Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

When is consensus not a consensus?

Funny how quickly some editors have jumped on a flawed process to conclude that consensus exists on the question of whether Rangers post liquidation is the same club that played in the SPL last season. The Rangers article has now been edited from 'was a football club' to 'is a football club' and everyone seems to assume that this is the end of the matter - before even the SFA has agreed to give the newco membership!

Lets be clear. The question "Do reliable sources indicate that the Rangers club playing in SFL Division 3 next season is the same club as the club playing last season in the SPL?" is a totally flawed question because the answer is obviously 'yes'. (That was why I voted 'Yes'.) Had the alternative question been posed instead: "Do reliable sources indicate that the Rangers club playing in SFL Division 3 next season is a new club, different from the club that played last season in the SPL?", the answer would also have been 'yes'.

That is the problem: reliable sources support both positions.

So the situation we now face is that no consensus has been achieved about whether the current club called Rangers is the same club as the one that played in the SPL last season, no consensus has been achieved therefore on whether there should be two article or one and, even if a single article does become the eventual consensus, no consensus has been achieved on whether that article should be written on the basis of the new Rangers being the same club as the one that entered liquidation.

My position is that wikipedia must reflect the sources and can not simply ignore all the reliable sources that describe the new Rangers as a new club just because some editors find that suggestion 'offensive'. If we fail to reflect the sources appropriately, this article will require ongoing protection because as soon as protection is lifted some editors will seek to correct what they believe the sources show to be wrong. That is not good for anyone and is certainly not good for wikipedia. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Was a consensus reached when the article was put into, and then forcibly kept in, the past tense? It seems from the ongoing discussion that the answer to that is a firm 'no'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.215.177 (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well i see consensus in the vote above when everyone agreed that there are reliable sources saying this is the same club as will play in Div 3. I do not see consensus for when the article was altered weeks ago to say the club ceased to exist. it was merely locked in place without consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Also the trouble with some of the sources that are used to say this is new club, is the same sources go on to show it is the same club as before.. So even if they say the Newco club, or new club, if they go on to treat that club like rangers, as they have done. Where is the problem? There was a far bigger problem with the version saying a club that has actually played football in recent days no longer exists, than with the current version. Aslong as the introduction reflects the situation that has taken place with the old company and transfer to the new one. I think its reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Fishiehelper2, your argument cuts both ways, and more against your position than for it. If there is no consensus, as you claim, then there is equally most definitely no consensus for changing the article to past-tense. So the article should be reverted to the prior version until those who wish it changed can achieve consensus for the change, per BRD guideline. If sources are obviously mixed in their treatment of whether the club is "new" or not then the existing article can easily cover the matter in full, without wholesale changes to it. No-one is suggesting the matter is "ignored" and no-one is suggesting that it shouldn't change because they find it "offensive". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

as i said on your talk page a consensus isnt agreed yet but we are getting closer on first sticking point iis the same club that played last year in spl going to play in the sfl, as i said on your talk page next week i will post on wp:an and aask someone not involved to close the questions down just like a afd so it inpartial if a consensus is reached i plan too make the article to refer to it as a new club to by media source but other meda source say different and the future is uncertain--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Fishie that sources do conflict in this debate, therefore we must look furtehr at reliable evdince & precedents. Both support the view that it's the same club. The onus is on the 'new club' camp to prove beyond doubt it's a seperate club all together. Thus far there has been no answer as to why RFC are any different from previous clubs to go down the newco route. There has been no evidence to disprove the Duff&Phelps document & TV interviews that 'the club' & all it's 'history' are now being operated by a new company. To achieve your goal of representing Rangers in the past tense, and perhaps having '(1872)' in brackets, and a 'new club article' you are goign to have to provide overwhelming evidence to convince neutral and unbias editors such as myself that th situation of Rangers FC is any different from previous NeCo clubs, and the legal document produced by D&P is infact wrong. Ricky072 (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly a nonsense straw man question. But the actions of Bald Zebra, acting upon this bogus consensus, are even more questionable. Clearly a non neutral admin should not be misusing tools to push their preferred side of a content dispute. It's difficult to imagine a more overt conflict of interest! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Where was the consensus to move to a past tense to begin with? Therefore the article should be reverted to the original version until a consensus has been reached (original version which was a present tense btw). Monkeymanman (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Green buys assets

he actually tried to buy the football CLUB but the CLUB where liquidated and thus bought the assets of the liquidated CLUB instead http://www.itv.com/news/story/2012-06-12/rangers-fc-facing-liquidation/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18447530 Geez, it could be not more plainer.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.94.179 (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Green Consortium Buys Rangers Football Club BritishWatcher (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

your right it couldnt be more plainer http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers/-- founded 1873 i assume you will dismiss the sfl because it doesn tsuit your agenda

Consensus has already been achieved on this debate. Please read the rest of the talk page before posting the same points. Ricky072 (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

it hasnt been achived yet but it is most likely it will be or at the very least we will be closer to haivng this dispute settled--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus has already been achieved on this debate" - I must have missed that! I see no sign in this talk page that consensus has been achieved on whether the new Rangers is the same club as the original Rangers. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Regards. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, a question was asked ("Do reliable sources indicate that the Rangers club playing in SFL Division 3 next season is the same club as the club playing last season in the SPL?") with what I would regard as a clear intention of ascertaining consensus with regards the issue of Rangers being a new club or not. 13 responses, besides your own, stated "agree": the answer that is in accordance with Rangers being considered the same club. You chose to read a dubiety into the question and on this basis reconsidered your initial answer. That is of course your prerogative, but I fail to see how one person's reservations about the wording of a question can invalidate the responses of the 13 other users, whose answers cannot be read as having any such difficulty in understanding what was entailed within the question. I think you are unjustified in inferring your own qualms to any other users implicitly, and as such fail to see a valid reason for not regarding as consensus the empathic endorsement of the position "the Rangers club playing in SFL Division 3 next season is the same club as the club playing last season in the SPL".Gefetane (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

consensus has not been agreed yet since we are all involved it is wrpong for any us to say ther eis a consensus but it most liekly is, next week i will get a non involved admin to close it and decided if any consensus and wha tthe consensus is then we can say for sureAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

BBC seem to have settled on "The Rangers FC" for the new club, see their Scottish Third Division table. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

and what does that show? according to superbhoy the old club was call the rangers fc to, its trading name it does not say if it the same club or new club just a way to represent them on there page means aboulsute nothing--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The BBC have clearly chosen a random distinction to be made so they can update their table, 'The Rangers Football Club' isn't even the planned name of the club, just the company. Sparhelda 21:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason the BBC and other media are sources are making such a distinction is because the SFA membership hasn't been transferred over yet. STV have explained this here: http://sport.stv.tv/football/112218-qa-the-outstanding-issues-over-rangers-scottish-fa-membership-transfer/ As you can see, it will be reverted back to Rangers FC if/when the SFA membership is given clearance. Ricky072 (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Gefetane, don't make the error of thinking that everyone agreeing to the one undeniable fact that 'reliable sources indicate that the Rangers club playing in SFL Division 3 next season is the same club as the club playing last season in the SPL' means that consensus has been achieved on the main dispute - it doesn't. Be aware that there is also no doubt that reliable sources indicate that the Rangers club playing in SFL Division 3 next season is NOT the same club as the club playing last season in the SPL'. What we need to develop is consensus on whether wikipedia should have two articles about Rangers (one for the original club and one for the replacement club) or one, and if one article, whether that article should be written making a distinction between the original club/new club or do we just write it as the same club. The problem clearly identified is that reliable sources support different interpretations, and wikipedia is built on what reliable sources say. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Third Division Table

