Jump to content

Talk:The Rangers Football Club Ltd/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

This Page is for Charles Green's New Club

The Club is a seperate Club to that of Craig Whyte born in 1872. This shall be used as the New Club's page until the Name is set in stone. Once officially named it can then be moved to a New Page.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd be very tempted to change the title to the company name, considering that the name of the company is currently in dispute, never mind the club (see BBC source within article). In fact, seeing as the company haven't even been granted admission into any league, I'd be tempted to not even refer it as Rangers whatsoever. Smoothy (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This should be renamed Zombie Rangers :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.147.91 (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The club and the company are completely seperate entities. The former page was called Rangers Football Club, which is a seperate entity to The Rangers Football Club PLC, which was the company that formerly owned Ranger Football Club before the transfer to The Rangers Football Club Ltd. As the club has transferred to a different company (as has happened with other clubs - including Celtic) the club is still intact and therefore the original article, Rangers Football Club, is the correct and ongoing article. — Preceding comment added by Zoom15000 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was procedural close. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rangers Football Club Ltd → Liquidation of Rangers F.C. – Per previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rangers Football Club Ltd. James Morrison (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

seems reasinable to me Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This article is not about the liquidation of Rangers FC - it is about the attempt to build a club to fill the void that would otherwise be created by the liquidation of Rangers FC. I can see that the title may need changed but we don't know what the name of this football club will finally adopt, assuming it does gain admission to both the SFA and SFL. Perhaps a title like 'Newco Rangers' would be the most appropriate title at this stage. That term is certainly being used widely in the media and does sum up what this article is covering. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - thoroughly misleading title. This is about the new club not the liquidation of the old Rangers. TerriersFan (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
that because you all believe it isa new club, i have shown there is plenty of sources that say it the same club, and until it is clear as you have put it we are speculating, nothing is confirmed that it is 100% a new club give me realible proof it is new club ie a new registration document with the new club name and then i will sie with you until then the newco is the old clubAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Nope; whether or not it is a new club the article manifestly is not about the 'Liquidation of Rangers F.C.'. It's ridiculous to suggest it is. On whether there is a new club, both Sky Sports and BBC have stated all day that XY players has refused to move to the 'newco', 'new club' or 'New Rangers' (they have used all 3 formulations). If fans want to consider its the same club that's fine but as a responsible encyclopaedia we have to be more objective. If proof is need the old Rangers have a vote, cast by the administrators, as to whether the new Rangers can be readmitted to the SPL. So even the SPL consider they are separate clubs. Also all the Scottish sources refer to 'Newco Rangers' eg http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/aberdeen/107877-aberdeen-are-the-fifth-spl-club-to-confirm-they-will-vote-against-newco/ . TerriersFan (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
go read disputer resolution noticeboard i have post wha ti believe which is excately what your saying but as you say wikipedia has to be responibale as such it aint because the ources are conflicting but because you think it fun because rangers have dmeised you wont look at it from both sidesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Andrewcrawford. Please watch what you say: saying "because you think it fun because rangers have dmeised you wont look at it from both sides" does not appear to assume good faith. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The assertion that Rangers F.C. ceased to exist this year isn't supported by our own article, which continues to refer to the club in present tense. I don't think I understand the issue well enough to weigh in on the discussion at this point, but I wanted to point out this discrepancy, as well as to comment that while the current article name is an official-looking mess, it's not clear what the scope of this article is going to be going forward. Especially if we come to the decision that Rangers F.C. doesn't exist anymore, this article would be about much more than just the liquidation. That said, Liquidation of Rangers F.C. sounds like it could be a good standalone article, and Newco Rangers seems like it could be a good name in the meantime. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The Rangers FC article should continue to be in the present tense for now as the liquidation process is not complete. I agree with the suggestion of moving this article to Newco Rangers. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC the club still exists today and will continue to exist going forward, under the ownership of The Rangers Football Club Ltd company. Titles, history and assets were transferred to the newco, as has been done with many clubs, including Celtic, without question. The Rangers Football Club Ltd article, if it is to continue, should refer only to the company which owns the football club, not the club itself as that continues under the new company. The SFA have stated that any application by Rangers for membership in the league system comes with a requirement they take on the football debts and fines of the old company, which makes it clear they consider the club to be one and the same. An equivalent to this article would be The Rangers Football Club PLC, which is the previous company to own Rangers Football Club. — Preceding comment added by Zoom15000 14:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoom15000 (talk • contribs)

Wholeheartedly agree with Zoom15000, A page should be made for the previous company to own the club (The Rangers Football Club PLC) and this page should only be about the company owning the club (Sevco Scotland / The Rangers Football Club LTD), not about the club or the team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainturnerisgod (talk • contribs) 12:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree this article should be merged and or deleted. However it depends very much on the POV. I fear sadly that many people have axes to grind and are not always acting in good faith when debating the Rangers F.C. dead or alive, club v company issues. There may never be an unbiased consensus. I wonder what is the point. Johnelwaq (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Since this article was WP:BOLDly moved to a name besides the two involved in this RM, I'm carrying out a procedural close. (It's only a day early, at any rate.) This should not create prejudice against another RM, regardless of how soon. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal for change to article name to Newco Rangers

Checking the news reports and google searches, it is quite clear that 'newco Rangers' is being adopted as the name of the club that is seeking to carry forward the 'essence' of Rangers FC rather than the current article name. Is there support to move this article from 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd' to 'Newco Rangers'? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Although i agree it represent wha tthis article is about more better, the fundemental points of whether this aritcle is appiorate or needed have not been address, although i am not goign to argue the point of wha thte sources say, i have proved i am neutral by the act i am willign to support both arguments i will look to take this forward the dispture to the next level and until ther eisa conesus then i will take it to the final stage because we need a conesus not POV, ive already said if the conesus is to go the way we have it jsut now i wont argue with it and support the decision, as long as both article clear reflect what the sources say and are neutral and not bias are certainly no POV in itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I do think this is the best course of action at this time. To paraphrase one of our templates, that may change rapidly as events progress. --BDD (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Totally agree. I came to this article when I clicked Sevco 5088 and the present title could easily confuse readers. A newco Rangers article would explain things clearly and could then be renamed once the final name of the new club is settled. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I've done it - no one had commented that Newco Rangers was not a better name. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

