Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Clarification of "full name"

The full name has been incorrectly changed to "The Rangers Football Club" based on Sevco Scotland are the owners of 'The Rangers Football Club. This source was quoted prior to the name change which, as this 3rd party source makes clear, means there is no such company as "Sevco Scotland Limited" since its name was changed to "The Rangers Football Club Limited". The existing Club membership of Rangers FC was transferred to the new company, which means the club retains the same full name: Rangers Football Club. Gefetane (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - didn't see your post when I posted mine below! You are arguing "the existing Club membership of Rangers FC was transferred to the new company, which means the club retains the same full name" - that is attempting to use logic to contrdict what the source says. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, and what source in this regards could be more reliable than the SFA itself - it should know the names of its member clubs! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As explained below, the source doesn't state explicitly whether it is referring to the club, company, or provisional pre-licence-transfer name, when it says "The Rangers Football Club". Remember, at this point, full membership has not been confirmed, perhaps indicating that the licence for the name "Rangers FC" still lay with the oldco, which has since obviously changed. Your source is not clear enough, and the fact it is out of date means it isnt a reliable source for what is the present case. Gefetane (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

What - it is absolutely clear - I've explained below. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the full name of the club not "The Rangers Football Club"?

I changed the full name in the infobox to 'The Rangers Football Club' because that is what the club was referred to in the SFA statement that was issued when SFA membership was transferred. My change was reverted on the basis the source was 'out of date'. Yes Sevco Scotland Limited has since been renamed, but how does that undermine that the name of the club owned by Sevco Scotland was referred to as 'The Rangers Football Club'? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The source doesn't say "the name of the club", you've added that. Do you have up to date sources that explicitly say the Club, independent of the company, is called "The Rangers FC"? My position that the club name is "Rangers FC" is not based on pure logic, but on all football results sites calling it that, and the affiliated league body itself: The Scottish Football League, which calls the club Rangers, not "The Rangers". ::::Maybe we're talking at cross purposes - are you saying the company name should go in where it says "full name"? Gefetane (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

FIFA state there is no difference between the club and the company,its just Rangers supporters pretending their club still exists,that is all.Don't worry the WHOLE of Scottish Football will continue to remind you of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.106.27 (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

the 'The' is only ever used in the company name (old company: The Rangers Football Club Plc, new company: The Rangers Football Club Ltd). The club that is run by that company is just Rangers Football Club. I think the SFA article must be referring to the company which the clubs membership was transferred to. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The club has always been known as The Rangers Football Club much the same as Celtic's full name is The Celtic Football Club so I wouldn't see a problem with the full name being in the info box. BadSynergy (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

To add, the club has been referred to (technically incorrectly) as 'The Rangers Football Club' for most of its existence by some. Many rangers fans refer to the team as 'The Rangers'. As can be seen from this european programme from 1963: http://www.collectsoccer.com/acatalog/0000000000000000000000000000000000000062rangerslarge.jpg

Officially though the club is just 'Rangers Football Club'

In reply to BadSynergy: that is not the official name of the club though, so it is not relevant to wikipeida.Iainturnerisgod (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I gather, in the case of Celtic, their company is "Celtic plc". If you think company name and "full name" in the infobox should be equivalent, are you saying Celtic's full name is: "Celtic" (the company name minus the plc bit)? Surely "full name" should simply be the clubs name, Rangers/Celtic etc, plus "football club".Gefetane (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The SFA statement is quite clearly referring to the name of the club as it says "We are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club." It say that 'Sevco Scotland Ltd' will be the 'owners of The Rangers Football Club' - Sevco was the company (since renamed) and it is being descibed as being the owners of 'The Rangers Football Club.' Is anyone suggesting that Sevco Scotland (now Rangers Football Club Ltd) owns another company that operates the club? Of course not - Sevco Scotland (now Rangers Football Club Ltd) operates the club directly. Therefore, the SFA was indeed referring to 'the club' when it calls it The Rangers Football Club. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems liek there is some mischief making goign on here. "the Ran...." was always the name of the company, before & after the liquidation/newco events. Rangers FC is the club name, both before and after. Ricky072 (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

i would suggest you both do some reasearch you are both wrong and reliable soruces confirm but never mind that, look at the club crest and the loin badge prior to the one that in existence now it clear calls the club The Rangers Football Club this is the full name of the club but it more commongly refers to Rangers football Club. i aint goign to get invovled in this dispute to me it is just minor problem to me not big enough to for me to keep debating over it, but i gave my comments you are welcome to agree or disagree with me aint bothered i stil have mroe improtant work ont eh article to deal withAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies Fishiehelper, perhaps I was not clear. What the statement referred to THEN may be obvious, but how that relates to the club NOW is certainly not explicit and requires speculation.

• Remember, you are using a source relating to the situation PRIOR to full licence transferral, to describe the club NOW, post-licence transferral.
• Before full membership transferral, the SFA needed to distinguish between the "Rangers FC" club licence still resident with Oldco, and the Newco's temporary/conditional licence (granted to allow the Brechin tie to go ahead). Referring to "The Rangers FC" was a sufficient distinction for the purpose.
• Now that full membership has been transferred, the "Rangers FC" club licence has transferred from Oldco to Newco, replacing the temporary solution which is now defunct.

You may write this off as speculation, and I admit it is not sourced, but you also are speculating beyond the sources when you assume a statement from pre-X still applies to post-X, something I think - considering the facts of full licence transferral the sources attest to - is not just unfounded, but highly implausible. Gefetane (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you wil agree that what we need is a clear, reliable source - it is not an acceptable position to have to guess or deduce by logic. I find it strange to assume that the SFA would refer to the club owned by Sevco Scotland as 'The Rangers Football Club' but then regard it possible having another name once it had gained the transfer of Rangers' SFA membership. Is there any reason why transferring SFA membership should lead to a name change? Anyway, if you or other believe that the full name of the club has changed from 'The Rangers Football Club' sometime after the SFA issued that statement, then the onus is on you to find a more up to date reference. Until then, the article should reflect the most up to date information we have from a completely reliable source. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, I'm a little confused about what you mean by "the full name of the club"...

• A: Do you mean the company name? If so, I agree its The Rangers Football Club (ltd), but so was the oldco called The Rangers Football Club (plc). Why should the "full name" reflect the company name now, when it didn't previously?
• B: Do you mean the name of the football club whose membership licensed was transferred from the Oldco? Are you denying this has always been Rangers? Sources would dispute that. Do you think its suddenly changed to "The Rangers", even though its the same club membership, just on the basis of an assumption from that somewhat ambiguous sentence? Again, the vast majority of sources - since licence transfer - calls them simply "Rangers".
• C: Do you mean something different to A or B when you say "the full name of the club"? Cheers for clarifying. Gefetane (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There is clearly a difference between a company name and the club name. The company name (before = The Rangers Football Club PLC, now = The Rangers Football Club LTD) are different to the actual club name. Its clear it should say the club name, especially as we already point out the company name in the infobox and link to the appropriate article. As pointed out, Celtic and and football articles would have to be changed if we suddenly are meant to go by company name not club name. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I am asking for clarification of the full club name - not the company name. The SFA statement said "We are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club." What did Sevco Scotland own? They did not own another company - they were owners of the the club, and the SFA statement calls that club 'The Rangers Football Club'. Now all I am asking is whether anyone has a more reliable source than the SFA or a more up-to-date, equally reliable, source that gives a different full name. If not, the full name of the club should be changed in the infobox to 'The Rangers Football Club'. Regards. ####

