Wikipedia

Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 24

< Talk:Rangers F.C.
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Drmies in topic Lets get a consensus from the new evidence
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

File:Glasgow-Rangers-badge.png

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

This image is copyright and the rationale is:

'"The image is used to identify the organization Rangers F.C., a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey."

This function is already provided by the copyrighted image File:Rangers_FC.svg and thus fails NFC 3A, and therefore is in breach of policy and should be removed 188.29.68.77 (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

opposethey are two different images represeent different things, both have rationale so no reason to removeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
They need valid rationales, compliant with wp:nfcc, a rationale alone is not acceptable and the use of this image does nothing to help us achieve our m:mission 188.28.226.210 (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
they do, prove teh reason for it not, and if you think the image should not be used nominate it for deletionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure of your point, but it is nominated for deletion, once it is removed from this article, it will fail wp:NFCC7 and be deleted by a bot 188.28.226.210 (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
it aint been nominated for deletion either of them, are you meaning it being used on the sandbox or the main article the main article both have valid rationaltiesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  Not done: Nominate for deletion if you want it removed. --Hadal (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Protected edit request

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Please remove (or amend if someone wants to figure out what it should say, it possibly just needs "Premier League" changing to "Football League Third Division" and the source below adding) the last sentence in the lead reading "This company has applied to register with the Scottish Football Association and to participate in the Scottish Premier League". This is very out of date. They've been refused entry into the Premier League, and the Scottish Football League First Division, and they are supposed to be going into the Third Division although that's not 100% confirmed yet. 2 lines of K303 19:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is out of date because an inaccurate version claiming the club no longer exists was introduced without consensus and then locked in place and has been for weeks. There are numerous sources showing it is the same football club, just a different company. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Support until a consensus is reach on whether it is a new club or not we cant change it if we do we will get more requets to change other thing. i am willing to support the removal compete.y of any leagure--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Look, I'm not getting involved on whether it's a new club or not. I'm simply asking that the statement about them asking to join the Premier League is updated or removed, since I hope you'll agree that is out of date? 2 lines of K303 20:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
i agree it is outdated i said i support it getting removed not changing it to div3 removing it makes it more up to date and in line with the rest of the article which makes it past tense, if you change the request to remove the statement ill change it to support--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I said either remove it or change it in the original request, I don't care which as long as it doesn't remain like it is. I don't believe it's unreasonable to amend/remove outdated information while other ongoing disputes are resolved, since they may take some time to resolve. 2 lines of K303 20:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
yes correct outdated information is fine, but if you choose to amend it you will get pro club alive putting request in to alter other parts of the dispute article, removing is the only one option that is not taking sides, if it just a plane remove i will support it otherwise because it might be amending i will oppose it until a consensus is reached--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
i should point out that they might not get into div3 if they dnt get teh sfa membership share trasnferred or accepted as new member--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I said their membership of the Third Division isn't 100% confirmed. Since it's probably going to be difficult to get an agreed wording for it being changed, I've struck through the possible change and we'll just go for straight removal unless anyone objects? 2 lines of K303 20:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
changed to supportAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not think there should be any changes to this article till the whole "2 clubs" issue has been resolved and the article fixed to highlight this is still a football club. However i wont oppose the removal of that sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  Done --Hadal (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

entering the communities cup in the first round for first time since 1978

Latest comment: 12 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

[1] "The newco club have been admitted into the Third Division for the upcoming season and enter the League Cup at the first round stage for the first time since 1978."

[2] "The newco club have been admitted into the Third Division for the upcoming season although they are still waiting to discover if they will be granted SFA membership to compete.
If membership is granted then the club will enter the League Cup at the first-round stage for the first time since 1978."

read what the sources are saying it the first time they have been in the first round since 1978 suggesting the club contunies--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

lol you beat me too it.. i was just about to post about something in the daily mail.. "Heres the latest article that clearly shows it is the same club despite saying "newco club".. "Rangers will face Irn-Bru Second Division side East Fife in the first round of the Scottish Communities League Cup. The newco club have been admitted into the Third Division for the upcoming season and enter the League Cup at the first-round stage for the first time since 1978.[3] " How is this a dead club?" BritishWatcher (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
ill add that one too, but it shows upa major problem with news stories they seem to copy each other word for word so if one hasa biased view they all will so doesnt mean this is right it adds to teh complexity of this dispute we cant rely on these sources--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me why newco Rangers have to apply for membership of the SFA if they are not a new club? If they had not been liquidated this would not have happened. I guess the proof of the pudding will come when in future years official stats from the football authorities inform us how many titles and cups etc have been won by Rangers Football Club (newco). Clay More47 (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
because it is a different company which is having to apply to have the old company's membership of the SFA transferred over. If they do not get that then the justification for saying the club is dead would be stronger. and we wont have to wait years, we can wait weeks or days to see how the authorities treat rangers in terms of past titles. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) britishwatcher has summed it up wha ti was ogign to say, but there already talkign of strippign titles from the sevco compnay because htey own them now--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It won't take years. Taking over an old companys membership does not imply that it is the same club. It's simply that it is a new club that is taking over the old clubs membership. This is being done from a financial point of view as the SFA believe that the people that supported the old rangers will switch to the newco and the tv rights will follow on. As far as I'm aware Andrew the SFA are actually thinking of stripping the titles from the old club, not the newco, who also as far as I'm aware have no titles as yet to strip. Clay More47 (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
no it wont take years it will be decided by next week because newco needs the sfa membership to play but if the sfa transfer it there effectily saying it is the same club and by that according stripping the newco of the titles, Wikipedia is not about wha ti think or you think, you find this hard to believe but i believe that rangers fc are dead they no longer exist but as wikipedia the sources are saying the club is alive and i we have to go with source not speculation--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
So why does stripping certain titles from "the old club" relate to agreeing membership of the SFA for "the new club" and why is Charles green the person who has never owned the old company and "old club" in your mind.. involved??. Also did this club win trophies before the company was incorporated in 1899? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
ClayMore, this procedures of transferring membership happens quie often and is within the rules, it only becomes a rule breach when clubs are insolvent. For example if you owned 100% of a football club and wanted to do a corporate restrucuture for whatever reason. You could move all of the assets out of the old company, dissolve it, and shift everything to your new company. You would however need permission from the FA to move the membership from 1 entity to another, but they would sanction it without any issues provided everythign was above board. In the case of Rangers (aswell as leeds, and other clubs to have underwent a similar fate), it's not as straightforward, because the reason for the membership switch is due to the old company being insolvent, and usually the switch is granted but often comes with penalties.Ricky072 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Taking over an old companys membership does not imply that it is the same club. Seeing as SFA have told Green accept oldco's sanctions or make a brand new application for membership it's patently obvious it is being seen as the same club. The SFA are accepting the oldco's yearly accounts aswell can't do that when your a new club. BadSynergy (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that they are entering into the first round is evidence that the SFL are treating them as a new club. If they were a continuation, they would enter, under the rules of the competition, into the second round as one of the top seven clubs in the SPL & SFL in the preceding season that didn't qualify for European competition. [4]Peterowan (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point - if Rangers were being treated as the same club that was in the SPL last season, this would not have happened. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
can i point out that is interuption you are correct they are being treated as a new club, "A NEW CLUB TO THE SFL" as such they cant go to the secodn round again this is all interuption it time fo rht erequest for ocmment to go live--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me, but this is not just about the SFL. If you re-read the rules "For the First Round the thirty lowest placed clubs of The Scottish Football League and The Scottish Premier League at the end of the preceding season..." - note: at the end of the preceding season. If the new Rangers were viewed as the same club as played in the SPL last season, they should not be playing in the First Round as, at the end of the preceding season, they were NOT one of 'the thirty lowest placed clubs of The Scottish Football League and The Scottish Premier League. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
ok lets take uefa not comparable but a example i will try to explain wiht, lets assumed rangers had got the cva, they where still banned from europe for that seaosn for not submit accoutn for 2011 so would that have made ita enw club? i hope the answer is no because it would be ban, lets jsut forgot about whether rangers are a enw club or not, the sfa rules have things similar that means regardless of you finishing position the season before insolvence events or rule breech would mean you dnt geta bye, ill admit i aint 100% up on why by i know that there something within the sfl/sfa rules that means regardless of whether it si anew club or relgated club there positiont he season befor eiwll not matter, do you know where dundee and dumfermline are entering the competiton ?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Totally irrelevant original research to reach a conclusion not present in the reference. Just like 99% of all discussion here in the last month. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sevco Scotland Ltd accept registration embargo

