Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Infobox edits

A couple of times recently there has been a move to remove some information from the infobox on what can only be presumed is the grounds that it's out of date. Specifically, the website was removed, as was the current season parameter. This isn't productive:

1. So far as anyone is concerned, the club's official website hasn't changed. There doesn't appear to be any dispute in the real world that this is the club's official website, so who precisely controls it isn't really relevant. We aren't doing our readers a service by removing it for now.
2. So far as I know, our convention during the close season is to leave the "current season" parameter pointing at the season past. it's the season most directly pertinent to the club's recent history, so again it does a disservice to our readers to remove it for now.

I've reverted these changes for now. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

IF/WHEN RANGERS FORM A NEWCO

With the news now reporting that the CVA will not be agreed and consequently a newco will be formed, I suggest we look at how this will affect the Rangers F.C. (1972) pages on English wikipedia. The main question is, do we follow the ACF Fiorentina where both clubs are regarded as one or the Gretna F.C./Gretna F.C. 2008 model.

This is a highly contentious issue, Rangers fans will simply not accept the Gretna model not matter whether it is technically correct or not. On the other hand, rival fans will mercilessly pursue the Gretna model. Let the edit wars commence... Johnelwaq (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference between Gretna and Rangers is that when Gretna went into liquidation, Gretna 2008 did not purchase any assets from the liquidators. Sevco Scotland Ltd purchased the stadium, the goodwill, the trademarks and so on from the administrators and took on most of the staff, except for a few players who exercised the option not to transfer their contracts and seek employment elsewhere as free agents. This is more like Fiorentina, so both clubs should be regarded as one.Jonbryce (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

At the moment the most up to date information should go into the article, that the proposed CVA will be rejected by HMRC. We should then await the full fallout of this from Rangers and the SPL /SFL.Monkeymanman (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The most up to date news is that rangers will be liquidated. Whether or not they enter the spl or sfl they are a new company. They are purchasing the assetts but will be a new company. I think we have to go down the Gretna route. I think it's likely they will have to change the name slightly even if it's just A.F.C. Another instance would be Airdrionians becoming Airdrie by buying out another club. Don't think what rangers fans like comes into it, let's face it they don't like the situation one bit anyway. Edit wars by ips on the main page would only happen through main users not ips as its protected. Until we know exactly what is happening the main page should be changed to CVa rejected and club is to be liquidated per greens statement. Once the club is officially liquidated then as I say my pref would be the Gretna version new company new club. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing is for clubs like Leeds United A.F.C. etc. They liquidated the holding company and then basically returned to be the same club for the following season. If Rangers are allowed back into the SPL then that will be the same route. Even if they go into the Third Division then they will still really be the same club in a sporting sense if not in a business sense. They will still have the same fans, stadium etc. The difference with Gretna F.C. is that the old club went into liquidation, then went bankrupt and ceased to exist. Then a new club was formed with a similar name. I think the distinguishing factor is whether it is a newco (new company) or new club. Of course it is possible Rangers will not be allowed back in as a newco. So they might try to buy a First Division club or go to England or Northern Ireland etc. In those cases it will be considered a new club. That's my take on it anyway. Adam4267 (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

this seems about right it depends if they cease to exists and ifa new team is register that is a similar name sicne it a newco it will be the same club, but the big question still to be answered is will teh spl or sfl let them in if they dnt the current club will ceast to exist if they do they it will be the same club once that known the way forward can be deicded jsut now we stick to teh same page, and rangers fans dnt come into it, wikipedia isnt here for fans its about a encolpedia and notabilty and relaible sourcesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In answer to the question, I think Wikipedia will simply follow usage. The newco, when all is said and done, is simply a legal fiction; for Wikipedia all that matters is whether or not reliable sources actually, in practice, treat it as a "new" entity. Keep in mind too that there may be some small part of the final deal that allows the "new" club to keep the history of the "old" club. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference between this and Leeds is there is no holding company. The proposal that was made by Bill Miller involved a holding company that was later liquidated. The route proposed by green does not involve that. They will buy the assets and register as a new company legally at company's house and the old one ceases. No holding place. Whether they are accepted back into the SFL or SPL has no bearing on the process. The history goes with the club to some extent due to the assets travelling across. Although under PFA legal advise the players do not unless they want to contrary to Greens statement. legally they will never be Rangers as we know it hence why the HMRC have stated they have no case against a new company just against the previous ones owners. Now Wikipedia can be accurate and say the old one has ceased as legally and what reliable sources say they are a new company or be false and regard then as the same old. The argument put forward above does not hold water. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearly there is much more to a football club than the legal entity plc. I fully expect for the most part that whatever new company is formed, Rangers the football club will generally be considered to be the same club. Naturally this article should include the whole sorry tale of the two companies, but we must follow general usage. However, this is all pointless at the moment. If anyone believes there is a case for Wikipedia to list the two separately, then they can put their case (with supporting sources) when it actually happens. Until then there's not much point speculating. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is more to a football club than a legal entity but we are not a football club, for instance Airdire consider themselves to be Airdrieonians we treat then seperatly because they are not. We are an encyclopaedia we tell the truth backed by reliable sources not what a club or it's fans want us to. Now every source around just now states a new company and the old one ceases to exist. I agree we tell the story but how we handle it is important this isn't an If and but it's happening now Rangers will liquidate unless HMRC changes it's mind which isnt going to happen. This will go to the SPL board and they will decide whether to accept the application for the new club to join. Now it's not going to be very hard to back up with reliable sources and rules on clubs being liquidated to show they are a separate entity. Now Rather than get emotional because eithier a club you support or a club we deem to big to die is soon going to be gone lets decide how to properly handle it. Eitheir a sepperate page which would seem sensible given what we can prove. Or keep the old page with a tottaly new section detailing the new club. Now eithier probably will be acceptable but bear in mind the size of the page already and given they will be a new club splitting seems a good option. A new page could have background to establish history whilst accepting they aren't the same. Worth thinking about I'm not overly bothered eithier way, we do however as said above have to be fair and let the facts tell the story. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Edinburgh that Rangers fans having WP:OWN of the article(s?) is not the way to go. I understand it's an unpalatable situation for the Rangers guys, but come on. The article now doesn't even mention liquidation. From the outside looking in, there has also been glaring maladministration at the club: everyone seems to agree on that, although various protagonists are apparently pointing the finger at eachother. Why is all this deficient from our article when the sources are out there? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)Edinburgh Wanderer 23:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A new statement from Green states the clubs history will travel across not sure how much truth is in that yet. Technically possible but only if done right plan outlined previously does not show this. I'm sceptical purely because he made other statements today that are totally untrue such as liquidated clubs already been allowed into SPL and players contracts must travel across under employment law both are false. Will need to wait and see eithier way as Clavdia says the article at the moment is rather inaccurate and dosent cover much at all it's almost in a state of denial. It needs more info on past financial problems, administration issues with Duff and phelps, new ownership and Luqudation. It needs work. Let's update it and then plan for future of article. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that if the history carries across, so would the history of having spent more money than they have repaid. You can't pick and choose which bits of history you will retain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