Interestingly the BBC website now has a listing in the Third Division Three table for a club called "The Rangers FC" which has no history available, unlike the rest of the teams in the division. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/tables --Tim D Enchantah (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

do they ??? funny look wha ti have found http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers its not clear cut the media refer to it as anew club and the same club no one knows only time will tell--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

becaus ei know oyu will refute it here is the 3rd divison list http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/scottish-third-division i conceed the the rangers fc one doesnt have any links but it listed under ranggers fc in scottish division 3 page--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you Andrew, I don't think it proves anything either. It does however add to the body of evidence and is certainly a point of interest I think. --Tim D Enchantah (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

certainly does just more prove the media is unclear themself on the siuttion so by policies we have to make the article reflect that--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

STV clarified this issue yesterday. the club name "Rangers FC" is tied in with the SFA membership (as club names have to be registered with the SFa and linked to a member). Right now Sevco Scotland Ltd (trading as The Rangers FC) own the SFA membership & the club name 'Rangers FC', however they have not yet been granted permission to use either, as the membership has not yet been transferred over. So the media right now have no choice to refer to the company either by it's legal name (Sevco Scotland) or it's trading name (The Rangers FC), but officially, they don;t have the right to use "Rangers FC" until ratified by the SFA. As explained by the last question here: http://sport.stv.tv/football/112218-qa-the-outstanding-issues-over-rangers-scottish-fa-membership-transfer/ , if/when the membership is transferred over, they will then be once again known by the club name, 'Rangers FC'. Ricky072 (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

nice find ricky that pretty much clears up lot and potential why media sources refer to past tense and present tense--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We have to represent major sources fairly and 'as is'. It's not for us to speculatively read off our own meanings. Britishwatcher likes to pretend, absurdly, that every mention of "Newco Rangers" or "Sevco" actually just means "Rangers" (!) Other people with a soft spot for the old club will no doubt agree, wanting to put their fingers in their ears and trill "lalalalala" when harsh reality intrudes! If these third party sources meant "Rangers", they would print or broadcast "Rangers". Just like "Leeds" were still "Leeds" to the media after Ken Bates squeaked through his creditor's agreement. They fact is that they don't. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is reading there own meanings. here, direct quote for you from the above article on STV: "Why do you keep referring to Sevco Scotland? Sevco Scotland Limited purchased the assets of The Rangers Football Club plc, and took over the contracts of its employees. At present, it does not hold the right to use the Scottish FA membership it purchased. Therefore, STV are continuing to make the clear distinction between “Rangers”, the team which plays football, and Sevco Scotland Limited, which is a company which currently does not operate a football club. Should the Scottish FA transfer Rangers’ membership to Sevco Scotland Limited, there is no longer the necessity to make such a distinction. All future reference would be to Rangers." Ricky072 (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

So Ricky072, "Sevco Scotland Limited, which is a company which currently does not operate a football club" - but I thought you have been arguing that Sevco Scotland Limited was operating Rangers Football Club, but it appears that all Charles Green bought from Ranger FC was "the team which plays football" rather than 'the club'. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

He owns the club, but it cannot operate as a football club without the SFA membership, we have always known that, hence why we all await the decision of the SFA. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Making fun of people with a different view doesn't make your argument seem that strong Clavdia. If there wasn't a fair debate to be had here would it really have got this far? Sparhelda 21:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Having a different view is fine as long as Wikipedia policy isn't trampled all over. The major sources still seem pretty clear to me, this from the BBC (again): Rangers have suffered a financial meltdown that has led to the creation of a new club reborn in Division Three and barred from Europe for three seasons. We can all impute our own meanings to this stuff if we want: "in light of XYZ it must mean something else," "I don't agree" etc. But if Clive Lindsay and all these other third party commentators are explicitly and repeatedly saying NEW CLUB is it not reasonable to assume they are doing so advisedly? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

and what about the ones that says it is the same club do we ingore that?Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Clavdia, Allow me to explain how what you are espousing is not only absurd, but untenable, as whilst media sources currently see fit to distinguish between the old company and the new company, awaiting licencing of the latter and liquidation of the former, once this, apparently imminent, event occurs, any use of 'new' will surely drop away entirely from the media discourse on the matter. This will leave you, and more importantly Wikipedia if credence is granted to the '2 different clubs' fallacy, in the nonsensical position of asserting that the club who last season were referred to as Rangers, followed by Rangers fans, played in Rangers shirts, played at Ibrox Stadium, trained at Murray Park, merchandised Rangers products, and laid claim to Rangers' history is a DIFFERENT CLUB to the team who this season will be referred to as Rangers, followed by Rangers fans, play in Rangers shirts, play at Ibrox Stadium, train at Murray Park, merchandise Rangers products, and lay claim to Rangers' history. When the outstanding licencing/legal issues inevitably run there course, and the 'oldco'/'newco' discourse becomes obsolete and consigned to the history books, Wikipedia must surely reflect the reality, evidenced by other 'newco' clubs like Leeds etc, that no ongoing distinction will be drawn between Rangers pre Summer 2012, and Rangers post Summer 2012.Gefetane (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We have to reflect the mainstream sources 'as is', not project our own desires onto it and hope parts we don't like will "surely drop away" after the summer. You obviously feel strongly that some mainstream outlets are propounding fallacies or are nonsensical. Why not take it up with them then? You could embark on a letter-writing campaign or phone up talk sport. But I'm not sure you and the other WP:SPAs understand yet what Wikipedia is or how it has to work around here. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, you misunderstand me, perhaps I was unclear. I am not advocating Wikipedia reflect 'what will be', I'm contesting your interpretation of 'what is' (what Wikipedia should be saying) with reference to an evidence-based assessment of 'what will be', as part of a supporting line of reasoning. I think it is somewhat disrespectful for you to start advising another user to take alternative courses of action beyond the scope of the Wikipedia discussion in which they are respectfully engaging. You also appear to "feel strongly some mainstream outlets are propounding fallacies or are nonsensical". Whilst I could also suggest alternative courses of action for you to embark on, I don't think that would be constructive, or appropriate.Gefetane (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes Clavdia I remember you putting a stop to the editors who vandalised this page and stopping superbhoy with his "WP:BALL" when he created this mythical team called Sevco. You like quoting policies yet never seem to apply them where needed. BadSynergy (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Gefetane, you misunderstand the significance of the use of the term 'new' Rangers and the fact that eventually it will cease to be referred to as new is irrelevant. You wish toi compare the situation to Leeds United but as has been pointed out, the mainstream media did not refer to 'new Leeds United', 'Newco Leeds United' or Leeds United being a 'new club'. The fact that the mainstream media is, however, referring to 'new Rangers', 'Newco Rangers' and 'new club' can not be simply ignored or dismissed as you wish. Secondly, If I owned a blue mondeo and later traded it in for a new blue mondeo, I would initially refer to it as my new mondeo but after time would drop the term 'new'. It may look the same as the old one but it would still be a different car even if I stop calling it my new mondeo and just call it my mondeo, just as my previous car! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not ignored or dismissed any of the evidence, I have directly accounted for it where I explained "media sources currently see fit to distinguish between the old company and the new company, awaiting licencing of the latter and liquidation of the former". I fail to see the value in placing so much reliance on media interpretations, that can be shown to support both sides of the debate, when, as I have said previously, surely the most objective path to resolution involves concentrating upon the evidence from institutions/govering bodies/legal documents, to which these media interpretations ultimately refer. The fact that Ken Bates himself, architect of Leeds' post-liquidation 'newco', is on record contradicting Fishiehelper's "mainstream media" view, saying "So far it's been funded by the 'new Leeds', but if there is a challenge, the 'new Leeds' won't do it because it's a risk", is a case in point. Relying on the mainstream media interpretation has previously proved not to be sufficient grounds for truth - this very Rangers saga being as strong an example of that fallacy as any, I'm sure you'll agree. As for your Mondeo example, I would counter by saying that if someone became bankrupt, and was forced to sell their only asset, their blue mondeo, to new owners, the fact it was called for a period a "new car" would not change the fact it was not the same car as the one driven by the previous owners.Gefetane (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, can't get the link to work. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Try this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-465926/Leeds-limbo-taxman-challenges-Bates-buy-deal.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.215.177 (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, here is an alternative reference for Ken Bates' "new Leeds" quote.Gefetane (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, even Bates himself described them as 'New Leeds'. The biggest difference is the scale of media coverage, which surely isn't justification to treat 2 very similar scenarios completely differently. Ricky072 (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find it is. Anyway, the situations are patently not similar. Ken Bates owns Leeds, who owns Sevco? "Zeus Capital"? "Blue Pitch Holdings"? "Octupus Investments"? Craig Whyte? Let's all stop digging up old sources about Leeds and trying to WP:SYNTH some relevance to the current situation. It's pure WP:OR. There are ample high quality sources which address the Sevco issue directly and in detail, [1] Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers is a relaunched club

Trying to look for areas of consensus here...