Latest comment: 12 years ago31 comments11 people in discussion

'Subject to the completion of all legal documentation, we anticipate transfer of membership next week.' http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsID=10229&newsCategoryID=1 BadSynergy (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"once approved, will enable Rangers FC to take a considerable step towards participating in Irn Bru Division Three." Yet according to wikipedai "Rangers FC was a football club". This is getting embarassing for Wikipedia now. Ricky072 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it is now absolutely clear this is the same club, maybe we should work on what the introduction/article text will need to be changed to (obviously additional tweaks and will be needed once the confirmation happens next week), but we could get much of that prepared over the coming days,, so once the SFA confirm its been transferred, the article is fixed for sure right away. Rather than have to wait days longer after that happens. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree Watcher plus I'd support a separate article detailing the the whole saga rather than clog up the team page. BadSynergy (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think there's some selective reading on. If it's the same club as you all appear to be claiming, what "transfer of membership" is going on? That's not "transfer of ownership" by the way, it's the transfer of membership of the Scottish Football League from, wait for it, the old club to the new club. Simply because they have the same name doesn't make them the same club.... 2 lines of K303 18:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It was either accept sanctions for transfer or refuse and make a brand new application for membership. If your saying there is no difference between the two then why accept sanctions? And its membership with SFA not SFL. BadSynergy (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You missed my point. If it's the same club as people are claiming based on that (very much open to interpretation) press release, why would any transfer of membership need to take place? 2 lines of K303 19:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll repost info for you. In a statement, the governing body said: “Sevco Scotland Ltd bought Rangers Football Club PLC’s share in the SPL and membership of the Scottish FA as part of their acquisition of assets.

“Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements.”[5] BadSynergy (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Still open to interpretation. "The new Rangers appear likely to be granted membership of the Scottish Football Association after accepting a 12-month transfer embargo, nice news report based on the information in the press release. 2 lines of K303 19:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
What part is open to interpretation? BadSynergy (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Exactly what the transfer of membership means in regard to whether it's the same club or not. The BBC doesn't tend to agree, what with their quote there and the further line of "The SFA had insisted that the new Rangers would have to accept sanctions imposed on the old club". 2 lines of K303 19:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the problem. The BBC takes this press release from the SFA and then introduce terms that have never been used in it. No where in the SFA statement do they mention a 'new club' or 'The Rangers FC', so the BBC are adding to the confusion, which is why we were waiting to see if the SFA would transfer the Rangers FC membership from the oldco to the newco, along with sanctions, otherwise a new club would need to apply for new membership, meaning the SFA see it as the same club. The FA did the same with Leeds Utd, but quicker. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
ok guys you should know by now that i am inartial in this, unfortnally the statement is not a enough to say 100% certain but its a start and will help with teh equest for comment, to be honest people are goign to come along and rubbish anything said because its not there pov that includes all of you and it is open to interuptions, so i think the request for comment will be need either way maybe only the sfl page will help if they say foudned 1872--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed that its not the final confirmation needed, but it is certainly heading in the right direction towards that. I do think that it would be worth discussions taking place now preparing for when that confirmation happens, so we know what we believe the introduction in particular should say when the time comes. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Telegraph seem to think it's far from clear what the situation is either, saying "A year on and Rangers are heading for liquidation, while the club that is looking to emerge from the debris remains unable to play football or sign players. What we do know is that the new Rangers - who are still to formally adopt the title until legal matters are completed later this month - will play in the Irn-Bru Third Division, if anywhere". 2 lines of K303 19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably right Andrew I was hoping governing bodies statements would help but obviously still not enough. Transfer of membership plus updated SFL information will hopefully be enough to sort this out. And the new title the Telegraph is referring to is to change Sevco Scotland Ltd to The Rangers Football Club Ltd. Rangers Football Club has not applied to the SFA for any name change as they do not need to. BadSynergy (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

More interpretation. My reading is that they can't even call themselves Rangers FC until the paperwork has gone through, and "the club that is looking to emerge from the debris" means a new club. The situation is far from clear. 2 lines of K303 19:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
edit teh sandbox then sandbox make the version assuming it is one club ready to go live but do nto puta request in, when we geta conesus or 100% confirmation i will do it as i hope most will not say i back one side over the other. one night in hackney that has been the problem all along that the press can have a bias, it has to be remember how senstive this issue is in scotland rival fans are laughign in there boots at the fall of a gaint and a gaint that has abused the game, where rangers fan are hurting because of people at the helm who have abused there power and brought there club to there knees, so the press isnt the best for soruces on this--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The press possibly can have a bias, but I'd suggest it's far less than Rangers fans have. 2 lines of K303 19:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
you misunderstand, lets take two jouranlists, one is celtic fan and the other is rangers fan, they will both have bias and will push there own pov, one will say new club one will say same club, does that make more sense its not a simple case here, primary sources will have to be used until the major one the sfl adds rangers to there site and put the foudning year this debate will go on--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
2 lines of K303, I stumbled upon this debate after checking on the Rangers L.F.C. article I made (usually women's teams are the first thing to go). I made the same points you did about using perhaps following policy and looking at mainstream sources. Since then I've been called, variously: stupid, biased, a liar, a Celtic fan, a drunk ... etc...etc... Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
i hope you aint refering to me i aint called you that but i do think you have your own pov and you ingore sources thatr contridict what you say but the same is for other on the other side of argument--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I just saw your 'constructive' posts of 14 July 2012 Clavdia chauchat but I think the reaction, though regrettable, could have been avoided. S2mhunter (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
So recently we have had the SPL chief exec saying they are the same club and the SFA clearly in the process of agreeing to the transfer of their old SFA membership number. Plus sanctions being imposed for past indiscretions, Its wholly wrong that wiki are treating them as separate now, hopefully we are on the right track to getting this sorted. In regards to the press thing i had the same debate with a journalist friend and it is actually fairly evident at times but you have to look at the evidence if the governing bodies treat them as the same club and the press report that then what should we do, its fairly logical and evident. Oh and for the record i don't support either of the old firm, just getting that in.E W 23:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