At the moment everything is speculation. We should be awaiting the fallout in the next few weeks.Monkeymanman (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. What we must do now is add all information to the article. Yes we wait on the outcome of Luqudation but the article is missing huge amounts of the financial problems. Mostly due to wait and see and a wee but of censorship along the way. We've waited and reached this outcome, it should all be added ASAP. Including details of EBT being barred from Europe for a year, transfer ban lifted on appeal, court case against football laws. Edinburgh Wanderer 07:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Worth a read.[1]Edinburgh Wanderer 09:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok i have been doing some research, there may be some truth to the history carrying over, ok we know rangers are getting liquidated unless hmrc change there mind not likely, ok the company getting liquidated is rangers fc plc estbalished in 1899 but the club itself anfd its history is serperate to that in the fact ti was formed in 1872, the company being liqudated is being replaced with the new green consurtium company but it is like sister and parents companies work, just because the parent company is liqudated doesnt mean teh child company is, the club itself isnt being liquidated it the company we are goign to have to qait and see hwo this folds out but the aritcle needs updating to0 current information but as fora new article we cant determine that until we know for sure if the original club is oging out of existence or its the company that owns the club and i think tha tis what is cruical here and why the histroy might be preservedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that a key point has been made in the previous comment. It is the COMPANY being liquated, not the CLUB. The club was formed in 1872, while the company was established in 1899. With the company being dissolved and a newco formed, there is no change to the club, provided that it continues to function. A ACF Fiorentina is the correct one to follow is this instance. The Gretna model is only relevant should the club fail to continue as a football club. Johnelwaq (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Slight issue with that is the club hold the licence. The company is being liquidated and lose their licence with the SFA to play therefore once they find a league to play in they then have to apply for that licence back. The BBC and others read It differently to that interpretation. That's all this is an interpretation once it happens we will know. Let's be totally honest that is Duff and Phelps plan however name one thing they have done in this that has happened to plan. Also the HMRC would also have a claim against the club in that scenario not owners as they claim. let's see what happens but we will go with what sources say not what the club or their fans want us to. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because teh club lose there license does not mean there liquidated, that is the important point if the club isnt liquidated there might eb truth to the history carrying on personal i think the history dies. and hmrc have said they will havea claim against the old company not te new one so that doesnt go with what oyur saying and the sources are there to prve it, but i agree we dnt do what the fans want but what he sources sayAndrewcrawford (talk - Special:Contributions/Andrewcrawford

The business that holds the licence is being liquidated its currently open to Interpretation which that is given the company being liquidated was formed in the 1800s most of their history has been since then so really club and company for over a hundred years has been the same. It's a lightweight argument until we know more. Lightweight but not necessarily wrong. . HMRC say they would have no claim against a newco just it's past owners but in that example the history travels across with the business so there is still a claim there. Anyway let's get the story straight but the article in its current form is very censored. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I just want to know does everyone understand their is more than one way to liquidate a business one where it's a full Luqudation and one where a holding company is set up and history to some extent transfers but that is If it's done properly and its excepted as such. Sources will dictate that one for us. However the distinct difference is one leaves the HMRC a avenue to go after and the other doesn't. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

im well aware of the process and the club was formed in 1872 the company which owns the club rangers plc was formed in 1899 at company house, teh company is getting liquidated not the club, but i agree until it is all over it hard to say excately i only pointe dout there could eb truth to the history carrying over i never said it will becaus ei dnt know. but rangers plc is being fully liquidated ther eno holding company that was bill miller plan but that reuqired the old company having cva accepted which is now clear it never was goign to be so it full liquidation of the company not the club, well at the moment it not liquidation of the club, and no jsu tbecause they have to reappliy for the license does nto mean the club is liquidated, teh company holds the license since it getitng liqudiate the license is terminated and the newco has to apply for one or buy a club who alreayd has one ie what airdie done, but i stress but until it clear we dnt know what thell is goign, howeve ri agree the article is censored to suit rangers fans i agree lets change it, but lets get aconesus on it here i dnt really have the time to come up with it are you able to? i proopse a complete new sectionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure you really get what I'm getting at but never mind. I do however think its unlikely in the eyes of the public and latterly the press they will treat club and company seperatly. Anyway as I've said wait and see. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The club and the company are the same. That's why when the company is liquidated, the membership of the SPL and SFA are extinguished; the debt is extinguished and the assets are sold off. If a new company chooses to buy some of those assets then they can; if they want to apply to the SPL for membership they can. Players become free agents on liquidation of the old company save that, if a new company comes along to emulate the old one then the staff of the old company are entitled to have their contracts transferred across to the new company if the staff wish. That's a special piece if legislation to protect employment rights. At the moment much of what the Green Consortium (and what a joyously ironic name for the group that is liquidating Rangers!) is spin to pacify their customer base and try to entice them across to the new company. They need to make believe that it is just business as usual, a continuation of the old. But it isn't and it can't be in legal terms or else the debts would come across too. It does mean, from a Wikipedia perspective, that much of what the club's owners, administrators and liquidators might say needs to be set aside as partisan and untrustworthy. Also interesting to see that Ibrox Park seems to have been devalued from GBP160m to less than GBP5m. Even allowing for the initially inflated figure, surely that much prime real estate in Glasgow would be worth more than GBP5m for housing or retail. I do hope we don't see the oldco selling off assets to the newco for under market value... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That is my position also. The BBC source also says club is liquidated [2]. Stv source talks about club being liqudated buy in looser terms. It also sounds like new company to be called The Rangers Football Club. Going to be rather tricky to say its just the company. Edinburgh Wanderer 10:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