Whether or not we believe that the Rangers that will play in the 3rd Division this season is the 'same club' as the one that played in the SPL last season, or whether one is the 'new club' and one the 'old club', is there at least consensus that Green's Rangers is a relaunched club? For example, the description is used, here: "But before that happens, agreement between five parties - old Rangers, new Rangers, the SFA, SPL and Scottish Football League - is required for the relaunched club to inherit old Rangers' SFA membership," here: "The Ibrox club have been relaunched after the former incarnation could not be saved from liquidation" and here: "Mr Gilmour revealed his own club were among those battling to stay solvent after Scottish Football League clubs rejected a plan to place the relaunched club in the First Division."

Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

For a club to be "relaunched", it implies it is the same club that previously launched (otherwise the word "relaunched" is the incorrect word and "launched" should be used). On this basis I AGREE that Rangers Football Club, owned by Charles Green, could be described as a "relaunched club", and would thank you for providing evidence that supports the position of Rangers 2011-12 (launched 1873) being the same club as Rangers 2012-13 ("relaunched" 2012, pending the licence being ratified by the SFA). I appreciate your efforts to find areas of common understanding and hope this can provide a path to the consensus we are looking for. Gefetane (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters what terminology is used to describe the changes at Ibrox this summer. Whatever people wish to believe, it cannot be denied that they are huge. What matters, as far as Wikipedia and the discussion here, is whether to treat the club playing next season as an entirely new article subject, or as a continuation of this existing article. Once we have that settled I don't see much room for further dispute. Everything that's happened is very significant, very notable and good sources are readily found. So I'm not much bothered if it's called a relaunch, a newco, a new incarnation, a reboot, a new chapter, a refounding, or even a resurrection. I expect it's been called all these and "relaunch" is as good as any. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have no problem with the introduction having a paragraph which handles the recent situation which includes the words The club was relaunched following... or by... or after.. etc. Or other terms like relaunched. As stated above, relaunch clearly implies its the same club, just a fresh start which it is as is being relaunched by a new company. A website can be "relaunched", it can still be owned by the same company and at the same domain.But the introduction must make clear, this a football club and it is the same club that was founded in 1972/3. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"I would have no problem with the introduction having a paragraph which handles the recent situation which includes the words The club was relaunched following... or by... or after.. etc. Or other terms like relaunched. As stated above, relaunch clearly implies its the same club, just a fresh start which it is as is being relaunched by a new company. A website can be "relaunched", it can still be owned by the same company and at the same domain.But the introduction must make clear, this a football club and it is the same club that was founded in 1972/3. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)" you sure about 1972/73 ;)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Woops 1872/3 lol BritishWatcher (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Strong Support i said a while ago about usinga similar term relaunched seems appiorate and it easily sourced. and was one fo the question i have in teh request for comment, i will do another straw pollAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Are we really bringing the debate down to the interpretation of 1 single adjective used in a quote? Since this question seems to be posed towards personal opinions i'll give mine. "relaunched" to me suggests a 'break' or 'downtime'. I think that because everything with Rangers has happened in the close season, there hasn't been any real 'break' and the club will achieve continuety from season 11/12 to 12/13. I think if the club collapsed mid-season last season, and didn't fufill it's fixtures, then i think this term woudl be more appropriate. Hibs or Napoli you could perhaps describe as being 'relaunched' because they were essentially defunct for a period of 1 year (hibs) & 2 years (napoli), before "relaunching" as the old again. Ricky072 (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

i say it better than newco--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Can someone reword this question to be more nuetral and concise for me and we will get a straw poll out on this
Should we say the club is relaunched or something similar
two options Agree or disagree
then we move to another straw poll on the wording Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Why, whats the point and what does it hope to achieve? 'Relaunched' is merely a descriptive term open to interpration. I don't see the need for it at all. What is wrong with something like this in the article: "On the 14th June 2012 Charles Greens Consortium[cite] purchased[cite] the business & assets[cite] of The Rangers Football Club Plc, with the 1899 company moving into liquidation[cite]. Rangers F.C now operate under Sevco Scotland [cite], soon to be renamed 'The Rangers Footbal Club Ltd'[cite]. Charles Green has promised Rangers fans they will be given the chance to own shares and no individual or single party will ever own more than 15% of the club again[cite]." Very simple, and everything is kept factual, no need for anyone to debate over the semantics or interpretations of 1 descriptive term. Ricky072 (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really, "relaunched" can be interpreted in a number of ways. "Newco" is slang for "New Company" - of that there is no denying. It IS, as matter of fact, a 'new company'. I refer back to Leeds once more for the best pecedent. 1 article for the club & a seperate article for the name of the company "Leeds United FC Ltd" which documents the 'newco', and why it was created. Let's keep it simple folks! Ricky072 (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

we do not need a poll on use of the word relaunch or not, lets see how it fits into the proposed new text, and can see if there is consensus about what the 3rd paragraph should say, and that will only need changing once we there is the SFA approval. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

As I have explained above, for a club to be "relaunched", it implies it is the same club that previously launched (otherwise the word "relaunched" is the incorrect word and "launched" should be used). On this basis, endorsing the use of this term would endorse the position of Rangers 2011-12 ("launched" 1873) being the same club as Rangers 2012-13 ("relaunched" 2012). If however other users refute this understanding, and somehow maintain that "relaunched" can coherently be used for a brand new club that was never previously "launched", then we may struggle to progress towards consensus by these means. Worth a try perhaps? Gefetane (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

you ar ebeing biased like the ones only saying it isa new club, we cant hide facts it is desscribe by reliable sources as a relaunched club, people can itnerept it whatever way they like but this article will have to reflect the fact it isa realunched club and that it future is unclear because sources say both dead anda lauve the fact remains sources say both wikipedia doesnt choose what it is we just put the fact that can be verified--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

it doesnt matter how we describe it people who might not want to accept it will always do soAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I was explaining the logical implications to the discussion of using a word such as "relaunched" to describe Rangers, especially as those implications evidently undermine the very position taken by the user, Fishiehelper, who initially suggested the term be embraced. I'm disappointed you portray this as being biased, I would refute that and maintain it was a relevant, sensible point to make in the context of the ongoing discussion.Gefetane (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

sorry gefetane i was meaning rickyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) No problem, my misunderstanding!Gefetane (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources? We're talking in depth here abotu 1 adjective used in an interview by a board member of St. Mirren. If we're really goign to go down this route then maybe someone should post the dictionary defination of "relaunched" and we can then begin to assess if it's an accurate term or not. And before you state "but it's a reliable source and should be in the article!" Go and read the comments of "Turnbull Hutton" on the SFA & SPL. His comments were reported by the BBC & STV, does that give me justification to edit the SFA or SPL wiki pages to read "The SPL is a joke of an organisation" and support that with quotes for Turnbull Hutton & Craig Whyte? Ricky072 (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive reponse, Gefetane. In making my original post, I realised that some would regard the use of the word of a 'victory' for those who see the same club 'relaunching' - therefore a little surprised that Ricky072 has objected as he has. However, I thought I should raise the point regardless because I think we need to build as wide a consensus as possible. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Legal viewpoint

