Talk:The Rangers Football Club Ltd/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Club Website

A factor that hasn't been talked about much is the continued use of the same website, this surely must go in favour of the club being the same? Business is going on as usual at Ibrox as well with the ticket office, club shop etc. Nothing apart from the league situation and some players leaving has actually changed. Sparhelda 03:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The website is an asset. Also - Business is not going on as usual with the ticket office - Only 250 season tickets have been sold for next season. Saying nothing apart from the league situation has changed is just plain wrong. Andevaesen (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Season tickets are slow due to not having a league to play in as well as some direct debit and banking problems, but on the whole it's business as usual. Same goes for the shop, for the Argyle House Restaurant etc. My point is there has at no point been padlocks or things boarded up. Sparhelda 11:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ofcourse a website is an asset, deary me! Ricky072 (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think to know if Rangers FC and Newco Rangers (The Rangers FC) are the same club is to know if the new entity keeps the SFA membership number (affiliation number) of the olkd one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.97.180.215 (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Read the SFA rule book and SPL rule book... The club is not the member. The financial operator of the club is the registered member, hence the reason rangers could not transfer the SPL membership to charles Green.. any financial business that runs a club and ends up being wound up shall have there membership revoked I.e RFC PLC had there membership for the SPL revoked. the club Rangers FC is a separate entity and still very much exists, hence the reason the SFA still wish to punish them for there wrong doing now even after excepting the new financial company is an associated member of the SFL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.38.135 (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It would appear the at the ownership of the website has not been sold or transfered to Sevco Scotland. It would appear that it is being 'misused' by Sevco rather being used by 'Rangers'. http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/rangers-co-uk-ltd-operates-rangers-website-under-director-donald-mcintyre-could-it-be-sued-by-liquidator/ Mr Parker (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Scotslawthoughts website is not true opinions or true facts it's only thoughts from a guy who claims to be a lawyer, not even in this field... There are no true facts just like the daily record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.38.135 (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Newco Rangers/Old Rangers should remain in one article. See Middlesbrough 1986 & Fiorentina 2002.

Middlesbrough's liquidation in 1986 and transfer to a new company has in no way detached the current club from its history before liquidation. It is regarded as being a continuation of the same club, a fact that is represented in Middlesbrough occupying a single Wikipedia entry. Furthermore, Fiorentina's liquidation and reformation in 2002 is in almost identical circumstances to those surrounding Rangers, however the new company/registration of Fiorentina is regarded as being in essence the same club - again, something that is represented in there being only one Wikipedia article for Fiorentina.

Moreover, both of these articles represent a precedent in Wikipedia guidelines for the handling of reformation situations such as these and it would therefore be nonsensical and nonlinear to not follow suit in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.8.84 (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

there no precedent the only thing that matters is 3rd party verifiable reliable sources which points to the club history is gone but also points to teh club history remains until teh sfa makes astatement regarding rangers no one knows, but there is plenty of discussion on how to handl eit--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

ofcourse precedents matter. As for the history, the only official document that mentions history is the administrators report on the transaction of the club, which is an official record fo the transaction wihch clearly states the history was part of that. That outweighs tabloids & jounralistic POV's that history is gone. Ricky072 (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Again and again and again. This situation is not the same as any of the other clubs' situations. Why is this so hard to comprehend? See the forest for the trees. Andevaesen (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

where are you sources to back up what your saying i have sources that says the club is liquidated and the club is alive and history is with the new company that owns the clubAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Andevaesen, ofcourse every club is different, but the fundamental issues are the same. The process of a company that operates the sports club going into liquidation while a newco comes alogn and buys the business and asstes is nothing new. IT's been going on for decades. So why treat this case different from others? Ricky072 (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Ricky. The club and the company were one in the same, which has been shown in various sources. No, not from the start of Rangers' existence, but from a later date. I'm not sure why this is even a sticking point, but apparently it is. If Rangers had a vote regarding the place of Newco within the league structure that they haven't yet become a part of - Yet apparently represent Rangers, surely you can see that this is an entirely different entity. I understand why you don't want to accept it, and I assume you are a Rangers fan, but from the outside of any support from a Scottish football team, it only looks one way to pretty much everybody. Furthermore - Rangers FC are being liquidated and this will take probably two to three months. By that time, Newco will already be playing football and there will still be two entities apparently representing Rangers. One in liquidation, one in a healthy state. I just think it's clear. Andevaesen (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

thatr the point its your pov none oif rwally know, from whatr i have been reading the plc was a holding company and the club was basically a assesst strange i know, and it was the plc that held the spl sfa share strange i know, and it sevco scotland that hold the sfl membership, im not asaying it right i aint sure it can be sOurce properly but until it clear cut we will have this disputeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone mentions Fiorentina here. The Fiorentina situation is not the same: it was even worse. After the old AC Fiorentina disbanded, a new club was created out of nowhere with a different logo, ownership, identification number ("matricola" - matricule - as we call it in Italian) and name: "Florentia Viola". The team played in the fourth tier and was promoted in its first season, then admitted to play Serie B under the new name of ACF Fiorentina, after the property re-acquired the rights to use the old Fiorentina logo and name. Yet, the team was always considered as the "informal" heir of AC Fiorentina (even though it was not legally so, and it isn't yet). Italian football is actually full of situations like these: see S.S.C. Napoli (which legally is different from the historical club that won the Italian league in the 1980s with Maradona as player - for a period it was even known as "Napoli Soccer"), U.S. Città di Palermo (founded in the 1980s, informal heir of the original Palermo club), Torino F.C., Parma F.C. (re-founded after the old AC Parma entered so-called "controlled bankruptcy", but maintaining Serie A status and players in the meantime). Still we have unique articles for all of them. --Angelo (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What is also important Angelo in the cases of Napoli & Fiorentina, they 'purchased' the rights to the old clubs name, badge, brand & history. In the case of both clubs, this purchase was made after a few seasons as a 'phoenix club'. So in short, both Napoli & Fiorentina folded, then new 'phoenix clubs' were formed with different names & identites, and then later the new owners purchased the rights to once again become the old club, by purchasing the legal identity. It's difficult to pin down and actual definition of a sports club, but it's clear that Wikipedia documents sports clubs within 1 article, which contains there corporate governance and any insolvency/rebirth events. Ricky072 (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, and that is true in all of the cases I mentioned but one (namely Palermo, in which the club is obliged to use the original name due to an agreement made with the city administration when it was refounded - hence, the name "Città di Palermo"). Italian football is full of examples like these, and other countries have them too as far as I know (I'm aware of a few similar cases in Spain too, Malaga for instance). --Angelo (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers are rangers, same club same history, SFA want The Newco to take punishment for oldco, so the history should remain and the club remains he same RANGERS F.C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.38.135 (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggest we rename this article 'Rangers F.C. (newco)'

It is already clear from the SFL statement, when they granted membership to Green's club, that the club is being referred to a Rangers FC. Since we are unable to rename the Rangers FC article at present, a way forward may be to change the name of this article so that readers can find the one they wish, be it the original Rangers or the newco Rangers Any thoughts? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought this article even existing was still the subject of a dispute? Sparhelda 22:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It is, but the last discussion about whether ir=t shout be deleted concluded 'keep' just a couple of weeks ago. The article is still being updated as events develop, and in light of the fact that it appears that the club will be using the name 'Rangers FC' next season, I am suggesting that it may improve the article to rename it to more reflect that fact.

Is anyone arguing that we should keep the existing name rather than move it as I am suggesting? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - this proposed title would maintain the main problem, where we have two articles that seem to be about the same club. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why does your campaign to recognise clubs operating under newco's with a new Wikipedia article start & finish with Rangers? Why do you not participate on the talk pages of Leeds & Luton to create 'Leeds United A.F.C (newco)' or 'Luton Town F.C (newco)'? What is your response to the official administrators document that details charles Greens transaction that the history is now owned by the newco? Do you include the entire history of RFC in your newco article, or do you brush off this source as being wrong? Ricky072 (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, if I had 'a campaign' for two articles as you put it, why would have I suggested a single article similar to the one at Clydebank F.C.? (Of course, I now realise that that possibility is not a viable way forward because, as you yourself said, "no compromise is possible."

Socondly, to deal directly with your comment, the source you refer to would appear to contradict what Charles Green himself has said. I quote from this television interview which has been transcribed in the accompanying news article on stv: "It shows a lack of understanding that Mr King has in this transaction. His other comments recommending that creditors and shareholders should vote against a CVA beggars belief for someone who is a Rangers fan. What he’s suggesting, rather than get a CVA through that retains all the history and tradition, we should go down the newco route. I mean why would a true fan suggest that?" - Green obviously believed that getting a CVA through would retain the history as opposed to going down the newco route.