News article

This currently reads like a news article and not an encyclopecid entry. If it is going to be kept then can it at least be tidied up. Adam4267 (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Ian Black

WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL

He's not a Sevco player - though may well become one - so he really shouldn't be in the squad at this juncture. Needs fixed. --82.41.20.198 (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2012

This page must be removed and or edit to an acceptable level, Rangers Football club did not enter liquidation what did happen is that the holding company of the football club went into liquidation. The Football Club cannot be liquidated, but the ltd company or plcs that own the club can,

The sale of rangers football club took place by the admistrators D&P and sold the football club to sevco, the football club still exsist in its current format since its birth in 1872 but is now owned by a new ltd company.

If you wish to verfiy this you may contact the owners of the football club or the Scottish Football Association


Kris120383 (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are incorrect on a number of levels. Rangers Football Club PLC was not 'the company that owns the club' - it WAS the club. The club was formed in 1872 (or 1873 is you go by its first official agm) and then became a limited company in 1899. That continuing entity is now being liquidated. By the way, a holding company is a company that owns another company. Rangers Football Club PLC did not own another company that was the club - IT WAS THE CLUB ITSELF. (Capitals for emphasis - not shouting.) The administrators did not sell the club to sevco - they sold the club's assets to sevco. Sevco would not buy the club unless the debts were written of as part of an agreed CVA - when that didn't happen, sevco didn't want to but the club with all the debts that would come along.
Therefore, please try to help improve this article, rather than focus on the past, however glorious. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
altohugh i disagree with fishhelper on this i would like to say a club can be liquidated but in this occassion the sources suggest it hasnt but this issue is far to deep to be decided by a few editors it needs wider ocmmunity input please provide yoru arguments and referneces support your claim on my talk page and i will be making request for comment soonAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Club liquidated or not

This is invite to all users who contest this regardless if it for the club is liquidated or the club is not liquidated can you please, post on my talk page with topic for saying something similar to "Why the club survives" with your arguments and sources please, and user who believe the club is liquidated make a post saying something like "Why the club is liquidated" with your arguments and sources and post it on my talk page please. Then i will draw arguments together and sources and make Request for Comment which will get other user who do not have conflict of interest or POV to try help get a consensus on this.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Authorities have decided that Rangers FC is continuing under the new company structure

Per http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18754479

"The notice of the special general meeting proposes "that Rangers FC shall play in the Third Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13 unless the board shall have to its satisfaction negotiated and reached agreement with The Scottish Premier League and The Scottish Football Association on a series of measures which the board shall consider to be in the best interests of the game. How it is structured, how it is governed and how it is financed, whereupon the board shall be authorised to provide that Rangers FC shall play in the First Division of the Scottish Football League during season 2012/13" (my emphasis).

The point here is that the authorities concerned have clearly decided that Rangers FC is continuing, but now under a new company structure. Therefore there is not a new club and this article should be redirected to the main Rangers FC article. You may or may not like the fact, but that is what the relevant authorities have determined. James Morrison (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

that is your pov, just because it say rangers fc doesn't mean anything, the other side of the argument is sevco bought the right to the trademark name rangers fc so if it is new club which i aint saying it is, then they could be easily talking about the new club instead of just keep saying stuff without backing it up help make a case for it, post your argument for it with all yoru sources on my talk page i will present rfc to try resolve this once and for allAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, just POV. All this proves is that the SFL have no problems with the newco club using the same name as the oldco Rangers. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The SFA is considering an application to transfer the Rangers FC membership of the SFA to the new company [1]. The point being that it is not a new membership. James Morrison (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
yes in this case you are correct they are considering it, but if they refuse it then yes there is no argument then it will be new club but until then it is in dispute hence why i am taking this to request for comment to get wider community input and consensus please post your argument with source and any examplesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The are considering a request to transfer the membership because that was what Sevco Scotland Ltd asked them to consider. Whether or not this request is granted is irrelevant as far as the 'did the club die at liquidation' argument is concerned. The fact that they are having to apply for the membership of the old club already illustrates that the old club will not be requiring it and the new club does! Remember that clubs are members of the SFA and so if the club were continuing as before, despite the 'newco' now owning it (as some are suggesting), it would retain its membership and would not need to apply for the membership to be transferred to it. In summary, the SFA are considering whether to transfer the membership from one club which is being liquidated, to a replacement club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
not entirely that depends on who is right, if the company holds the membership then no it does hold weight to the argument, ie if the company owns the club and the club is a tangible assesst then it does matter because they jsut apply for new license and not ask to transfer it because the club is lqduaited and they cant trasnfer from something that doesnt existAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The club has not been fully liquidated yet - it is still therefore a member of the SFA since it has not been expelled. Sevco Scotland wants that club's membership. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. You're basically saying that even if the SFA says that Rangers FC has continued under a new corporate structure, you're just going to ignore that and insist that this is a new club anyway. That is absurd and blatant violation of WP:NOR. James Morrison (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Not at all, Jmorrison230582, if the SFA come out and say 'Rangers FC has continued under a new corporate structure' we would have to accept that position. However they are not being asked to make such a statement - unless you can correct me on this - my understanding was that Sevco Scotland is seeking to have Rangers' membership of the SFA transferred to themselves. It is you who are appear to be interpreting in advance that if the SFA agrees to transfer Rangers' membership of the SFA that would equate to them stating that 'Rangers FC is continuing under a new corporate structure'. I have no problem at all with a successor club taking over the mantle of Rangers FC and, indeed, would wish them well, but let's not pretend that a successor club is the same club! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
If the membership is transferred, it is a continuation of the same club that has been registered with the SFA since Rangers FC was formed and predates the limited company that is due to be liquidated by over 25 years. If there is a continuation of membership and has the same name, then there is no legitimate basis to say that it is a separate club. James Morrison (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
When Rangers FC became a limited company in 1899, the same entity made a change of it details - a clear continuation of membership. Even when Airdie United merged with Clydebank and then changed the football club's name to Airdie United as a way of getting into the league, there was a continuation of membership as all that happened in effect was a name change to the original club. However, Sevco Scotland did not merge with Rangers FC and did not buy Rangers FC - it bought Rangers' assets and now wants to have Rangers' SFA membership transferred to it on that basis. This is not a 'continuation of membership' - it would be a 'transfer of membership', albeit to a successor club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
You're mistaken about the Airdrie / Clydebank situation. Airdrieonians F.C. was liquidated and ceased to exist completely. A new entity called Airdrie United F.C. took over Clydebank F.C. and adopted their SFA membership and position in the Scottish Football League. Airdrie United was a continuation of Clydebank, in the same way that Livingston F.C. was a continuation of Meadowbank Thistle. If the SFA authorises Sevco to adopt the Rangers FC membership, there would be no disruption in the history of the club registered with the relevant association. By your logic, there should be separate articles for Hibernian F.C. covering the periods 1875–1891 and 1892–present, because it temporarily ceased its membership of the SFA but then resumed that membership after its finances / organisation problems were sorted out. James Morrison (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Firstly I thought that's what I said about Airdrie United - it merged (ie took over) with Clydebank and therefore got their membership by being a continuation of the previous entity. Anyway, I think I see the difference between us: you are looking at continuation of the membership in a different way from me. To me, 'continuation of membership' is about the same legal entity continuing and a transfer of Rangers' membership of the SFA to Sevco Scotland is not a continuation of the same legal entity. You, however, are thinking about the continuation of the 'spirit' of Rangers from one legal entity to another. Or am I wrong? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