The full name of the club (not the company) is Rangers Football Club: exactly as it is was before as that is the name of the club whose membership licence was transferred from Oldco to Newco. I can't be bothered dragging up sources but anyone can check the SFL page, the BBC, STV Sport, Sun, Record etc... all media organisations call the club "Rangers", or "The Rangers". Your clearly arguing for a name change on the basis of one source which does not explicitly state the POST-LICENCE-TRANSFER club is called something different from the previous one, namely "The Rangers Football Club" as opposed to "Rangers Football Club". Gefetane (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. The SFA is a reliable source. It called the club 'The Rangers Football Club'. Unless you have a more up-to-date source, that is the most up-to-date source we have from a reliable source giving the full name of the club. If you can't be bothered to look for an up to date source using the club's full name, then I assume you have no argument against the infobox being changed to reflect the source other than your opinion/logic/preference etc. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And it's directly contradicted by the SFL Ricky072 (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Here http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=10362 & http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=10485 are newer articles where the SFA only refer to "Rangers FC" and not "The Rangers FC". Regards S2mhunter (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no indication that that is the full name of the club - it even uses the abbreviation 'FC'. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

can any of you explain this ;) alt3=Lion rampant club crest 1959 - 1969.|Lion rampant club crest 1959 - 1969 now that cleary statea THE, note i am on a break but i am minorly active for the next 3 weeks so dnt expect a replyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a fudged image of the club badge from 1959 Andrew. The correct club badge that was produced in 1959 and used until around 1968/1969 was the one in the following link. Dont know why it has been altered, but it originally has the company name around the badge. Hence the use of 'The'. http://www.rangerspedia.org/images/5/5d/Crest2.jpg

Maybe wikipedia should use the real version of the original club bagde? 90.207.36.100 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll update it just now. 90.207.36.100 (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact I cannot find how to replace the image with the one in the link i provided. Someone more capable could do it when they have a chance? 90.207.36.100 (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

While i have been looking at that edited badge, I notice the badge section is actually incomplete. http://coplandroad.org/441299 the badge in that link was the scroll badge used from the year 1899, which could also be added. Thanks 90.207.36.100 (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to make this clear, the badge that andrew posted includes the company name, not the name of the club. Someone has removed the 'Ltd' from the image before uploading it to wikipedia. The real badge from 1959 is here: http://www.rangerspedia.org/images/5/5d/Crest2.jpg 90.207.36.100 (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

if it isnt been udpated by the time i get back from my wikibreak i will update itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a note in case this debate comes back in future: The European Club Association (ECA) can be added to the list of organisations that recognise Rangers under the name "Rangers FC". Still no contemporary sign of the mythical "The Rangers" name (besides company references of course) that was dug up from the old SFA source. Will keep remain ever vigilant though! Gefetane (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.ecaeurope.com/tabbed-content/club-ranking/ this bit is quite interesting, if kinda confirms it one club as rangers have european coeffient for 2008 thorugh 2012-13 ie this seasonAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that. Would be interesting to see confirmation that this is endorsed by UEFA. ::It's no surprise of course, we all ready know that SFA licensed member club "RANGERS F.C." has continued it's existence through the transfer of membership. Gefetane (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but Rangers FC will not appear on the UEFA website again until they are back in the top tier of Scottish football, as the UEFA website only includes teams from member countries top tiers. Rangers FC will not play in Europe for the next 3 seasons (including this one) as a company that runs a football club needs to have three years audited accounts to compete in European competition. This was one of the downfalls of Rangers FC exiting administration via the New Company route as I understand it. So we will have a long wait before any word from UEFA on the matter. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Spam

That was the article spammed again. Can you please stop spamming the page. If you want anything added please provide a reliable source thanks.

The 'Spam' comes from the lies from Rangers supporters pretending their club still exists, it doesnt, and thats a FACT. Rangers where liquidated,you CANNOT sell a history of a business once it goes into liquidation.FIFA states quite categorically that there is no distinction between a club and the business,its part of the same entity.You TROLLS have shamed wikipedia and lost its honest integrity,all just to pretend your football club still exists..Ridiculous. Rangers are no more, the essense of Rangers lives on in Sevco but their still not Rangers in any shape or form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.106.27 (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia only deals in FACTS with adequate SOURCES to back them up. If you want to help keep this page up to date please sign up and help update the page using reliable sources when making an edit. Thanks. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That statement is absolute farcical,given that there is mountains of evidence from legal a legal view point through to what the definition of what 'liquidation' actually means by wikipedia itself,Charles Green started up a NEW football club and Bought assets from Rangers FC (FACT) 'The Rangers' are in Division 3 not because they where relegated but because they are a NEW football club,not a new company, the SPL and SFA and SFL deal in Football,The Rangers had to apply to join the football league like any NEW club(FACT) what these troll admins are doing is perpetrating a myth,whether i sign up to wiki is irrelivent,If someone went on wikipedias Elvis Presley page and changed Elvis's status to alive and well,you'd very quickly pull it down, even if someone bought Elvis's assets and moved into Gracelands white clad suit and changed their name by deed pole,It still does not change the FACT that Rangers FC are in the process of liquidation and the new 'The Rangers Football Club' is an absolute and completely different beast all together... so pardon you and your Rangers supporting admins, yourve disgraced wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.152.98 (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

sorry IP I cannot agree with much of that at all. There was major discussion on the matter between many neutral editors, some openly Rangers supporting editors and some openly Celtic supporting editors. Consensus was reached by looking at all the sources produced (can be viewed in the archives of this page). The consensus was that officially speaking this is still Rangers Football Club, and that a new company has bought over the football club, with the old company entering liquidation procedures (hence the famous media phrase 'New Co' not being 'New Club'). A football club cannot be liquidated, only a company can do so. If a company running football club is liquidated and the club is not sold before liquidation the football club will cease to exist. Primary sources, such as the SFA, the SFL and Rangers FC itself have confirmed this. Non primary sources, such as the SPL, Duff and Phelps, HMRC, the BBC, STV etc have also confirmed this. Wikipedia can only report what is sourced and I can assure you all of this page is sourced from the highest possible reliability of sources. An official example can be seen in Neil Doncaster's (The SPL chairman's) comments on the matter that directly preceded RFC being allowed a transfer of their SFA license to the new company: "it is an existing club, even though it's a new company" was his words. (see: http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/111130-full-video-interview-spl-chief-neil-doncaster-on-rangers-and-his-future/)

If you want to look at other examples of clubs who exited administration via a new company and subsequently had their FA licence transferred to the new company, see Leeds United in 2007, the difference in their case being they also had their league membership transferred to the new company in exchange for a 15 point deduction. In RFC's case their league membership was not transferred so they had to apply for membership of the SFL. I hope I have enlightened you to the basic facts of the matter, and if you want to delve further into the how the situation unfolded please refer to the references section of the page Rangers FC. Many Thanks Iainturnerisgod (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to add IP, the name of the football club is still just Rangers FC, not The Rangers FC, officially speaking (Although unofficially many rangers supporters always have referred to the club as The Rangers). The new company that runs the club is called 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd' and the previous company that ran the club was called 'The Rangers Football Club Plc'. So I can see why you got confused easily. Thanks Iainturnerisgod (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Again thats absolute nonsense,No Celtic fan or any other reasonable person would view Rangers FC other than currently in the process of becoming extinct,thats fact thats what liquidation is, Charles Green has admitted as much himself http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/does-green-actually-buy-this-stuff-lets-take-a-look.18857922 .And you know it.. The Rangers FC are a new football Club, FIFA and UEFA do not distinguish between the company and club as Rangers supporters have been desperate to imply, and as for buying history, thats ludicrous its not possible, and even if it was whats it worth ? to buy history ? It still means you havent won it,you bought it, its unheard of, The only way Green could have bought the history is if a CVA had been agreed with the defunct Rangers FC. you guys don't have a leg to stand on and you are well aware of it. BTW new football CLUBS cannot compete in European football, not new Companies,but you keep telling yourself that BS, I and many more will always in the name of honest and integrity and in trying to keep with Wikipedia's good faith policy continue to state the TRUTH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.106.101 (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What does UEFA think ? Check out Chapter 2 and in particular 12.1 'A licence applicant may only be a football club' These are the actual laws. http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.106.101 (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A direct quote from Charles Green in June. "the history, the tradition, everything that's great about this club is swept aside" unquote... FACT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.106.101 (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be a very confused and biased individual, you only need to look at the SPL's most recent statement on the ETB issue to see that they recognise Rangers FC as the same continuous football club, onwned by a new company (they say, "The New Comapny, as the current owner and operator of Rangers FC, although not alleged by the SPL to have committed any breach of SPL Rules, will also have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the commission and to make such submissions as it thinks fit"). It is clear that officially Rangers Football Club is the same football club that it has always been, there are always going to be uninformed bias individuals like yourself, who cannot accept this.