[6] states "Sevco Scotland, which now owns Rangers' assets after the old club headed for liquidation, needs SFA membership. ... The SPL, which rejected the new club's application to stay in the top flight ..." The key points are "the old club headed for liquidation" and "the new club's application". Crystal clear that they are different clubs. TerriersFan (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Imagine if a spiv in a grey suit stood outside Ibrox and claimed the moon was made of cheese. Imagine said spiv had previously "bought" Rangers FC's assets with an exorbitant loan from shadowy backers. Imagine he therefore used the club's website to propound his lunar fringe theory. The few guys trying to change this article against consensus would instead be swarming around the Moon. There would be tiresome, irrelevant, long-winded waffle about other things that turned out to be made of cheese. There would be an insistence that their "evidence" trump WP:RS. There would be unedifying attempts to bully other editors. But ultimately it would fail, they'd get bored and scuttle off back to Rangers Media or Follow Follow. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Terriersfan, a 'club' cannot be liquidated. A resteraunt chain cannot be liquidated. It may be worded in such a way, but only a company can ever be liquidated. A football club is made up of assets that are placed into the ownership of a company. Those assets can be moved from 1 company to another at any time. If Roman Abromovich wanted to restrcuture chelsea, if he wanted to, he could move all the assets out the current company into another 1, and dissolve the old one. Does that make it a new club? Ofcourse not, this has been goign on since the 80's when football clubs started floating on the stock market. Can we please drop this utterly bizarre opinion that a club/company are as 1 and cannot ever be undone? It's nonsensical. I keep asking the question and never get a reply, but if a club/company are as 1 then is Charlton 1984 a different club from the original Chartlon? Is Middlesborough 1986 a different club the original Middlesborough? Is Leeds 2007 a different club from the original Leeds? Please, enough POV and starting posting facts. Ricky072 (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"a 'club' cannot be liquidated" - not even if the club is a company? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
ricky i have to disagree a club can be liquidated look at third lanark, gretna and aidrieeons they have all been liquidated and new clbus repalkced in aidrie and gretna case. rangers cases is unknown i cant even say for sure whether they have bene or not now, my personall view was they had been but now i cant be sure i still wouldnt support them whilst green in charge dnt liek his motives but i really cant say for sure if the club is lqiudiated or not if i could it be easy to tie this dispute up but it is not clear cut i am hopign the sfl will be adding rangers to there list soon and give afounding year if it says 1872/1873 then it is the same club ther eno doubt, if it says 2012 it isa new club and hopefully this dispute will end or at very least we can havea conesus out with a few editors who will nto accept either way and then head for full proctection indefintely--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the latest interim report from the administrators of the old company will help to clarify matters. That's right: as things stand nothing at all has been liquidated, not even the old company - it is still in administration. The administrators' interim report, which was issued on 10 July 2012, states such things as, "The responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club" and "The history and spirit of the Club have been preserved by the sale which completed on 14 June 2012 and it is now the responsibility of the new owners to secure its future". http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/a2/b6/0,,5~177826,00.pdf Clearly, the club is still going under the new company. BBO (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ofcourse you cannot liquidate a club. Like i said, it's like liquidating a chain of resteraunts. Go check on companies house, you will find literally hudnreds of thousands of COMPANIES in liqudiation. A resteraunt chain operates inside a company. The company can be liquidated. You can't liquidated a resteraunt though. Andrew in the case of Gretna, they sold the ground off to property developers. Other assets such as the club name & badge were not sold. They are owned by a now dissolved company and can't ever be used again. It's like demolishing a house. Whatever is inside it can be moved out of it, or it can remain inside the house. Ricky072 (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers founded 1873 according to the scottish football league

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers/--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet Rangers has been placed in the first round of the Scottish Communities League Cup which would not happen if it was regarded as the Rangers who has finished the previous season second in the SPL. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
its not as simple as that, so now the scottish football league have said 1873 are you goign to discount this to???--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm wondering why they would place the club in the first round of the cup when that action contradicts the belief that the club was formed in 1873. If even the SFL is giving mixed messages, we really have problems! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It strikes me that Fifa and Uefa should be regarded as the ultimate authority in this issue and they certainly seem to be treating the Newco Rangers as a new club. --Tim D Enchantah (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
where have they said that???? source--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer the info sourced from the governing body, the SFA, however they have been silent. The next best source is the SFL, and as they have specified the foundation date as 1873, that is the one we have to accept. For those who reject this assertion I would request (1)Why they reject the SFL as a reliable source (2) Who they would accept as a reliable source. I would like the argument to focus on the reliability of the source, not the reliability of the assertion. 92.40.162.188 (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What the SFL put on their website is important, although i think this relates to a previous season rather than the upcoming one. What we need to see is what founding date they put on the list of teams in the third division. We will only have a few days to wait. To be honest its pointless any more going round and round in circles till we get confirmation from the SFA. 20:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a link on the page to this year's results where it says "There are currently no results for season 2012/2013." This would seem to suggest that the Rangers page is (relatively) up to date, and relates to this season rather than the previous one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.215.177 (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Still the same club

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Another source to suggest that Rangers are still the same football club. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2177471/Rangers-talks-SPL-future.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Not to mention the threats to take trophies from them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talk • contribs) 22:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's the same club. We've got several precedents on this in Wikipedia. If Newport County A.F.C. has a single page, then I can't imagine why anyone would ever be so biased to suggest that Rangers F.C. has two pages ... unless they want to argue that the Newport A.F.C. page should be split. Nfitz (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the sources presented by both sides are from media outlet which have been pretty inconsistent in their assessment, to say the least. We really ought to be looking at more official sources. This statement from HMRC seems to suggest that they regard Rangers as the same club simply operating under a new company. Another statement posted on Rangers' website confirms this. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 08:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Uefa seem to be treating the Newco as a new club, hence the three year waiting period imposed on new clubs playing in Europe being upheld, and Fifa seem to be treating the Newco as a new club, hence the players' right to not transfer contracts to the Newco being upheld. Of course this is just how things seem, a statement from either body would certainly be helpful. --Tim D Enchantah (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
give yoru source tim d, secondly the three year ban is because hte new company doe snot have 3 year of audit accoutn go read uefa rules, and they have not said player dnt have the right ot transfer they have only said they have gave them international clearance to play temproarily untila sfa abritiion determines what if any compsation is requiredAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly the same club yes, as soon as the SFA confirm that rangers will be playing in Div 3 next season, this article needs correcting. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