Why is it that you brush off what Charles Green says here but accept what he says when it is in line with your POV? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• A compromise isn't possible because it's a yes/no question. Are Rangers FC the same club under a new company, or a different club all together? It is one or the other. Your version of a 'compromise' is to represent Rangers as a new club but within 1 article.
• You never answered my question, why do you not campaign for Leeds or Luton to have an additional club page for the Newco, like you are trying to achieve for Rangers?
• You also never answered my question regarding the administrators document as a source, you instead defelcted to another source
• On your point of the Charles Green quote, he does not say "Newco equals new club and we lose all history", that is you 'reading between the lines'. "...rather than get a CVA through that retains ALL history" he is correct, a CVA retains the history of the company formed in 1899. The plc that ran the club from 1899-2012, is a part of the history, which is now being liquidated.
• This article is becoming somewhat a 'battle of sources', you think that a comment in an interview from Charles Green which is very much 'open to interpretation' outweighs an official administrators document detailing the transaction of the sale, which unequivocally states that the history was inclusive of Charles Greens transaction, when dealing with the question; Does the Newco retain the history of Rangers F.C?

Ricky072 (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct - my version of a compromise was indeed to suggest that is might be possible to deal with the old Rangers and the new Rangers within the same article as, for example, Clydebank FC and Newport County both do - both those clubs, like the new Rangers, purchased or were gifted the identity of the previous club and wikipedia has one article to detail the full story. But it appears that 'no compromise is possible' is your only response. Such an attitude means that this will have to be resolved by dispute resolution procedure, and then will leave one 'side' feeling unhappy at the outcome. Wikipedia is not supposed to work like that.

As for not answeing your question about your source, I'll give you an answer but I know that doing so is completely pointless because you have made your mind up on these matters already. I do not believe it is possible for anyone to 'sell' a club's history except by selling the club itself. If it were possible, perhaps someone should tell Stewart Milne who is trying to raise millions to build a new stadium for Aberdeen FC - perhaps he could sell their Cup Winner's Cup success in the 1980s to the highest bidder?That must be worth a few quid! So why would the administrators do this? Perhaps because they were asked to do so by Green who has acommercial interest in promoting the notion that this is the same club. - who knows.

Anyway, I've tried to answer your question. Will you answer this? Why do so many knowledgeable people - former Rangers greats no less - say that the new club is not the same Rangers? Are they all mistaken? Why would they think this it is is untrue? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Why use Clydebank as precedent Leeds, Luton, Bourenmotuh, Charlton (to name a few) are greater precedents in that they were straight forward liquidation/newco's? Clydebank are fundamentally different as they were baught over by another club.
• You still have not answered why you are not campaigning for the above mentionen clubs to have seperate club pages, or be recognised as different clubs by Wikipedia, can we expect your explanation as to why?
• Newport were 'wound up' with a newco purchasing the business. Do you still not recognise the difference between a 'Newco' & 'Phoenix Club'?
• You say "I do not believe it is possible for anyone to 'sell' a club's history". The fact is there is undeniable evidence that states the history of RFC was inclusive of the asset purchase. This is common practice in business. See: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cgmanual/cg68010.htm for perhaps a more detailed insight to what Goodwill is. Goodwill is recognised by the laws of this country as somthing that can be defined as an asset and legally allows a new company to be recognised as the same business it purchased assets from.
• To summarise, the law recognises 'goodwill' and it's value as an intangible asset, and something that can be purchased. We can see conclusive evidence from an adminitrative document detailing the newco transaction that goodwill, including history, were inclusive of the transaction passed over to the new entity. But we shall ignore all this because fishiehelper doesn't beleive it's possible. Ricky072 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice you have not answered the question I asked above. Allow me to repeat it:

Why do so many knowledgeable people - former Rangers greats no less - say that the new club is not the same Rangers? Are they all mistaken? Why would they think this it is is untrue? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

its called pov fisherhelper, ever person commenting in the press etc has there own pov no omne knows not you nt me not ricky only the sfa the sooner they bloody decide to tell us all the soonere this dispute will end just now it will only end when higher ups of wikipedia make the call and since no one canm compromise then its impossible im happy accepting edits you and ricky have made on the sandbox i only tried to roughly update and merge the two but both of you have slightly differebt pov as you have both sdaid so you wont find a happy medium it black or whiteAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

When Lee Wallace confirmed he was transferring his contract and returned to training he made a point of saying it is the same club. 86.129.143.66 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

As that was your first post, welcome to wikipedia! Unfortunately, if you stick around you will discover that the sources are not clear cut, providing evidence to support both sides in this dispute. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It's actually not, I just forgot to log in! I hope the dispute can be resolved before the season gets under way at least. Sparhelda 00:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• To answer your question, there are many conflicting points of view, for example someone like Steven Naismith has reffered to it as a 'new club', while Lee Wallaca has insisted it's the same club. Everyone has their own interpretations on something that is somewhat unclear, aswell as their own motvies (Naismtih may have been using it an excuse to break his contract, Lee Wallace may have been trying to win fans). Either way to solely base your evidence on certain points-of-view from footballer and/or journalists, which is very easily conflicted, (sometimes even within their own articles) is incredibly weak.

So maybe now you can answer my questions.

• Why does your crusade to have 2 Wikipedia pages for clubs operating under the newco strcuture start & finish at Rangers, why are you not editing the pages of Leeds or Luton?
• Why do you think it's acceptable to simply ignore the existence of 'goodwill' because you personally don't believe it's right?

Ricky072 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ricky072 - to answer your question directly: there are a couple of reasons why I have not tried to change other articles as you suggest, but mainly it is down to the fact that I have been interested in Rangers for most of my life. I remember vividly my grandfather taking me to my first match at Ibrox when I was about 8 years old, but being from the north-east, I have only been to Ibrox a couple of times since then - indeed I have seen them play at Pittodrie more often than I've seen them at Ibrox! I lost much of my interest in football when I went to university and then getting married and having kids meant I had no money or time anyway. When my son started to play juvenile football my interest rekindled but at grassroots level rather that SPL. I did take my son to Ibrox once because I wanted him to have an experience to remember like I had, but I felt quite uncomfortable and decided not to go back. (I felt aware that our north-east accents were attracting 'looks' from others, and didn't feel so 'at home' being surrounded by a large group from Northern Ireland.) In summary, I am not a Celtic fan (as some editors may suppose) and though I watch the odd SPL match on tv, my interest is 'grassroots'.

Now as to why I have got myself involved here: I have been an editor for about 5 years (including my first name 'Fishiehelper' - until I forgot my password and had to re-register) and have tended to go through phases of issues that interest me. The Rangers article took my interest precisely because I realised that some editors would refuse to accept the significance of the liquidation of their club and would seek to 'spin' the story in ways that I felt could undermine the wikipedia. When I saw that a new article had been started for the new Rangers, I thought that was exactly the right way forward. I have then been involved since then trying to protect and improve what is being done from some editors who appear to have 'an agenda'. In some ways I wish I had not got involved as it is taking time away from the articles I had been trying to develop, but having started, I am not one to be bullied into submission! I certainly have no intention of moving on to the articles you suggest in the near future.

