the same club that it is the same club. One of my neighbours has an adopted son - they treat him as if he had been born to them like their other children - doesn't mean he wasn't adopted. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If the media and football authorities treat this as the same club, should wikipedia not follow suit.. rather than allow fringe views to dominate? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No. We should treat it as any other club that has had to reform after liquidation and not pretend it is different from the likes of Halifax Town. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet far more examples have been provided of wikipedia treating past examples as the same club. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Halifax seem to treat themselves as a different club - [8], where as rangers FCs owners say it is the same club, as do the old companies administrators, as do the football league. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the likes of Leeds, Charlton, Middlesbrough, Fiorentina... Sparhelda 16:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok sandbox is getting scrapped

ok since both sides are not going to accept a sandbox version that will say both sides, then i have started the process to skip request for comment and go straight to formal mediation i am awaiting confirmation of this and if accepted it i will submit it there, i will then take a back step in this.

I have tried my hardiest to get a version both sides would accept but editors on both sides of the argument will not comprise and accept the other side is right, you all forget the fundamental part of wikipedia wp:rs, wp:verifiability, wp:nor, wp:npov and wp:agf. we do not pick and choose sources, we do not pick and choose what a source says, we do not bsically make the article what we want, if a sources says a person is dead, and another says there alive and there both reliable then we must put it is disputed we cant jsut say oh that sources is less reliable just because it does not suit our pov.

I have taken a lot of abuse from editors over this but i have taken it on face value but this is more than i can be bothered with i have life outside wikipeida and wikipedia is that just a source to link to other sources of information people will draw there own conclusions regardless of what wikipedia say, i will continue to get this to what most likely be arbcom and they will most likely rule in a version none of you like and will locked the pages indefintiely so meaning there will be no more edits unless there is a clear consensus i might not get the reply back about formal medation until later today so you have the time between now and then to agree on this and at the Newco Rangers before it will come out of your hands and it no logner community decision, REMBER THIS A CONSENSUS IS REQUIRED ON THIS ARTICLE AND THE NEWCO ONE.

Well i am off sorry but as you all keep saying this dispute can not go on any longer it is affect wikipedia in the form to many articles are linked to the decision on this topic.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is, despite everyone accepting above that there are sources saying it is the same football club. A small number of editors continue to attempt to impose a fringe view on the articles and refuse to allow progress to be made because they cannot accept what is painfully obvious based on the significant sources such as HMRC, the SFA, SFL, the administrators of the old company, the new company owners, etc along with all the mainstream media treating this as still the same football club, even if in some articles they do say "new rangers", "newco rangers" etc. The BBC example in the section above being a perfect example. Well done for trying Andrew, but until they get over the fundamental issue of if this is the same club or not, its impossible to see how some of them will accept any wording of an article. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is, despite everyone accepting above that there are sources saying it is the same football club, a number number of editors refuse to accept that reliable, independent mainstream sources say it is a different club. Without such an acceptance, compromise is impossible. Wikipedia is the loser in this. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting for sources showing there are two separate football clubs. As pointed out above, whilst there are many sources that may use the term new rangers, or newco rangers.. all the mainstream media are treating them as the same club still. Something can be new without being an entirely separate thing. It is certainly a new company. but the evidence clearly shows it is the same club.BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to re-post, "The new Rangers' participation in Scottish football next season is not certain despite accepting a 12-month transfer ban from the Scottish FA. Sevco Scotland, which now owns Rangers' assets after the old club headed for liquidation, needs SFA membership. But it must also reach agreement with the Scottish Premier League. The SPL, which rejected the new club's application to stay in the top flight, wants further sanctions and a share of Rangers' Division Three media rights." 'Old club' and 'new club'. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