i believe you when it broke on bbc they didnt make it clear if they where tryign to stop liqudation or make the newco but i stillt hink until liqudation starts in about 8-10 weeks once that does then make the article until then it would bea bit preemptiveAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A new page shouldnt be set up. Its the same assests as before, just under a different name. The club is just being "refounded" so as such should be updated on the current page. It takes the same structure as Fiorentina AFC as they done the EXACT same thing!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.227.203 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers Football Club is a Company. Rangers Football Club is not just a name it is an Entity called Rangers Football Club P.L.C it is true it once was not a Company but it was Incorporated as a Limited Liability Company in 1899 and has since become a Public Limited Company. Rangers Football Club is in Liquidation and it will be dissolved and cease to exist following the Liquidation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

being you are celtic fan i welcome your comments, but the club was formed in 1872 like celtic was formed in 1888 in 1899 a company was establish which then took ownership of the club called ranger football club plc register at company house, i need to check when celtic company house registration is but they have a company celtic football club plc which was formed after the club and owns the club, the ranger plc is getting lqiudaited but it is unclear just now how it affects the club as there serperate according to the sources so teh club isn't getting liquidated just reformed restructuredAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to look up the word Incorporate and looks what it is and means. The Club IS A COMPANY, it wasn't took over by a Company it was made a Company so that it could trade and get the benefits of being a company. Celtic IS a company too. There is no "according to sources" those people are only making out there will be a team called Rangers playing at Ibrox wearing Blue so football will continue for fans to go and support. However its a New Club altogether with no connections to the old. This is why they have to apply to play in a League, why they need to buy assets like a Stadium. If Green bought the existing Rangers they include the full shebang of Stadium/Players/Manager etc but he isnt he's buying their assets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Club and company are seperate

Club and company are serperate accoridng to this source http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html " 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. " this is very complying source it is goverment website for scottish lawAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And personal research on talk pages isn't appropriate for inclusion in articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The club itselfs has acknowledge that the company that run the corporate business coming to an end, not the clu itself, the history etc lives on. [3] --Johnelwaq (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense as I'm sure you are well aware. The club became a company. The club was then run in a way that has led to impending bankruptcy, but since the club is a company (with 'limited liability), the club will be liquidated without the individual shareholders being personally liable for the debts. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A scots court and SFA admit its the same club and for me their word carries more weight than the POV's of certain contributors on here BadSynergy (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

because of POV who want to make it the club is the company we will never get this resolved as can be seen at dispute resolution board that why i start it to try get conseus but thre o many POV pushers so im giving up the POV will ultimately lead to non nuetral wikipedia jsut so they can makea mockery of the club, no matter wha tsource is given to prove it the POV oushers are never gogn to listen , oh chris i would suggest not personally attqacking me on a edit comment wha ti put was ine it was jsut expaning on what was there there was 1 spekling error the grammer might be poor but anyone could fix that, like fisherhelper done on the other article wher ei added informaiton on teh playing squad to which i am grateful to fisherhelper for ficxing itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no solution to this problem. Protect the article until after the meeting of the fourth of July and tell everyone that's what's happening because we are not a newspaper. Britmax (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The page protection shouldnt of been lifted in the first place. As for what the club says you can take that with a large pinch of salt.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the meeting on the 4th July will not have any bearing on the different viewpoints being expressed here. If protection is required, a more logical endpoint would be when Rangers FC is finally liquidated. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

At the 4 July meeting the old Rangers will have a vote cast by the administrators. The new Rangers or their new owners have no vote. This clearly shows they are considered different clubs by the SPL. TerriersFan (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

i am not goign to comment on serperate clubs but i will say why the oldco has the vote, if you look at the spl rules the one who holds the shares must make the vote, regradless if we say it is hte club or the ocmpany oldco is the one that hold the vote it is the only thing the adminsitrators could not sell, since it most liekly they will not get back in then administrator still own the share in the spl, so then adminsitrators have to sell to the new club replacing rangers in spl, the new club regardless if it dunfermline or dundee only have ot offer £1 for it the amdinistrators can refuse to sell for htat price then spl have the ability to forceficly remove the share for £1 that is why they havea vote and the newco dnt i repreat i am not discussing whether the club are the company or not i am talkign oldco newco im not sayign there the same or serperate only how that process worksAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

history remains

Request to change. Club is the history. Club still alive, Company dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.221.87 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers owner

The owner is Sevco, company RFC PLC is dissolved not Rangers football club, needs to be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.115.80 (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the football club Rangers FC became a company in 1899 - the club became a company. The club and the company are one. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