Does that give you a full answers? Summary, I am not 'anti-Rangers' as some editors may suppose, but just feel things should be done properly. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you mentioned a few times that you feel as though there is some kind of 'bullying' going on here by deluasional RFC fans not wanting to accept the truth, but in actual fact, the bigger picture here is the quality & credibility of Wikipedia. I'm sure you will agree that a level of consistency is paramount here, and it seems only reasonable Wikipedia should document Rangers in the same manner in which it documents other clubs to have went through the same process. You also never answered my question regarding goodwill. Your not the only contributor who either can;t get to grisp with the concept of goodwill, or simply just disagrees with 'goodwill' being classed as an asset, but like it or not, it's a legally recognised asset and has been for many years in business. If i were to update the Newco page to include the entire history of RFC and cite the D&P document as evidence of the newco being the legal owners of the history, do you think it's right that another editor comes along and removes it on the basis 'they don't believe goodwill is really a thing' ? Ricky072 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ricky072, I fully understand what goodwill means having been involved in the purchase of a business over 20 years ago that included an amount for the goodwill of that particular enterprise. However, I think you'd be in danger of 'original research' to assume that buying 'goodwill' meant that the history of how many cups the old club had won had also been purchased. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk)

Merge

I agree that this "newco" page simply must be merged with the page of the original Rangers FC. This site prides itself on trying to be factually correct, yet only Rangers have a separate page for a new continuation. Why are Fiorentina, Napoli and even Celtic allowed to have a direct continuation on their respective pages despite having formed a "newco" in some form at some point??? The pages need to be merged! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfcucl1972 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

These matters are being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Newco_Rangers, you may wish to join the discussion there. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Such an unbiased opinion coming from someone with a username of Rfcucl1972. You're doing more harm than good for the argument from a Rangers POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andevaesen (talk • contribs) 14:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet two of the 3 main people continuing arguing against a change have shown blatant bias too, with one posting a link to a celtic fan forum and going on a rant, whilst the other posted a sectarian video. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Celtic have never formed a Newco. Celtic changed our Legal name and original club name of The Celtic Football and Athletic Club(Ltd) to just Celtic(PLC), and re-named another company their original name just to protect the name from being used by someone else.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What the Original Founders of Rangers created is Dying

The Rangers founders created a club called "The Rangers Football Club" over the years they were reffered to as Rangers or Rangers FC or just Rangers Football Club, the name Rangers is used too often(so it cannot be trademarked) but they trademarked the names 'Rangers FC' and 'Rangers Football Club', so no-one else could start up a Club and use those names. In 1899 they Incorporated the Club so that they could get the advantages of being a business, when becoming a company either LTD or PLC you need to change your name to include Ltd/Limited/PLC, they changed theirs from "The Rangers Football Club" to "The Rangers Football Club Ltd", in 1995 Murray decided to make it a public limited company so people could invest, again they had to change their name to include PLC they changed it from "The Rangers Football Club Ltd" to "The Rangers Football Club PLC" - this is whats alive the now and in Administration with impending liquidation.

The only reason for companies to own clubs is if they have a consortium of people who couldnt afford a takeover individually ie. Buying shares so they group in and create a takeover vehicle ie. Takover Limited, they then take whatever % of Takeover Limited depending on how much they are investing and use their funds to buy enough shares so that they - Takeover Limited, now own Rangers.

Celtic PLC don't own Celtic Football Club(an actual Club) they own "Celtic Football Club"(a trademarked name), that name is used for Celtic PLC as a trading name, as are the names Celtic FC and Celtic Football Club.

I still cannot understand why some people don't realise that The Rangers Football Club Ltd ARE The Rangers Football Club PLC AND ARE The Rangers Football Club AND ARE Rangers AND ARE Rangers FC AND ARE Rangers Football Club. What people think is Rangers/Rangers FC and Rangers Football Club are justother names of The Rangers Football Club PLC. Like a person can only have ONE Legal name, ie. John Smith but can also be known as John, Johnny, Jon, Smithy, Frank, Eddie, Big Ears but you can only use your 1 Legal name for all Legal stuff like buying and selling companies, passports and other documents which is why obviously every "Rangers" official document has the Legal name on it The Rangers Football Club PLC.

You can change your legal name. Celtic have done this. Celtic's original Club name was The Celtic Football and Athletic Club, its been changed various times, most recently to just Celtic PLC. Rangers' was only changed 3 times from TRFC to TRFCltd to TRFCplc but it will be changed again one last time we heard recently from "The Rangers Football Club PLC" to "Rangers FC 2012". The purpose of this name change seems to be solely for the benefit of keeping the name The Rangers Football Club free for Charles Green to use for the New Club. Probably just because it says "The Rangers Football Club Ltd" on the Ibrox gates, and to avoid the sheer embarrassment of having to change the decades old gates both Clubs will basically swap names.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So you believe a company does not own a club, but BECOMES the club? Can ou provide evidence that this marriage cannot be undone? Can you provide evidence that a club cannot break away from the company, and move into another company? Ricky072 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Can work both ways, a Company can become a Club or a Club can become a Company. For example The Rangers Football Club became a Company and Sevco Scotland were a Company and became a Football Club. You can also stop being one, like Rangers(1872) are now no longer a Football Club as they own no Footballing assets or memberships, they now were a Football Club now they're just a shell and will probablly quite soon no longer exist.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't think you realised the question. Can a club 'breakaway' from the 'company' and still be the same club? For example, coudl Arsenal Football Club be completely removed out from Arsenal holdings Plc and into another company, and then 'Arsenal Holdings Plc' dissolved? Is that possible? Ricky072 (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No that couldn't happen, your scenario - unless you mean by "Arsenal Football Club" just the trademarked name. But I think you can voluntary apply to be struck off the register and then you could be incorporated again at a later date, that way then yes you could stop becoming a legal entity and then become one again whilst still having the same identity as what you were before becoming a legal entity. However if you applied for that and had debts, then your assets would be sold to pay off those debts so unless you were debt free then you couldnt remain exactly the same.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying simple corporate restrucuturing is not possible? So the present owners of Man city could not transfer the club & all it's assets out of "MANCHESTER CITY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED" and into a new company they set up called "Man City FC 2012 Ltd" if they wanted to? And how do you explain Middlesborough and Charlton who are currently operated by companies set-up in the 80's after the old companies were dissolved? Ricky072 (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Man City could do that, but to do it they'd need to set up "Man City FC 2012 Ltd" and then buy enough shares in "MANCHESTER CITY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED" so that they are seen as the owner. Middlesborough and Charlton are new Clubs, the only reason they are recognised as the same as like Leeds. The English FA allowed them to be seen as the same by letting them transfer their membership, if they remain the same under the FA, they remain the same under UEFA and FIFA. However if a New Club is not allowed to "keep" the same membership like Darlington for example then the FA dont recognise it as the same Club and nor then do UEFA and FIFA. Currently the SFA(Scotlands football body) have not permitted Rangers to transfer their membership, the SPL have already decided not to allow membership transfer and so Rangers had to apply to the SFL for membership.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The owners of Man City already own the club in it's entirety. It's perfectly normal for owners of a club to transfer everything over to a new corporate entity. So i assume you have now done a U-turn on this opinion that a club becomes a company and that can never be undone. You'll find within this guide http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/The%20FA%20Club%20Structures.pdf published by the FA that it's perfectly OK for clubs (not in insovlency) to transfer everything over, including FA membership, from 1 entity to another. OK so now teh arguement moves on, now you say the club only survives if the SFA allows the transfer of membership. Well if that is your standpoint, i'm sure you will be willing to recognise Rangers as the same club if the SFA allow the transfer of membership from OldCo to NewCo. This is ofcourse is yet to be decided. Ricky072 (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ricky. Transfer of oldco SFA membership to newco would not in itself be enough to show that the new club and the old club were being recognised a sthe same clu. There is also the issue of sanctions that would have fallen on the oldco. If these were fully applied to the newco, then I think that it would be fair to say that the new club is viewed as being the old club. However, if that does not happen, would you concede that the new club was not viewed as the same club? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"then i think....". I think your forgetting fishie, that what you 'think' or your opinion on what is morally right/wrong is inisgnificant. As Wikipedians we cannot contribute to articles based upon our own opinions or which way our moral compas steers us. It has to be a documention of what is factually accurate. How can we possibly be in a situation to make up rules ourselves that 'if RFC dont accept full punishments for oldo, or if the SFA are lenient upon them, then Wikipedia shall not recognise them as the same club'? Ricky072 (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ricky072. You asked another editor "Well if that is your standpoint, i'm sure you will be willing to recognise Rangers as the same club if the SFA allow the transfer of membership from OldCo to NewCo." I thought I would let you know my answer to that same question as I have been having ongoing discussions with you. Anyway, I've stated my position on the issue of whether, and on what terms if any the SFA is willing to transfer old Rangers' membership to the new Rangers. Are you sharing your view? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The question was aimed at trying to achieve (finally) a concensus, if we can agree that a transfer of membership from OldCO to NewCo would be enough to appease the 'new club' camp. It now appears that it's not because you've taken upon yourself to decide that even if the membership is trasnferred over, it also requires a punishment attached to it, again, which Fishiehelper2 must find suitable, otherwise it's a new club entirely. My own opinion on the matter is that a 'club' cannot be defined by an FA membership & the reason for such a stance is that clubs have, in the past, lost memberships with FA's but did not lose their identity as the same club. Gretna for example played in Egnland with an FA membership, and resigned, to joing the SFA. But does that mean they became a new club, or lost history? Ofcourse not. Ricky072 (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2012