The way this situation is being handled on wikipedia is a disgrace. "rangers" very clearly still exists as media show, all that has changed is its a new company. This should all be in the main rangers article, or the defunct company having its own article. The football club is clearly very different to the company that ran it. This setup should be changed asap to stop misleading and incorrectly informing readers. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The treatment of Rangers is exactly the same as what has happened recently with Darlington FC and Darlington 1883 - two articles for the oldco and the newco. What happened at Darlington, with the assets being bought from the oldco by a newco when the oldco couldn't get an agreed CVA to allow it to avoid liquidation, is very similar to the situation at Rangers. Difficult to see why they should be treated differently. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Darlington FC page is been disputed in the same way the current Rangers FC pages are, and is also running almost concurrently with the Rangers FC situation in that the reformation of a newco took place in 2012. Therefore it is unreasonable to use darlington FC's wikipedia article as precedent over Leeds, Charlton, Napoli & Fiorentina Ricky072 (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, the darlington method is not the only precedent and it is a recent situation, after a brief look at both articles i have to say i think the darlington one is being handled very badly and not a mistake that should be made here. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You're missing a key point with Darlington / Darlington 1883.

Point being that there are FA regulations which now prevent newcos from taking on the previous identity of a club and therefore the newco had to adopt a new name for its club. I don't think there are any such SFA regulations. James Morrison (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point BritishWatcher (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
So what if the new club had been able to use the same name - it would still be a new club because the old club was a company that was being liquidated and the new club was its replacement. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
No it would be the same club, different company. Again if rangers football club existed for decades before an incorporated company was formed, why does it cease to exist simply when that company goes into liquidation. The club, its fans, history, stadium and even its website which is being used to source many parts of the article still exists, its simply under the control of a new company trading under the name The Rangers Football Club. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
No doubt some will use "Rangers" as a shorthand for the new club, especially if it is ultimately allowed to call itself something similar. But I'm not sure we should read too much into that, after all, Aldershot Town are often termed simply "Aldershot". Nobody takes that as conclusive proof that the two clubs are one and the same. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
AC Fiorentina reformed as ACF Fiorentina in 2002, yet are still recognised within the same Wikipedia page. The Newco or re-incarnation of Fiorentina purchased the rights to be known as "Fiorentina" and other brand related copyrights such as the clubs badge, colours & kit. This should be precedent for Darlington. Ricky072 (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The Fiorentina case resulted in a rule change called the Lodo Petrucci. Briefly and crudely, Italian clubs can go bust, drop down a division and then carry on unmolested under new ownership. Presumably that's why Italian newcos are ten-a-penny. In Scotland there is no such rule (yet!) and in the UK we've obviously never had a club the size of Rangers fold before. Most independent sources/coverage seems to support the idea that the liquidation is terminal to the 1872 club and its history. As with Halifax, Darlo, Farsley, Scarborough, Gretna, Chester etc. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The fundamental difference between Rangers & Halifax, Gretna & the above named clubs is that Rangers Football Club was sold by the administrators. HMRC explain the sale of the club with the following quote "Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation. So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route." HMRC interpret that the club was sold with quote "sale of the club". The above named clubs didn't not buy the clubs in the administration/liquidation process. Those clubs were wound-up & dissolved, with fans groups creating pheonix clusb from scratch, without the assets, but more importantly, without the legal right to the identity of the old clubs. Rangers situation has precedent set in the UK by Leeds, Ken Bates consortium purchased the club Leeds via a Newco sale upon failure of the proposed CVA. In the case of Napoli & Fiorentina, those clubs were allowed to "purchase" the identity & legal right to use the old names & badge after the reformation. Therefore the 4 named clubs (Rangers, Leeds, Napoli & Fiorentina) have the LEGAL RIGHT to be indentified as the old clubs. Gretna, Halifax etc... do not. Ricky072 (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Leeds and the Italian clubs are different. Firstly every FA has different rules and the Italian FAs allow clubs to go bust and continue. Leeds are run by the FA, Rangers by the SFA. So there is no "UK precedent". Leeds didn't technically go bust either, I don't know the technicalities of how they did it. But they didn't go bust yet somehow managed to reform as a new club. There is no difference between Rangers and the other clubs. The old club was still dissolved and a new club was re-formed with the same name. Its just in Rangers case it happened more quickly. Adam4267 (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
If you admit "you don't know how they are different" perhaps you should not contribute to the debate. Leeds did "go bust" as you put it, or technically they "liquidated". Here is proof: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00170600 this is the OldCo, note 'status: in liquidation'. What is liquidation exactly? http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liquidation Liquidation is the process where the companies assets are sold and the proceeds is used to give a return to the creditors. Leeds underwent this process, as proven by the source above. Ken Bates purchased the assets from the OldCo and transferred everything over to a Newco. As is the case with Rangers. The 'other' clubs aford mentioned such as Gretna, Halifax, DID NOT purchase the assets, and therefore did not purchase the rights or legal identity to represent themselves as the old clubs. Rangers & Leeds DID. It's a mjor & fundamental difference. It's also a factuality and not an opinion. Ricky072 (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Ken Bates purchased the assets from the OldCo and transferred everything over to a Newco." - Can you prove that claim? My understanding was that he actually purchased the club, then restructured the corporate identity of the club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, here you go - he purchased the club, not just the assets. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes i can prove that claim. When a club goes into administration, it can exit administration in 2 different ways, via a CVA or via Liquidation. The article you sourced is dated at the very beginning of the process where the club was placed into admin and instantly agreed by the admins to sell to Bates who proposed a CVA. In the same manner, Duff&Phelps agreed to sell to Charles Green via a CVA. Both CVA's failed (although for different reason) and therefore the sale of the club was done via liquidation. The definition of "liquidation" is the sale of an insolvent companies assets in order to generate funds to then be split between creditors. Ken Bates consortium therefore formed a Newco in 2007 and purchased the assets (including the legal identity & intellectual property) from the OldCo which was in liquidation. It's the same process. And here is the proof: NewCo Leeds (LEEDS UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED) purchased the assets & business from OldCO Leeds (LEEDS UNITED ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (THE)). Here is a further source, the herald, which confirms this: http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/sport/football/quick-redundancies-are-brutal-but-also-fairer.16945235?_=50d0859b0f3b58690bcf42810401da775be22c96 QUOTE: "The assets were then sold to a newco Leeds United set up by Ken Bates" Ricky072 (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