we still need it to be conesensus in teh favour of changing it which ther eaint which is pretty clear form teh afd, im more swinging to it the same club that being on both sides esicpally after finding the sfl page but we need a consensus to change it which is nera impossible we need the request for ocmmentAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
We should not have to wait a month for the RFC to be completed though. Once the SFA have made their decision, we need to move to implementation on this article. We can thn decide what happens with the other article, there being several options, from deletion with merger to this article, to a change to simply the company name which would be about the company rather than club, or changing that one into the liquidation/administration type article detailing this whole mess. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
WE CANT WITHOUT A CONSENSUS and the afd was closed with no consensus, if we do the changes even though i agree that it mroe justified now without a consensus it can lead toa ban for us, i have not seen one coutner argument to teh sfl website saying founded 1873 because it basically ends this debate but doesnt geta consensus, ok you know wha till try see if we can get it withoput the request for comment if we cant achvie it within a week the request for comment will be needed, or the request for comment could last months not a month it depend sif we need ot extend it or not, what is the rush why does it matter if the articl eis wrong fora while eventally it will be right and hopefully if we have a consensus then teh admins can lock the page and amke sure the consesnus page is the one liveAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
i reaslly dnt get why it seems oyur against me when i am starting to turn for the side for it the same club even tohugh i sitll personal dnt believe it, i am trying to make sure this is done right so it gets locked in teh right way the newco article gets renamed to liqudiatiion of rangers fc plc etc i just dnt get the rushAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Associate membership of SFL means 'Newco Rangers' are a new club

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

The fact that 'Newco Rangers' were invited to the SFL as an associate member is further evidence they are a new club as if they were a continuation of the old club they would have been granted full membership. Associate membership is only granted to entirely new clubs. Hence a club admitted via relegation from the SPL will be admitted as a full member. If the SFL regarded 'Newco Rangers' as a continuation of Rangers F.C they would have been required to grant full membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.226.147 (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers were not in the SFL before and they were not relegated from the SPL for coming bottom of the table which is the only way club would get full membership. All other clubs starting out in the SFL have to start as associate members, it does not mean it is an entirely different football club. Indeed a football club can go from being a full member to an associate member if they are at the bottom of a league too long. It does not have any impact on if its a football club, its merely about voting rights. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)i suggest you read up about it, it doesnt mean new club, it meanas new club to the sfl, if there where relgated to div1 they get full memebrship but since they have been botoed out the spl then they get assiocaote and that partialyl because they have no audit accounts, so i assume peterhead and annan are new club because thy got assiocate membership when they join the sfl???, it seems the new club camp ar enow graspign to anything that they can use to say its a new club, the fact remains teh sfl say they where founded 1873 that holds more waitAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Worthless original research and speculation of what might have happened, but didn't. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This consititues 'original research'. The SFL rules are clear if you download, or even bothered to read this page, because this matter has already been discussed. When a club enters the SFL then ormal procedure is to enter at Division 3 lelve, with an 'association membership', and won't be granted full membership status for 4 years. The ONLY exception to this rule is when teams get relegated from the SPL at the end of the season, in which case they are instantly granted a full membership & a place in division 1. Rangers were not relegated, so they don't qualify for the exception. If Hearts resigned their place in the SPL and made applicaton to the SFL, they too would be given association membership in division 3. If Hibs were kicked out of the SPL for breaking the rules, they would have to apply for association membership in division 3. This doesn't mean they are 'new clubs' and lose all their history.

Admins really need to take ownership of this debate now, it's going round in circles. Ricky072 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Telegraph article confirms 'Newco Rangers' are a new club

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Telegraph report uses SFL and SFA rules to show 'Newco Rangers' are a new club.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9418724/Rangers-in-crisis-Sevco-have-until-Friday-to-gain-SFA-membership-and-play-football-next-season.html

That simply says its a new club to the SFL, which it is because its been in the SPL but has been kicked out. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain what this bit means " Similarly, newco Rangers have not been penalised by beginning life in the Third Division: indeed, no other completely new club would have been allowed to enter the bottom tier."? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Your summary of the article is incorrect. The article does not advance any argument about whether it is a new club or not, that is your interpretation of what you infer from it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The only thing it confirms is what I said earlier - the way this whole mess is being reported in the media is inconsistent. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 13:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly it means 'new SFL clubs', a condition of a new club in the SFL is that they must then recieve SFA membership. For example, when annan Athletic successfully applied to the SFL, they were a 'new club' (to the SFL) and had to then get an SFA membership. but going by your interpretation of this article, their history woudl have reset from 1942, and as of 2008 they would be come a 'new club'. Ricky072 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Another article

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Just seen this one too [7] .. ""I have recently had several confidential meetings with a gentleman representing the shareholders of Sevco, with regards to my interest in purchasing a majority shareholding in Rangers Football Club," he said." why would this guy be talking with Sevco about buying Rangers Football club, i thought Rangers FC was a different and dead club? Has he been speaking to the wrong people? Also.. "The SPL is pressing for more sanctions to be handed out to the new Rangers before they are allowed to play in Division Three this season. Rangers are being investigated for alleged undisclosed payments to players between 2001 and 2010. The club are seeking membership of the Scottish Football Association in order to play in the forthcoming season." Note that they use the term "new Rangers" yet go on to say that they are being investigated for actions between 2001 and 2010, That was all before this current company which has applied for membership existed which is mentioned in the 3rd sentence so im slightly confused? Is the BBC switching between new club, old club, new club in those 3 sentences, or perhaps its just all about the same club, known as rangers? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This confusion is caused by the fact that the old club and the new club are using the same name, with the new club claiming to be the same club as the old club as it owns the assets and business interests of the old club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The facts show that football clubs post-liquidation can re-emerge, through the transfer of assets to a new company, with a continuity of club identity. Wikipedia considers Leeds, Charlton, Luton, Middlesborough, Fiorentina, Napoli as having a continuity of club identity sufficient to justify one Wikipedia page per club. What reasonable basis do you have for this entrenched desire to exempt Rangers from this precedent, and pretend that Rangers F.C. no longer exist, when the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests they do?Gefetane (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

When will the nonsense of these past-tense edits be corrected?

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

It is now thoroughly clear this wikipedia page, that implies Rangers FC longer exists, is not just in error with regards historical precedent of other equivalent football club/liquidation scenarios, but also in direct contradiction with the relevant sporting governing bodies, who continue to discuss licence agreement with direct reference to the past history of the very club that is under review, a discussion referenced continuously through the media discourse(Scotsman article).

The fact is that football clubs that undergo oldco/liquidation/newco processes still exist with a continuity of club identity AND retain one wikipedia page per club. The only evidence in support of these changes is the language employed by a minority of media individuals, terms like 'new club' or 'old club'. However these sources have no bearing on the very clear historical precedent that has been set by numerous clubs like Leeds, Charlton, Middlesbrough, Fiorentina, Napoli[[8]] etc, all of which have one wikipedia page, despite being new companies whose old companies were liquidated, and are not considered different clubs.