The copyrighted image in the article has no fair use rationale, and is therefore in breach of wp policy

188.28.152.198 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Updated fair use rationale to include Newco Rangers, which now owns the branding and intellectual property of Rangers FC. James Morrison (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell from the above if the request has been fully answered or not. This page is now under full protection, not semi. Marking the edit request answered, and if there is more to do, please use the {{edit protected}} tag to request the edit. RudolfRed (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Transfer Embargo

With the latest news that the SFA want 'Newco' Rangers to accept the registration ban imposed before, along with other sanctions and debts relating to 'oldco', then that surely has to go in favour of the club being the same, and this article should not exist. Sparhelda 18:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/111126-rangers-league-place-at-risk-as-scottish-fa-insist-signing-ban-must-stand/

Since there is no scope in the SFA's regulations for one club to be punished for the offences of another, then yes, the SFA must regard Rangers Football Club under the company currently known as Sevco Scotland Ltd as the same football club as Rangers Football Club under the company currently known as The Rangers Football Club Plc. And if the SFA regards it as the same football club, then Wikipedia ought to reflect this. AlexGordovani (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

the punishment is attached to that particular membership, irrespective of whichever club owns it. Anyone could set up a football club, and apply for this particular membership, it doesn't denote its the same club. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As an editor who has argued that the new Rangers is a different club, I would agree that if the new Rangers were forced to take on the full punishment that would have fallen on the old Rangers to get the transfer of the old Rangers' SFA membership it seeks, then we should treat the new club as a continuation of the old on wikipedia. However, if the SFA were to let the new club acquire the membership of the old Rangers for less than the full punishment that would have been due, then the matter is not resolved. This is not because I want to see punishment on the new Rangers (quite the reverse actually) but because it is difficult to see how it would uphold 'sporting integrety' for a club to be able to escape punishment it may be due by going down the newco route, and yet being regarded as a continuation of the oldco. If the newco is offered less than the full punishment that would have been due to the oldco, or refuses to accept the full punishment that would have been due to the oldco, and then nevertheless gains SFA membership, it should not be regarded as the same club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That is pure and simply 100% your opinion Ricky072 (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and I would argue quite the opposite. If the entity which currently owns Ibrox is punished at all (other than for failing to abide by the SFL's normal entry rules) then logically they are being held responsible for actions taken before the transfer of assets from one company to another. That would be a strong steer in the direction of one club. —WFC— 20:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Plus the full weight of punishment isn't even clear, the transfer ban may be but even then that's uncertain considering Rangers took the issue to court and won. Any punishments relating to the oldco fully go in favour of one club for me. Sparhelda 21:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as ANY punishment for the oldco's actions would mean the authorities see it as the same club, it would be ludicrous to suggest if the newco got some punishments that it wouldn't be resolved. BadSynergy (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Eh, why don't we just keep the tried and tested Wikipedia formula of reflecting the major independent sources? And Scottish Football League clubs on Friday voted in favour of admitting the new club to Division Three instead of Division One. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Major independent sources differ on the issue hence why this whole mess started. So why shouldn't we look to the SFA to help sort all this out? BadSynergy (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's hope so! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, BadSynergy, so it's about giving due weight to these third party sources and representing both sides fairly and accurately. Wikipedia isn't about uncritical adherence to primary sources. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You're claiming a BBC article cancels out the point i'm making? I know it needs to be fair debate, I believe i'm making a fair point. Sparhelda 21:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

More pointing towards the same club idea.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10204 Sparhelda 12:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Right at the bottom says SPL is still investigating Rangers for EBT's more proof that in the eyes of the footballing authorities it is still the same club. BadSynergy (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Season Article

I have created a 2012–13 Rangers F.C. season article. I can see many wanting to make changes to it due to this whole row over 'new club or not', and I realise it would be pointless if the SFA licence doesn't end up granted. But it's a good start point and I believe worth creating when the season is due to start in 11 days. Sparhelda 01:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh lord so we now have another article to worry about. If there are articles for previous seasons then i guess it is reasonable for that one to exist too. Although im sure there will be arguments about wording of it. Have the article speedy deleted if rangers do not get approval from the SFA to play, but that is extremely unlikely at this stage. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Dickson view

"I post this as a Rangers employee and someone who has obviously followed this story very closely throughout. The issue of whether Wiki persevere with their current Rangers page or start a new one is one they quite frankly shouldn’t be putting themselves through.

As someone said to me the other day, a Kit Kat was still a Kit Kat when Rowntree’s was bought over by Nestle and production of the chocolate bar continued. It still used the same ingredients and tasted exactly the same, thus nobody talked of it being a new product. By the same token, Rangers is still the same football club which was formed in 1872 and it is simply the case that its holding company has changed.

Rangers were previously owned by Rangers Football Club plc, which was formed in 1899 and will soon be liquidated. Rangers is now owned by Sevco Scotland Ltd, which will shortly become The Rangers Football Club. It might be a new company which owns the club but the club itself is still the same one. It will still turn out a team which plays in blue called Rangers and which plays at Ibrox Stadium. The manager is still the same, as are most of the staff minus some of the playing squad from last season. Crucially, the club’s history has been retained in the same way as the histories of clubs such as Middlesbrough and Leed United were retained when they went through ‘newco’ situations.

Due to the nature of Glasgow’s ‘goldfish bowl’ environment, half the city is trying to push the belief Rangers is a brand new club while the other half argues against such a notion. The fact is it’s still exactly the same club it has been for the last 140 years but it is owned by a different company now to the one which owned it for the last 113 years, some 27 years after the club itself was formed." TheLightBlue (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sheer stupidity. Every Kit Kat is different in it's own right. In this world of Kit Kats, The Kit Kat Company is the UEFA, the Kit Kats are the Clubs, a Kit Kat can remain a Kit Kat inside its own wrapper, say every individual Kit Kat had its own name ie. Kit Kat Rangers - but take that Kit Kat out the Kit Kat Rangers wrapper, put it in a blender and Liquidate it. Take out the Liquidated parts and send it back into the big Kit Kat making machine, a new Kit Kat comes out and you stick a Kit Kat Rangers lable on it - is it the same Kit Kat? no, its a new Kit Kat taking the place of the smashed up, broken melted, mashed in original Kit Kat Rangers, which is now gone never to be tasted again by anyone. Followers of Kit Kat Celtic and Kit Kat Aberdeen amongst others would be seen sniggering at the New Kit Kat Rangers, sitting there in the cupboard brand new wrapped in the wrapper of an old Kit Kat--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A Rangers employee is a source worthy of respect. Sparhelda 20:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hardly unbiased; just as with the club website there is a vested interest in claiming that Newco Rangers is the same as the old. Even Doncaster is now referring to it as 'Rangers Newco'. In any case we don't know who this guy (or gal) actually is! I could claim to be an officer of the SFA (which I'm not :-)). TerriersFan (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers newco is short for new company.. it does not mean it is an entirely different club. None of us re claiming it is the same company.. the company incorporated in 1899 and liquidated in 2012 is different to the club that was formed in 1872 and has been sold to the newco. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not so "Scottish Premier League clubs meet on Monday to discuss reaction to the decision to place the Rangers newco in the Third Division after warnings that up to five of them could follow the Ibrox club into administration.". [1]. One of numerous sources that makes it clear that 'Rangers newco' referes to the club not the company. TerriersFan (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So if a club called PFC went bust and a new club called EFC bought all there assets and gained associated membership to play in division 3 , should they take punishment for the wrong doing of club PFC? Why should they, why would EFC that never existed be punished ... So why are newco Rangers being punished ( transfer embargo and fine) for he oldco? Simple they are recognised as the same entity.. The same club , the same team , the same staff, the same stadium and the same fans that make it a club .. rangers Fc old or newco it's the same club as noted by the SFA... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.38.135 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not the same team; most of the players have gone. The new club owns the assets of the old and if fans want to consider them the same club, fine, but we take a more objective view. TerriersFan (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Like with Leeds, Bristol, Middlesbrough etc? There's clearly a fair debate to be had, nothing to do with fans, Sparhelda 22:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The new club doesn't own the assets the new financial business Sevco owns the assets, the assets being the club, yes not all the players are there, half of florentines players left... Also Leeds were never liquidated, they came out of administration through a cva.. Steve Gibson of Middlesborough stated Sevco are doing just what he done , the club lives on with a newco ( being the new financial operator of the club). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.38.135 (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"the assets being the club". No, the plc was the club, its assets were Murray Park, Ibrox etc. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Stranraer have their say

Stranraer F. C. ‏@StranraerFC We can confirm that as a result of The SFL accepting a new club, The Rangers FC , Stranraer will now move up to the second division.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

New BBC Article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18881004

The consortium in charge of the new Rangers is threatening legal action against the administrator who sold them the old club's assets.