New section started on football wikiproject

I have started a new section Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Rangers_F.C to discuss this matter further and hopefully get additional views from those less involved in the current debate. If people could summarise their views on the problem / why the articles are correct it would probably save the other people from the project a lot of time. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

article contents is disputed

Until the situation regarding this article and Rangers F.C has been cleared up, the disputed template should appear on this article and on the rangers FC article. It is clear from this talk page and the rangers talk page that the current wording and method of explaining the recent developments are heavily disputed and contentious. That being the case, one pov should not be treated as the accurate factual one. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If there are factually incorrect statements in this article, please point them out so that the information can be corrected. Thanks Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
" Newco Rangers is the common name being used to describe the new football club" , whats in dispute is if that is a new football club, or if this is a new company that acquired rangers football clubs assets. The biggest problem is in the main rangers article, but clearly this ones emphasis is impacted heavily by how the terminology is determined. its the whole club/company debate im afraid. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I assume however that you accept that loads of reliable sources exist to support the above statement? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"trading name" removed as not consistent with other football clubs documented on Wikipedia. Changed paragraph on "formation" to read that Charles Green purchased the "business and assets" as quoted within the provided source to Charles Greens statement. Statements from administrators Duff&Phelps also support that Charles Greens consortium purchased the business & assets. Club name changed to "rangers" & "rangers football club" as this is what the club is widely known as, again, remaining consistent with how other clusb are documented within Wikipedia. No other clubs are documented by the company name, otherwise Arsenal 'Full name' would read: "Arsenal Holdings PLC" and not "Arsenal Football Club".Ricky072 (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is not currently about a club it is about a company which is trying to become a club. Adam4267 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
If you are desputing that the club is not yet formed, then the first sentence "Newco Rangers is the common name being used to describe the new football club" is factually inaccurate. Either it's a club or not, within the article it states that Rangers are a club and the page is structured and presented in a way that other football clubs are structured on Wikipedia. Ricky072 (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, this article is about a company, not a football club. Sadly both articles fail to reflect that properly though. Rangers F.C should be about the club that exists today owned by this company and which existed decades before the previous company was incorporated in 1899 and went into liquidation in 2012. Club / Company are two entirely different things, as demonstrated by the differences in the dates of founding/ company incorporation. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe the best way to handle all this would be for this article to merge with Rangers F.C reflecting they are talking about the same football club. Rangers F.C article needs to make clear that it was run by one company in 1899 to 2012 and is presently incorporated under a new name trading as The Rangers Football Club. Rangers is the same club (fans, history, stadium, website etc), its just different companies in ownership of it. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, it also seems that this page was created by "superbhoy1888" which would explain why the article is written from a bias & malicious point of view. Ricky072 (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Very true, also note a different editor with the name "Celticbhoy97" made a number of edits to this article too, im sure the similar style of name is a complete coincidence. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please Britishwatcher, you keep saying the same things despite explanations being given to you. You say "its just different companies in ownership of it" - don't you accept that the club WAS a company (it wasn't owned by a company - it WAS a company.) If you can't see this distinction, it's difficult to see how this discussion can move forward.