It is the opinion of Dr Gregory Ioannidis LLB (Hons), LLM (Sports Law), PhD (Sports Law) that 'Newco' Rangers is a new club. The question is, do we regard him as a reliable source? http://lawtop20.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/self-regulation-politics-of-football-in.html?spref=tw --Tim D Enchantah (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I would disagree strongly with some of the assertions made within that individual's interpretation, I would agree that this opinion blog appears at face value to be one, among many other, "reliable sources".Gefetane (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A blog? Is Wikipedia's servers big enough to handle all the sources you have just opened the door for? Ricky072 (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"The same goes with the issue of the titles won by the old entity. The titles will stay with the old entity and they cannot possibly be transferred to a new entity, who is attempting to create a new 'club' for the purposes of entering the national game" - If the Scottish Football league, SFA and other sources treat rangers trophies as belonging to this new club, then this legal opinion is absolutely irrelevant. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, from what I gather a club being the same is very much be a football decision rather than 'legal'. Sparhelda 12:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Although this person is stated to be a professional in this field of law it is ultimately a personal blog which may not be subjected to the news organization's normal fact checking process. Couldn't help but notice another one of his topical legal blog posts here. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Does sort of water down the NPOV angle :) --Tim D Enchantah (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Good find lol BritishWatcher (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Its a bit of a fallacy to assume such a personal affinity alone necessarily invalidates the arguments expressed by the source. On the other hand, it seems fair to comment that the author's candid introduction of sentiment to his consideration of football matters is not an ideal basis for reading reliability into his blog offerings on the subject. An interesting case to ponder though.Gefetane (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting blog, and it's good to read the considerations of someone who can claim legal expertise, rather than the proclamations of the newly self-certified lawyers we've had here of late. But ultimately it is just an opinion blog, and it primarily addresses the legal issues. As I've argued before, corporate law is just one of the dimensions in this affair. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

SFL site

Noticed today that SFL has updated their site to include Rangers in 3rd division. When you click team name it comes up founded 1873 and list of honours. BadSynergy (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

They clearly view it as the same club dont they. Its certainly not just an out of date profile now that they have placed it on the div 3 page list. All that is needed now is the SFA confirmation by the end of business today. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

did you notice something even more interesting that will put new club camp ina picjkle, they have said cause it calle dthe rangers fc that makes it new club, but sfl has it as the rangers fc and list it as 1873--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't thing anyone is 'in a pickle' over this - just more confused! The site calls Rangers by their new name (The Rangers FC) but then has 1873.

Anyway, if everyone believes that this is a 100% reliable source, then I suppose there will be consensus to change the foundation date in the Rangers FC article to 1873? (If not, it would suggest that some editors were only picking the parts of the source that agree with their opinion.) Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

i agree to change it before this came about, rememebr i quote rangers own website that says the offical founding date is 1873 but the club ws forme din feburary 1872 that confirm on the fifa site, but i think that would be new debate although it sometihng i am including in the request for comment if it goes ahead, i mean apickle because as you say it is confussing , that is the name that is refer to as the new club but sfl are saying it was foudned 1873 which seems strange if it was really a new club--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

'The Rangers' isn't even the planned club name, that is the planned company name. No idea where they're getting that from to be honest. Sparhelda 14:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Could it be something to do with awaiting membership transferred? BadSynergy (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue behind "THE Ra..." is that there are certain legal technicialities using the registered club name until Sevco are granted the SFA membership. A club name must be registered with the FA so it goes hand-in-hand with the membership. Right now the company Sevco, or, "the rangers fc" (< the trading name of sevco) have a provisional place in the SFL, But until the SFA ratify the membership they club name cannot be used, as it is not registered by Sevco. Ricky072 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Has the club not obtained membership as The Rangers Football Club? ("The member clubs of The Scottish Football League have today voted to willingly accept The Rangers Football Club as an associate member of The Scottish Football League.)[2] If so, will they change the name if SFA membership is granted or will they keep it as 'The Rangers Football Club? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Brechin printing tickets as 'Rangers FC' would indicate not, that would have been discussed i'm sure. Sparhelda 17:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Membership to be transferred

http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/news/article/press-statement-67/ finally lol BadSynergy (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

i like this bit "We are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club."Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've read whole thing 3 times now and I'm the same that bit sticks out. BadSynergy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, why 'The Rangers Football Club' and not 'Rangers Football Club'. Seems a little odd. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Confirms sanctions and debts will be transferred as well, another key point. Sparhelda 21:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as the BBC puts it "The club agreed to incur punishments handed to the old club over disrepute charges, including a year-long transfer ban, which is expected to begin on 1 September". Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

but again this is bbc reporter interpruption of the original statement, they happioly quote bits they wanted but omitted bits they didnt, sfl statement holds more weight it the priginal not changed to suita reporter adn the sfl statement does not meantion new club, as for the bit i am goignt o check sometihng but i am sure that wzs the original name of the club but they use ther trading naem rangers fc, --Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Joint Statement by Scottish Football Authorities and Rangers

A decision has, finally, been made by the Scottish Football authorities confirming the transfer of membership from the oldco, The Rangers Football Club Plc, to the newco Sevco Scotland Ltd (The Rangers Football Club), as explained in this statement.

As the statement clearly explains, the 'newco' will be responsible for the crimes of the 'oldco', including potential EBT sanctions, accepting all conditions relating to the transfer embargo, outstanding fines and costs, and outstanding football debts.

A Rangers club page (http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers-fc/) has been added to the Scottish Football League's Irn Bru Third Division section, including information on the founding date, 1873, and a full list of the club's honours.

Finally, a statement from Rangers' next opponents confirms "The Scottish Football League have released a statement confirming, amongst other things, that Sunday's Ramsdens Cup tie against Rangers will go ahead."

These new facts are a strong demonstration that although The Rangers Football Club Plc (the 'oldco') will soon be formally liquidated, Rangers - it's identity and it's history, has not been extinguished, but continues to exist within the new company ('newco') structure, Sevco Scotland Ltd.Gefetane (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Undeniably interesting but not an independent source; indeed they have a clear interest in promulgating that the new Rangers is a continuation of the old. We take our content from independent reliable sources which are majority calling Rangers newco a new club, which clearly they are. TerriersFan (talk)

How do an impartial governing body have any interest in that? And your majority comment is wrong, sources vary greatly. Sparhelda 22:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Somehow the footballing authorities in Scotland are biased and not good enough to use as a source. Can't have anything to do with the fact it differs from his own opinion. BadSynergy (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

TerriersFan didn't accuse them of being biased - just of not being an independent, reliable source. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So the footballing authorities are no good but if I got a media article saying the same statement word for word it would suddenly be good enough? BadSynergy (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No-one is saying that thy are biased or 'no good' - enough with the strawmen please. The Scottish football authorities are rightly concerned by the loss of revenue caused by positioning Newco Rangers in Div 3. Both parties to this statement have a clear commercial interest in the new Rangers being regarded as a continuation of the old to maintain revenue and the fan base etc. TerriersFan (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The view of the football governing is the key thing here surely? I cannot believe even on wikipedia a BBC article for example trumps that. Sparhelda 23:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Would this be preferred? BadSynergy (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something or is that headline just plain wrong? "..with the result that the entity formerly known as Rangers Football Club plc on the brink of being granted an unprecedented temporary membership of the organisation." Is it not Rangers Football Club plc that is about to be liquidated? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted lol see this is why I was looking to the footballing authorities instead of the media. BadSynergy (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of teh word "relaunched here suggests same club...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

'those out there who cannot bring themselves to call the club Rangers'

Interesting that Charles Green should feel the need to address "those out there who cannot bring themselves to call the club Rangers" in a statement on his club's website, saying they "should realise the error of their ways."