The Sevco consortium led by former Sheffield United chief executive Charles Green bought Rangers' assets for £5.5m after failing to prevent the club going into liquidation.

Sevco was denied a place in the Scottish Premier League and the fresh dispute comes in the middle of negotiations with the Scottish Football Association for a membership that would allow the new club to start life in Division Three. --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I was listening to the radio today and the presenter said "call up with a request and we'll play your song". So i called up and requested "American Pie" and he played it. Does that mean it's "MY song" like the presenter stated? Or is it still Don Mcleans Song? Or does the record label still own it? Can i now charged a premium everytime the song is used in a movie or on the radio?Ricky072 (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That's your poorest response to a source yet! The point Superbhoy1888 is making is that reliable sources are clearly referring to 'the new Rangers' as a 'new club'. Since wikipedia is supposed to reflect what is being reported in reliable sources, sources like these can not simply be ignored. Was Leeds United referred to as 'the new Leeds United' and the 'new club'? If not, the difference in treatment in the different cases may have a significance for wikipedia. regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thing with Leeds is they were allowed to keep their league place no problem apart from a points deduction, Scottish Football certainly seems to be stricter on the league issue. So really there was no purpose to referring to Leeds as 'newco'. Sparhelda 15:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's the point: Leeds was treated differently by the FA, and it was dealt with differently by the media. In Scotland, by contrast, the mainstream media seems to be much clearer in emphasising the difference between the old Rangers and the new Rangers with some now using terms like 'newco Rangers', 'new Rangers' etc while others clearly referring to the 'new club'. Sine wikipedia is based on reliable sources, the fact that mainstream media is either treating it or regarding it as a new club must be a factor is deciding whether it is appropriate to have separate artciles for the old Rangers and the new Rangers. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet the governing body sees fit to put sanctions onto this club based on the crimes of the so-called 'oldco'. This is a huge factor which cannot be ignored, new clubs to not just randomly get given punishments meant for a totally different club, I challenge anyone to find and an example where that's happened before. Sparhelda 16:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you find an example of a club applying for a membership transfer of a club which was previously subject to sanctions? WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of points on both sides but you're surely fighting a losing battle with this one mate. You seriously think 'Newco' can be given a transfer ban due to misdemeanours of Rangers, pay debts to football clubs built up by Rangers yet still have no right to be Rangers Football Club? That is ridiculous, with such logic someone could get a prison sentence and just pass it onto another random person if they agreed. Sparhelda 17:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Newco may end up taking transfer bans etc because it wants to get Rangers' SFA membership. What you are suggesting is that getting Rangers' membership would prove that it is the same club. I have to tell you that when my dad dies, his car will be transferred across to me - that will not make me my dad! I will succeed him as owner of the car, and perhaps the new Rangers will claim to be the successor club to the old Rangers if it get Rangers' SFA membership. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

They're claiming to be Rangers, Ally McCoist certainly believes he's managing the same club he always dreamed of managing. Sparhelda 20:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, i though it has became appaent to everyone by now that certain semantics within journalstic sources leads only to a dead end. If this is the solution it simply leads to a war of sources and who ever can find the most that says 'new club' or who can find the most that say 'same club' or simply 'Rangers F.C'. Superbhoy has even resorted posting tweets (although thats probably a step-up from posting secterian youtube videos). Other than some sources within the media using the term 'new club' (which is countered directly by other sources within the media), where exactly is the 'evidence' it's a new club? Ricky072 (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Britishwatcher posted a good point at the Rangers talk page which I add here: "if the SFL put on their website [2] that the club was formed in 1872/3 rather than 2012 would you accept that suggests it is the same club, and would be more valid than many of the sources during the transition period where media has been using "newco rangers"?" I think that such a thing would have to be given very serious weight, along with what the SFA may say or do in the next few days. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

i am in complete agreement with this, and that is what i said right at the start of the dispute over a month ago that we should wait and see what happens, but this article was created against consensus and changes made to original without consensus that is why i am sayign we should wait and see i am delibriting not putting the request for comment out until those two the sfa and sfl make judgement as they will hold more weight than anything else--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"an application to play in the Scottish Football League was accepted"

Have Sevco Scotland Ltd. actually made an application? My understanding is that the SFL have voted to permit Sevco Scotland Ltd entry, but as of yet, no application has actually been made by Sevco Scotland Ltd. I believe that it is not possible for an application to be made prior to obtaining membership of the SFA. Anyone have any thoughts? WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The SFA has stated "Now that the Scottish Football League have made a conditional acceptance of Rangers FC in Irn Bru Division Three we will now consider the club’s application for membership transfer this week." Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Upon further inspection of the SFL Constitution, it appears that under Section 2, Point 16, Sevco Scotland Ltd. have 14 days from being accepted into the SFL to gain membership of the SFA. Many thanks. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

SFL membership is 'conditional' upon gaining SFA membership. Sevco purchased the SFA membership along with the assets, but they need the SFA's approval aswell. We await the decision. Ricky072 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 July 2012

Add Paul Gascoigne to the squad list. Paul Gascoigne has come out of retirement to play for 'newco' Rangers F.C. in the Third Division.

Atban3000 (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - This is an article about a new company, if it should exist as an article at all. If Paul is to play for rangers football club, it belongs on the rangers football club article. There is no need to make this edit until the situation regarding these articles are resolved. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If Paul is to play for rangers football club I would be astonished. If there are sources for this I would be equally astonished. Clay More47 (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

opposehe only said he help his friend out if he get past his hip problem he hasnt signed and cant until the membership is transferredAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Apart from it being unlikely that this 45 year old unfit ex-player with a hip problem would sign for rangers, is there a source for this wind up? If so, I would hope that it's a wind up by Gascoigne, otherwise poor Paul is a little deluded. Clay More47 (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

its serious it was reported in various news sources a week or two ago he said he help his friend mccoist out if he could srug off hi hip problem--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

lmao, " Former Rangers player Paul Gascoigne has claimed he will make himself available to Ally McCoist next season. The troubled star said: “If I can get my hip sorted I’ll make myself available for a few games in the Third Division if Coisty needs me. There is no better time to play for Rangers than now.” (Sun)" [3]. i think we can safely say this does not belong on either article, certainly not stating as fact hes going to be part of the team. This Edit Request should be rejected and closed to avoid wasting more peoples time. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: No consensus. Anomie⚔ 19:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Registration Ban to stand

With it looking official that the membership is getting transferred with the transfer ban sanction given, I believe we should be nearing a conclusion of this becoming one article with the RFC page. Same club, same punishment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18929983 Sparhelda 18:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it might be easier to get support on this becoming an article covering the whole of the administration/liquidation issues like the one about Middlesbrough. But yes id certainly support either that or merging the whole thing back with RFC. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not relevant; just because the sanctions etc are being transferred no way makes them the same club. Indeed, Rangers newco have the option of picking up the liabilities - if the same club they would have no choice! TerriersFan (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the only reason they are getting these sanctions is because they are transferring the membership across. If they applied for a new one they wouldn't get the oldco's sanctions. Adam4267 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A totally 'new' club having sanctions and paying debts of a so-called 'old club' is not relevant? What a ridiculous POV, it's very much relevant whatever your opinion. The 'membership' wasn't given the sanctions, Rangers Football club was; the 'membership' doesn't owe money to clubs, Rangers Football Club does. Sparhelda 00:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR
Look what the article says; 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.

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. Adam4267 (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wording of sources vary, I can point you to official SFA tweets where the term 'Rangers' was just used, nothing about 'new' etc: https://twitter.com/Scottish_FA/status/226386807976247296 . The point i'm making cannot be escaped, new clubs do not get given random sanctions old clubs, memberships are not given punishments or have debts, clubs do. Also worth noting that STV have confirmed any references to 'newco' etc will stop once the licence situation is sorted: https://twitter.com/STVGrant/status/226411572833177600 .Sparhelda 01:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Twitter is not an appropriate source. Adam4267 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The BBC source at the top of this section states "Sevco Scotland, which now owns Rangers' assets after the old club headed for liquidation, needs SFA membership. ... The SPL, which rejected the new club's application to stay in the top flight ..."