In reply to the comment that new football clubs cannot compete in Europe for three seasons, that is not actually a UEFA rule. The UEFA rule is: that any football club cannot compete in a UEFA competition without three years worth of audited financial accounts. Now that RFC have exited administration via the New Company route, they will not be able to show UEFA three years worth of audited accounts until the company has been through that many financial years. This is one of the major downfalls of a football club exiting administration via a New Company. And for the record I am not a 'Rangers fan' same as the majority of the editors on this page.

Again I refer you to the distinction between the name of the Football club, and the names of the oldco and newco. The club is not and never was The Rangers Football Club. Please see the Rangers FC talk page discussion for links and sources if you cannot bring yourself to understand this fact.

Many thanks. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Im not confused at all,nor biased in anyway shape or form.Outwith The Rangers support and fans of Rangers(two separate entities)EVERYONE is aware that the claim your trying to make if false, its lies and its deceitful,yourve shamed wikipedia,the integrity of wikipedia is too great that it be tarnished by fans of a third division football club claiming to be something its not. Charles Green knows it, Ally McCoist knows it and YOU know it. Rangers FC are a defunct football club,not business, football club, the players contracts where transferred over to a new football CLUB,the stadium was transferred over to a new football CLUB.the name itself Rangers Football Club where liquidated,the football club could not be saved despite the fighting fund and the tens of thousands of Rangers fans marching to Hampden.Celtic FC do not recognise 'The Rangers' as being the same football club as the defunct Rangers FC and no one will.BTW you can't buy the history either,otherwise youd be saddled with the 134 million pounds worth of debt aswell,I suggest you go and study what Liquidation means, paying extra special attention to what an asset sale is, the team you support now simply bought Rangers assets,they are NOT rangers. TRUTH HONESTY AND INTEGRITY FOR WIKIPEDIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.69.147 (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: to all editor please do not respond to the ip editor as there just being obsutive and boarding on vandalism, they have not provide sources to back up there claim, other than one two news paper articles from way back when it was unclear, the article itself acknowledges this, so please do no respond to the ip editor they will eventually be blocked

Ally McCoist, liquidation and relaunch

I suggest that the sub-section currently called 'Ally McCoist' be renamed 'Ally McCoist, liquidation and relaunch'. That would be a more accurate summary of the content of the subsection. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

it was called that until a few weeks ago, i cant remember who but someone moved the stuff to the ownership and finance section which i agree was more appropriate but mccoist section does still cover stuff to do with the liquidation and relaunch so i support it, but without a consensus i wont be changing itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was that for a while and I don't recall a consensus being built to change it. As you say, that's what the subsection covers so the proposed title is more appropriate. I'll wait a bit incase anyone else wishes to comment before returning it to the previous title. Thanks. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the History subsections are mainly organised by Managers, though maybe the subsection headings should be by dates? The section "Ownership and finances" has within it a subsection called "Liquidation and current ownership", not to mention the article "Administration and liquidation of The Rangers Football Club Plc" so there is duplication that could be better structured. For example "Rangers financial problems and dispute..." to "...in the Third Division for the 2012–13 season" could be replaced by either a hyperlink, or reference, to "Liquidation and current ownership"? Regards S2mhunter (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The sections mentioned should cover the football aspect of who was/is the manager. There are more appropriate sections and articles to include information about administration. We should be avoiding repetition.Monkeymanman (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Tis issue was discussed some time ago - the 'history' section, logically, deals with the club from a football perspective. I originally wrote most of the content in the McCoist secion (although it's been changed so much theres barely any of my original entry left) - but the concensus was at the time, that admin + liquidation would be only very briefly explained but would focus very much on what imapct its had on the mccoist era from a footballing point of view, ie. losing 10 points, losing certain players who did not transfer, being put down into the 3rd division. 1 thin myself and other editors are worried bout is the same content repeating itself several times within the article. Ofcourse editors like yourself and other anti-rangers editors are keen to mention this episode at every turn - it's already mentioned int he intro text, mccoist section, ownership & finances, and has about 3 sepearte articles dedicated to it. Henc why i feel the majority of neutral posters will agree concencus on leaving the sub-section entitled "Ally McCoist". Ricky072 (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be averse to a sub-section name that mentions the 3rd division/demotion to 3rd division, but anything else is referring to the corporate side of things rather than the football side, which I think the section should be about as ownership covers the rest. Gefetane (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In view of the fact that Ally McCoist's reign at Rangers has been dominated by the club entering administration, then entering liquidation, then being reformed within a new company and having to start in the fourth tier, I would have thought that 'Ally McCoist, liquidation and relaunch' was a pretty accurate summary! The football consequences have been so profound that it is entirely right that the events should also be mentioned in the history section. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It is mentioned. This has been explained by Ricky. The history section should follow the same pattern as before. We dont know how long Ally McCoist will be at the club. I know thats a bit Crystal ball like but the way you are treating this you would rename one of the sections Paul Le Guen and bust up with Barry Ferguson

To be fair, being liquidated is not something that routinely happens to football clubs - managers having bust ups with players is relatively common. Assuming for sake of argument that Rangers never goes though financial meltdown again, people in the future will remember Ally McCoist as the manager who stuck with the club through liquidation, relaunch and rebuild. It will probably be the most memorable thing about his time as manager (unless he stays with the club until they win the Champions' League.) Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If editors want all subsection names in the history section to follow a pattern of manager's name only, should the subsection 'Ibrox disaster, European success and Jock Wallace' be renamed 'Jock Wallace'? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

A reminder for you Fishiehelper2 before you head further into the realms of fantasy - Rangers Football Club have not been liquidated and are not going to be liquidated. Even if RFC2012plc was still operating Rangers Football Club, its currently in administration. Why have the word "liquidation" in a sub-section when it hasnt happened to the Oldco, let alone the football club now resident with TheRFCLtd? Gefetane (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the most memorable thing Paul Le Guen did was have a bust up with Barry Ferguson. So along your line of argument that should be the title of that separate section. Your confusing the fact that the administration of the club has its own section and is detailed separately. I agree with you Jock Wallace should have his own section and so should the Ibrox disaster and the 1972 CWC final triumph.Monkeymanman (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs here Gefetane. Liquidation is a process that Rangers Football Club plc entered on June 14th when the proposed CVA was rejected. As part of that process, the assets of the company were sold to a new company. The process will end with the company ceasing to exist. I appreciate that Rangers fans don't like to see the word liquidation in this article but the fact that the company is being liquidated is what has led to Rangers (the club) finding itseldf in the 3rd division. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the "and adminsitration" from the sub title for Mccoist for a number of reasons. Firstly it clashes with "Craig Whyte 7 Admin..." later i tnhe article which could be somewhat confusing to the reader. Secondly, what happened wasn't limited to simply 'administration'. And thirdly, although the explosion may have happened under McCoists managerial reign, the entire saga for the financial mismnagament, EBT scheme, sale of the club, and ultimately the insolvency forced by HMRC is a story which began long before the mccoist era. Ricky072 (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