Ricky 072, if you think the article is biased, please help improve it. I certainly don't see evidence of a 'malicious point of view', but if you do, please improve the article in that regard also. I have reverted you change as to the name in the infobox as the application to the SFA was from Sevco Scotland - not from The Rangers Football Club. As they plan to change the company name to that at the end of July, the article can be updated then. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
No.. I believe the two things are entirely different. there is a club that was founded in 1872 which continues to exist today with fans, players, a stadium, a website etc, meanwhile that club has to be owned/run by an entity. In 1899 decades after the club was formed, an incorporated company was created to do just that, something that ended in June when it was liquidated, and then the clubs assets were transferred over to a newly incorporated company. You say im saying the same things, but so are you. I fully accept the legal entity is different to the one that existed a month ago, but its the same club. Leave aside all legal aspects (remembering that something does not have to be incorporated to be a club), do you honestly believe that rangers fans, the media and even rangers enemies see the new company as an entirely different club, which has no history? Of course they dont so why should the article pretend that is the case? BritishWatcher (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
An honest answer: I believe that Rangers fans will never accept that Rangers FC is coming to an end to be replaced be a new Rangers to carry forward the true spirit of the club. One reason I don't think they will accept it is that Green's consortium and others are constantly pumping out the same argument that 'we bought Rangers' despite the fact that they didn't'. Do you think the fans of AFC Wimbledon see themselves as a different club form the Wimbledon that one the FA Cup? Yet the reality is that AFC Wimbledon was a fresh start (due to their club being stolen effectively). As for fans of other clubs, they know that Rangers FC is being liquidated and realise that Rangers fans won't accept it - and will probably spend from now on reminding them precisely because they won't accept it! That said, this is not the reasl issue. A club coming out of administration by an agreed CVA is the same club moving forward - same article on Wikipedia. A club that enters liquidation and has to sell its assets to another company as a way of continuing the footballing entity in a new form, is creating a successor club - new article on Wikipedia. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Fishiehelper2 Wimbledon is a poor example as they physically moved grounds, changed name and shirts, so not the case with Rangers FC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middlesbrough_F.C. are still credited with a single page but were liquidated, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_(British_football), in 1986 and replaced by MIDDLESBROUGH FOOTBALL & ATHLETIC COMPANY (1986) LIMITED Date of Incorporation: 17/09/1985 http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/65f0190c54fc780c4ae77fe8c76fd7ea/compdetails. Where is the consistency? The story of Rangers football team should be preserved on 1 page for neutral readers to see its full story. It's abstract to the whole semantic of you mixing up of club and company. S2mhunter (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The reason I used Wimbledon was because, legally, Wimbledon FC moved to a new stadium about 60 miles away and then changed their name to MK Dons. The Wimbledon fans were furious at this 'theft' of their club and started a new club - AFC Wimbledon - which has now risen to league 2. Although it is clearly a new club, the vast majority of fans believe it is the continuation of the club that won the FA cup in the 1980's. That is the point I was making: if even those fans believe AFC Wimbledon is really the same club, how much more will Rangers supporters who will see many of the same players, in the same stadium, in the same colours, and will believe it is the same club. Add to that that Charles Green keeps on saying how 'he bought the club' when he bought the 'assets and business interests' after Rangers entered the liquidation process, and you can see why fans may genuinely believe it. But all that, of course, does not change the reality that what we are dealing with here is a relaunched club to replace the one being liquidated. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The most important aspect for Wikipedia in this debate is achieving consistency. The simple question should be, does the Newco have the legal right to represent itself as the same club? In the cases of Charlton, Middlesborough, Leeds United, Napoli & Fiorentina, the answer is yes. At some point the 'Newco's' purchased the legal rights to do so, and therefore is recognised by Wikipedia o nthe same page. Clubs such as Chester & Halifax DID NOT purchase that legal right, and therefore are recognised as different clubs, with different club names, logos, as the have no ownership of the old legal identity or intellectual rights. When Wikipedia chooses a template to follow, should it be the Leeds, Charlton, Middlesborough, Napoli or Fiorentina model, or the Chester, Halifax model? Well, Since Charles Green purchased the legal rights in the exact same way Ken Bates purchased the legal rights to Leeds (via the process of liquidation), it is clear that Rangers FC must follow this precedent. Ricky072 (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, as I have repeated explained, the comparison with Leeds United is flawed. Secondly, Green's consortium has purchased the right to use the Rangers' name - you are then assuming that having the right to use the same name means that it is the same club. I am suggesting that it allows him to relaunch a club with the same name. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The comparison is not flawed, both were asset purchases where the Newco purchased the business & assets from the OldCo in liquidation, as proven above. Ricky072 (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Prove that Leeds United was only as asset purchase pleae? I have sources that say that Ken Bates' consortium bought the club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I also have sources that say Charles Green "purchased the club". It boils down to the semantics of the word 'club'. Sources that say Ken Bates & Charles Green purchased the club take my point of view that the OldCO's "business & assets" constitutes the club. Links supplied in the section above which proves proof that Leeds underwent liquidation (the process of selling off assets to get a return for the creditors) and the assets were purchased by Ken Bates Consortium. Ricky072 (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Apart from Charles Green or anyone else with a vested interest in perpetuating that myth? Please provide a reliable source that clearly states that Charles Green or Charles Green's consortium or Sevco 5088 or Sevco Scotland "purchased the club" - that is the phrase I am looking for which you say yuo have. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is common terminology in both the case of Leeds & Rangers for journalists to simply claim that Bates or Green "bought the club", and it comes down to the semantics of what a club consists of. I would argue that both Ken Bates & Charles Green bought the clubs, because the club is made up of the assets which the purchased, inclusive of the legal identity & legal right to trade as "LUFC" or "RFC". http://www.highland-news.co.uk/Sport/Football/Inverness-Caley-Thistle/Fans-views-will-influence-ICTs-Rangers-vote-21062012.htm QUOTE: "Rangers entered administration on February 14. A consortium led by Charles Green bought the club last week" Ricky072 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
What is your definition of a 'club', if not the assets and people, compared to a company? CLUB - a group of persons organised for a social, literary, athletic, political, or other purpose: the building or rooms occupied by such a group. COMPANY - a business enterprise. The two are no defined the same because they aren't. Therefore Rangers FC should be treated the same by Wikipedia as the other clubs e.g. Leeds Utd. S2mhunter (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
A club is really just an unincorporated organisation. The Rangers club became a company in 1899 I think. That company was then liquidated in 2012. Mooretwin (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
A club could decide to financially exploit and account for its activity but the club still carriers on its core (athletic) purpose as before. It could later decide to wind up the business side and return to being just a club as it once was; the two have different purposes. S2mhunter (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Even at the lowest level, football clubs deal with finance as well as playing sport - they have to pay for things like transport cost for example. Any club that goes bankrupt is forced out of business whether it is just a group of individuals running the club at a relatively low level or the 'group of individuals' has been incorporated into a company structure. If the club going bankrupt has company status, those running the club have a degree of protection from being pursued for recovery of the debts. So there is really no dichotomy between club/company in the way you are suggesting. If a club is also a company, and then goes belly-up, the club/company is finished. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Clubs can operate informally without the need of a company, as did the SFL when the clubs joined in 1890. A company operates the business enterprise of a club; different words, different meanings S2mhunter (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Fishiehelper is drowning the debate with his repeated 'opinion' that a club becomes 1 with a company without any factual evidence. The counter point of view is supported by many organisations, experts & journalists that a 'club' can be defined as a "business & assets" and therefore acquired from 1 company and transferred to another. It's unlikely concensus will be reached on the issue of Club vs Company, but there are 2 overriding factors. 1. A Newco has the legal right to preserve the legal identity of the club by purchasing it's assets, because it's assets are inclusive of all intellectual & copyrights, inclusive of the club name & legal identity. 2. Precedent has been set by Leeds (aswell as others, Leeds being the most recent and best documented) that it's possible for a Newco to acquire the clubs "business & assets" but maintain the identity as the same club. Ricky072 (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Fishiehelper, you're saying that if I create my own self-employed company, based on my name, and it goes bust, I would lose all of my individual history on Wikipedia and get a new birthday on the date that I create my next self-employed company, because I am the company? S2mhunter (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi S2mhunter, your analogy doesn't make sense, but thanks for trying. How about this analogy: My neighbour has a dog called Rex. It is a really great dog but the owner does not feed it properly and, very ill, it is taken to the vets. The vet say it will dies within days. I don't so want to let this great animal die so I buy my own dog, then persuade the Rex's owner to sell me the right to use the name Rex for my dog. Further, once Rex dies, I buy all the parts of the dog's body. I now own two dogs, and I swap their names! Perfect! Rex is alive and lives on in a new body! Rangers FC is alive and lives on in a new company.....convinced? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There is really no need to introduce nonsensical analogies into the debate, it just confuses matters. A football club is not a living thing like a dog or butterfly. A club is made up of a number of factors, such as players, a stadium, a name, badge & set of supporters (to name a few). A company can own whatever is tangible (such as the name, contracts & stadium, but not the supporters, players or league membership). There is nothing stopping another company purchasing every tangible asset of a football club and transferring those assets over to another company, and ownership therefore now belongs to the new company. Ricky072 (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
So if you offered to buy a football club and the owners refused but said they were willing to sell you every tangible asset of the football club, you'd accept their offer, believing you were getting exactly what you wanted? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Well say if you have a business as an ice cream van company, called "Fishie IceCream Ltd" and you trade as "Fishie's Ices!" with a logo displaying the trade name. It own's 2 ice cream vans, you operate one yourself and hire an employee to operate the other. Your business is very basic, is consists of 2 vehicles, the licences to operate, 1 employee contract, stock and the brand name & logo. That is the assets of your business. I could either purchase the company "Fishie IceCream Ltd" which would be the straight forward way, or, i could register my own NewCo "Ricky IceCream Ltd" and simply buy all your assets, and put them into my company, even though the 'company' name has changed, legally i own the rights to continue to trade as "Fishies Ices!" and use the same logo. Your "business" - the brand would still exist. Furthermore, your company maintains the same value for both an assets purchase & the sale of the actual company, because there is absolutely no difference in either method. With a football club, there is a difference. Because if you purchase the assets and transfer them, it results in losses as a result. For example, you lose the right to compete in Europe for 3 years, and face other hurdles such as sporting penalties related to transferring membership (in the case of Leeds this was a 15pt deduction), and also the uncertaintity of transferring player contracts. This means that in the football world, and asset purchase complicates the process and therefore decreases the value. This is why The Rangers F.C plc (1899) would have been worth upwards of £10m if purchased via a CVA, but only worth £5.5m when purchased as the business & assets. Ricky072 (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ricky072 - a post I actually agree with in entirely! The key bit is sporting penalties - if you do not come out of administration by an agreed CVA, but instead come out by the asset sale model you have just described, the sporting penalty is that you are now viewed as a new club - a real disincentive to go down that route. (And don't mention Leeds United - we clearly disagree about what happened, and why, in that case!) Regards 22:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