The key points are "the old club headed for liquidation" and "the new club's application". Crystal clear. TerriersFan (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As i've already said, these kind of sources vary in wording, hence the dispute. You also need to answer my question, since when do new clubs get sanctions of an old club? Has that ever happened in football before? Sparhelda 01:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. As stated, if a new membership was sought, no sanctions would be included. The transfer of the old clubs membership (which possess the sanctions) is why the new club needs to bear them. It's not for Wikipedia for decide why they sought transfer of a membership that is laden with sanctions instead of seeking a new membership - It's simply to state what has happened. One club's membership has been transferred to another club. Simple. Andevaesen (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering new membership requires three years of audited accounts it always had to be this way, this way the history is kept for sure. Sparhelda 02:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I assme you're claiming that Rangers FC were never actually given those sanctions, just the SFA membership? Are the football debts that 'Newco' are likely going to pay something that belongs to the SFA membership as well, therefore Rangers FC never owed a penny? Got sources to confirm this? Sparhelda 02:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"You also need to answer my question, since when do new clubs get sanctions of an old club? Has that ever happened in football before?" Actually, I don't need to answer your question. OK, its a first when a new club has got sanctions of an old club; so what?. For me the BBC is as reliable and independent a source as you can get. Good enough for me. TerriersFan (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You're treating what i'm saying as nothing when in fact it matters very much, no source states that the SFA membership was given a registration ban, the creditors reports have certainly never stated that the SFA membership owes money to Rapid Vienna, Hearts etc. Rangers Football Club had these punishments and debts, they simply cannot be passed around. I accept your point about the BBC article but it's established media soruces vary and treating my point as irrelevant is POV for sure. Sparhelda 02:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

have a read at what on my request for comment "Fourthly interpretation of the news sources is also dependent on the newspaper journalist view of the situation which can be different for each journalist. Also depending on there bias ie if they are a rangers supporter there more likely to say same club but if a rival supporter more likely to say new club" AND FORE YOU'S WHO ARE USING THE BBC SITE ONLY VIEW THE ORIGINAL FROM SFA IT DOES NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT NEW RANGERS OLD CLUB LIQUIDATION, http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10229 this hold m,ore weight than the bbc, sorry about caps it wasn't meant my son pressed the caps in the middle of typing and the time i realise i could not not be bothered to retype itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the BBC article is a journalists take on the SFA statement. The journalist uses the term 'new club', the SFA does not. What basis doest he journalist use the term? Is it his POV? Or is it just sloppy use of wording to describe the new company? Either way, i've said it numerous times on here, if we were to rely on journalistic sourceson this issue, there would 1 implying 'same club, different company' for every article that implies 'new club'. Now how about we see some real EVIDENCE from those argueing 'new club', some evidence that makes a distinction from Rangers to Leeds United or Luton. So far theo nly evidence we have had is the wording of journalists & alot of POV. Ricky072 (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No one needs to do anything you say, listen to you or convince you of anything Ricky. Thee BBC is the most reliable source you can get on this issue. The SFA is not because it is not a third party source. i.e. it is involved in the Rangers situation, so is not independant of it. Just to clarify, you are not a source. Adam4267 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

adam there is no such thing asa more reliable source, some bbc articles are demed unreliable, you never answer my point "Fourthly interpretation of the news sources is also dependent on the newspaper journalist view of the situation which can be different for each journalist. Also depending on there bias ie if they are a rangers supporter there more likely to say same club but if a rival supporter more likely to say new club" how do you know that the hjournalist doesnt have a bias? if you say because bbc is unbiased that completely nonsense the person writing it is ahuman so can have abiased even if ther enot meant to--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

So the SFA, the governing body ruling over the matter of RFC publish a statement. A BBC sports journalist then writes an article on that statement. Then the BBC article because a more reliable source than the statement itself. Fantastic logic Adam. So tell me again, why are Rangers different to Leeds? Ricky072 (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit i'm no expert on sources etc but I find it incomprehensible how a BBC article is more reliable than statements from the governing body who runs the Scottish game without any bias, favour, prejudice etc (apart from in fans' conpiracy theories). Sparhelda 15:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The BBC article is not more reliable than the SFA source. The BBC is a Third-party source, the SFA is not. In the same way Rangers' own website is not considered a reliable source for matters regarding Rangers. Obviously for different reasons. Your own comment is precisely the reason why we wouldn't use them; the governing body who runs the Scottish game without any bias, favour, prejudice. There job is to run the game not analyse/report on it. Also because they run the game they are not independant of it, therefore they are not thid-party. There are different levels of sourcing, the BBC is considered more reliable than the Daily Record. For anyone unsure please read Reliable sources#Overview, along with the other links I provided. This one as well, WP:PSTS. Adam4267 (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The SFA's statement is considered primary source, it fits the definiation of primary source: "very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event". Therefore takes precedent over a BBC article reporting on the actual source. Further more, the BBC's reporting this episode in Rangers history has been far from accurate. For example the BBC today reported that "Malcolm Murray... said the club had reluctantly agreed to the embargo." . Although Malcolm Murray said no such thing, his statement read "under duress, we have taken the difficult decision to accept some sanctions in order to move forward.". He does not definativly state they have accepted the trasnfer embargo like the BBC reporetd, and in actual fact a further club statement read that NOTHING has yet been agreed. So should we report on Wikipedia that Rangers accepted a transfer embargo, because the BBC said so, even though they clearly have not? Is the BBC the final word and ultimate standard that Wikipedia is held to? Ofcourse not. Ricky072 (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

adam is there any reason yoru ingoring my question i will repaet it in bold please repsond "Fourthly interpretation of the news sources is also dependent on the newspaper journalist view of the situation which can be different for each journalist. Also depending on there bias ie if they are a rangers supporter there more likely to say same club but if a rival supporter more likely to say new club" are you honestly trying to tell me that just because it is the bbc that ther eis no biased??? if you are you think the people are bbc are robot because the las ti checked there human and they can not remove bias completely they might be less bias and more neutral than most pelaces but ther enot completely. also so if i post abbc article saying the club isnt liquidated will you accept that?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Andrew I didn't notice that, my bad. I don't 100% get what your trying to say but if it is what I think then hopefully I'll answer correctly. I'm sorry but your point holds no weight; they might be bias because they are human is not a real argument. I agree that viewpoints differ between journalists which is why we listen to jounalists from reputable sources rather than tabloids. Also note the BBC isn't a newspaper, it's a public news service. They have no POV (unlike many newspapers) they only report the news. The BBC has a very strong reputation and they make sure that everything they put their name to is of an appropriate standard. Adam4267 (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

its fine there to much getting said it ainta surpised if you miss it, ok can you explqin how the bbc report came to conculsion that it s anew club when the sfa statement never meantion that, the point is even the bbc might be getting it wrong jus tnow its the journalist view point so ti does hold weight, i never meant to put newspaper that was my bad i need to fix that--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have to explain anything, neither does the BBC. They are a reliable source, we take what they say and put it into Wikipedia. That's the way Wikipedia works. Sorry if you don't like it but, again, that's how it works. Adam4267 (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Acually Wikipedia gives greater credence to primary sources. The SFA statement is a primary source. The subsequent article is merely a sports journolists take on it. Ricky072 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong. Adam4267 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, have a read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources in this instance the SFA statement constitutes a 'primary source'. The BBC article is WP:NEWSORG ; QUOTE: "News sources often contain both factual (reporting) content and analytical (editorial) content.". When broken down the 'factual' reporting is direct quotes from the SFA statement. The "new club" quotes are classes as 'analyical (editorial)' as it isn ot supported as fact within the article, it's merely the journalists POV. I hope that clears it up for you. Ricky072 (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok read WP:PSTS. Its quite clear you are not grasping what it says. Adam4267 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis." & "News sources often contain both factual (reporting) content and analytical (editorial) content." I'm not saying that BBC shouldn;t be used a source, i'm saying it is not a 'be-all & end-all'. We have both the 'primary source' (the SFA statement), and the BBC third-party article of it. It is clear that the quotes in the BBC article of the statement are 'factual' & the references to "new club" are 'editorial' or 'analytical' view poitns of the journalist. It's also directly contradicted with many other reliable sources. Furthermor, liek i mentioned above, the BBC published another factually incorrect story related to this issue today, when they stated "Malcolm Murray said Rangers have acceted the transfer embargo", when infact his statement only hinted that they "may" accept "some sanctions". Again, that is 'analytical' or editorial POV. Ricky072 (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Though in the case of that report, the BBC had relied upon the SFA statement on what they claimed they had agreed - a primary source! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the BBC reports "Malcolm Murray SAID...." but when you read his statetment, infact he does not say that. Ricky072 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The BBC report also stated: "And, following a week of discussions, the SFA released a statement saying that Rangers had now accepted a transfer embargo, which would begin on 1 September and end on 31 August next year." Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Case For Rangers F.C to Remain Within the Same Wikipedia Article

Summary: On the 14th of June, 'The Rangers Football Club Plc', a company formed in 1899 entered liquidation proceedings. Liquidation is the process of selling of the assets of an insolvent business to recoup as much funds as possible to raise funds for the companies creditors. Charles Green led a consortium which purchased the 'history, business & assets' (as sources show) from 'The Rangers Football Club Plc' as a means to continue 'Rangers F.C' within a new company (NewCo).