It is evidently an outrageous position that the team currently playing in Rangers tops, training and playing at Rangers training ground, that will play at Rangers stadium, and will merchandise under the name Rangers, is somehow not Rangers, but a totally new club, who just happen to be called Rangers(Rangers 5-1 Albion Rovers. Match played July 22nd 2012.). Yet this is the position exhibited on wikipedia, the world's first and foremost wiki encyclopedia, all because of the opinion of one or two editors seemingly motivated by nothing other than their personal prejudice against a rival football team . May this disgraceful situation be rectified before any more damage is done to the credibility of this website.Gefetane (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is an absolute disgrace, and it highlights why articles should never be simply locked on the current version. they should be reverted to the most stable version before being locked to allow for discussions. Once the SFA decision comes on rangers membership approval, this article needs to be corrected. It is a shame that this grossly inaccurate article has been in place almost a month BritishWatcher (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Admins have the power to revert articles whenever the necessity arises. The fact that the past tense still stands on this article is in violation of every rule regarding dispute resolution and shows how flawed wikipedia really is.Monkeymanman (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as there have been no disagreements on the straw poll, I have gone ahead and changed the tense used in the lead, as well as updating the source used in the second sentence to confirm Ibrox is still owned by Rangers F.C. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 10:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you BaldZebra, the article is somewhat outdated now, so this is the first step to restoring the page to an accurate wikipedia entry. Ricky072 (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

wha ti find more annoyign is that now we are getting to a consensus and moving forward sionce we are agreeing that it is not clear cut because i am the one behind triyng to do this i am being attacked and said i should be banned really makes me go bugger this and leave wikipedia i come to maintain articles and follow by the guidelines i might get things wrong i have my own pov but i never push that hey although i take offence at people criticise my spelling at least it right i really offended so if i dnt come back good luck with trying to get the articles sorted that is all i have tried to do, just for the ip user I USED TO SUPPORT RANGERS FC BUT IN MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION THE CLUB IS LIQUIDATED AND REPLACED WITH A NEW CLUB I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS NEW CLUB UNLESS OWNERSHIP CHANGES BUT I WILL STILL SEE IT AS NEW CLUB, AS WIKIPEDIAN I FOLLOW WHAT SOURCES SAY THE SOURCES ARE NMOT CLEAR CUT AND SAY THE CLUB IS DEAD AND ALIVE SO I CANT PICK AND CHOOSE--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Do not let the offensive comments of that IP get to you Andrew, its clear from the vote above that this is based on what the sources say rather than anyones opinion. And it certainly is annoying that he showed up to cause trouble when consensus was just developing. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
at the moment i cant be doign with that type of stress of being accused of delbrite trying to change the page hopefully a admin will post after reviewing and say where they think i do have agenda if they dnt and they think i am followign the rules i will still be invovled but i might step back becaus ei dnt want to be accused of this type of things put bad tihng to my wikipedia name--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The IP is busy making a right mess on this talk page with his posts in the wrong place. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a generally accepted fact that articles are always protected on the wrong version. You shouldn't let it upset you. Once consensus is established and the protection expires it can easily be reverted to the version that consensus supports. As a matter of fact I was the one that requested it be protected, fully aware that the chances were it would be locked on this version which I am do not support. But what was more important is that editors were forced into discussion and establishing a consensus, rather than being focussed on edit warring on the article. Otherwise we would have never got anywhere.

As it is, I think we are close to establishing a consensus, despite all the heated debate. I see that as a great success and would like to thank everyone for keeping things civil and on topic. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Small change request

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Glad to see this article getting sorted out. Request for a small change though, some of the content is in past tense, eg- Rangers won....instead of rangers have won....

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talk • contribs) 18:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

we will get to it its only a minor thing the bigger problem isnt resolved yet but we finally getting somewhereAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia precedent being violated?

Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

There are many examples on wikipedia, a few being Charlton, Leeds, Luton, Middlesbrough, Livingston, Fiorentina, Napoli, of liquidation/'newco' scenarios in football of a similar kind, if not identical to Rangers, and all have one page per club.

These examples represent a clear precedent as a model of best working - one page per football club that has undergone a liquidation/newco situation.

Why is this particular club being treated as an exception to the precedent?Gefetane (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)#

Sadly a small number of editors are refusing to allow the article to be corrected from its current inaccurate version which was imposed without consensus and has been locked in place for weeks. Hopefully once there is confirmation from the SFA we should be able to clear this up, but it may take some time to get this fixed if some of those editors continue to want to prevent it being fixed. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
None of the teams in the examples used were actually liquidated however and all managed to exit insolvency through various mechanisms. Examples on wikipedia for teams which have actually been liquidated i.e. Airdrieonians F.C., Aldershot F.C., Gretna F.C., Maidstone United F.C. (1897) etc. all have separate entries for the 'Oldco' and 'Newco' incarnations. Strikes me that precedent is being followed, not violated. --Tim D Enchantah (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC) 100% correct Tim,sadly though some of the editors on wikipedia have a self serving agenda and the dont care about exploiting(lying) on wikipedia to further their cause. If you look up Liquidation in a dictionary youll see two meanings,one a company being wound upand ceasing to exist,the other is regarding execution, I think no one -absolutely no one can deny the assets of Rangers FC where sold to a new company which started up a NEW football team which other than using assets has nothing to do with Rangers FC,you can cut it up anyway you like but thats the truth of the matter.Rangers FC died,this page should be about remembering the history of that great Scottish club,the current club already has a page called Sevco or Newco Rangers which is an excellently written piece of work barring a few minor descrepancies.
ok airdrieonians and gretna there not anything like rangers sitution thos eclubs where liqudiated i agree ocmpletely, but ther enot liek teh rangers sitution because neither of the new clubs to come about from those liqudiations bought assessts of any form from the oldco so they are new clubs with no relation to the old one apart form similar name, i will review the other two later before givinga repsonse as i dnt know there situtions to say if there liek rangers, also there is no such thing as precenedent wikipedia relies on sources sources say teh club is not liquidated and the club is liquidated the quesiton is what do we as wikpedians do about it, sorry about spelling my chrome highlighter is playing up--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Tim instead of repeating ourselves over and over again actually read up on what happened with those clubs to save us correcting you. Honestly this talk page goes round in circles. BadSynergy (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
aldershot never bought any assest so is not comparable20:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib)
maidstone is slight comparable but not completely as they never done a assest purchase but did some how get the youth squad but i cant find out how--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Tim's point is entirely incorrect. All of the clubs mentioned above are new companies that bought the assets from the insolvent old company that was liquidated. I can provide dates and links that describe the liquidation events for each club, although this information is widely available. The point remains, the changes made to this page are an unjustified violation of Wikipedia precedent.Gefetane (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You can't just accept the examples that support your POV and reject the ones that don't, the fact is that none of the examples given (for either viewpoint) exactly match the Rangers scenario. Your mileage - as they say - may vary. --Tim D Enchantah (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