sorry ricky that is weak reason, that it is cover somewhere else and that it happened prior to mccoist era, firstly the administration happened during mcoist tenure, and secondly the section meantion about teh football side of amdinistration and how it affected rangers. i changed it to off-field finicail problems but gefetane changed it to administration, off field covers it better, the seciton header will need to change prior goign for GA or ir probally fail, im not pushing what it should be but the section heading need to reflet the content and the content cant be re mvedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"Off-field financial problems" sounds shoddy. Of course financial problems are off-field, that's stating the obvious, so no need for those words. And "financial problems" sounds too vague and fuzzy. "Administration" is a recognised word within football parlance and I think adequately encapsulates the saga. Any further details or corporate terminology falls into the trap of stepping on the ownership sections toes, and giving undue weight to corporate matters within a section that should focus primarily on football history. Gefetane (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

the only reason i suggest off field is cause ricky is refusing to accept administration, off field isnt really saying anything explit only that finicial problem at the club ie off field was haivng impact onfield i am hapyp to leave it as administration as long as ricky accept that, as there was consensus to change it to just ally mccoist, mos says the section title moust cover the section details ally mccoist does nto cover that section. again i stress i am happy with administration as long as ricky doent remove it completely without a suggested replacementAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that 'Ally McCoist and administration' is better than just 'Ally McCoist'. If Ricky072 is the only editor arguing against that version, this version appears to have sufficient consensus to move forward with it. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to go with 'off filed financial problems' rather than 'administration'. Administration is no adequate enough for what happened. it was merely 1 small piece of events that spanned well over a period of just McCoist tenure. What also occured was liquidation, new ownership, relegation. But "McCoist, Amdinistration Liquidation, New Ownership & Division 3" is hardly an adequate or suitable title is it? Ricky072 (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That was why I originally suggested 'Ally McCoist, liquidation and relaunch' since that covered the section well. However, others prefer Ally McCoist and administration and I think that is an improvement on just 'Ally McCoist'. 'off field financial problems' is just too vague - at least 'administration' is relatively clear. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It was simply "Ally McCoist" for well over a month - and when that section was expanded after the unlocking of the article concenncus was reached this section should focus mainly on footballing events as the insolvency event was covered in detail in several other sections. It was you who suggested changing it. Sicne then several editors have disagreed wether it should be changed at all, and should it be changed, what it should be changed too. We've all been reminded several times on here if you want to make a change, gain concensus first. So it has been reverted and i will contineu to do so as per Wikipedia policy - until we reach concensus. If you oppose that then it seems you are opposing a policy which you have been quick to remind other editors of in the past. (A hypocrit if you will). Now i, like AndrewCrawdford, dont believe the title of "and administration" to be appropriate. Given we are 2 editors in a small group of regualr editors of this page, that amounts to concencus not being achieved. Not to say i' closed minded on the issue. I personally believe "Ally McCoist" is simply adequeta enough. Theres no need to elaborate further with a description on every manager. How about "Walter Smith Return and UEFA Cup final?" etc... But like i say, im not entirely close minded on it, if a short term can be achieved tthat maintains accuracy. "adminsitration" does not. I could maybe suggest "Ally McCoist & Insolvency" Ricky072 (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Support & Insolvency but i also support and administration but i think it is not covering the full section enough but i takethe point offfield finanical problems doesnt cover it right either. insolveny might be better as that is how it is described in media when the plc cva failed they formal apply for insolvency from the courts and it was acceptAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Why the revert?

Why would anyone revert this information I added which gives information not already included with the explanation that it is duplicated in the ownership section? There is already a duplication of the information that Rangers were going to start in the third division yet no one sees fit to delete that, but rather they delete something that is not duplicated [1]. Clay More47 (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Rangers Charity Foundation

Instead of revertingl perhaps Spiritofstgeorge can clarify it's removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadSynergy (talk • contribs) 16:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Spiritofstgeorges contributions to this entry have been laughable. I removed the incident of Donald Findlays singing as there is a lack of evidence that what he sung is actually sectarian (its a common misconception that the sash is a sectarian song). But he insisted on it remaining. He then feels the need to elaborate on the sectarian section with a very vague sentence that fans have faced prosecution... but also feels the Rangers Charity Foundation doesn't merit inclusion? A bias editor with an agenda. Ricky072 (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The point isnt Necceserly whether its sectarian so much it's certainly controversial and notable. The article can't be purely good about the club it has to be unbiased good or bad. The Charity foundation I know nothing about bit of there are reliable third party sources then it should be included. However If its just Rangers primary sources then probably not. Also unless you have specific evidence to your claim above and are prepared to back it up it would be best if you withdrew the accusation against spirit not constructive to an open discussion. If you have proof then consider reporting it elsewhere. Blethering Scot 17:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with spirit about his removal of the Charity foundation info, but thought he was correct in arguing that this article has to report what the sources say as regards Donald Findlay's singing. Hi s contribution about sectarian singing is relevant and can easily be sourced - the sectarian singing of supporters has had consequences on both the club as well as some of the perpetrators themselves. I'm surprised that stating that should be viewed as controversial by any editor. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean adding to the article was controversial, i meant that if not classed as strict sectarianism as such, then song is however controversial and notable.Blethering Scot 19:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue with the Donald Findlay is i challenged the accuracy of the sources on the issue. I supplied a couple of links from BBC, and the Guardian i think, which described 'The Sash' as a sectarian song. Wikipedia's own entry for the sash does not describe it as a sectarian song and it's widely accepted that it is not (evidence supported by statements from Strathclyde police). It is widely reported that Donald Findlay sang 'The Sash'. The cited source states "Donald Findlay sings sectarian songs". Do you see where i'm going with this? It is my belief that at the time of reporting, journalists wrongfully construed the sash to be a sectarian song, so hence the made the link and printed that he sang a sectarian song. So I put forward on the talk page, for anyoen to bring forward a better source (afterall, it was reported he was video'd singing these songs these if anyone had a news link with the video for instance we could clear it up once and for all) - but i was simply emt with the response "it is what sources say" - but we have learned over the past 3 months that sources can be innaccurate and Wikipedia isn't simply a source library. Ricky072 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No but we do cover notable topics. It may not be strictly sectarian but it is a highly controversial and notable song and it should be handled as such. It should be mentioned in some way without giving undue weight to the sectarianism side. It could easily be written along the lines of was considered or reported at the time to be a sectarianism but latterly the police accepted that its not although its still deemed controversial. Sectarianism or not its worthy of mention we shouldn't really ignore the fact its notable. It would be better trying to agree on a version thats acceptable to all sides.Blethering Scot 20:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are we raking over this again? Your original synthesis of what it was reported that Findlay sang, and what it is reported about the nature of the song is not admissible for inclusion. Any conclusions you have reached about it are not admissible for inclusion. What's more, it wouldn't make the slightest difference if we did have original analysis of the original video either. Your analysis (or mine, or anyone else here) of what appears in the video is not admissible. Your opinion of the accuracy of the sources is irrelevant, especially when all reliable sources are in 100% agreement with each other.