How can the club be dead you retard, they have just applied to play in Divivsion 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.221.87 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi 92.235.221.87 - I assume you won't understand any of the following but here goes anyway: Newco Rangers has applied to get the place of Rangers FC in the SPL. It may then apply for a place in the SFL if that request is rejected (as looks likely). As for Rangers FC, it will not be playing football again as it is being liquidated. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Accepting football debts and fines is definitive

Seeing as Charles Green is OK with accepting the debts and fines of the old company surely this means it isn't a new club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadSynergy (talk • contribs) 11:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That was rumoured to be a proposal of a price the newco Rangers could be asked to pay to get into Division 1 rather than division 3. That's all. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sevco getting into division 1 or the SPL will not be a relegation, but in actual fact a double promotion,the company is the club,wikipedia should finally be rewarded for not pandering to fans who want some form of recognition for a club that does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.75.49 (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that new club is taking assets and debts from the old club doesn't make the new club the old club. TerriersFan (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Newco = New company amazing that people think newco = new club BadSynergy (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if editors round here said "new company" properly instead of cutting it off in this fashionably illiterate manner. Britmax (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The advantage of speaking about the 'newco' and the 'oldco' is so that people can be clear which Rangers is being discussed. It may well be that the newco will try and use the name Rangers FC, but they may have to agree a variation on this as other reformed clubs have done - e.g. when Halifax Town A.F.C. was liquidated the newco adopted the name F.C. Halifax Town. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Request to change re kit

On the kit manufacturers section it states that umbro and tennents were manufacturer and sponser untill 2013. 2013 hasnt even happened yet, this is 2012. We dont know when the sponsorship will end so it should be 2010- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.221.87 (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well 2013 hasn't happened yet but, as a thought, that may be when the contract runs out. Britmax (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes made again without consensus

Once again page has been altered to make it seem RFC is dead while it's still being debated. I don't want to start an edit 'war' so to speak however thought someone higher up should know. BadSynergy (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is also being done by editors who leave no edit summary to explain their actions. This is a complex issue in which every editor can no longer be expected to keep up with the arguments, but it is reasonable to expect them to know why they have made their individual edit and to explain this in a summary. Britmax (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It suits posters POV's that's why certain sources that reckon RFC the club is dead is being used but other sources stating the opposite are ignored. BadSynergy (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Prime example an entirely new editor has changed page to say RFC were dissolved in 2012! BadSynergy (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can both contribute to the debate at "Rangers FC club dead or not" I have just asked the question:Everybody seems to accept that Rangers FC is currently a member of the SFA. In that case, could someone who is arguing that Rangers FC is both alive and will survive the liquidation process explain what need is there for Sevco Scotland to seek SFA membership? If Rangers FC is not dying, surely its membership of the SFA will live on? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The SPL share cannot be bought like the assets and he has to prove to the SFA his company can run RFC. I still post on the Dispute notice board however it doesn't stop people making changes so kind of defeats the purpose of debating. BadSynergy (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't asking about SPL share. I also wasn't asking about Sevco Scotland proving to the SFA that it could run a football club (which happend any time there is a take-over of a club). I'm asking why Sevco Scotland requires to apply for membership of the SFA when Rangers FC already has membership of the SFA. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rangers Football Club plc (oldco) has the share, which is why Rangers can still vote on proposals. Green's company has applied to the SFA to have that share transferred to his company (newco). As has been reported the SFA want full details of his company and could be asked to accept sanctions in return for the share. If the SFA turned him down Rangers would be a club without a league to play in however apparently very slim chance of that happening. BadSynergy (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Green's company has applied to the SPL (not the SFA) to have that share transferred to his company (newco). So question remains, why does Sevco Scotland require to apply for membership of the SFA when Rangers FC already has membership of the SFA? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sevco need to have membership to the countrys football association. It's why Rangers were given 3 year ban from Europe because it's in their rules you have to have been a member for 3 consecutive years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadSynergy (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is dragging on a bit I'll stick to the disput page rather than clog up the talk page --BadSynergy (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly Fishiehelper2 because there is an ongoing discussion at dispute resolution the article should remain unchanged until an accurate outcome is reached. There is so much POV pushing on here at the moment that the article should be fully protected again. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and does not publish original research. Monkeymanman (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Monkeymanman - the article does need protected. As you say, too many editors are making edits either by way of gloating over Rangers' demise, or by way of almost denying the reality of Rangers liquidation. It is sad that this article requires protection, but it does - I don't recall protection being required on the Halifax Town A.F.C. article when it was liquidated. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

it was fully proctect yesterday for the next month so anything anyone thinks needs changed less discuss and get aocnesus and then put the request inAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

For starters, the past tense should be reverted until Consensus is reached. Both here and with dispute resolution. Monkeymanman (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A change from the past tense would require consensus as it would be a highly controversial change. The fact is that Rangers FC is being liquidated and it now has no players and no ground (its assets having been sold on 14th June). It has therefore played its last game and therefore 'was' a football club seems appropriate on that basis. On the other hand, I concede that in strictly legal terms, the club still exists as it has not yet been finally dissolved - the liquidation process is not due to be completed for another few weeks. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no Consensus for the article to be changed to a past tense. There was (and still is) an ongoing dispute resolution if there should be a separate article for the club or the company. Therefore the article should remain present tense until a resolution is reached. Many editors have explained to you that there are conflicting sources to cite both sides of the argument. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Were Rangers not founded in 1873 as FIFA says?