" to stay in the top flight" - I thought this was a brand new club that had never been in the Scottish Premier League? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There are clearly agendas in this, probably from both sides in fairness, I'm not just talking about Rangers and Celtic fans either. Due to the perception, right or wrong, that Rangers have 'cheated', 'financially doped', 'stolen' tax and on the whole damaged Scottish football, there is much resentment that will basically see no fans in Scotland outside of Rangers accept them as the same club whatever evidence suggests. There's no 'Old Firm' dispute as it were, it's basically Rangers against the whole of Scottish Football. Sparhelda 16:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, as someone who believes the two sides of this dispute both make valid points, I appreciate the hard work you put in on this. You've been a true neutral, unlike almost anyone else on here. Thanks. LittleEdwyn (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The distortion of what should be a straightforward issue, as demonstrated by the consistency of existing precedents, is meaning that the best thing that could happen is that others look into this issue who qualify as dispassionate observers. I would expect they will look at other examples of oldco/newco football clubs on wikipedia, such as Charlton, Leeds, Luton, Middlesbrough, Livingston, Fiorentina, Napoli, all of which have one page per club...

• They will look at SFA sources that emphasise the transferral of existing membership, rather than creation of new membership.(Stewart Regan interview)...
• They will look at HMRC statements explaining how liquidation allows Rangers to continue in a new company form, as opposed to ending existence(HMRC statement)...
• They will look at SFL, who consistently acknowledge Rangers 2012-13 as a continuation of the Rangers 2011-12, not least in their club page that lists the clubs honours(SFL Club page: Rangers)...
• They will look at the evidence of the administrators of the old company, who explained that "Rangers Football Club will continue within a new company structure" following the sale of the "history, business and assets".(Duff & Phelps Statement)...
• They will look at the evidence of the men in charge of Rangers itself, all of whom are unanimous in declaring the club is a continuation of the Rangers founded 1872, albeit in a relaunched company structure...

Will they consider "mainstream media" interpretations of the facts? The same "mainstream media" that failed hopelessly to tell their derriere from their elbow whilst certain individuals were wreaking havoc with the most popular club in Scotland? Will they place much weight on the turn of phrase, choice of language, implying a new club in the same article as referring to things this "new club" did in the past? Quite possibly, but with caution.

As I have stated above, regardless of technical interpretations of what constitutes a "new club" or not, the continuation in identity entailed by retention of Rangers' name, Rangers' club crest, Rangers' colours, Rangers' stadium, Rangers' supporters, Rangers' branding, Rangers' training ground, Rangers' staff etc... is sufficient cause for collating all information in one place, not to serve, or blight, the agenda of some blinkered football supporter, but to serve the expectations of the Wikipedia users in the best manner possible.Gefetane (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Continuation of identity is different from continuation of club. Halifax Town AFC and FC Halifax Town - still called Halifax Town, same supporters, same stadium, the new club claims its predecessors history and legacy, but none of this pretense of 'just the same club in a new company structure'. Why do Rangers fans think their club should be treated differently from Halifax Town? The similarities are there for all to see: couldn't pay its debts and forced down liquidation route, a new company was started to replace the old. Perhaps Rangers were clever in that Green's new company bought the assets as a job lot and then said he had bought Rangers (which he hadn't), but the fact remains that the previous club went bust and is being replaced by a new club carrying forward the identity. Clearly similar. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your example is a red herring and based on a misunderstanding. Halifax lost their membership share and had to apply for a new one and adopt a new team name (Just like Darlington), Rangers - like Boro, Charlton, Leeds etc... retained their share, it being transferred from oldco to newco, thus no need for a new team name. The halifax example provides no support for your position whatsoever as your comparing apples and pears.Gefetane (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A better question is why should Rangers be treated differently from Charlton, Leeds, Luton, Middlesbrough, Bristol City, Livingston, Fiorentina, Napoli? You keep using Halifax as an example yet totally ignore other clubs considered to be one despite liquidation and new company senarios. Sparhelda 17:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Livingston!!! You are having a laugh aren't you? Livingston went into administration and then entered liquidation but were then saved when the majority shareholder sold his shares to a group with some money to invest. [9] No new company being set up to buy the assets and then trying to relaunch the club and pretending it was the same club all along. No Livingston is the same club. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying the Livingston example is like your Halifax one, a red herring. I'd agree with your analysis, so let's kick that into the field of irrelevance and focus on what really matters, the legitimate precedents. Do you agree that Charlton, Leeds, Luton, Middlesbrough, Bristol City, Fiorentina, Napoli are all examples of 'newco' clubs that retain one all-encompassing Wikipedia page inclusive of 'oldco'?