i went thorugh the Charlton, Leeds, Luton, Middlesbrough, Livingston, Fiorentina, Napoli examples none of them are comparable, even if they where it doesnt matter what amtter is what the sources say about this case not precedent, if you want ill go through them again, the only one tha ti remebr coming close is middlesbrough--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Andrew how can you possibly say "none of them are comparable", when the following confirms that the old company of Middlesbrough FC, incorporated in 1892, was dissolved and a new company (newco), incorporated in 1985 at the time of the liquidation, now operates the club. This is a directly relevant precedent to the case of Rangers. Likewise Charlton Athletic operate in the structure of a 'newco', founded in 1984 according to company register. For Leeds United, the old company incorporated in 1920 was liquidated and the 'newco' that operates the club is confirmed here as being incorporated in 2007. That is only three of the examples I have double checked so far, and all three appear directly comparable to the situation of Rangers - the original company (oldco) is liquidated, however the identity of the club is retained within the operation of a new company (newco). In light of this evidence from the company register, do you still maintain your statement that "none of them are comparable"?Gefetane (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Neil Doncaster admitted similar Gefetane. "Leeds are the same. Every single club which has had an insolvency event has either continued as a football club or has ceased to exist. I’m not aware of any club which sort of started again. Of course it’s not okay to waive £90 million of debt, of course it’s not. But it happens. In football as in business.” [9] BadSynergy (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Fiorentina were in the exact same boat as we are now. It states on their page that the club was "re-established", not a new club was established.DeanMackinnon —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

there is not a thing as precedent on wikipedia, ther eis common thing and we can use those ocmmon things on helping to form the articles, but that doesnt mean it has to be what done here, however now that potential consensus is changing and we re moving to this article as being in present term we can slowly work on makign it right as long as the soruces still say waht they do, if all the reliable sources start saying it is new club then we iwll have to convert the newco rangers article to be about th new club, if they all go to it the same club we can then make it all one article, but since we sitll have source saying new club and source saying same club and some saying both in the same paragrpah of the news article or press relese we have to make this article reflect something liek this rangers football club is bla bla, at present the future is unclear if it is the same club that played in teh spl the previous season or if it the new club and provide sources we cant make the decision we have to represent the sources sorry that goign to annoy both camps but wikipedia cant make the decision sorry guysAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The statement "there is not a thing as precedent on wikipedia" seems to be contradicted by the 'Wikipedia Culture' category page, entitled "Wikipedia:PRECEDENT". Although I accept there is no hard and fast rule in this regard, I think it is reasonable to suggest acknowledging precedent at least places a degree more burden on why an article should not conform to the perceived standard, as opposed to justifying the affirmative. I would also like to suggest, in light of the dubiety arising from tit-for-tat quoting of media sources that exhibit language hinting at one conclusion or the other, 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. Gefetane (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
but that requires us to interept those press releases, precedent does exist but you cant say because this wikipedia article is doign it this way it mus tbe done here, verifable and reliable sources takes over predecent and unfortnally in this case we have the reliable sources say both, so the article must reflect this. if you want to open a case on reliable sources noticeboard ot determine if the sfl sfa pages the hmrc pages can old more weight and since the news articles interept form those wha tthey want and then up end contradicitng each other, if it deemed it fine to use them instead o the media then we onyl need ot refer to it in the present tense and no meantion of new club, i have tried already to have it verified with no response from outsid eeditors

Lets get a consensus from the new evidence

Latest comment: 12 years ago30 comments17 people in discussion
Everyone agrees; congratulations. BTW, straw polls are a great way to spend some time, but not the way consensus is usually reached on Wikipedia. Go Rangers, or whatever. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Ok i am proposing a simple vote, no discussion i am sorry but i will remove discussion to another section Going on this source, the sfl website for rangers team [10] "Founded:1873" it says founded 1873, they are recognising them as the same club. This vote is not about personal opinion just whether you agree or disagree.
If you disagree please give a brief reason why with a reference
Please respond to each question with the highlight response, before answering read the sources above and make a decision based on the sources and not your emotions, Please do not disregard sources that might not meet your POV be neutral and make the decision based on what the sources say.
This will remain live for 1 week unless there is a overwhelming consensus
PLEASE DO NOT CANVAS VOTES THIS APPLIES TO BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT IF CANVASSING IS REPEAT I WILL MAKE THIS ATTEMPT AT A CONSENSUS INVALID
This discussion will be closed by non involved admin and decision on a consensus decided impartial for each question'

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?

Please respond with agree or disagree, please bold your response using '''answer''', with short summary and source or sources enclosing links with [], please sign your response, for general discussion see below

Please respond below here:

  • Agree The football club that has existed since 1872/3 is the same club that will play in the third division next season. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (UK tax authority), specifically stated that liquidation of the old company (which controlled the club between 1899 and June 2012) would not prevent the sale of the club. A sale which has taken place, with Sevco Scotland operating under the trading name The Rangers Football Club now in full control of the club, which is the reason this new company is facing sanctions because of the actions of the club under the old company. The SFL, SFA, the club,the media, the fans, and HMRC all see this as the same football club as numerous sources show, it is just a different company. The club existed for decades before the old company which is entering liquidation was formed and it continues to exist today. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree Going by the governing bodies alone I agree with them that it is the the same club. Not to mention Lord Glennie, HMRC, BDO and Duff & Phelps whose comments I'm sure we all know by now. BadSynergy (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree but reliable sources also indicate that the Ranger club playing in SFL Division 3 next season is not the same club as the club playing last season in the SPL. So this question does not help establish a consensus for a way forward. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree The implementing of sanctions based on indiscretions of the 'oldco' by the SFA and football debts being considered i'd say is the key evidence that Rangers exist as the original club. If we're talking about a totally new club they should be completely free of any sanctions and liabilities. Sparhelda 15:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree The governing body says its the same club, it is treating the misdeeds of the 'oldco' as being the responsibility of the 'newco' and insisting that Rangers FC accept the punishments handed down. The SFL website states the founding date as 1873. HMRC, Lord Glennie, etc. hold that this is the same club. Digitalantichrist (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • AgreeThis is nothing new. Leed United, Luton, Bournemouth (to only name a few) have all been down the route of Liquidation/Newco before. Many teams now operate under 'new companies' which purchased the assets of the old company, which was liquidated, and continued on as the same club. Why should Rangers Wikipedia article break precedent? The only clear reason so far is that this is an emotive subject and many editors will naturally carry an anti-rangers bias. For a more thorough evaluation of the points raised please see The Case For Rangers to Remain in 1 Wikipedia Article. Ricky072 (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree Per Ricky072. The point is the football club is an asset/brand owned by a company. Ownership of the asset/brand can be transferred from one company to another. This article is about the asset/brand, not the company that owns the asset/brand. DeCausa (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree. I've been of the opinion all along that Rangers were one club until we were told otherwise, and the way sanctions were decided would confirm the approach taken. Now that there is talk of stripping titles, reliable sources are now widely reflecting that we are talking about two businesses but one club. —WFC— 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree - the fact that they are playing in a lower division isn't proof that they are a different team. Swindon Town were relegated for financial irregularities, Juventus, Fiorentina and others were relegated for their part in the match fixing scandal, etc. Also, official sources such as HMRC and the club themselves regard the club as a continuation but operating under a new structure. I don't wish to assume bad faith, but it seems to me that there has been some anti-Rangers sentiment (not to mention a spot of Schadenfruede) involved in this sorry business. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 08:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional question

Do reliable sources indicate that the Rangers club playing in SFL Division 3 next season is a new club not the same club playing last season in the SPL?