How can you "disagree" that Leeds United were liquidated and the assets purchased by a Newco? I've proven it as a factual event. You're refusal to recognise that Leeds United AFC Ltd 1920 was liquidated and assets sold to Leeds United FC LTD 2007 just comes across as point blank bias and refusal to accept facts to support your own agenda driven point of view. How much more evidence do you need. I've supplied you with companies house official record of the OldCo which states it's status as in liquidation & even supplied a quote from a Judge who chaired meetings between Newco Leeds & the English FL, in which he is quoted explaining that administrators of the OldCo sold the assets to NewCo Leeds. Why are you not accepting these FACTS? To say you disagree this did not happen is like refusing to accept that red is a colour or pork comes from pigs. Ricky072 (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Firstly Fishie never said he disagreed with that he said the pair of you disagreed on it. Leeds were allowed to transfer their membership across whereas Rangers have to get a new membership so the two situations are really not comparable and you should stop bringing Leeds up. Adam4267 (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
He (and i think also you) have disagreed that Leeds OldCo entered liqudiation & assets purchased by the Newco. You cannot 'disagree' with this. It happened. I do conceed you are correct however, that the EFL board decided they would allow Leeds to transfer membership from OldCo to NewCo at the expense of a 15-point penalty, meanwhile the SPL handled the situation, rather than the board making a decision, it was put to a vote to the member clubs, who did not allow the transfer. Leeds offer a precedent in how the club was purchased (business & assets purchased by newco from oldco in liquidation) and therfore relevant, with the biggest difference in the 2 situations is how the respective governing bodies dealt with the transfer of membership. Ricky072 (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's a quote from the herald article you provided earlier. The CVA is the only insolvency mechanism we've got that preserves the legal entity, says Richard Fleming, head of restructuring at KPMG, who was the administrator at Leeds United. "If it fails, the sale to a newco becomes the only viable option. So then they have the concept of granting the newco the share to play in the competition. It is a new legal entity, but in reality from one day to the next the club was playing football at the same ground in the same competition. Fleming clearly believes that because Leeds Newco took over from where the Oldco left off they are the same club. That situation does not apply to Rangers. Adam4267 (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
But now you making the case that a Newco therefore reserves the right to be granted continuity of the same club if their membership is transfered over? Well at least we have reached agreement that Leeds process of liquidation & Newco asset purchase is similar to that of Rangers. But it's now your stance that it's the same club if it's maintains it league share membership (as is teh case with Leeds), and should be identified as anew club if it is not granted the trasnfer of it's league share? (as is the case of Rangers). Ricky072 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