Do you honestly think Wikipedia users would be better served if the 7 articles above were broken into FOURTEEN? It baffles me that an objective observer would think breaking an article in two (oldco and newco), when it is demonstrably unnecessary, is of benefit to the user. That is why I would welcome a dispassionate analysis with open arms.Gefetane (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not keen on the wording of the introduction mentioning relaunched/liquidation without first clearly mentioning the incorporation in 1899 of the company that is being liquidated. But im prepared to compromise and accept that wording if it is possible to reach an agreement amongst most editors. However to avoid there being countless disputes in the future over specific wording within this article, other articles and indeed what happens with the other article, taking this to mediation does at least help us resolve the matter firmly for some time, rather than countless issues springing up in the coming months each time causing big problems. This is a fundamental issue of if it is the same club or not, and the sources (much of which highlighted above by Gefetane make the case firmly that it is.

If there is a last attempt to get reasonable consensus over the sandbox version before going to formal mediation it is worth a try, but in particular its what additional changes to the sandbox version FishieHelper would need in order to support it and if he is willing to accept the second article either becoming strictly about a company, or a more general liquidation/administration of rangers type article. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

i will make one last attempt to change it to neutral article that says both, if nither side can agree to basics of it, be aware i am dsylexic so the version i write will need to be improved wording wise but the basic idea of hwo it need to be should be easily understood, if that can not be accept with out refernece and sources just now i will add them later if the basics are agree bit pointless me doign the work of the refernece if you cant accept it, so once you see the sandbox changed by me both sides please review if you can not accept it in the form i have made then request for comment or formal mediaiton will happen, long term it will probalyl still be needed--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have amended Andrew's wording to make it flow better, but essentially retained a sentence that clearly states that Rangers being either same club or new club is DISPUTED, which is fact, regardless of the relative truth merits of either side of the debate. No right answer will be agreed upon, so acknowledging the dispute unambiguously - it is within the opening section - is the next best thing. Whether people are willing to compromise for the sake of retaining the one-article model, that's up to them.Gefetane (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

as far as i can tell it is now not sayings it is the same club and it is not saying it is a new club it is suggesting both, now the saem club camp can you accept this? if so present it to the new club camp on newco article and if you can get a consensus tha tthe new club can agree then we can look to merge if not then once i know if i can bypass request for comment or not then we move to the next stage in dispute resolution if we do have o go request for comment way and stills no consensus i warn you now formal mediaiton will be the last chance before arbcom makes the ruling and no one can say which way it will be deicded indepentlyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That sentence "The extent to which the relaunched Rangers can be considered as the same entity, or should be regarded as a new football club altogether, has been disputed." in my opinion gives huge undue weight to a fringe view, but I would support that present wording as a temporary (weeks/months rather than just days) thing if it gets consensus for there to be a single article for the club, and then reassess possibly through the long process of mediation and also once additional sources come on stream over the coming weeks, to determine if it should be altered to reflect the fact reliable sources now all treat the club as the same club or not. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Some questions for "new club" editors about other equivalent articles

I am interested in canvassing the opinions of the "new company means a new club means a new article" editors regarding the other articles for oldco/newco teams such as Charlton, Leeds, Luton, Middlesbrough, Fiorentina, Napoli, which all exhibit a consistent precedent of one all-encompassing page per club.

A couple of premises first of all regarding the "new club, new article" users...

• Presumably, assuming WP:GOODFAITH the reasoning at the root of the "new company means a new club means a new article" is not restricted to "but only if the clubs called Rangers".
• Also, presumably, there is a principle from which they are arguing, namely "new company means a new club means a new article" rather than just basing their position on turn of phrase, choice of language, employed within the interpretations of Scottish media journalists.
• Therefore, they will also view the above articles as gross distortions, incorrectly implying a "same club" position, fundamentally misinforming users and requiring a new article for the "new club" to correct the imbalance...just like Rangers.

So, now for some questions.