The very fact that he feels the need to say this again illustrates that both that this view is widely held, and that his commercial interests depend on his success at convincing Rangers fans not to be persuaded by that view. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's more of a dig at the people who won't say Rangers for resentment purposes. Sparhelda 23:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that because if the SFL's site change, a consensus should be easier to reach, but it should be on 1873. Also I think Fishiehelper's right about Green's motivations there.LittleEdwyn (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting quote to research "Our main rivals - or our former main rivals - across the city they have had three different companies in their lifespan.". Although i'm sure no company to have every operated CFC has ever underwent the process of liquidation, hopefully if we can gain some research on the corporate restructuring Green has alluded to, it will put to bed once and for all that a company and club do not become as one and can never be undone. If that opinion were to be true, aswell as Greens statement, then CFC will have formed 3 entirely seperate clubs. Ricky072 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Celtic started as un unincorporated organisation. The club then became a limited company. Then when they had financial troubles in the 1980s, Fergus McCann changed the limited company (ltd) into a public limited company (plc), raising millions from Celtic supports who bought shares. I suppose those are the three stages the club went through to get to where they are now.

However, it does smack of desperation that Green feels that he has to try to compare his newco Rangers situation with Celtic changing its name from 'ltd' to 'plc'. Having to go to the SFA to seek to get Rangers' membership transferred to his club is something that happens very infrequently, and certainly didn't happen with Celtic, whatever Green is implying in that quote. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk)

It's a bit of fighting talk really, Peter Lawwell is never short of a dig at Rangers. Sparhelda 08:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers comparisons with Celtic incorrect/irrelevant - Leeds, Luton, Middlebrough, Charlton valid comparisons

Hardly surprising to see one Old Firm club taking a dig at the other, but Charles Green's comments seeking to draw comparison between Rangers situation and that of Celtic is incorrect. Their original company is still in operation, where as Rangers 'oldco' is soon to be liquidated.

The valid comparison is with clubs whose original companys no longer exist, such as Leeds, Luton Town, Middlesbrough and Charlton.

- Are these clubs considered as being the same club, with the continuation of history, between new company and old company?

- Does Wikipedia present these club within one article encompassing old company history and new company history?

Only answers to these questions are of any relevance. Drawing comparisons with their nearest rivals maybe an irresistible urge for football supporters, but in these case, it is irrelevant to the matter at hand.Gefetane (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that you are asking should we do this because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS! 188.29.77.52 (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the original company still exists but whether the original company was bought by another company prior to the original company being liquidated. In Rangers case, the original company was not bought - just its assets. If we are looking for precedents, we should be looking for clubs where the original company was not purchased by another company prior to the original company being liquidated. In the examples of Leeds, Luton Town, Middlesbrough and Charlton, were the original companies bought by other companies prior to the liquidation? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

ok what do oyu consider is buying the company? trasnfer of shares or sometihng else?, and if we go with that as the case ther eis no rpecedent as no other team in the world has done sucha thing so we are in new river trying to figure it out liek the media etcAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishie, you cnnot buy shares in a company while the status of the company is "in administration". Nor can you buy them in the liquidation process. When Bates proposed a CVA, the idea is that the CVA would pass, the company comes out of administration and he controls the company, or he would be free to move the company into a newco without any issue (as it would not be in an insolvent state). This has been seen before as s ome clubs have used a CVA/Newco hybrid for a fresh start. But in the case of Bates, the CVA failed and he only purchased the assets which were moved to the newco. The process is identical, although there are ofcourse trivial differences such as 'reasons for going into admin' etc... I know you didn't agree with 1 of the first comments i made on this debate which was "there isn't a great deal of difference between CVA & Newco", but I still hold that view, at least from a corporate sense. As Bates showed, either his money is used to pay a CVA and take control of the current company, or his money is used to switch the assets and divided up between creditors anyway. Either way they both shed similar amounts debts, a sentiment echoed by Neil Doncaster in a recent interview. In a football sense however ofcourse there are greater implications as we have seen with Rangers, (but in the case of Leeds the simply lost 15points and has long since been forgotten about). Ricky072 (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, things do change once a club has entered administration. If a club is not in administration and you wanted to buy that club, you would have to buy the shares to own the club. Since most clubs are themselves also companies, buying shares in the company is directly buying a share of the club. However, some clubs today are fully owned subsidiaries of holding companies - in these cases you can only indirectly own a share in the club by buying shares in the holding company. For example, if you check Ownership of Arsenal F.C. you will see that Arsenal is owned by a holding company and it is not possible to buy shares in the club itself but only in the company that owns Arsenal Football Club plc (the club itself). Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk)

Seems to me that you are still peddalling this myth that a club and company are as one and cannot be broken, i thought this point had long since been disproven. Anyway, how does your above theory then apply to Leeds? If we go back to your origianl question above, "the original company was not bought - just its assets." are you STILL not convinced this is what happened with Leeds? Ricky072 (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The need to obtain transfer of SFA membership

We do seem to be going round in circles to some extent so perhaps a new approach is required.

Let us focus on Scottish football, and in particular, cases in which a club has sought the transfer of the SFA membership of a previous club.

I can think of cases where clubs have entered administration and eventually exited with an agreed CVA, but none of these cases - to my knowledge - required an application to transfer SFA membership to a new entity. That, to my mind, is a clear factor that makes the Rangers situation different from what we have faced before. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

correct this is the first case liek it, ricky will argue leeds and middleborough are the exact same but from wha ti have read ther enot there similar bot not excately the smae, but regardles sit makes no differnece what matters are the sources, and even now they are split down the middle sa,me club and new club and some referign to both, sicne teh football authorities class it as same club regardless if it is a relaunched club or not ie they are sayng the hsitory extends back to 1873 we have to go with that and meantion the future is unclear and now head down one article route for now--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

When you say "the football authorities class it as same club", I think that is too strong - the SFA and Sevco have been negotiating over whether the new club should have to accept the punishments of the old club as a condition for getting the old club's membership - there would have been no negotiation if it was the same club: same club, automatically same punishments. The need for a negotiation shows it isn't that clear cut. Similarly, if the SPl though it was the same club, they would have had to vote to expell Rangers from the SPL but they didn't - they had to vote whether to allow the new club in to the SPL to replace the club that had entered liquidation.

There is no doubt that the Ibrox is the same stadium, the fans will largely be the same people, the colours crests etc will be the same, and the team will still be known as 'Rangers' - but what we have is an old club/relaunched club situation. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There is 2 parts to this debate. The corporate & legal side, and ofcourse the football governance side. If we break it down into 2 sections then indeed the likes of Leeds or Luton Town for example, set perfect precedent. Unless anyone has any information in how scots-law may differ in the process of liquidation, as far as I can tell the applicable insolvency laws are the same. The process of liquidation ofcourse can apply to any company, not just football clubs, and the debate has aken this avenue previously. Like I've pointed out, the liquidation process always brand names & business to continue on under a new company. It makes economic sense, retains jobs, and gives some return to creditors who would recieve nothing if assets could not be sold. I'm sure that we can reach consensus, that from a corporate viewpoint the liquidation process underwent by Rangers FC plc is not different from what we have seen previously in England. I do conceed however, the 'football side' is open to debate, ofcourse FA's differ how they dea with such insolvency events from country to country, and even from 1 governing body to another in the asme country if we look at the harsh treatment of Darlington. We have however a huge weight of evidence now with the transfer of SFA membership, once concluded to a full extent, not to mention the quote from Stuart Regan, head of the SFA, state that Rangers are now under the control of the new company. 13:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky072 (talk • contribs)