Just reading the Rangers page on FIFA 's Classic Clubs [4] and noticed that FIFA records the foundation of Rangers as 1873. This article says 1872 and the reference just goes to an 'error page'. Is FIFA wrong and, if so, can we prove it? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

yes and no they where founded in 1872 but where to late for regristion to play that season but played friendlies until the 1873 season when they where register with sfa that what fifa is probably saying i think it is in the history section a reference to prove it if not we will need to find one or change itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

just checked the links that source it are dead so we nee dot find new onesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

[5]. Monkeymanman (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

So Andrewcrawford, what do we do when the sources say conflicting things? The SPL says 1872[6] and FIFA says 1873 [7]. Do we just go by the sources alone, or do we check to see which source is correct and which source is inaccurate? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

excately what i have said before we must amend it to say something in the line of rangers fc where formed in 1872 (source) but is it also suggested they where formed 1873 (source) both are reliable sources so we cant choose over the other once we can get 75% majority of sources for either 1872 or 1873 then we mention that in the infobox as founded but in the history mention both but mention more source support the one over the other, can we try get more sources please but put a edit request to make a slight change just now to say bothAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

the main problem with trying to find out which source is wrong is how do we do it we cant is the simple answer because both are reliable if it was on the article dead link the club website it would be primary source so we go with the 3rd party reliable source fifa but the scotprem site is reliable 3rd party toAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources are all over the place: just putting 'Rangers founded' into a google search bring up 1872. However loads of sources say 1873, such as STV, [8]] The Guardian [9] the Scottish Sun, [10] Arbroath FC, [11] - even the Rangers website makes clear that the official founding of the club was in 1873. [12] Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

please post sources for 1872 as well and the rangers website oneAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, the article was sourced that way. A citation to explain the club recognises it was founded in 1872 (this was changed within the last 3-4 years), but official matches were played in 1873 (included in a footnote). So what's the problem? Monkeymanman (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

the source on the article are dead links and are primary source so isnt be reliable in that sense, but we have sources saying both 1872 and 1873 from reliable 3rd party sources so the article has to say it isnt clear which is the real founding year if there a source saying what you have that is a 3rd party one that will be a start, im campaigning to have it one article because of conflicting sources i will campaign to have both years included until a majority go one way or the other, the attitude of pick and choose what source is why the club or not dispute is still on goingAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the solution not to edit the infobox so it reads 'Founded: 1873 (official date)[13] '. That should make clear that the 1872 is an unoffical date. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

reading the source yes your correct put 1873 in infobox but make sure to edit history to say unofficially for 1873 173 officially founded, i agree with this because of this statement on the primary source "Despite this promising start, as every fan knows the official founding of the club did not take place until the following year.

The date of 1873 is recognised because that was the year when the club had their first annual meeting and officers were elected. Rangers were becoming businesslike."Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The club officially recognise 1872 as their founding date. You can include a footnote that it was changed from 1873, which is when .......etc etc. It was only recently changed in the last one or two seasons. Hence is why the FIFA website has probably got it wrong. According to that source the club is "bidding for a third successive domestic title." Monkeymanman (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

sorry the primary source and reliable 3rd party sources confirm it as 1873 i will put the edit request in later if someone want to do it before i do go ahead, when primary source states teh above as 1873 that the year we will useAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The Club state 1872 putting it as 1873 is basically false information regardless of what the primary source states, what Monkeymanman suggests is far better and far more accurate. If we know a source to be likely wrong then we shouldn't follow it, and its hardly original research when the club have such a comprehensive history. There are many clubs that have this issue Hearts for instance were possibly founded a year earlier than they state.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

We could also citebook The Gallant Pioneers: Rangers 1872. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

no the club states 1873 as they officially founded but they where playing as a team 1 year before but missed the sfa membership cut-off read the followinf quote from rangers own site y to say unofficially for 1873 173 officially founded, i agree with this because of this statement on the primary source "Despite this promising start, as every fan knows the official founding of the club did not take place until the following year.

The date of 1873 is recognised because that was the year when the club had their first annual meeting and officers were elected. Rangers were becoming businesslike."Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Scottish football encyclopaedia states club formed February 1872, first match played May 1872. Officially founded 1873. Now this is a bit like club company however we clearly have reliable sources that state the Club Rangers played matches in 1872 which is when the were formed. Could the infobox not be | founded = 1873 <br>Formed 1872. Think I'm over thinking it but not straight forward as a club did play in 1872 so 1873 isn't correct on its own which is why a footnote is probably best. This is really the stupidest debate ever given there was and isn't anything factually wrong in the opening statement and the sources provided. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

i dnt see anything wrong with doing |founded=1873 <br />Formed 1872 but this is excately liek club or company we cant go against the sources that is pov, i dnt think there is formed parameter if there is use that insteadAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

it's only pov if not sourced or slanted. . This can be sourced clearly via several books who don't have a pov on the issue. I don't care what year they were formed or founded or much else about the club but this is accurate. I hold copies of these books as i do with a lot to do with Scottish Football in general so can provide the cites if necessary. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

write upa repalcement for the infobox with sources using citebook and i wont object to that but also writ eup replacement for the early yearsw part of the history sources th various sources that say 1873 and 1872Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Eyes open people

I've just seen the first trickles of reports that they have lost the vote. Of course this will need to go into the article but watch the POV and grave dancing (from all other Scottish clubs by the look of things). Britmax (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've already updated the Newco Rangers article to include this information. I don't see it also needs to be added to this article. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

agreed the debate about whether this should be one article or two is in disputer resoution and now about to go to wp:rfc so until that matter is cleared up this article should be read like it is the old club and the new article about the new club once the dipsute has ended and if it decided it should be one article we will merge everything together and make it all right but until then we go with this as the old club and the other as new clubAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough it will need to go in an article rather than this one but I think people will still try, so stay vigilant. Britmax (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Can this be used to make updates(can be copy and pasted over once its unlocked?