• Do these "new company means a new club means a new article" editors believe these other articles are wrong?
• If any "new company means a new club means a new article" editors have been working to correct the flawed layout of these other articles, what have been the responses from other editors to their line of reasoning?
• If they have not been trying to correct what they believe to be a misinformative, false impression given by the existing, "all-encompassing" layout, why - as Wikipedians working to improve the encyclopedia - not?

Lastly, an apology, I could have trawled through the talk pages, edit history of all of the above pages, but I thought it might be more efficient to get the information direct from the horses mouth so to speak.Gefetane (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I try to answer. The positions is not as simple as your seek to characterise it. It does not necessarily follow that 'new company meams new club'. To use Rangers as an example, it started life as a club and then became a limited company in 1899. That company then changed from a Ltd to a PLC, but that was just the club changing from a limited company to a public limited company - still the same club. What has happened now it that the club, that became a limited company, that became a public limited company, is going bust. It has now sold its assets on to a completely separate company who plans to use them to continue football, but even though they seek to call themselves the same name, play in the same colours and in the same stadium for the same fans, it is a new club being launched to replace the old one that is going bust. Therefore when a club merely changes its corporate identity it is still the same club, but when the assets of the club (not the club itself) are sold to a separate organisation, it is a fresh start.

Please note (and check carefully) that when a club is rescued from administration or even from the midst of the liquidation process by being bought by a new company (ie the club is bought and not just its assets), the club continues without a break - same club. This often happens with an agreed CVA to reduce the outstanding debts when the club is bought over. If a new company buys a club and then chooses to liquidate the clubs original corporate identity, this is just a change in the club's corporate identity - therefore no break, same club. This explains a number of cases where editors say 'oh but look, this company was liquidated so why no new article for that club?' Often it is because the club had been bought by a new company first and therefore could change the corporate identity of the club without causing a break.

Do you get it? Green did not buy the club for £5.5 million - he bought everything he could about and related to the club, but not technically the club itself. Therefore, there is a break and, technically, a new club to replace the former. Of course, Green and others have a commercial interest in persuading people that 'he bought the club' and 'Rangers is still Rangers' but the fact is that he didn't buy the club - he started a new one to replicate the old, with the assets etc he bought.

Finally, those of us who believe that there should be separate articles for the original Rangers and the new Rangers are trapped between two lines of attack: if we don't try to amend other football articles towards separate articles where appropriate, we are accused of just picking on Rangers: if we were to try to amend other football articles, we would be accused of just changing other articles to try to justify the same approach 'against' Rangers! No, we have to what is correct with regards to our treatment of Rangers on wikipedia. This is not about a club being rescued from liquidation by being bought by another company - this is about a club that could not be bought to rescue it from liquidation and therefore had its assets sold to another company which now wants to run those assets as a football club to replace the original club. We have to be honest about this material fact, and reflect this in how we deal with this on wikipedia. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is, yet again, a long example of original research, and therefore counts for nothing. Where are your sources? And by that I mean sources that actually state your position, not sources that you personally infer your position from. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, spiritofstgeorge. A few points in response...

• You hold that if the club becomes a company, the company = the club: it's one entity, break up its pieces (and sell them on independantly as assets for example) then the one entity is left behind. Your problem is that this necessarily entails that in any case of the club/company perishing due to unpaid (no CVA) debts, even if it was bought by 'newco' prior to its death and the assets are retained, it still died! Your position entails that the club is dead UNLESS you assume that the assets CAN be broken away and the club identity survives with them, but this clearly contradicts your base assumption regarding company=club. Therefore, the contradiction within your possesion renders it invalid.
• Even if valid, this disintction only exempts from comparison those cases where a company, surviving through a CVA, has been bought by a new company, then subsequently wound up with assets being retained. However in the cases above, all of which have one all-encompassing article, this was not the case. CVAs were not ratified, the assets were transferred to the new company, not the debt-laden, CVA-rejected, doomed company itself. As such, your argument is no basis to undermine the comparison.
• You seem to be saying that you havent bothered applying your principle of two pages per oldco/newco situation to any other situation but Rangers, the reason being that you are concerned about being perceived as attempting to shape precedent. However, if you had acted PRIOR to the Rangers saga, presuming the "new company means a new club means a new article" princple didnt just pop into existence to serve the Rangers case, then any such allegation would be totally invalid.
• I am still in the dark somewhat and hopefully at least one of the "new club" editors will be able to demonstrate applied their reasoning beyond the Rangers case, and we will be able to learn lessons from that example.Gefetane (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Very official bodies such as HMRC and Duff and Phelps said the club was sold, so are they not telling the truth? Sparhelda 13:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Formal Mediation

Ok i have now have confirmation i can submit this for formal mediation and not doing the request for comment.