Surely the agreement of the club to accept the transfer embargo and footballing debts of the previous administration ends this debate. Any new club asking for membership of the SFL would not be asked to pay for the transgressions of the outgoing club? By imposing those penalties the SPL and SFL have clearly stated that while legally Rangers can avoid meeting the financial obligations by this move, they can not avoid their footballing obligations. The membership of Glasgow Rangers Football Club was transferred to the new holding club. New membership was not given. If the club did not own the previous titles how could the stripping of titles have been a sticking point?. Can we add the words reformed 2012 to the page as per Napoli FC and move on, this dispute is childish. ~~Stuart~~

The reason that Green's club did not get a new membership of the SFA was because they didn't apply for it - they applied for Rangers' membership of the SFA. The SFA is willing to give them what they request, a request supported by the administrators for the old Rangers, on condition the new club accepts the football penalties associated with the old club's membership. What is perhaps surprising is that Green took so long to accept those conditions when it was obviously going to have to part of the deal if were to get the membership he had requested - I suspect 'playing to the galleries' a bit! That the SFA was willing to transfer Rangers' SFA membership to the new club does not prove they see the new club as the same club as the old club. As for the possibilities of having titles stripped, Green seems to be suggesting that the matter should be dropped as it involved the old Rangers - a strange defence for someone arguing that his Rangers is the same club as the original one. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Clubs do not randomly get given punishments and debts of a totally different one, I'm pretty certain there is no precedent for that. The SFA membership doesn't have a transfer ban, the SFA membership doesn't owe money to other clubs, Rangers Football Club did and does. Sparhelda 02:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Since te bbc is the most reliable source.....

ok since the new club camp say bbc is the most reliable source i tohught i post this

[3] "Rangers, who have been relaunched by Green's Sevco Scotland consortium after the company that formerly ran the club headed for liquidation, also agreed to incur penalties in order to acquire the old Rangers' licence to play competitive matches." note it says old company heading for liqudiation and that it is relaunched club now it is owned by a enw company and not the old--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC) [4] "Little was contracted to Rangers before the club was relaunched by a new company but he too was out of contract." again says he was contracted to rangers before relaunchign by a new company--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrewcrawford - this goes back to the point I posted a few sections above that a possible way forward was to accept that Rangers is a relaunched club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

i agree completely but some will oppose but i am goign to rpopuse merging this all together then we can move forward into gettinga consensus for this, but i was also provign the bbc also states it as the same club--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I would oppose merging without a clear consensus on how such a merged page would deal with the central dispute. When I have tried to look for consensus ways forward, I have been met by a 'no compromise' response. Unless that approach changes, I would oppose any attempt to remove protection on either article or to merge the articles. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

it shouldnt be based on that, if it clear reason to merge we should, then we can look at how it merged and gaina consensus for that after, even if it was decided to merge it can easily be held off until how it iwll be done--92.235.241.39 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree because it would only 'be clear to merge' if we knew what the merged article would be like. Without that clarity, I am not at all convinced the a merger of the articles is a better way forward than to have two seperate articles with one for the original Rangers FC and one for the relaunched club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

ok work with me on sandbox to form a article that will rpresent both articles merged, so formign the article as a relaunched club that contunies form the 1872/1873? i am happy to work on this and make it what we want it to which is combination then we can work on merging--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, I also was considering what the merged article should look like. I have been browsing these other examples of 'newco' clubs, all of which contain the club's entire history including 'oldco': Charlton, Leeds, Luton, Middlesbrough, Livingston, Fiorentina, Napoli.

The general format seems to be a specific section within the page outlining the general timeline of the administration/liquidation. Due to the high profile, news-worthy nature of this particular episode, a seperate page with a more in depth charting of the saga seems sensible - this could incorporate the majority of content from the 'newco Rangers' page. A prime example is the Leeds 'newco' article.Gefetane (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishiehelper2, I do not agree that there has been a 'no compromise' approach here, if anything, you seem to block changes. I remember you agreeing to treat this page as the same club if the SFL confirmed that the Rangers FC playing today was formed in 1873, which is now the case. If you're against merging, what is stopping us from following Gefetane's suggestion? Regards S2mhunter (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

My reference to "no compromise" is a quote from Ricky072. I have edited a large number of articles over the years and have come across a number of 'disputes', but in almost all cases, editors are willing to seek to build consensus. In this particular dispute, too many editors seem to interpret 'consensus' as being 'achieving victory by force of numbers' - that is not how wikipedia works, and for the very good reason that articles will never be stable unless built on genuine consensus. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

fisherhelper work with me on teh sandbox please, help me create a neutral article that represent both sides of the argument ie maybe in one part of the article not sure say the plc was liqudiated as we can source that, and that the history remains with teh club we can source thaat and that the club is refer to be new club we can reference to that as well, trust me ricky no comprise approah isnt goign to work, i said we should wait all along now we have the information we need to create the article as one as it should be, sop please work with me, ricky and other editors like superbhoy, terrierfan etc who object will be reported ther eisa consensus now that it is indeed one and the same now we have to make the article reflect that but reflkect what soruces say, can you please work with me on the sandbox???--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with going for relaunched and explaining how the media can't agree on it. Better than sitting with an outdated article. BadSynergy (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Owner

Owner is not craig whyte it is charles green — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This page is woefully out of date as updating has been locked down. Now the future of the club has been clarified, and Rangers are playing football again, hopefully we can update the page soon rather than later, and give users clicking on Rangers FC the information they would expect.Gefetane (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

we are workign on neutral up to date article that reflect what is happening has happened and wha tthe media say--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Models for adaption of Rangers FC article/relationship with newco Rangers page.

As a means of determining a consensus to move forward, and a more specific idea of how this article could be adapted satisfactorily, this section will provide examples of scenarios employed in other ‘oldco/newco’ football clubs.

1. Two articles (Leeds United, Middlesbrough): One (Leeds,Middlesbrough) with continuous history between oldco/newco, regular updating of club history/results/playing staff, including section entitled "Financial Implosion" with general detail. Second (Leeds United Football Club Limited,Middlesbrough: Survival from Liquidation) specific to the 'newco', with more descriptive detail/chronology of the oldco/newco transformation of Leeds, broken down across 6 sections.

2. One article (Luton Town): One page containing all history, records, results, playing staff. 'Newco' (Luton Town FC 2020 Ltd) referred to under "Owner", but not mentioned within history section and no trace of a seperate page for the 'newco'. Fiorentina, Napoli, Charlton, Torino, also follow this model.

Would a vote on which model is preferable be of use?Gefetane (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Have we not moved beyond referring to Middlesbrough etc yet? If not, perhaps someone would give me an example of Middlesbrough ever being referred to as 'newco Middlesbrough' or 'Middlesbrough newco' in the mainstream media. Remember, what reliable, independent sources say is supposed to be important! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, it's also Wikipedia policy to evaluate news sources case-by-case, and also differentiate between what is factual content within a news article, and what is editorial, or analyical content. We can say with 100% certainty that when the BBC have used the term "new club" that is analytical, or editorial POV, because that term is nt supported by any quotes or evidence contained within the articles. Ricky072 (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

for tha tto happen you have to take it to wp:rsn and have each source indepently verified by neutral editors who volutneer on that board and they will rewuire to know what it is getting used for--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rangers(Sevco) first ever match V Brechin City

http://www.rutherglenreformer.co.uk/rutherglen-news/scottish-news/2012/07/29/rangers-newco-to-play-first-match-63227-31499347/? http://www.lennoxherald.co.uk/dunbartonshire-news/scottish-news/2012/07/29/114557-31499329/? http://news.stv.tv/scotland/112857-the-new-rangers-prepare-for-ramsden-cup-clash-with-brechin-city/? From an unbiased non-scottish impartial POV,Rangers supporters might not like that and some may edit but those people are not using wikipedia as a vehicle for truth,instead they use to to spread dishonesty and lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.187.190 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

do you want me to coutner your argument with reliable source saying it the same club??? i can do that but i wont because there no talking to you have fun taking the mince out of rangers fans in real life, wikipedia only reports what sources say regardless if you or rangers fans like it, reliable sources say it alive and dead that how the article will look--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith from single edit IP editors are to be ignored. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox

I invite everyone to particulate in creating this sandbox version of rangers fc as one article, it will describe rangers as same club and a new club and references will be used that are from 3rd party not rangers own website unless there is no other source.