What you say is all correct. Rangers FC was a football club that became a company and is now being liquidated. The assets and business of that club have now been bought by a new company that plans to change its name to Rangers Football Club Ltd at the end of July (when the oldco Rangers changes its name to Rangers 2012 so as to release its original name to be used by the new company.) This is all quite clear. However the issue for some editors appears to be that since the new company, the administrators, many fans and some media outlets state that 'the club' (and not just the assets) was bought by Green's consortium, and 'the club' is therefore merely continuing under new ownership, should this not be reflected in Wikipedia even though it is incorrect? Unfortunately I don't see how a compromise is possible between those who take this view and those, like myself, who believe that we should always seek to make Wikipedia as accurate as possible and should therefore not use sources that are clearly wrong or may have been written in an inaccurate or misleading way for reasons of commercial self-interest or wishful thinking on the part of the authors. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There are conflicting reliable sources that would directly support both arguments of separate club or separate company. However Remember this. Monkeymanman (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be useful to this debate if some reliable sources could be posted that clearly state that Rangers FC (the club) is somehow separate from Rangers FC PLC (the company), as I don't believe I have seen any (that are reliable). All I recall seeing are articles containing quotes from people who have a commercial interest in promoting one interpretation on this issue. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add..."or supporters of Rangers who may not have a commercial self-interest but have an emotional self-interest." Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that the club is dead. However, I would have some sympathy for those Rangers fans who look at how the Fiorentina issue was handled. Ultimately though, it seems beyond clear that the club died with the company. Heywoodg ^talk 09:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, though bankruptcy laws in Italy appear somewhat different to here in the UK. As for sympathy, I also have sympathy for fans of Halifax Town A.F.C., Chester City FC, Telford United FC etc who see that liquidation of their clubs led to new articles for the newcos (F.C. Halifax Town, Chester FC and A.F.C. Telford United - they must be wondering why Rangers FC should be treated differently from their clubs. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In what way is Italian law so different that a liquidated company, which is reformed, maintain the same identity & history as the previous club? UK law allows a company to purchase the "goodwill" of another, meaning the history is transferred over to the new corporate entity. This is simiar to that of Napoli, who actually existed for a couple of seasons before they were allowed to rename the newco as the same as the previous club. To maintain the arguement that Italian insolvency law is different I think is a clear showing of your bias, as you are using complete nonsensical guesswork to try and back-up your stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky072 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That is why Fiorentina should really be a separate page too. The old club is dead, the new Fiorentina is a new different club. However, the same mistake shouldn't be made here. If fans want a fan page with history, fine, but Wikipedia should stick to reality which is that newco are not Rangers just because they share a name. For Wikipedia to pretend that entity is somehow a parent/sibling of the other, or that nothing happened, is wrong. Rangers will always be Rangers to a lot of fans I guess, but sentiment isn't a reason to turn a blind eye. Heywoodg ^talk 11:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well clearly they do share much more than "just a name". That much is plain. So your argument doesn't stand up to even the slightest analysis. And I don't believe anyone is suggesting "nothing happened". Wikipedia treats Fliorentina as the same club because the footballing authorities and reliable sources do the same. The purpose of Wikipedia is in being a verifiable encyclopaedia, it is not about establishing what some see as truth in the face of others' "mistakes". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I claim no expert knowledge in Italian bankruptcy laws and am willing to be corrected. However, I know that Scottish bankruptcy law is the same as the rest of the UK (as it is the same UK wide legislation that applies) and therefore thought it better to look at what has happened to UK football clubs that have been liquidated. That was why I raised Halifax Town A.F.C., Chester City FC and Telford United FC. No one has provided an argument why the case of Rangers FC should be treated differently on Wikipedia from these clubs. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Because, as I have repeatedly explained to you, but you appear reluctant to listen, reliable sources are treating the newco as a continuation of Rangers, a refounding of Rangers FC, the same club. I do not know how reliable sources treated the other clubs you quote, I do not know how the decisions were reached about their articles. Harping on about liquidation law is irrelevant if the sources don't care. The sources don't care because the club is more than a company. There is a reason why this is all being reported on the sports pages and not the business pages. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It works both ways. It would be useful to this debate if some reliable sources could be posted that clearly state that Rangers FC (the club) is one and the same as Rangers FC PLC (the company), as I don't believe I have seen any (that are reliable). I'm also inclined to ignore any original research added to a talk page that shouts "FACT!". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

i did on the dispute resolution noticeboard, tha tthe problem both sides are right it is not clear that is why to get a proper deciison on this i am moving up the dipsute to rfc hopefulyl wihtin next week or so, i am still gathering sourcs for sides of the argument, those who say the club is edad will only point o th soruce that say it is and when source that say otherwise they say it is is bad editor writing the source because its not ocmplying wiht ther epov same the other way round if source says the club is dead and that nto the poitn of view people ingore it, i think ther eis maybe 3 or 4 editors here that are being neutral on this regradless of own opinions and following wikipedia rule but pov are trying to get it there way for both sides hence why it will be diffucult resovle it will ahve to be taken out of our hands and let indepent people mak ethe decisionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well if you have no idea if Italian insolvency laws differ or not, why take a stance on that basis? It has been reported in various sources that Charles Greens consortium purchased Rangers assets, inclusive of intellectual property (such as the badge, the right to call the team 'Rangers Football Club') and the "goodwill" which includes the history. If you want to argue that is different from the Napoli situation, who purchased the old name & history of the club, then you need to provide evidence as to why this is different. In reference to why Fiorentina 7 Napoli 'should have thier own page', these clubs are globally recognised as the same clubs, playing at the same grounds, under the same name and are recognised by FIFA as maintaining their history, so why would a different page be appropriate to seperate 2 sections in the clubs respective histories? (Source: http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=2147481899/index.html http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=44331/ ) Ricky072 (talk)