All I'm trying to say is that the two situations are different. Which you yourself have now admitted by saying they are "similar" (i.e not the same, i.e different). Even then that's incorrect because it's quite clear the two situations are very different but I suppose if you simplify the Leeds one down (like you have been doing) then they are "similar". In future please try and actually understand the situation before wasting everyone's time. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No 2 insolvency cases are ever exactly the same. What we are trying to do here is establish a precedent. Currently you seem to offering no substance or sources to the debate. Both Leeds & Rangers underwent the process of liquidation (the sale of the business and assets to a new company to maximise return for the creditors). It's on this basis we can establish Leeds as a precedent for Rangers and draw the relevant comparisons. Ricky072 (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
No, you are trying to establish a precedent so you can say "Look Rangers and Leeds are the same, they have to be treated in the same way". What every other editor has been saying is, they're not the same - they can't be treated in the same way. Considering that Rangers haven't even started liquidation procedure yet its quite clear you don't knoiw what you're talking about. And you even contradict yourself by saying No 2 insolvency cases are ever exactly the same (which is wrong anyway) then saying What we are trying to do here is establish a precedent (again wrong because we are not doing anything, but the idea of having one thing be a precedent for something else which is different is just stupid - you probably don't actually know what the word means. Here is a link Precedent). Adam4267 (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid it is you who does not know what you are talkign about and i would reccomed you stick to editing articles concerning Celtic Ricky072 (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Leeds United Set Precedent

Leeds United, Bates Takeover, Administration & Liquidation

I've been researching the complexed administration & subsequent exit that took place at Leeds United in an effort to establish a precedent in the debate surrounding Rangers F.C. I also feel that the Leeds United Wikipedia page could document this episode with greater clarity.


1. Bates Takover 2005 & 'Roman Heavies' Liquidation 2006


2. Administration


3. Liquidation & continuation as the same club


Feel free to answer the above questions put forward relating to the uncertainty surrounding the Leeds takeover, corporate structure & administration/liquidation processes.