I urge all involved to agree to this after i leave a message at your talk page then this dispute can hopefully get a conclusion one way or the other and decision/consensus agreed so all articles can be fixed and updated.

I will no longer be doing the work, formal mediators will take over and try guide to consensus and if it fails the most likely outcome will be arbcom who will then decided the fate of the articles, if you do not want to risk your view not be heard i suggest you try comprise--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts Andrew, we've all done our best to achieve resolution but now I think a dispassionate analysis is exactly what this situation requires.Gefetane (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we can all agree on that! Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks Andrew.LittleEdwyn (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Such a pity that consensus couldn't be reached. You tried your best Andrew. Unfortunately there are too many editors here using the heaps of speculation around this subject to create their own original synthesis in support of their own opinions. I said at the start we needed to wait until reliable sources made the situation clearer, and no one paid the slightest attention. End result is screeds and screeds of totally irrelevant original synthesis. Seriously, you could delete 90% of this talk page and not lose a single thing of importance. Just masses of text from people who should know better constructing arguments not present in their sources and speculating on what they think someone might have meant and what that might apply to Rangers.

The proper conclusion to all this will be very straight forward; An authoritative, up-to-date, reliable source will be found that makes the official position clear. After that all the other blather will count for absolutely squat. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok you can all start agree on here Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rangers F.C. but you should all get a message soon enough informing you--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Allow me to correct some critical misunderstandings of Wikipedia process. Formal mediators do not undertake an analysis of the dispute; they guide the parties towards understanding the relevant arguments, then help craft a compromise. If each party believes they are completely correct, then mediation will never be successful. Similarly, ArbCom does not rule on the content of an article. Escape Orbit's suggestion that the article's development should be slowed until more reliable sources are available seems to me like a good one.

  You guys should try requests for comment, in which more editors from the community (most of whom are not involved in writing this article) opine on what its content should be. AGK [•] 13:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

AGK that kidna goes against what it says on arbcom page "The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail." if that is incorrect someoen should update arbcom page, also request for comment will fail because it is not binding and the editors who are on both sides will refuse to accept the other sides view i have tried to get them all to accept and go escape orbit route, which is what me and few other editors includign escape orbit said right at the beging but some editors who have POV took upon themself to go and do thigns outside consensus now we have this entire mess, it has to be taken away from everyone hands and arbcom rule on it where it is idenpent and binding--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

in fact ingore wha ti jsut said i read that as content when it sayd Conduct shopws my dsylexica is really bad :s, but either way if formal mediaiton fails the request for ocmment will fail someone higher up in wikipeida will have to reoslve the issue because you can not let hundreds of article constely be a dispute which stems from these two articles--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A RFC will result in us having to sit on our hands for about a month as we await peoples opinions, and then there will be possibly months of discussion on that RFC. Mediation allows us to focus specifically on the core issues in a more structured environment to try and come to a reasonable conclusion. So its the better option, it is also less likely to turn into merely a vote in which there is potential for abusive actions by fans on each side. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I don't know if this was already mentioned but I just noticed that the SFL no longer refer to Rangers as "The Rangers FC" http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/clubs/third/ It must have been some temporary requirement linked to a legal issue to do with the transfer of SFA membership issue but I see now that the BBC is going the same way. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No surprise there - the new club bought the name of the old club along with the assets. It is inevitable that very shortly everybody will refer to the team as Rangers. The point is, however, that it is a new Rangers that has replaced the original Rangers. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So why the heck are the SFA, SFL, and media treating them as the same club? Surely if they treat it as the same we must? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Its about time the blocking minority on this page actually produced some sources categorically stating there are two separate clubs. What source or evidence do you have to counter the fact the SFL treat it as the same club? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"...and media treating them as the same club" I think you'll find that right across the mainstream media there are references to the 'new club' that replaced the 'old Ibrox club' - you've had these references already but won't accept the implications.