Why would you find it appropriate to create 2 seperate pages for these clubs based on the fact they were 'reborn' at certain times in their history, when FIFA, the worlds governing body, have no issue in documenting the clubs history, inclusive of their 'rebirth' & recognises all major honours pre & post rebirth? Why would Wikipedia not feel it appropriate to keep all documention within the same page but include, like FIFA, the rebirth episode within that page, in similar fashion? i.e: Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872 (refounded in 2012) ? In regard to the points raised by examples of Chester etc... These clubs did not 'purchase' the assets & goodwill from the company in adminsitration. The name of the Club (not the company) is also different, as is the badge. The situation is more comparable to Charlton Athletic, who despite being liquidated, maintained the same name of the CLUB (but different company). A quick check on various sources online will only show that the companies that run charlton Athletic were formed in 1984 & a holding company formed in the 90's. Their is no record of the old company, because it was dissolved. Ricky072 (talk)

Don't FIFA have a vested interest in football? Heywoodg ^talk 12:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to individual clubs. You could use FIFA as a source on wikipedia when documenting a clubs honours, or say, listing Brazil's World Cup wins. On that basis it's fair to use FIFA as a reputable source that recognises Fiorentina & Napoli as the same Club maintaining the same history, despite the rebirth of the companies as certain points within that history. Ricky072 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So you don't think FIFA have a vested interest in making the clubs, which they rely on for their income and existence, look like on-going legitimate concerns? I guess we will have to agree to disagree! I would consider FIFA as reliable in this matter as Green. Heywoodg ^talk 13:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Because otherwise they would not be legitimate on-going concerns? Charles green is laying claim to the history of Rangers Football Club, and past honours, including the 54 Scottish League Championships. Which authority will sanction that? considering that list of honours includes a European title, any opposotion to Green's claim is likely to be out of the SFA's jurisdiction. If footballs maining governing bodies in UEFA/FIFA do give clearance and recognise Rangers Football Club in it's current form under charles Green, as the same club as the oen founded in 1872 retaining past honours, would you still argue that Wikipedia should not? Ricky072 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

But that is the point. Rangers is not a legitimate ongoing concern. It has folded and is going to be dissolved. That doesn't change regardless of what FIFA say in order to protect their interests. It is however in the interest of the new club (and FIFA) to pretend that this is the same club because no one with an interest in the new club (or the football associations) wants to see the fans (and their wallets) walk away. Heywoodg ^talk 14:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of you're interpration and the semantics of club/company as one or seperate concerns, the debate here is how Rangers should be recognised by Wikipedia. There is no reasonable arguement as to why Rangers in it's present form should be recored factually in a different format than Charlton Athletic, Napoli or Fiorentia. All of whom were dissolved (Charlton dissolved source here: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/02808331 & here: http://www.cafc.co.uk/page/history/0,,10267~2180943,00.html )at one point, but reborn and as a new corporate entity, retaining their 'club' name & history, as is the case here. The contributor above is wrong in his example such as Chester, these clubs do not set precedent as they did not purchase the club from the Administrators, nor did they stake claim to the clubs history, and the name of "club" changed, along with the badge. All of which would reasonably suggest they intended to be recognised as a new club. Charlton Athletic here is a clear precedent of a club which maintained it's identity despite being liquidated. Ricky072 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your link to Charlton doesn't actually show much either way. Where the football club owned by a holding company? If so, that would be a completely separate issue to Rangers. But you might be right, which is why I posted something on the Charlton page earlier today, although to me, the main incident for them was 1984. Still, just because a company associated with Charlton does not mean that it is the same situation with Rangers. If you have any more info though, feel free to present it! Heywoodg ^talk 21:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"these clubs do not set precedent as they did not purchase the club from the Administrators" - eh... neither did Charles Green's consortium. He was only willing to purchase the club from the administrators if the creditors agreed to the proposed CVA. When they refused, he instead bought the assets from the administrators. (Had he bought the club, he would have bought all the good stuff, like history, but also taken on the bad stuff - £134M debt.) As for Chester, the fans of Chester City FC formed the club in preparation for the liquidation of their club - they happened to vote to revert to Chester City's previous name which they had had for 98 years. As for Charlton, I seem to recall that they managed to escape from liquidation with 5 minutes to spare - I'll have to check that out. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your reckoning of FIFA's motivations is irrelevant. If that's what the ultimate footballing authority wants, and what the club wants, and what the fans want, and what reliable sources report, then it is not Wikipedia's place to decide "Actually we've done some research on company law of dubious relevance, and decided it trumps the lot of you, we know better, you're not getting it". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I guess that is up for debate. The fact is though that the club that existed for 140 odd years, will shortly cease to exist. It will be gone in to the ether like Accrington Stanley and plenty of previous clubs (and I suspect plenty will follow it too!) Personally, I think Wikipedia should be focused on the real-life situation, not on the fans fantasy/interpretations. That is what fan sites are for. But, that is just my opinion and obviously a lot of Rangers fans will disagree which is to be expected. I think 90% of us would if it was our club who had disappeared. Heywoodg ^talk 21:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishihelper, You're wrong as a matter of fact when you say he did not purchase "the good stuff" as you put it. Green himself has claimed he purchased the business "today, the consortium I represent has fulfilled its agreement with the administrators and has completed the acquisition of the business and assets of The Rangers Football Club plc." (source:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2159368/The-Rangers-Football-Club-bought-Charles-Green.html#ixzz1zrJwoqQF). This is inclusive of the 'goodwill', and also the right to use the club's badge & the right to call the team/club "Rangers Football Club". Chester did not to this. They did not purchase the right to use the old club name, nor the badge. Having changed the name of the club & badge it is reasonable to assume the new founders were content to be recognised as a different club born out of the death of the old one, and not a continuation. You are also wrong about Charlton, I supplied 2 links above, both reputable sources, 1 is the Charlton website which confirms the oringal PLC was eventually dissolved in 2010 after being more or less dorment since they reformed. A similar situation may be teh case for RFC as the current PLC in administration, may remain in that state for a number of years as ongoing court cases & legal disputes are resolved. This is also the case with Leeds United. LEEDS UNITED ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (THE) IN LIQUIDATION Source: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00170600 I personal believe that your reluctance to recognise that both Leeds United & Charlton Athletic have both been dissolved/liquidated yet continue as the same club, is again showing of anti-Rangers bias. I've proven these cases by providing reputable sources and no Wikipedia contributor has been able to seperate Rangers to the precedents set by Fiorentina/Napoli/Charlton/Leeds, you're counter-arguements thus far have been 'Charlton & Leeds were not liquidated' when they were, and 'Italian insolvency law is different' when infact you have no knowledge on that subject and later admitted it was purely guesswork in order to discredit those precedents. Ricky072 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ricky072, are you an accountant? When I did accountancy (a basic level a long time ago), goodwill wasn't used in the way you are using it here. Goodwill isn't something that is transferred just as people's affection for say Apple would be transferred if Apple were bought by the Chinese company that actually make Apple products. Goodwill is simply a figure that is used to indicate off-balance sheet value in a company. Here I guess it would refer to the potential value in the name Rangers, which would draw fans of the old Rangers club to the new one. I would find it difficult to believe that you would see one company selling goodwill to another one like a normal asset. It is slightly different to that. Is there a specific item called "goodwill" that is listed somewhere, or is it just something that Green used in interviews? Heywoodg ^talk 21:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