However, on a quite different point, Spiritofstgeorge's estimation on the significance of the Charity Foundation appears not to be the general consensus. It should be left where it is. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes but only if better sourcing can be found, all we have is a primary source from Rangers.Blethering Scot 20:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is where you are mistaken Escape Orbit, it is not original synthesis at all. The Sash is not sectarian, that much is fact and i'll give you a source list as long as my arm if you are disputing this. Now, this article states, as matter of fact, "Donald Findlay sang sectarian songs". I'm challenging this. I think it's easy enough to simply hide behind a cited article from a publication such as the BBC, but can it not be questioned? The BBC also published that the Sash was a sectarian song. But The Sash' own Wiki entry doesn't state this, despite the citation? Why? Because we know it's innaccurate. So why does the same not apply to the Findlay situation here? After-all, the 2 are interlinked. Ricky072 (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Original Synthesis: "Here's a cite that says The Sash is not sectarian. + Here's a cite that says Findlay sang The Sash = Conclusion not in any cite that Findlay therefore did not sing a sectarian song." This is the very definition of Original Synthesis. Why is Original Synthesis not permitted? Because we have no way of knowing that the way the facts have been synthesised together is valid and accurate. Maybe Findlay sang some other songs too. Maybe he added additional sectarian words. Maybe it was just the way he sang it. We do not know and we cannot Synthesise in order to reach our own conclusions. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Either way, i merely brought it up as an example, seems most editors want to keep this info in. The bottom line is this however; The fundamental goal of Wikipedia is to achieve factual accuracy, not merely a library of sources, right or wrong. The section on Findlay is a factual inaccuracy - and that shouldn't sit right with the editors here. Ricky072 (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

ok i am back now, the ranger charity could easily be made a external link but if it is sourced i dnt have objection to it staying. as for donald findley the sources and the video and donald findley himself show did sing secterian sonfs sash is debartele but i quote up to our noses in fenien blood isnt a\nd the sources speficaklly state itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Fourth tier record attendance match

Well, I came to this page and found some incorrect information about a world record attendance in a fourth tier game. I brought a source stating a different information and some people undid my edition saying something like that: "It's a unreliable source" or "It's not a league tournament". Well, the primary source for that information is the Brazilian FA. And the Brazilian Serie D is not a round-robin competition, but definitely is the fourth tier in Brazilian football pyramid. Even in 2010 edition Santa Cruz had a game with more than 50.000 people in Arruda stadium and people in Wikipedia have registered the fact in 2010 Campeonato Brasileiro Série D page. A total of three matches between 2010 and 2011 had more than 50.000 people with a income close to US$ 500.000. I let here some pages for you people to clear this matter, enjoy it:

Sambafoot, the only post in English i've found about the 60.000 people match,

Just to illustrate the previous one,

2010 Campeonato Brasileiro Série D,

Terra.com,

Globoesporte.com,

CBF, the Brazilian FA.

Vitorvec (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

there is a note at the botto of the page that explains the record you are meantioning, however th soruces provided are unreliable according to wp:rs and the brazilian fa one is a primary source so needs backed up with reliable 3rd party, the fact that reliable sources say teh rangers record is the world record mean we have to say what the sources say, but a ntoe is there meantion that unoffical it has been brokenAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 07:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Football pymramid, play-off final, etc. Take the English championship for example, they could pack Wembley to the rafters for the play-of final but that attendance figure is not filed under the same category as a domestic league match. It's the final a mini-tournament. Several reliable sources state that Rangers attendance is a world record, for a domestic league match in a 4th tier. You supplied insuffient evidence to disprove those sources. Ricky072 (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Clean up of page

I Strongly believe this page needs a major clean up. The second paragraph of the whole article for sure needs deletion for sure now that it has been confirmed that Rangers are the same club as new evidence has come to light http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/2291-charles-green-statement . Also a statement from HMRC themselves confirming it http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/rangers.htm . I feel this is irrelevent as similiar scenarios have not as much of an improtant mention on the pages of the clubs similair things have happened to ie Leeds utd, Fiorentina, celtic etc and I feel that this paragraph being at the start of this clubs artice is due to the fact it is a current debate amongst fans of rival clubs. If this paragraph were to be at the start then all the articles for the clubs this has happened to would need to be changed to mirror this article. I am new to wikipedia and I am still learning how to link up facts etc to links. So if someone could do this it would certainly make the article much more factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talk • contribs) 01:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree the second paragraph should be removed altogether - too soon. As time goes on it should be condensed. A possible future re-phrase of the whole thing could be something like

Founded in 1872, Rangers were one of the ten founder members of the Scottish Football League, remaining in the top division until the end of the 2011–12 season, when the club entered administration. Having been ejected from the Scottish Premier League, Rangers were relaunched with a new company structure, the club entering the Scottish Football League at the Third Division for the 2012–13 season.Gefetane (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

robbie you seem determindd to remove anything negative about rangers, i suggest you read what wp:lead says, it is a summnary of the page, and wether you like it or not this imporant part of the club history. in the future it might get condensed but for now it needs to remainm.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

An effective summary would be,

Founded in 1872, Rangers were one of the ten founder members of the Scottish Football League, remaining in the top division until the end of the 2011–12 season, when the club entered administration and were subsequently relaunched with a new company structure.

The thorough detail is included in the relevant parts of this article and the linked article about the administration and liquidation process. The lead doesn't mention the founding fathers, Bill Struth, the Ibrox disaster or 9 in a row these other very important parts of the clubs history. Meanwhile the recent restructure of the club merits a whole paragraph. Where's the effective summary of the article as stated by WP:Lead in that? Monkeymanman (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

did i say the lead was fine? no i know it doesnt cover the entire article yet but you dnt remove something fromt eh lead becuase you dnt think it is relevent , if it in the main body of th article then it is relvent to the lead asa summary, summarise it can happen later just now it cover the details fineAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 06:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Rangers relegated according to celtic!!!!!

noticed this when browsing about

"Celtic backer Dermot Desmond misses rivalry with Rangers". BBC Sport. 3 October 2012. Retrieved 4 October 2012. Celtic majority shareholder Dermot Desmond admits he misses the city rivalry with Rangers in the Scottish Premier League.
Rangers are playing in Division Three following a summer financial meltdown, leaving Celtic to dominate the SPL.
"For us, it's disappointing that they're not there," Desmond told BBC Sport.
...
"Rangers is a great football club, it has a great history and it's unfortunate that they have been relegated," said the Irish businessman. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

celtic see it as the same club and they where relgated....Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really a surprise, officially Rangers FC are the same entity, bought over by a new company. The SFA, SPL and SFL have all confirmed this, along with the independent commission set up to look into RFC's use of ETB's. The only people who don't seem to understand this are some Scottish football supporters fans trying to antagonise their rivals, and BBC Scotland it seems.

Another footballing body, UEFA, are still using the 5 year average for Rangers' UEFA coefficient points (You don't need to play in Europe to earn points, RFC have 1.500 points so far this season, as do every other Scottish club that weren't in European competition). So if RFC play in Europe in the next 4 seasons, they will be using coefficient points earned before administration. So UEFA can be added to the list of bodies that recognise that RFC has simply changed hands and is in fact the same entity/football club.

I can't see the 'New Club' argument coming back to wikipedia, but if it does it will be quickly shot down (again).

Thanks

Iainturnerisgod (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Helicopter Sunday

"Helicopter sunday" should an article on it be written? Your thoughts please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbieranger (talk • contribs) 02:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

say what???? if you mean the seaosn where the helicopter was waiting to fly the title to either celtic or rangers then it need to pass notabilty first with reliable sourcesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Indefinite Semi Protection

Could an admin fully protect the article. Its heading for chaos if its open to IP´s.Monkeymanman (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

if anything only semi protection is required, full protection is for edit warring, and one ip edit does not = protectionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I Agree. I got the two mixed up. Monkeymanman (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Kudpung (talk · contribs) to have a look at this as I think he may have meant indef on his last protection and not done it. GedUK  12:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

New club debate wont go away

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Even Mr Succulent Lamb himself James Traynor admits it... pay particular notice to the last sentence.. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/disgraced-ex-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-1385032 but youll ignore that aswell because your admining a page and refusing point blank to recognise the truth.You used the word 'technically' well technically the club that plays at ibrox today are not the club that played St Johnstone on the last day of the season last year,you know it,I know that you know it. all the same club debateor might not like ot here this but todays article on bbc [2] claims it to be a new club and the old club is about to go into liquidation ie handed over to the liquidators

'He also added: “What other country in the world would deal with one of their biggest clubs in the way they have and demote them to the Third Division.”