Please respond with agree or disagree, please bold your response using '''answer''', with short summary and source or sources enclosing links with [], please sign your response, for general discussion see below

Please respond below here:

Discussions/arguments

Adding question to try get a consensus that is clear and plain

Note for clarification- Quote from above: "For a consensus to be reached there has to be 75% or more for either response." - that is not how it works on wikipedia. This is not a vote and consensus isn't achieving a certain percentage of support for one view over another. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Except in RFA's and high profile RFC's you mean where there is level's of consensus that needs reached. For instance in and RFA generally above 80% you pass, if you are below 70% you fail. Im just pointing out that the statement that is not how it works on wikipedia isn't entirely correct in some places that is exactly how it works. Just a general comment. B S 15:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
To avoid controversy i think it may be best if the sentence about %s needed is removed. we can judge if there is reasonable consensus in the coming days, rather than an arbitrary figure that some will dispute and might distract from the primary debate. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Flawed "Question"

The "question" is flawed. "Rangers F.C. exist as the original club and not a new club" is not a question, it is a statement to which editors are being asked to agree/disagree with. No-one cares what editors personally agree with. The Question should be; "Do reliable sources indicate that the Ranger club playing in SFL Division 3 next season is the same club as the club playing last season in the SPL?" The current statement suggests that it is seeking the editor's personal opinion, or the results of the editor's personal research and analysis, which is totally irrelevant. My wording, or similar, removes any ambiguity or wriggle room for any argument. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

agreed and updated please all editor who have reply amend yoru response on the updated questionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Surely 'the Ranger club' should at least be changed to 'the Rangers club' as this is how the club is known. I'd suggest for clarity a re-wording to include 'the club called Rangers'. Gefetane (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've fixed this. That was just my typo, nothing meant by it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Still a flawed question that proves nothing

This question does not take us any further forward as I would expect every editor to 'agree' that reliable sources indicate that the Ranger club playing in SFL Division 3 next season is the same club as the club playing last season in the SPL. (I have had to agree with that question, though I disagreed with the previous question.)

The problem is that reliable sources also indicate that the Ranger club playing in SFL Division 3 next season is not the same club as the club playing last season in the SPL.

Therefore, even if you achieve 100% answering 'agree' to the question posed, it does not help establish a consensus to change anything. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

firstly i dnt think everyone will agree ther eis some who will disagree, but now on to thte more improtant part. i jsut post this on escape orbit page "not sure if you have seen but i updated with your question, fishiehelper suggest is it still a bit ambiguousness and might not a achieve a consensus can you check what been said and see if you might be able to further make the question better my english skills are crap so i cant, i really want to get a questions that neutral, not ambiguousness and open to potential dispute in the future i just want a consensus either for or against and to close this argument down and to then implemented the consensus regardless which way it is--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)" i am willing to change the question to get the question that suits best to try achive a consensus if possible i dnt want it open to challegne in the future i want this to be clear and consis which i cant do any suggestionss--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
If there is to be another rewording, do a new question below. As far as im concerned the above question is clear enough. If everyone agrees that there are reliable sources saying the rangers club that was in the SPL will be in Div 3, then that is an important development. After that is established if there was another question it could be, Now it is accepted that reliable sources say this is the same club, should the article be corrected to stop referring to rangers FC as a dead club? (Something that has never had consensus and was imposed on the article before it was locked in place for weeks). BritishWatcher (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, I am delighted to agree with Fishiehelper2, there is no consensus to change anything. Which is why the article should remain pretty much as it was before all the attempts to make everything past-tense and creation of a newco article. I'd say it is too soon to make any definite decision on this until things settle down, however I do believe that sources currently tend towards treating Rangers past and present as the same club, regardless of the change of the company running it. (See my above poll response). This is, again, good reason for no change. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A more apposite question might be: do reliable sources support the existence of the Newco Rangers article? Albeit this has been conclusively answered at two AfDs. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer would be no, because the sources that mention Newco Rangers are in fact talking about Rangers that is at this article. Why dont you answer the question above? And there was no consensus at the AFD. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
depending on the numbers i think we could maybe say if thata consensus on editing this article out of past tense can be justified but to what extent we have to agree on but the newco rangers article and fully make it one article will ahve to waut fora while until thing settle down as escape says
What we do with the other article can be dependent on how this article is handled. I beleive that based on the above consensus that everyone accepts reliable sources exist showing this the same club, a draft version should be worked on, with us waiting for the official confirmation from the SFA before seeking to put it onto the article, we can then make minor alterations to that, or if the SFA do not agree to rangers membership then clearly we are back to square one and this current version would have to be kept whilst we discuss how to proceed. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"NewCo Rangers" is simply a descriptive term, it's not the official name of a football club. Wikipedia articles are entitled by clubs official names. "Newco Rangers" is 'slang' for "New Company Rangers". Nobody is denying they now a new company. Like i've said many times, this is nothing new, clubs have been switching companies now well over 20 years. Ricky072 (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Result

This is only saying the total number of response and the amount for each reply this does not necessarily make a consensus

Agree Disagree Total Agree Percentage Disagree Percentage
12 0 12 Agree 100% Disagree 0%

One vote currently for agree is only because of the question and how it is worded but would be disagree if the wording was is it the same club and not a new club.

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

Moving on

Latest comment: 12 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

Another new article has arrived, [11] with Charles Green saying membership of the SFA is likely to be accomplished within 24 hours. we need to consider what text should be proposed for once the transfer has taken place. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