So what is the debate? Well, this process has thrown up some questions. Is it the same club, or an entirely new club? Does this club retain it's history? Does a club operate within a company, or are they as 1? And should the club have a seperate Wikipedia page to be represented as a new club, or do we recognise it within the 1 Wikipedia page as teh same club but simply under new ownership?

1. What Do the Sources Say? Many journalistic sources have taken the viewpoint from both sides, the 'Talk' pages on the articles are littered with thm from each side of the arguement. The tabloid newspapers have often described the 'new company' as a "new club". Some ex-Rangers players even described it as so. However, many others have reffered to them as the same club, including Neil doncaster (SPL chairman), and even HMRC (whos decision to reject a CVA caused the liquidation). The 'new company' has often been refered to 'Rangers F.C' (the club name) within official documents from the SFA & SFL. Although it could be argued that the sources in favour of the "new club" arguement have only ever been journalistic view points and therefore documents from official governing bodies should take precedent, it is still a gray-area in regards to how the situation is being represented within the media. Therefore we need to evaluate further evidence.

2. Is 'A Club' a seperate thing from the company, or are they 1 and the same? 1 arguement being put forward by the "new club" camp, is that a club IS a company. That they are 1 and the same. It's a reasonable arguement as many official documents and sources purposefully define them as so, by stating the company name, and placing in brackets (the club). But perhaps this is simply to clarify to the readers that when they speak of 'the club' they are talking about the company. So what is 'a club' exactly? Well the FA in England produced this document on club structures: http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/The%20FA%20Club%20Structures.pdf says "The FA does not have any rules or requirements that specify that a club must be structured in one legal form or another." The term 'Club' is actually a pretty lose term, infact 2 people getting together to form any kind of association coudl call themselves a 'club'. Most professional football teams however are formed as companies. On page17 of the same document cited above, it details the process of turning a club into a corporate entity. After creating & registering a company, you then proceed to transfer the assets which make up the club, into the new company. If we move on to page20, it then outlines the rules regarding the transfer of membership from 1 legal entity to another. In other words, there is nothing to stop owners of a football club transferring all the assets out of 1 corporate entity to another, (if approved by the regulatory bodies). So, from that we can guage that a 'football club' is made up of certain assets (normally player contracts, a stadium, intellectual property), and these assets can be moved into a company during it's initial creation, and it can also be moved out of 1 company, and into another. So even if you take the viewpoint that club/company are 1 of the same, there is no evidence to suggest they cannot ever be broken apart, (otherwise a simple corproate restructure would be impossible without creating an entirely new club).

3. Precedents. Ofcourse, this is nothing new, it would be naive to believe Rangers F.C were the first club to suffer such fate. So what precedents can we draw upon? All of the following clubs have either been "liquidated" or "dissolved" and now function under new companies (NewCo's); Leeds United AFC Luton Town Charlton Athletic Middlesborough FC AFC Bournemouth Rotherham United

There are also examples of Clubs within Wikipedia which document clubs on different pages, such as;FC Halifax & Chester FC. So what's different? Well these are 2 examples of what is often described as 'Phoenix clubs'. When the old clubs were wound-up, fans groups got together and created these new clubs. The greatest fundamental difference is they did not acquire 'the business & assets' from the old clubs in liquidation. Therefore they have no legal link what-so-ever to the old clubs. They cannot lay claim to any of the intellectual property, use the same 'club name' or use the same cub badge/crest. In theory these clusb could have been created while the old clubs still in existence. So which sets precedent for Rangers F.C? Well since the NewCo purchased "the history, business & assets " of the old company, it is NOT a 'phoenix club'.

There is 1 other issue regarding the sale of assets. Within the sale of the assets was membership to the SFA. Even though it was sold, it still must be sanctioned by the governing body, and we await that decision.

4. History & Goodwill Another arguement made by the 'new club' camp is that the history ends with the old company, and the 'new club' is starting a fresh. Well as we can see from the above precedents, this certainly isn;t the case of Leeds United AFC or Charlton Athletic, who lay claim to their respective histories even though they present companies operating them were formed in 2007 & 1984 respectively. A more robust piece of evidence however is this Interim Creditors Report produced by Rangers Administrators Duff&Phelps, which details the transaction of assets from the OldCo to NewCo.

"4.2 The continuation of trading operations enabled the Joint Administrators to put the CVA Proposal to the creditors of the Company and after the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors, the Joint Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the Company to Sevco (see Section 5 for further details)."

"4.4 Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club."

So within this document the administratos clearly state the new company has purchased "the history" aswell as the assets. It also goes on to state that "the club" is no under ownership & operation of "Sevco" (the new company).

If we move onto appendix 2, the document then details the transaction with exactly what was sold and to what value. It is here we can see the transaction of "goodwill".

what is 'Goodwill'? Goodwill is an intangible assets, which aims to encapture the value of a brand, inclusive of history. If i were to purchase 'Fanta' the soft drink from it's owners 'The coca-Cola Company' this would allow me to continue to trade as if nothing changed (same name, label, intellectual property) lay claim to the soft dirnks history, and ultimatly keep the same customers & same market share. Without the goodwill, i'd still have the manufacturing rights & recipe, but i'd need to come up with a new name, and be percieved by as a new product, thus likely to lose many customers & the current market share of Fanta. Even though "Goodwill" may be a concept hard to grasp, it has been common practice in business for a long time and applies here, with clear record of it's transaction.

5. Conclusion with the above evidence provided, it's difficult to see how a case for 'new club' to be substantiated. The above evidence has dealt with the 4 main arguements heard from otherside of the debate, which thus far have been;

• Sources in the media describe it as a 'new club'. All of these sourcesare simply a journalistic point-of-view, and each one is contradicted by another source which states it's the same club. Where is the evidence beyond the wording of a news article?
• Club & company are as one and cannot be broken. We have disproven that with a document from the FA and with the fact, such an opinion would mean even a simple corporate restructure would be impossible without forming an entirely 'new club'.
• They are the same as Chester or Halifax. We have ruled these clubs as precedents as they did not acquire the business & assets as a going concern from the insolvent company (oldco), but instead are 'phoenix clubs'.
• You cannot buy history, there is no such thing as goodwill. you cannot simply state goodwill does not exist because you dont fully understand it. I have provided evidence in the form of a formal administrative document which states the history was sold & goodwill was purchased.

The wikipedia article Rngers FC was changed to reflect the club in the past tense, as if no longer in existence, and a new article set-up to describe a new club (in the same manner as the above named Chester or Halifax). such change was done WITHOUT concensus. In order to make such a drastic & hotly disputed change without concensus, the onus is surely on those who believe we are dealing with a 'new club' to prove as a matter-of-fact, and beyond all doubt, that this is a new club. So far there has been very thin evidence, if any at all to lead us to believe undoubtebly we are dealign with an entirely new club, and this arguement seems to be based almost entirely on point-of-view. Ricky072 (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly sick of reading your opinion on this. You can talk all you want about how other people, organisations, club, etc talk about your club, but the fact is that the majority of these are from neutral points of view. Your opinion is not a neutral point of view. Let objectivity reign, enough subjective emotionalism. Andevaesen (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

which part is POV? It's entirely 'objective' and cites sources & precedents throughout. If your "sick" of it, don't read/comment. Ricky072 (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume you say the same to any Celtic fans that contribute then? Clearly they are not going to be objective either. Ricky has written out a long post to put his case across and you've given a very poor repsonse tbh, as far as I know someone being a fan of the subject does not prevent them taking part in a dispute provided the tone is grown up. Sparhelda 00:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

At no point have I ever stated I was a fan of any football club. Ricky072 (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well even more so makes that response ridiculous. Sparhelda 01:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Lord Glennie , says business separate from club...