Wrong again, Craig. Rangers had to go there because they were a new club starting over.'

Well for a start Traynor is wrong as we all know how Rangers ended up in the 3rd division. A new club joining the SFL has to have 3 years of accounts. If this was indeed a new club they wouldn't have them. However the SFA accepted Rangers previous accounts as they see it as the same club. BadSynergy (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

After HMRC rejected proposals for a creditors agreement that would have allowed the old club to continue, Duff and Phelps negotiated a sale of assets to a consortium led by Charles Green for £5.5m.
He has since formed a new club which is playing in the Scottish Football League Third Division.

as much as people like this to go away it wont as even now there still seen as some as a new club, the request for comment might still have to be done im not participation in any of the debate on this as i am currently to busy and i believe the article fully acknowledged it seen as a new club but recongised as the same club and when i do get back to woring on it i am focus on bring it up to FA not this debate as it pointless as we all should know by now that both sides are correct what sources say.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Only really a debate if people raise objections again isn't it? Sparhelda 17:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

One article by an anonymous author, from an organisation prohibited from Rangers press conferences, in direct contradiction of the SFA, SPL, SFL, HMRC, UEFA, Lord Hodge, Lord Nimmo Smith and so and so on... and suddenly the "debate" is back? You are not serious are you? Gefetane (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In that same article it says, 'The former Sheffield United chief executive reformed Rangers as a new company.' so its contradicting itself. BadSynergy (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

im not saying the debate will come back only that the arguement from the same club camp have been that now the new season has started everyone accepts it the same team but this isa article form today that contrdicts that, so the debate can easily come back, however no changes will be made withouta consensus changing as currently as can be seen from talk archive the consensus is that it is the same club, i am merely pointing out that it does, and gefetane, rangers baning bbc makes no difference in respect to wikipedia policies and articles.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)I dont understand why you lot cannot accept that Rangers Football Club where liquidated,they are no more, Charles Green only bought the assets of the club in no way did he buy the club otherwise theyd still be in the premier division,Charles Green started a new football club theres nothing hidden or new in that except from people who want to deny the truth and bring the integrity of wikipedia into question and make a mockery of the good faith policy, its a joke.

you cant handle the truth,even Doncaster this week admitted it, sure Rangers will remain but its a different Rangers.

in reality your right that it is techincally a new club, but wikipedia interigoity is fine, if you understood the wikipedia guidelines you know why, because reliable sources say its the same club with the history, and yes sfa, spl, sfl, fifa, uefa, hmrc have vested interested in making suer they dnt go away until one of them come out and say its a new club wikipedia wont change its stance its backed up with sources.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No,you Rangers supporters have perverted wikipedias good faith policy and ridiculed the integrity of the so called 'resource' here ESPN tell it like it is http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1187005/celtic-cleared-over-'offensive-banner'?fb_action_ids=10151185502792512&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582&cc=3436 oh and Mr Doncaster sums it up aswell

as a celtic fan ip user you shoulkd be asking your chairman why he thinks http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/spl-no-worse-off-without-rangers.19126694?fb_action_ids=10151186205672512&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582 rangers are the same team from 1872 and why he thinks it still there biggest rivals and why he says they where relegated and didnt start as a new clubAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Andrew,your paying lip service in order to appear impartial but its obvious the 'game' your playing.

Poor choice of language Andrew: "might come back" is a lot different from "won't go away". One (correctly) implies the debate has gone, one implies it hasn't! Lord Nimmo Smith recently described Rangers as: a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. That's on top of Lord Glennie distinguishing between the company, Oldco, and Rangers Football Club, the SFA member club it presently operates. That is legal opinion, not some anonymous BBC Scotland hack with an axe to grind against the club that's banned them from their premises. The few remaining "new club" advocates may still shout loudly, but the brick wall of 3rd party opinions contradicting them is overwhelming. Gefetane (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Rangers Football Club should clearly be recognized as a phoenix club because that is what it is, basically 'The Rangers' have risen from the ashes from the liquidated defunct Rangers FC, sharing the same fan base and stadium as the previous football club did,again and its difficult to reiterate, this is wikipedia, not not a Rangers FC fan page for them to believe what they want to believe,its supposed to be about point of reference,fact and dare I say technicality,again If I married Proscilla adopted Lisa Maria moved into Graceland and sang and being in a ghetto with my white suit on and legally changed my name bought all the assets and rights I still would not be the King would I ? Its not rocket science for goodness sake, and I feel that the sooner 'The Rangers' fans come to accept this reality the sooner they can move on. Should be remembered that Rangers fans did not want Bill Miller because he openly said he planned to place the Club in an incubator and start a new football club that would merge once the other club had recovered, if he'd have done this it would have been fine and worked and all the history and tradition could have been maintained but he wasn't he was hounded out because "The Rangers" fans where totally against liquidating the club because they knew what the implications of that where,Manchester Utd have a ridiculous amount of debt,how easy would it be for them to simply drop the debt and maintain theyre still the same club ? It cannot be done,simple as that. You 'The Rangers' fans have to get over it and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.154.226 (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Your heartfelt opinions and "clever" analogies are worth no more than the heartfelt opinions and analogies of those holding the opposing view. The fact is the presiding League authority - the Scottish Football League - officially recognise them as Rangers FC, founded 1872. Look on their website, the evidence is clear and unambiguous. The presiding football organisations hold the authority to determine the matter. They did this by transferring the membership of "Rangers FC" from oldco to newco. They could have made them apply for a "new club" membership, but they didn't, preferring the club pay off outstanding football debts that would otherwise have been written off along with the rest of the liabilities. Whether you like it or not, these are the recognised facts unless you have evidence that contradicts them in any way. Moaning about how unfair it all is may pull on the heart strings, but it is of zero worth to altering the facts on this matter.Gefetane (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Nothing to do with 'pulling heart strings' and everything to do with honesty and integrity,you "The Rangers" fans have abused wikipedias good faith policy to a point where Im open mouthed.as for recognised fact I suggest you go and look up what liquidation means,you where the club you where not a seperate entity, Rangers football Club where liquidated, when "The Rangers" get to the SPL for the first time EVERY football club will remind you of what you are. your no different from an Aidrie Utd, to suggest your Rangers FC is ludicrous, and the Elvis analogy is 100% on the money, your in Div three because your a new club,you where allowed to take over(not become) Rangers membership thats the FACT and thats the TRUTH.you cant become something thats been liquidated same as I cant become someone whos died.