As for the SFA treating the new club like the new club, that is a direct result of the new club requesting the old club's membership. The SFA has agreed to give it to the new club so long as it accepts conditions - doesn't make it the same club. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So your interpretation of what unspecified random media comments mean, and your interpretation of what the SFA means, trumps what the SFA are actually saying? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not ask you about the SFA, i asked you about the SFL. Look at their website. They absolutely see it as the same football club. What evidence do you have to counter the SFL website? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So the argument goes that everyone might call it Rangers, and everyone might effectively regard it as the same club, but Wikipedia shouldn't because it (or rather some editors) know better than the lot of them. Readers looking for information about what everyone knows as Rangers must refer to two separate articles, because Wikipedia cares more about a few editor's interpretation of a debatable technicality than the convenience of the reader. Right? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently. Britmax (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Is football identity not the key issue here? The SFA/SFL saying it's the same club with the same history must be important? Sparhelda 17:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not when you have special insight into what their intentions are in saying it, apparently. Frankly it doesn't matter why the SFA are saying it. They are in charge. They can decide what they like for whatever reason they like. Wikipedia doesn't get to tell them they are wrong. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The evidence of "mainstream media" hacks, since the transferral of membership, seems to falling in behind the continuity of Rangers position: The sites of the Scottish Sun, the Daily Record, and STV Sport, all have Rangers history details matching up as one would expect if it was considered the same club. Considering a particular interpretation of "mainstream media" is most called upon in support of the "new club, new article" editors, perhaps they will need to reconsider their approach.Gefetane (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see 'new' references lasting as the season goes on. Sparhelda 18:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't you see that some editors are merely posting misinformation stated by others to justify their own POVs? For example, "The SFA/SFL saying it's the same club" - eh, no the SFA didn't say it was the same club. The SFA agreed to transfer the old club's membership to the new club but that does not make it the same club. When Regan was directly asked if it was the same club, he pointed refused to say it was - and that is taken as convincing proof it is the same club?

Yes the media will stop referring to it as 'new' - that's what happens with new things: I stopped calling my new car 'my new car' after about a week. So what. The point that the sources have made a distinction between the old Rangers and the new Rangers (and often referred to the 'old' and 'new' clubs) is undeniable.

Anyway, I do not intend to waste time going round in circles with editors who are clearly intent on merely repeating the same points time and time again ignoring the fact that these points have been addressed. Wikipedia has terms for conduct of this type and I see what is happenning and have no intention to waste my time responding to those who are unwilling to accept evidence that contradicts their point of view. I will therefore restrict myself to watching these pages for developments, responding whenever a straw poll is called to establish consensus, but otherwise not waste any more time. But please note, the tactic of talking round in circles for ever more until opponents give up through exhaustion will not work with me. I will not let editors who appear to have a strongly pro-Rangers bias in these matters distort articles - and by the way, before anyone thinks I am anti-Rangers, I am English, from Merton and support AFC Wimbledon. I am proud of my club and am proud of the FA Cup the original Wimbledon won, but I don't need to argue that AFC Wimbledon is the same club - I know it osn't and can accept it. Rangers supporters need to be able to accept that their old club is finished and their new club has begun - and Rangers supporting editors need to allow articles to be updated to allow this reality to be recorded. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish i could believe that you will not waste our time any further but that remains to be seen. If the football authorities, the old company's administrators and the new company which owns the club itself see it as the same club, along with all the media treating it as the same club despite occasional uses of the term "new club", it is the same club. You and a couple of other editors on here who are preventing this article being updated are flat out wrong and the longer the delaying tactics some people are engaged in drag on, the more sources will continue to show it is the same club. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Toys out the pram and bad faith accusations seem to be getting more and more common. Sparhelda 21:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)