Real statement .

P538/12   OPINION OF LORD GLENNIE   in the Petition of   RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC   Petitioner;   For Judicial Review   ________________       Act: Keen QC, Dean of Faculty, Richardson; Biggart Baillie LLP Alt: O'Neill QC; Burness LLP (for First Respondents) 6 June 2012   [Note: this is a corrected transcript of a judgment delivered ex tempore on 29 May 2012.]   [1] This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA"), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA and by the Judicial Panel Protocol which sets out the disciplinary rules relating to the conduct of members of the SFA and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to enforce such rules. For present purposes it is sufficient to note that the SFA has established a "Judicial Panel" from whom they select a Disciplinary Tribunal and, if necessary, an Appellate Tribunal, to deal with complaints.

Also Steve Gibsons statment .. STEVE GIBSON stood on the terraces of Middlesbrough’s Ayresome Park for the first time aged eight and was in charge of the club when they lifted their first trophy in 2004. And the Teesside supremo insists he was watching the same club on both occasions despite being the man forced to put Boro into liquidation to form a new company as part of his 1986 rescue package. That’s why Gibson has told Rangers fans the club’s 140-year history will live on despite would-be owner Charles Green set to go down the dreaded newco when a CVA is officially rejected at today’s meeting of creditors at Ibrox. Gibson said: “What happened with us in 1986 and is about to happen with Rangers is effectively the same. OK now read Middlesboroughs Wikipedia page... No break in their history, still fully intact... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.38.135 (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middlesbrough_F.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.38.135 (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this copied and pasted from the talk page on the Rangers FC (IA) article? WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No copied from the statement on Teesside news interview with Steve Gibson..

Not the bit you've added, but the stuff before it. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Haven't added any , copied and pasted all of it, again some one that doesn't except true facts! That's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.38.135 (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to the lord glennie bit, that's from the SFA website.. Again true facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.38.135 (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The very first sentance of your post is incorrect Ricky - "On the 14th of June, 'The Rangers Football Club Plc', a company formed in 1899 entered liquidation proceedings." - The Stock Exchange listing for it states that The Rangers Football Club PLC was established in 1873... "The Rangers Football Club plc was established in Glasgow in 1873 and celebrated 100 years as a limited company on 27 May 1999." http://www.plus-sx.com/companies/plusCompanyDetail.html?securityId=10824 What you meant that The Rangers Football Club(1872/1873) was formed in (1872/1873) and was incorporated in 1899.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The case of Leeds City and Leeds United

I can understand fans of Rangers FC supporting the new football club as the new and old clubs are closely linked but when dealing with facts as wikipedia does it is clear that the 2 clubs being talked about are different clubs. Rangers FC was still in existence (it had not yet being liquidated) when the Rangers football club was established. If you read the wikipedia article's on both Leeds City F.C. and Leeds United A.F.C. that almost an identical situation happened in 1919. Leeds City, who at the time played at Elland Road had to be dissolved due to financial issues. Leeds United was formed the same year shortly afterwards bought Elland road. These clubs are strongly linked and drew from the same fan base but are not the same club. Leo1977 14:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Leeds City dissolved in 1919 and they formed a 'Phoenix club' in 1920 as Leeds United, from scratch, new badge, new club name, no legal link to the old club.
• in 2007 Leeds United liquidated and all the assets purchased by a newco, which then led the club forward, udner a new company established in 2007. Same club name, same badge, same stadium, same FA membership.

• So what situation is more comparable to Rangers? The newco asset purchase OR a new 'phoenix club'? Ricky072 (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• The situation is comparable because a football club was dissolved/ liquidated for financial reasons and a new club was formed which purchased assets which previously belonged to the old club. The new club had a similar fan base to the old club but still was a new club as it was formed independently. The logic of saying the new and old Rangers football club are one and the same would mean anyone could form a club and claim it is the continuation of another club. The reason that Charles Green was unable to purchase Rangers football club and instead had to set up a new club was the huge debts which the old club was unable to pay or come to an agreement with creditors to write a proportion of this debt (that's why the club liquidated, the creditors forced this to happen to get some money back) Leo1977 14:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't answer my question. What happened to Rangers is EXACTLY the same as what ahppened to Leeds in 2007. The club went into administration. The club failed to achieve a CVA. The administrators sell clubs assets to a new company, which continues the club. In 1919 Leeds City dissolved a prompted the fans to create a new club with a new name, without buying out the old club. Do you see the difference? Ricky072 (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Looked up the Leeds United 2007 situation you talked about on the web. (I had never heard about this before you mentioned it) I find the comparison strange as it is obviously a different situation as Ken Bates agreed a deal with the creditors who sold the club to him when he agreed to pay 30% of the debts of the club. The revenue service eventually agreed to this sale. Is it not obvious what the difference is ?, Leeds United were never liquidated, this is a fact. Charles Green could not agree a deal to buy the club, as the creditors would not let him buy it. They forced the club to be liquidated. Charles Green then set up a new club and bought the old stadium and training ground. If Rangers fans feel the new club is a follow on from the old club that's fine but from a factual point of view the 'old' and 'new' Rangers are 2 separate clubs. Leo1977 21:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Leeds WERE liquidated in 2007, heres the proof: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00170600 The company created in 1920 currently "in liquidation". And the current company operating Leeds created in 2007: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06233875 . Infact the liquidators are still working on the Leeds OldCo: http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/yorkshire/news/321645-liquidators-agree-leeds-united-creditor-claims.html?news_section=253059 . Heres a more detailed explanation of the evnts at Leeds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Newco_Rangers#Leeds_United_Set_Precedent . So as you can see, the situation is identical to Rangers F.C. A CVA was not possible, a newco purchased the assets, the funds from the purchase is then used in a similar fashion to how a CVA would be (funds split between creditors) and the club continues under the enw company. 11:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky072 (talk • contribs)

You say identical situation ? Ken Bates got the purchase of the club approved by CVA (ie. the approval of the creditors, who control the club in a situation where the club are unable to pay their debts) with his offer to pay a proportion of the debts the club had accrued (by the rules over 75% (75.02%)of creditorsLeeds United Football Club Limited). The argument that the revenue challenged this sale(a challenge which they later dropped) is an argument that Leeds United are similar to Rangers FC on a technicality rather than an argument that Rangers Football Club were not liquidated. Charles Green's efforts to buy Rangers Football Club is very different, Charles Green never was able to get close to getting the creditors to agree to sell the club to him and therefore he had to form a new club to buy Ibrox. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/rangers-liquidated-as-cva-formally-rejected-1-2353211 Leo1977 00:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.52.119 (talk)

Strange how people can't grasp the fact that Bates switched Leeds assets to a new company which earned Leeds a 15 point deduction as detailed in the EFL report. They even say Leeds newco in it http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/4b/ec/0,,10794~126027,00.pdf. BadSynergy (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Leo, Bates got the 75% but HMRC made a legal challenge on the process. So, they decided to scrap the CVA and went down the newco route. The oldco is in liquidation. The newco purchased the assets and now runs the club. The reason HMRC dropped the challenge was because there was no CVA to challenge (it was scrapped). The CVA failed for different reasons in the case of Leeds & Rangers, but that is trivial. The bottom line is both were liquidated, both were purchased via the NewCo method. Ricky072 (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

One (Ken Bates) came to an agreement with the effective owners (the people owed money effectively own the club in these situations) to buy the club if he paid a proportion of the debt the club owed (that is what a CVA actually is). In the other case (Charles Green) the effective owners (again the people owed money)refused his offer to buy the club and forced it to wound up and its assets sold. The points that are being raised here are not going anywhere towards proving that the the old Rangers still exist (or will exist once the liquidation process ends) but rather rather an argument that the old Leeds United ceased to be in 2007. Leo1977 12:12, 23 July 2012

Before posting, perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the process of 'liquidation'. It doesn't matter what a % of the creditors think, or agree to, if a CVA fails. The administrators control the club. It is there duty to sell the assets of company to the highest bidder as a means to recoup as money as possible to the creditors. Ken Bates put forward a sum, he recieved the assets, and that sum was then split amongst the creditos. Chalres Green put forward a sum, purchased the assets, and that sum will be split amongst the creditors. That is what is called "liquidation". It's nothing new, everyone seems to think this has never happened before, or Rangers are a new club, but go look at Leeds, Bournemouth, Luton, charlton, Middlesborough. This process has happened many times before, the sooner people realise that, the sooner we can get back to restoring this article to normality. Ricky072 (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)