Any attempt to edit it to say it as only the same club or only as deceased club or clear vandalism will be revert. We are wikipedians do not decided if the club is alive or dead e report what the media says and the media still refers to them as new and the same we cant pick and choose, as editors adding stuff you can pick to add references supporting your pov but you can not remove stuff that does nto support your point of view that is referenced or is challenged. please remember the sandbox version is not live and can not be seen apart from using the talk page so does not reflect outside on the web.

--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this positive step. When would this sandbox article become active?Gefetane (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It will probably never become active if you try to write it slanted to one view in the 'is it a new club/same club' dispute. I have just reverted your recent edit as the idea is to try to see of a merged article is possible that points out that some view the club as the same club whereas others view it as a new club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, I disagree strongly with your insinuation my edit was biased towards one side or the other.

Rather than attempt a whitewash, I have said "the club was relaunched in 2012 following bankruptcy and forthcoming liquidation" in the third sentence of the article. The use of the word "relaunched" is an ideal and essential middle ground term, indicating a new beginning, but acknowledging continuity - a word suggested originally by... you!

I am in full agreement that the dispute regarding the clubs identity should be acknowledged, but to reference such a contemporary debate in the third sentence is inappropriate WP:NOT#NEWS.

Your attempt to encapsulate the entire same club/new club disagreement within one sentence was unsuccessful, and inaccurate: "The club sees itself as a continuation of the club officially founded in 1873,[5] though others view the relaunched Rangers as a new club[6] that was formed to replace the original." Your sentence places the clubs opinion vs "others", when in actual fact, "others" support the clubs position just as strongly, including the most notably of all the Scottish Football League Rangers: Founded 1873 (SFL website).

Rather than attempt the difficult task of squeezing a balanced representation of a current debate into the third sentence of the article, this side-issue (of importance to Wikipedians in the midst of a dispute, but likely to be irrelevant to the average user who has clicked on the page for information about RangersWP:NOT#NEWS) should be given full, and fair, description in a sub-section within the article (which I had not YET had the opportunity to address).

Based on this reasoning I have restored my edits and will address your concerns about representation of the dispute by detailing it in an appropriate sub-section.Gefetane (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, I am disappointed to see you have once again undone my edits, despite not engaging in discussion by responding to my contentions with your favoured version, above.

I accept your changes regarding "ejected from", which is technically not accurate, and I also accept "re-entered" as a loaded term not necessary in the context of the sentence, for the sake of a neutral stance regarding our dispute. In this spirit, I hope you would realise you cannot possibly say "Scottish Premier League clubs voted against accepting the NEW CLUB into" without pre-supposing the club is a new club.

However, I reiterate strongly that your attempt to encapsulate the entire same club/new club disagreement within one sentence was unsuccessful, and inaccurate: "The club sees itself as a continuation of the club officially founded in 1873,[5] though others view the relaunched Rangers as a new club[6] that was formed to replace the original." Your sentence places the clubs opinion vs "others", when in actual fact, "others" support the clubs position just as strongly, including the most notably of all the Scottish Football League Rangers: Founded 1873 (SFL website). I look forward to your response on this.

In contributing to this all-encompassing page, you cannot make reference to "original club" and "new club" - it is out of place as the existence of this one page pre-supposes continuity and an over-arching club identity. If you cannot accept this this incompatibility of one club page containing references to 'new' and 'original' club (company would be the appropriate noun to use), I would question your suitability for contribution to this sandbox article.Gefetane (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"The club was relaunched in 2012 after the previous incarnation entered liquidation on 14th June[4]. [5] Scottish Premier League clubs voted against accepting the relaunched club into the top flight[6] but it was accepted as an associate member of the Scottish Football League, starting in the bottom division." I cant support the wording of this paragraph, it is far too slanted towards those who claim this is an entirely different club. Relaunched is reasonable, but not worded in that way. I believe we need to explain that the club was founded in 1872/3, a company was incorporated in 1899, that company was liquidated in 2012 and the club was relaunched under a newly incorporated company. The club was then refused membership of the SPL, but accepted into the SFL third division. the whole recent situation should be delt with in the 3rd or second paragraph on its own. rather than a couple of sentenced jammed into the first paragraph. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have shared your general position in this dispute, but also sought consensus in the spirit of restoring this page to ensure there is only one article per the club. I have sought to promote use of the term "relaunched", proposed initially by one of the 'opposition', Fishiehelper, as it ideally implies both continuity and 'new-ness'. I have added "Founded in 1873" besides "relaunched in 2012" for balance.

I believe strongly that although the "new club vs same club" dispute is of interest to Wikipedians engaged in such a discussion, to the ordinary user who has googled "Rangers" or such like, mention of the dispute, (which to any extent that is newsworthy at all now, it will clearly not be when all mention of "new" naturally becomes outdated) within the first paragraph is superfluous, out of place and smacks of WP:NOT#NEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gefetane (talk • contribs) 17:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

what i have put in the sandbox isnt news its what the sources say we cant pick andxs choose the only wayt to have onre aerticle is to same it is biewd as the same and new. would you all rather i launch the request for comment that fails then formal medatoipn that fails the arbcom rule and make a areticle no oner likes and is locked forever? i am trying to get a neutral article that supports both fishiehelper and me are on oppisite sides of the fence but we are slowly making progress once done everyone should comment on things they think not right or like so we can get a article we can all agree on that says both sides are right there no way to have one article not meantion anything about a new club as that would be a pov original reseach--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of reaching a compromise, use of a term such as "relaunched", which implies 'new-ness' whilst also implying continuity, seems clearly preferrable to phrases like "new club" and "new Rangers", which are hotly contested and lie at the heart of this very dispute.Gefetane (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The current wording right now on that sandbox is absolutely unacceptable. its complete garbage. "The club was relaunched in 2012 after the previous incarnation entered liquidation on 14th June.[4][5] While the club{reference to go here} and some media{reference to go here} outlets sees it as a continuation of the club officially founded in 1873 and that only the company that ran the club The Rangers Football Club PLC that is liquidated{reference to go here}, others view the relaunched Rangers as a new club[6] with the old club in liquidation[7][8]. " - That is a complete and utter mess. I strongly oppose anything like that being put in the article, the current out of date version is better than that absolute offensive nonsense. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested, as means of compromise, that if reference to a dispute regarding identity is to be included within the article it should be within a sub-section, for example that entitled "Relaunched Club". By representing the existence of a dispute within a sub-section, the long term stability of the article could ensured but in a manner that reads correctly and avoids the out of place, inappropriate placement of a long-winded sentence in the opening paragraph. Gefetane (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the fringe view that this is a different football club does not belong in the introduction, a mention in the article itself would seem less problematic. I too have no problem with the use of the word relaunched which as you rightly mention, is fairly neutral and explains its a fresh start whilst clearly continuing from something, + that term does have sources which help. I do still feel the intro should explain the recent change, stating the facts in a basic and clear way, without any dubious sentences which contradict the rest of the article. Perhaps we should all try and work on a paragraph or a few sentences of how we feel this situation should be handled, we can then look at what comes out of that.. and try to form a compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

ok, try rewording it so it suports both sides of the argument im happy to lsiten and make ti better end fo the day my english is crap--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I will try and work on a proposed paragraph later this evening, if we all work on how we feel the intro should handle the recent developments and post them here, then we might be able to merge it all into a version onto the sandbox. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi - sorry I have not responded here but I didn't see this discussion until now. I did respond to Gefetane after he posted me a message so I'll post the essence of what I said: I believe having a clear statement in the introduction that addresses the differing views in the same club/new club dispute is the only way we can ensure the long term stability of a Rangers FC article, free from editors constantly trying to 'fight' the same club/new club argument. Having a clear statement that both positions have sources supporting them means that it will then be difficult for editors to feel that the article is unfair to the position or interpretation they hold. If we relegate the discussion to a lower section, the danger will always be that some editors will read the introduction and immediately try to rewrite it without reading anything else!