this is going to Request for Comment with sources that back both sides of the argument as both sides are right but neither are willing to listen to each other side and resolve this Request for Comment will hopefully bring unbiased with no knowledge of the subject here i should have this in place in a week or soAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to correct you on a few points, Ricky072. Firstly, you misquote what I said: what I actually said was that Green didn't want to buy the whole club because that would have meant buying both the 'good stuff' and the 'bad stuff'. He couldn't get an agreed CVA so chose instead to buy the good stuff alone (ie, he didn't buy the club - just the assets.) Are you really arguing that it is possible to buy a club's history by buying the club's goodwill? If other clubs had known that, perhaps one of them would have offered several million to buy Rangers' goodwill - a quick way to get a number of league titles to your name! Secondly, can I point out that there is a world of difference between exiting administration by a CVA and exiting by liquidation. Leeds United definitely (and Charlton, I believe) exited administration by an agreed CVA just prior to final liquidated - this is why each preserved their history. As part of these agreed CVAs, Leeds and Charlton then moved to new company structures under holding companies I believe. Rangers FC are in the same boat as other clubs that have gone into administration, failed to exit via an agreed CVA, and then end up liquidated. Finally, I am sorry that you take my refusal to accept your point of view as evidence of me "showing of anti-Rangers bias". If you check you will see that I have been an editor for more than 4 years with over 10,000 edits - trust me: I am more concerned about ensuring that wikipedia's reputation is protected than I am in any having any desire to annoy Rangers supporters by reminding them that their club has gone bankrupt! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

fisherhelper can you please correct your post what you just quote as saying was not me saying it that was ricky or excape orbit i merely said both side are right and wrong and this is going to Request for Comment nothing about anything you quote please correct your postAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fisherhelper, 1. yes, it is possible to purchase the clubs history via "goodwill", as claimed by several sources, the Administrators Duff & Phelps, and also achieved by Napoli who purchased the clubs old name, badge & history (goodwill) 2 years after the refoundation of the new club "Naploi Soccer". It was also a proposal put forward by Bill Miller who intended to transfer the clubs historym name & goodwill to an "incubator" newco. Your suggestion other clubs could have baught them and picked up the titles is bizarre, and the biding process was open to anyone who could table the best bid, not just the £5.5m Green used to purchase the club, but also future funding, making it the highest bid. It simply isn't viable for any club in Scotland to make that kind of purchase to try and then claim they won the titles. 2. Leeds United and Charlton DID NOT agree a CVA. do your research, HMRC blocked a CVA going through at Leeds United. I provided a source above which now states Leeds United 1920 "in liquidation" with liabilities over £32m & net worth of £-27m. I also provided a reputable source that Charlton PLC has also been dissolved. There is no basis nor foundation to argue that the RFC wikipedia page should be documented in a different structure, or reffered to in a past tense, when Charlton, Leeds, Napoli & Fiorentina are all represented as current, going conerns and contained within 1 single page. Ricky072 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, this is so bloody simple, I can't even believe there's an argument over it.

The club was a company. That much has already been established.

That company is currently in the process of being liquidated. That club is currently in the process of being liquidated.

They are one and the same thing.

It says so, on their own website.

A club is not an asset of a company, a club is a company.

There is no OR here, it's taken from their own website.

Is there which anyone doesn't understand?

Rangers, the club, which was also a company, is dead.

No debate, no argument, it's as simple as 1+2=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.78 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not "bloody simple" and the odd quote from the Rangers website does not clinch it. Just a few minutes ago we had a story on BBC Scotland news "The Rangers captain is the latest to join the exodus from Ibrox". He is perfectly entitled to do so, but the implication is that the default option for players is to stay with Rangers, which implies that there is some serious continuity between the old and new clubs. "The club" is a complex entity, more than a company, it includes fans, a ground, players and non-playing staff, the bulk of which is likely to continue. Keep it as a single article. PatGallacher (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So, the quote from the Rangers website, about how Rangers are a company, isn't sufficient to prove that Rangers are a company? Dear Lord, no wonder no one visits this website any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.78 (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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