start editing the sandbox get a version ready there to go live--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi BritishWatcher. As you are so obviously a non-biased commenter on this topic, I'm just curious as to why you never post links to articles that may have any negative impact on Oldco? Massive coincidence, I guess. Andevaesen (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I firmly believe this club still exists, that is based on the fact sources continue to show it exists, if it did not.. then such a position would be impossible to defend. I have posted a number of links, including ones that are negative regarding the oldco, or even the club itself.. but highlight that it is indeed the same club. Its not my duty to provide sources saying this is a dead club, frankly ive yet to see such sources in my searches anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I assume you must have missed sources like this "Rangers Football Club Born 1872, died 2012" or perhaps you regard the Herald newspaper as an unreliable source? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
In that same source Fishie it says, 'But HMRC said: "A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company's financial affairs in recent years." HMRC also revealed it was not contesting Mr Green's purchase of the club and was not interested in forcing a fire sale of assets such as Ibrox and Murray Park as "the intention is not to wipe Rangers off the face of the map". You quote the headline but nowhere in the article does it state club has died. BadSynergy (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed this is part of the problem, for the sources that do get provided saying "new club" or talking about the end of the club, they tend to go on to still clearly see rangers as existing,, rather than a brand new entirely separate football club springing up out of nowhere and talking about rangers in the past tense as the wiki article use to. the trouble is some journalists are incorrectly saying club when what they mean is company. The same has been happening on here. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok then - how about this from the Daily Telegraph: "Rangers Football Club is dead but before anybody could say “Long Live Rangers Football Club” the name of the newco which hopes to be admitted to the Scottish Premier League - there was apparently premeditated attempt to seize the crown from the anointed successor." The same article goes on to explain that the club became incorporated as a company in 1899 -"which saw the the business established in 1899, which incorporated the club founded in 1872, consigned to liquidation." Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Or how about this from an article in the Daily Record: "They’ll slip into liquidation within the next couple of weeks with a new company emerging but 140 years of history, triumph and tears, will have ended. No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club. When the CVA was thrown out Rangers as we know them died." Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
well the first article clearly draws a distinction between club and company with the point about the business established in 1899 being liquidated, and the first sentence highlights its not viewed as a brand new club, the newco is the successor to the oldco. As for the second article.. that is clearly James Traynors opinion, i do not classify that as evidence im afraid. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
(EC) And that very article by James talks of people still seeing it as the same club, and i note it also didnt use past tense.. "Whether you like them or not they are important. Along with Celtic they are the engine that drives our game." Should that not have been they "were the engine that drove our game"? in the same way that the wiki article claimed the club "had" a rivalry with celtic lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you trying to make us go in circles? The media can't agree on Rangers which led to Andrew putting in RFC together showing the two different sides of the argument. I could post sources supporting that the club hasn't died but then we'd be back where we were weeks ago. Interestingly enough Traynor wrote another blog piece and he says, 'It is understood Kennedy was reluctant to turn his back because he fears Rangers could slide back into administration, or worse.' How can a new club slide back into administration? BadSynergy (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to go in circles - just responding to the claim above "Its not my duty to provide sources saying this is a dead club, frankly ive yet to see such sources in my searches anyway" by providing sources that make that very claim. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I should add that the blog you quote starts off by saying "With only days to go before Rangers begin life all over again"...Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
What i have not seen is conclusive reliable sources stating without any contradictions or potentially confused wording mixing up club/company... is that the club this article is about ceases to exist and that the new rangers is an entirely different club, rather than just under the control of a different company. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Good find.. also i liked the opening sentence.. "WITH only days to go before Rangers begin life all over again there should be a sense of anticipation sweeping through a club which has been disgraced, discredited and dumped in the game's basement." - so im slightly confused, the club he declared dead... is now beginning a new life. And he views it as the same club, because he talks about a club that has been disgraced and discredited. that clearly references the club under the old company, not the new company. theres the contradictions again, not just in the same media orgs, but the same writters and often in the same article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I just say

Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion

Andrewcrawford has not only had to deal with more than other editors have to but has maintained a level of impartiality throughout this whole issue. Maybe if other editors had not decided to vandalise the page it would have made things a bit easier. Editors like him are why Wikipedia is regarded so highly in the world and I for one think he has been excellent in dealing with this. BadSynergy (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed he has been very reasonable to both views,, the abuse above by the IP was totally unfair and certainly not based on actions. The IP obviously did not like attempts to try and resolve the situation as the above vote attempted so decided to just hit out with an offensive rant. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Andrew has been intsrumental in us finally achievving consensus in this emotive issue, and has now suffered personal attacks for his contribution. I think this highlights the mindset and attitudes of those who are looking to abuse this article in the first place. Ricky072 (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Did this abuse get removed? Can't seem to find it. Sparhelda 17:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes Ricky removed it, if you won't to see it check talk page history. BadSynergy (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Just did, pretty disgraceful. Sparhelda 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thanks for the support, i dnt understand why me i hasve cleared said i am on both sides i can only summarise the ip user knows me in person or because i am one driving the discussion anf potentisl change i am the target really putting me of trying to resolve this--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I´m glad you haven't been put off by this faceless IP Andrew. You have remained calm and collected throughout this whole debate. Just by reviewing the style of writing and language used I believe a sock puppet could have been at work by a certain editor who was constantly involved in this discussion but hasn't contributed for a while. If i didnt have better things to do I would open an investigation. Monkeymanman (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, we know there are hordes of meatpuppets here from Rangers Media [12] Perhaps you could include that in your investigation? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

it probally true for both sides, but you need to prove what editors from that forum or other have came here to influence decision, either way what is happening now is from estbalish editors not jsut the new ones--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  • There are hordes of meatpuppets here from both Rangers and Celtic fora. Unless they contribute in a way which is relevant to Wikipedia policy, they will be ignored, and if they are disruptive, blocked. This is a subject which can do without sectarian bullshit intruding on it. Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Any evidence for this sort of activity on Celtic fora? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't looked and have no interest in doing so, but given previous issues in this area it is inevitable, and let's face it, the evidence is ... fairly obvious. Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm not sure it is obvious or inevitable. There's certainly been lots of paranoid accusations about Celtic fans coming here for mischievous reasons. But I think the truth is that fans of all clubs in Scotland (bar Rangers) are more-or-less as one on the issues being discussed here. It was supporters of the little teams who ran a #notonewco campaign to stop Sevco taking the old club's place in the SPL. They also foiled the plot to put Sevco straight in Scottish Division One. As an outsider with a degree of objectivity I'm confident this is the majority viewpoint, which is reflected in the reliable WP:RSs both within Scotland and "outwith" (as they say up there). We are seeing this subverted here by an influx of Rangers POV pushers, SPAs and meatpuppets, more interested in WP:TRUTH than our core policies. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet these so called non POV editors edited this article without consensus and created a new team page at same time. BadSynergy (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely Clavdia this situation just shows the weakness in wikipedia. Its quite clear there have been many SPAs on here who are Celtic fans (its quite clear to me but you will probably put your fingers in your ears and trill lalalalala)
any evidence for this sort of activity on Celtic fora?. Your the one who likes to scour fan forums and post it here to stir things up. Why dont you check (but even if you found something you will probably put your fingers in your ears and trill lalalalala)
In this debate you continually claim you are an outsider or impartial. Then why are your comments about the club and its supporters littered with sly digs and weasel words? Monkeymanman (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
From a personal standpoint, and I think in the spirit of Wikipedia, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt and assume Clavdia is an impartial observer until evidence suggests otherwise.
With regards the many other 'newco' football clubs with one Wikipedia article referencing the entire duration, including pre-liquidation, of the club's history, I expect this user will have been as active in attempting to change their existing content, or perhaps create a new page for the perceived "new club", to right the wrongs they maintain - without justification in my opinion - are perpetrated by allowing a newco club, Rangers in this instance, one all-encompassing article.Gefetane (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rangers_F.C./Archive_24&oldid=1143714989"