Can I also explain some of the reverts I have done in the sandbox: where changes are made to statements that are specifically supported by cited sources, I am likely to revert such changes if the changes are not supported by what the source says - the whole point is that what we say has to be supported by sources. For example, if someone changed a sentence in an article to read "Rangers FC entered administration..." but the supporting source was to say 'Rangers FC PLC entered administration', then the change is not supported by the source. I trust that is helpful. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

i move the bit meantion to another part of the aritlce is this acceptable to all? --Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What does the world outside wikipedia say about 'Rangers'?

Came across a commercial site - historicalkits.co.uk - and thought its section about Rangers may be of interest. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

My only comment would be that it provides some support for both 'sides' in that it refers to Rangers being formed 1873 and wound up in 2012, but also speaking at the end about 'Rangers had at least survived'. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

again shows big problem we have it refers to it as a new club but then goes onto say they suirvive anda v few other things to suggest it the same club as wella few tihngs to say it dead, i note it says rangers plc then goes onto the club is liqudiated, this is why we have such a hard job on our hand how the hell do we handle this i think the requeat for comment will have to go ahead even though we are makign progress the fact remians some will not accept and that main stream reliable sources are jumping back and forth--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's factually inaccurate to state that Rangers were wound-up. "winding up" http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/windingup.asp#axzz223Bz0cAB is hwne a company is liquidated and then dissolved. The liquidation process is still ongoing, infact some may believe has not even officially begun. In the case of Leeds, the company is still in the process of Liquidation. It is also possible that the it may never actually be "dissolved", it's perfectly legal for companies to remain in a dorment state of liquidation. Ricky072 (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In common parlance, a company/club/organisation that finds itself unable to pay its debts, enters the liquidation process and has all its assets sold to another company, and ceases trading, is viewed as having been 'wound up'. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The most reliable source I have seen is the Scottish football league, and to ignore what they have stated is something which needs justified. I feel their interpretation is wrong, however it is not WP role to make alternative interpretation, but to document the facts 188.29.82.133 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your first ever edit - please register and help improve articles. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you support that with evidence Fishie? Or are you simply pointing out that "wound up" is common terminology. I@m not disputing it's common terminology, but i'm stating it's incorrect. I posted this link before but have a read at what it says under "liquidation without dissolution": ehow.com/info_8282875_differences-liquidation-dissolution.html . Either way, my point remains, that the old company is still officially in a state of administration. Ricky072 (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said "in common parlance" - in other words, "simply pointing out that "wound up" is common terminology" to describe such a situation.

I suppose it's similar to what happens to an unfortunate patient who may be on life support and found to be brain dead (clinically dead) but the family has the life support machine kept on for a further week - when it is eventually switched off, and the patient 'dies', the death will be recorded as happening subsequent to the life support machine being switched off though we all know the patient was really dead at least a week earlier. The old Rangers may not have had its life support switched off yet, but for all practical purposes it became clinically dead in 2012. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, since we're comparing companies to people, it's worth noting that the very reason companies even exist is so that business could be owned by a seperate legal identity that the law differentiated from company & owner (person). Wikipedia states that a company can be defined as an atifical person. I myself am a sole trader so have reasonable knowledge of the forms companies can take. As a sole trader, i'm entriely responisble for my business, I personally own assets, contracts and liabilites. If i died the ownership of those assets would be passed on to family. If my business goes bust, I myself am still responsible for debt. A limited company is almost liek creating a fake person and. This is an option open to myself. I coudl create a limited company and transfer the ownership of my assets and contracts from myself, into it. If i died, then those assets remain property of the company, or the fake person, but my shareholding of the company, would be passed on to my family. This is why the opinion that a club becomes as one with a company just does not make any sense. Theoretically, I could start a football club as a sole trader, buy a stadium and hire some footballers & coaches if i had the funds. They'd all be under my ownership, and I'd operate the business as a sole trader. Do i BECOME the club? Does the club die if I die? Would it be a new club if, say, i died and the assets that form the club be passed onto the ownership of a brother or uncle in my will? Ofcourse not. A Company is simply a articial person, which is recognised by law a seperate entity. Going back to your metaphor then, this person, previously owned RFC, but now he is dying, all his possessions which formed his business, the club, have been passed over to another person who purchased them and carries on the business. The previous owner may die, or he may live forever in a dorment state on life support Ricky072 (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

original research ricky but very good point as a solo trader and haivnga limited company i know that what oyu have said is right but that doesnt answe rthe question of is teh club itself a asset of the company but does give a good argument--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Are companies the only organisations that can be separate legal entities? What about unincorporated clubs? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many other examples are out there, but historicalkits.co.uk made the decision to put everything related to the team in one article. Perhaps we can put 'Relaunched 2012' in the right hand side box after 'Founded 1872'? Then it's a question of whether the Sevco (Newco Rangers) takeover is integrated or kept as a separate page... Regards S2mhunter (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I would support the model employed on the Leeds/Middlesbrough pages with, in addition to a concise section within the club's general history (for example "Financial Implosion"), there also being a seperate article detailing mopre expansively the entire bankruptcy/liquidation/relaunching episode: (Leeds United Football Club Limited article,Middlesbrough: Survival from Liquidation article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gefetane (talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

fishie unincorprated clubs are liek solo traders if they go bust the person who owns it is resonable for the debt but incorprated clubs the company is it is liek ricky desribes it a fake person--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishie, i'm not sure if you took the time to read the FA document i've posted on a couple of occasions. here it's here: http://www.thefa.com/GetIntoFootball/parentsandvolunteers/Runningaclub/Settingupaclub/~/media/158651B9F55D4AAD84E690FEED44B6F7.ashx/113%20A%20guide%20to%20club%20structures.pdf it was produced by a law firm on behalf of the English FA. It explains in more details what i basically explained above. A club indeed doesn't have to be a company, infactt he definition of the owrd club can mean, in it's simplest form, a group of 2 or more people who share a common goal. Most clubs are unincorporated, but ofcourse competing at the bottom levels in many regions across the UK. In which case usually 1 person is responsible in a sole trador capacity. That person may personally own a piece of land which & a terrace which teh club plays on, or he may only have a 'lease' contract for a pitch. That person will also assume responsibility for player contracts & registrations, the intelectual property of the club badge, etc. Or the ownership of these 'assets' could be shared by a comittee. But it's the combination of all these that form the club. They can, according to the document above, be incorporated, by creating a limited company (the 'artificial' person) and transferring the ownership of the assets from the individuals, into the company. The point is often raised about Rangers existing from 1872 but not becoming incorporated until 1899. Well this is the process which tehy would have underwent. All the assets which formed the club, including ibrox, the crests, player registrations etc, will have been owned previously collectivly by those running the club, or perhaps 1 single owner, perhaps Moses McNeil. (maybe 1 of the Rangers fans contributing would have this knowledge?), would have been transferred into the creation of a new company, thus the club becomes incorporated. But it all comes back to this opinion that a club 'becomes one' with a company, which simply makes no sense in business. I've drawn the comparison to a resteraunt before. It's no different to a club. Resteraunts & football clubs are business, that consist of assests, names, logos, stock, contracts. Companies are, to use Wikipedias explanation once more, artificial persons, which maintain ownership of the businesses. Anyone with even little knowledge or experience in dealing with businesses and corportaions will tell you it's common practice for a business to transfer from 1 company to another. Ricky072 (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)