as i have made clear before my english isnt the best so that wont help me with trying to describe things. i am only pointing out that the issue still could come back because some biased editors will jump on things liek this, and sicne bbc is seen as reliable it makes the job harder but we jst now witht he article can add extra source like this to th part where we recongise that it seen as a new club sometimes in the media. but i stress again rangers banning the bbc does not matter and that was craig whyte ther eno indicaiton if that ban remains, even if it does it does nto matter to wikipedia as we dnt determine if the relaiable source is being baised or not as that orgiinal research. ive got no intention of bring it back up just thought when i seen the article i would menaiton it so the same club camp can see although consensus has set the article in the right direction consensus can change and simething liek this could do itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I recently had content removed from an article i updated because i used The Sun as a source. I was told The Sun is not a reputable source. At this rate, I'm starting to think the BBC shoudl be added to that category - their journalistic standards have been in steady decline and questions of their impartiality in this situation have the questioned. I recently read they were banned from Ibrox for depicting Ally McCoist committing suicide. After being banned from the press conference they begin to print the term 'new club' again? Ricky072 (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally the BBC can be trusted. However this Rangers saga has been characterised by discussions of terminology, with various terms and ambiguous meanings being banded around. The BBC should not be deemed untrustworthy EXCEPT in cases where it's content contradicts FACTS already established from a litany of other 3rd party sources. I think we all understand this anyway. Gefetane (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

i can disgunise between what is said and saying but there is always who will read it as they liek for there own agenda, again i am only pointing out that the new club will still be presented fora logn time yet, not until rangers win something again will it be clearer as that when we will get sources saying either this is the first in their history or first since demotion to 3rd division either one will bring the debate back for either side, i agree the majority of soruces say it is the same club and i am contuniing to update with more sources when i can until after bonfire night i am bit busy in perosnal life so i have had to put the work on the article on hold but i am still around and things liek i will point out if i find a source like the one i put for the part next to the infobox for 2012/2012 season which says rangers got revenge on falkirk for there lost in the cup last season which shows contunion i will do that to, please remember i am inpartial and neutral i post for both sides because both sides have valid arguement however the new club camp arguments have weaken a lot since the new seaosn started.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not a new club

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. This is the same football as an overwhelming amount of Reliable sources are stating. The one from HMRC themselves stating it is an existing club http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/rangers.htm , the fact that on the SFL official site it states Rangers were founded in 1872 http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers/ and the statement made by Lord Nimmo Smith that "The commission has in effect ruled that Rangers and its history did not die on 14 June". Full statement here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19722487. I hope this clears things up a bit as it would really be sad if this issue was brought back up on wikipedia again. I don't feel a consensus is neccessary and I feel that the HMRC statement link should be included on the actual article to avoid such confusion. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbieranger (talk • contribs) 11:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, Lord Nimmo Smith actually said that a football club (Rangers obviously) "continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator." Google that and you'll find the transcript no problem. Lord Glennie also distinguished between the "football club" and the "owner and operator". Clearly such a distinction only comes into play when - as in Rangers case - there is a change in relationship between the two, otherwise calling the company "the club" is common parlance as in "i've got shares in the club". This dual use is at the root of much of the confusion. Gefetane (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think what has happened is that Lord Nimmo Smith and others have been forced by circumstances to try to understand and explain the SFA's contrivance of "transfer of membership" from one organisation to another. This device was clearly designed to support the idea that Old Rangers and New Rangers were one and the same "club". In order to understand this, one has to make a distinction between "club" and "company", even though, legally and organisationally, they are one and the same. The use of the term "club" in this context really refers to an identity - something that is intangible. What has happened is that the identity of Old Rangers continues unchanged in the form of New Rangers, but in football parlance people find it easier and less traumatic to talk in terms of the "club". Mooretwin (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it odd when people (not talking about you here) portray what has survived of Rangers as something "intangible", a "spirit" of Rangers, usually said in an effort to appear (falsely) conciliatory. Is the stadium not "tangible"? Are the players not "tangible"? Is the manager not "tangible"? What about the shirt/the badge/the name/the training ground - all pretty tangible to my senses. Hardly agents of the spiritual realm! Physically the club has clearly survived. Blokes in Rangers shirts running out at Rangers ground under the name "Rangers" is all the evidence to prove that. Even, purely for the sake of argument, it was accepted that in some sense Rangers had not survived somehow, the physical reality of Rangers players in Rangers kits playing as Rangers in Rangers stadium would mean it was a paper exercise concession. Gefetane (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course the stadium, badge, etc. are tangible. But the "identity" or "tradition", which is in part made up of these things, is something greater. Mooretwin (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The distinction between club and company is not a "contrivance" by the SFA, some trick pulled out of the hat to save Rangers. It's actually common place in English football - Leeds, Charlton, Luton, Middlesbrough etc... all distinct new companies to which the football club they operate was officially transferred to them from a liquidated Oldcos. Neil Doncaster explained this in an interview he gave a few months ago... "In Scotland we’ve never had a newco at any time but in England but in England whenever a club goes into administration a newco is a natural consequence. That now seems to be the accepted way that clubs now emerge from administration. So the likes of Crystal Palace recently and Plymouth in the last few years; those are clubs that went into administration., They took their points deduction for going into administration on the first place but in terms of coming out of administration a newco was the preferred route forward." The distinction between company and club is a fundamental grounding for understanding of why Rangers are, officially, considered to be a continuation of the club founded in 1872. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gefetane (talk • contribs) 13:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

With the exception (I believe) of Middlesbrough, those clubs weren't liquidated, they merely entered into administration and ultimately survived. Rangers did not survive. Ironically (given that you cite English precedent), FA rules now do not allow new clubs to continue the membership of liquidated clubs - they are treated as "new clubs" and aren't allowed to retain the original name (e.g. Darlington and Darlington 1883). So it's not commonplace in English football. In fact, Middlesbrough may be a single example (assuming Middlesbrough was, in fact, liquidated). Mooretwin (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. Like so many "they were never liquidated" claims before you, the facts have obviously not been consulted:

• Leeds United AFC Inc. 1920 Company Status: IN LIQUIDATION
• Charlton Athletic LIQUIDATED according to the Liquidator himself ("I was appointed Joint Liquidator of Charlton Athletic in 1984...")
• Luton Town Oldco - incorporated 1897, LIQUIDATION in 2007. Gefetane (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You are also wrong that the FA rules don't allow x,y or z. Read this, a report which specifically regards the case of Luton. It makes clear there is "scope for a compromise agreement by utilising the exceptional case option, designed to keep clubs within the League if at all possible", which explains why the transferral of Luton's pre-existing League licence to newco, pending conditions, was approved (which put you under the false impression the Oldco wasn't liquidated). Gefetane (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you'd better edit the Wikipedia articles about those clubs as they don't mention liquidation. As to the other point, England still doesn't provide a precedent as more defunct clubs are required to start as new clubs as are allowed to continue as though they were one and the same - Telford, Darlington, Halifax, Chester, etc. Mooretwin (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, my original point stands. These "transferances" of membership are a contrivance, whether they occur in Scotland or England or anywhere else, designed to allow (certain) defunct clubs to be resurrected from the dead. In the case of as big a club as Rangers, it would have been too traumatic to do anything other than find a device to recognise New Rangers as the same club as Old Rangers. The way to do this is to argue that there is an intangible concept known as a "club" that is somehow separate from the "company", and which has a life of its own distinct from that company (even though the club had been incorporated as a company for over a century). What is really being referred to in this context is an identity, comprising club colours, badge, history, tradition, etc., and not an organisation. Mooretwin (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Two of your original points, about FA rules and liquidated clubs, were actually flat out wrong. As for the rest, I'm still not finding it convincing at all...

• Firstly, merely highlighting that a number of small clubs don't - for whatever reason - follow the same route of bigger clubs, like Rangers, Leeds, Boro etc does not invalidate the precedent set by those bigger clubs. Indeed, the need to compare like with like positively affirms the comparison with the bigger clubs, rather than the Chesters/Halifaxs of this world. An interesting hypothetical example would be Portsmouth - would they be forced to start from the bottom of the pyramid as "Portsmouth Rovers", or would an agreement be struck, with punishments/debt conditions, to allow them to retain their Football League place at some level? I know which scenario I think would be most likely.
• Secondly, I don't care why the survival of Rangers FC happened (ie. it would be too "traumatic" otherwise), I only care IF it happened - which the evidence proves it did.
• Thirdly, a "club" is not an intangible concept, quite the opposite. It is a collection of physical assets - players, a manager, physios, same-coloured kits, same badges, supporters, a changing room, a trophy room, a stadium and park to play on, performing in a football competition. I emphasise again, that is NOT intangible! All those elements have fundamentally survived, as such it makes perfect sense to say the club has TANGIBLY survived. If anything it is the corporate identity which is intangible, considering that Rangers could be playing a match in front of 50000 spectators and - what you define as - the "club" (really meaning the company) would be dissolved in a court hearing and no-one would know any different! How is that more tangible than the aspects by which I have defined "club"? It clearly isn't. And what is more, the 3rd party sources directly contradict any straightforward "club = company" definition in relation to this case. Gefetane (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• It may not "invalidate the precedent", but it's still a contrivance. The precedent is also a contrivance.
• Whether you care or not is irrelevant to my opinion that a device was found to contrive a "transfer" from Old Rangers to New Rangers as though they were one and the same.
• I agree that, ordinarily, a club is not an intangible concept. It is ordinarily an organisation taking various forms, including that of a limited company. My point, however, was that in this particular context, the word "club" is being used to descibe, not the organisation, but the "identity" attached to the organisation. While tangible assets such as a ground, badge, etc., are obviously important aspects of that identity, the identity is something greater and includes, for example, history and traditions. Mooretwin (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Mooretwin, you're about 3 months late to the party. Stop wasting everyones time going over old debates which have been convincingly determined & concenus achieved. Ricky072 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There are some users that will not be aware of the key facts and sources regarding this matter, as was evidenced above regarding the liquidation of Leeds, Charlton etc. It's important all the information is to hand when this issue rears its head, as it inevitably will from time to time. Gefetane (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

we could put a header at the top of the page that links to the important parts of the talk archives where it shows the consensus and also cite the links to the important references that shows it the same club, maybe citea few that show there isa ackledgment it is refer to a new club that way there is something to show everyone every time it comes upAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The occasion was replete with oddities to satisfy the most assiduous pub quiz statto. The second largest crowd in the UK - bested only by Manchester United - had assembled to watch a contest between the team with the world record for league titles face the only amateur side to play in the British professional leagues.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9624467/Rangers-finally-return-to-the-top-of-the-pile.html

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 23 November 2012

Rangers FC as an entity does not exist any longer. The company and organisation was liquidated earlier this year therefore the discription should read in a past tense.. ie "Rangers was..." etc

This is probably being disputed by fans of the old club but from a legal point of view the liquidated Rangers do not trade any more and do not exist. A seporate page should be set up for the new company they have founded. Paulmc597 (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read the very extensive discussion above and in the archives. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Further revisiting of this old issue with no new evidence and no change in consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry unless you have got new evidence that shows it as new club then we wont be reopening the discussion, sfa,sfl,spl,uefa and fifa football governing bodies all treat them as the ame club founded in 1872/1873 why we dnt know but wikipedia does not do original reasearch we only put what reliable soruces say, the article meantions they are seen as a new club but also as the same club but we dnt decided which it is th reader is free to read the soruce decide themselfAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but this is a page about the football club (Rangers FC), not the company that was liquidated (The Rangers Football Club PLC) I can see how you are confused as the names are very similar. One was a football club, the other was a company that operated a football club, the football club is now operated by a new company (newco). See Ownership of Rangers F.C. for information on the company that was liquidated and the new company that now operate the club. Thanks Iainturnerisgod (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC) The bit about UEFA and FIFA treating them as it's the club that was founded in 1872/73 is factually incorrect. The Rangers FC cannot participate in European competition for 3 years. Not Banned from Europe, but ineligible. They are ineligible because FIFA and UEFA rules declare that no club without 3 years of trading audited accounts can participate. Because of that, The Rangers FC formed in 2012 are treated as a NEW CLUB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Chapter 2 Article 12 - The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision. UEFA Note three consecutive years not just 3 years of accounts. When Rangers failed to produce yearly accounts UEFA rules see that as an interruption of membership not a 'new club'. Should note that Rangers are still in their co-efficient rankings aswell not removed. Also the SFA accepted Rangers' old accounts to transfer membership hardly something a new club could get away with. BadSynergy (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC) I see the article alludes to the fact that this "Rangers" is the same one that was founded in 1872. Wrong. There has been a lot of misconception regarding this around the Scottish media, probably because they are in denial about the reality of the situation. Charles Green himself, prior to the CVA being rejected, claimed that in the event that a CVA was rejected, they would have to go down the newco route, brand new club, no history. After the CVA was rejected a new wave of propaganda took place - "the company liquidated but the club did not" and that has been the official stance ever since. Except of course if you look at the facts you will see that the reality is quite different. The first simple way to look at this is by examining why Rangers FC are not in the SPL at the moment. They weren't demoted, they weren't relegated, they weren't voted out or even kicked out. So why aren't they there? Well as they failed to get a CVA, the club ceased to exist and the clubs' assets were sold at a knock down price. What is a club? Well there can be many definitions but as far as the SFA / UEFA are concerned, the club is the entity that is legally obliged to register players, pay wages, adhere to rules etc. Only the club can get a licence to play in Europe, only the club can get SFA membership. And since only a club can register players, you have to ask yourself why every Rangers player had to TUPE over FROM Rangers TO the new club (Sevco). You also have to ask why big name players were allowed to walk away without breaking their contract. The answer is simple. The club they played for ceased to exist; they walked away and Charles Green's new club - despite all the propaganda and spin - were entitled to nothing. The article states: "The company also applied for SFA membership on 29 June 2012". That is completely false. A company cannot apply for membership. The only entity that can apply for membership is the club and therefore the entity known as Sevco(Scotland) applied for membership, they applied AS the club and they quickly changed name to "The Rangers Football Club" which was the actual name on the tickets in their very first match. The article states: "As a result of Rangers' "assets, business and history" being sold to a new company ..." well again this is an example of the denial in many people - because I don't know how you can buy "history". Could Arsenal buy Manchester UTD's history? Could Newcastle buy Liverpool's history and finally get to say they won a trophy in recent years? Can you sell history? If you buy a club that is running, you buy everything about that club including its history. But when a club ceases to exist and all you buy is the stadium, then i'm sorry, but how can you buy "history?" This is a new club, founded in 2012. Furthermore, this new club cannot play in Europe for three years. The rules state that any club with less than 3 years accounts cannot participate in European competition. Many excuses have been made to disguise this fact, like the club has been "banned" from Europe or that it has something to do with a "holding company" not having accounts. Rangers FC, founded in 1872, died in 2012. A new club called Sevco(Scotland) applied to join Scottish football and changed its name to "The Rangers" and people then used "Rangers" in an attempt to find some kind of continuity to the old club, but legally and factually, the old club died and a new one was born. David Murray (Murray International Holdings) used to own Rangers FC. Craig Whyte (Wavetower) used to own Rangers FC. Those were examples of a company owning a club. In the case of Charles Green, he bought bricks & mortar (stadium & training ground) and formed a new club. There is further ambiguity in all of this because Charles Green accepted some conditions that were handed out to old Rangers, such as a transfer embargo and being forced to pay off some old Rangers football debts. Some people look at this as a reason to state that the club never liquidated but these sanctions were not legally binding - the SFA could not enforce these onto Charles Green and his new club but Charles Green decided to accept them. Padraig4545 (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Padraig

I have hatted the discussion above. The edit request has been answered: the current consensus is that there is a continuity of the entity called Rangers. There's no need to keep revisiting this as the consensus is very clear and is unlikely to change. It certainly won't change if the same arguments are brought out each time the issue reappears. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)