I would argue that the this sets precedent for the Rangers situation, as neither club was able to achieve a CVA, instead, a purchase of 'the business and assets' took place and was placed into a newly formed company in both instances. How the situations were handled afterwards by their respective governing bodies has varied however, with Leeds United being granted their membership transfer, while Rangers were not. Ricky072 (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a good bit of work Ricky072. One point I should add, which may (or may not) be relevant was the justification for Bates having to acquire the assets and business interests: I believe that having won the CVA vote, only to see HMRC lodge a legal challenge, the reality facing Bates was that if he then waited for the legal process to either uphold or dismiss the HMRC legal challenge, Leeds United would lose their place in the league and end up bankrupt. Therefore he could have potentially found himself in a situation where an agreed CVA to save Leeds United was upheld by the courts, but the waiting for that court judgement prevented their salvation! Faced with this, he felt he had no option but to go ahead in the way he did and plead his case to the League to have the share in the league transferred from oldco to newco. Under these particular, and highly unusual circumstances, the League allowed the transfer but thought it appropriate to deduct 15 points as a penalty for technically not emerging from administration by means of an agreed CVA. (I'm not sure but I seem to recall that following this, HMRC eventually dropped their objections and Bates acted as though the agreed CVA was in place, paying creditors etc - but I'm not totally sure.)
Anyway, there are differences between the Leeds United case and that of Rangers FC:
Firstly, Bates did get an agreed CVA for taking Leeds United out of administration whereas Rangers FC didn't - Bates was then prevented from delivering his CVA by court action.
Secondly, it could be argued that Bates had no choice but to take over the day to day running of the club by acquiring the 'assets and business' as to wait for the legal process would have killed the club (even if he eventually won in court): this was different from the Rangers situation where Green struck an agreement with the administrators to purchase the assets and business of Rangers FC in the event that his proposed CVA was rejected. By doing this, he made it clear to the creditors that there was no possibility of him coming back with a more generous CVA proposal, or of another bidder being able to offer a more generous CVA, in the case of rejection of the first CVA proposal.
Thirdly, 'sporting integrety': every case of a club going into administration is seen as 'inappropriate conduct' in the sense that clubs have often been benefitting from signing players when they could not afford either the fees or wages, and obtained a sporting advantage unfairly. That is why clubs are punished for going into administration by having points deducted. Once in administration, it is expected that clubs should leave administration by means of an agreed CVA. Clubs which followed this rule carried on without further penaly, history intact. Generally clubs that didn't, and were liquidated, had to start as 'new' clubs. Leeds United 'got away' with coming out of administration by buying the club's 'assets and business' because of the particularly unique circumstances in their case - and that led to an additional penalty of 15 points deducted. but the same club carrying on. Rangers are not in a particularly unique situation like Leeds United were. Rangers proposed CVA was rejected - not agreed and then blocked by legal action. What Green's consortium has done is essentially an attempt to 'ditch debt' without getting an agreed CVA. Should Rangers FC be allowed to 'get away' with not being liquidated like other clubs have, merely because they have chosen not to exit via an agreed CVA? Would that not be a form of rewarding cheating?
In summary, I don't believe Leeds United sets a precedent for Rangers FC because of the unique nature of the Leeds United case. I think a better precedent would be Halifax Town AFC who couldn't manage to get an agreed CVA, were then liquidated and reformed as FC Halifax Town, starting a few leagues lower in the English pyramid as a 'new' club. (Of course, under FA rules they have had to adopt a slightly different name but they were playing in the same ground, for the same fans who supported the 'brand' 'Halifax Town'.)
Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this link relevant? http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/887/RANGERS-FOOTBALL-CLUB-PLC PatGallacher (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the only bit that could be relevant is where the full judgement states that "Rangers operates an association football club" - had it stated that 'Rangers FC PLC owned a football club' it would have perhaps given some ammunition to those who believe that 'the company' and 'the club' are two separate entities, but it doesn't. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Fishiehelper2, your examples of Halifax, Wimbeldon and Chester involved the club's changing their names, which is fundamental to a change of identify, which is not the case for Leeds Utd and Rangers. On your 3 differences above:
1. Similarly to Rangers, Bates was prevented from delivering a CVA by the HMRC.
2. The administrators, not Green, designed the CVA package to include the NewCo route, that is why some bidders refused to bid. This was therefore not a variable of their control. If the administrators of Leeds had done the same thing, then any bidder would also have had the face the same restriction.
3. Rangers did not go into administration by taking any financial advantage of signing players, wages etc as it was Whyte who had decided not to pay taxes for 1 tax year (actually sold best player!). The EBT case is still outstanding. Each team's case will alw ays contain unique elements, what we are looking for are similarities. For example, if the SFA decide to award sanctions to Rangers by letting them back into the SFL, does that not show that they acknowledge that they are dealing with the same club (again, similar to Leeds 15 pts penalty)? If the Broadcasting Contract remains the same because Rangers are readmitted, does that not show that they also view the NewCo as the same club? While your question "Would that not be a form of rewarding cheating?" is correct, it is not relevant to our subject of how to treat Rangers FC on Wikipedia. S2mhunter (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
English FA rules force Newco clubs to change their names when applying back to the league. Adam4267 (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
(talk), your suggestion that 'Similarly to Rangers, Bates was prevented from delivering a CVA by the HMRC' - indicates that you have failed to understand the details of the difference I explained above. If you check again, you will see that while Bates followed the correct path by getting an agreed CVA with over 75% (only for HMRC to then take legal action), Green failed to achieve a CVA as he achieved less than the required 75%. Green then chose NOT to pursue a CVA route rather than put together a more attractive CVA proposal. Bates therefore tried to follow the appropriate route out of administration until unique circumstances prevented him. Green chose not to follow the appropriate route out of administration, choosing to buy the assets on the cheap even though that would lead to Rangers being finally liquidated. A clear difference that you appear to be unable to comprehend, or unwilling to acknowledge. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Despite all the other similarities, you are saying the only basis now for treating Rangers differently from Leeds on Wikipedia is that Bates agreed a CVA, even though it was never achieved because of HMRC. I am unable to acknowledge this difference is sufficient because it is being selective at best when no criteria has been established. S2mhunter (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm not "saying the only basis now for treating Rangers differently from Leeds on Wikipedia is that Bates agreed a CVA, even though it was never achieved because of HMRC". I am merely pointing out that there are differences, and one is that Bates made a genuine attempt to take an appropriate route out of administration that was only rendered impossible to deliver because the time taken to deal with a legal challenge would have killed the club, whereas Green chose the 'buying the assets and business interests route' when he didn't have to. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Fishie, you cannot state that Charles Greens attempt to win a CVA was not genuine. He put forward £8.25m to try and agree a CVA. Portsmouth are currently trying to push through a CVA of 2p/£ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2156409/Portsmouth-set-exit-administration.html and only 2 years ago shed up to 80% of debts with a 20p/£ deal. There is nothing to suggest Charles Greens efforts to exit via a CVA were no genuine, and he was also put off making a new offerdue to 1. time contraints for the new season, but more importnatly 2. HMRC claimed it was 'policy' not to agree any CVA deals when companies have history of not paying tax, indicating they wouldn't accept any CVA offer but would only accept debt repaid in full. Ricky072 (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Ricky072, the reason why I do not regard his offer as a genuine attempt to get an agreed CVA is that prior to putting the proposed CVA to creditors he had already agreed to purchase the assets and business interests from the administrators in the event of his proposed CVA being rejected. Remember that Green claimed to have felt misled by HMRC so if he is telling the truth about that, the fact that he had already agreed plans to purchase the assets and business interests in the event of a CVA rejection must be significant: he was sending out a message to creditors that he was not prepared to come back with an improved offer should his proposed CVA be rejected. I would be interested to know if you can think of other cases where football clubs have been in administration and a proposed CVA is put to creditors after the proposed purchaser has already done a deal to buy the assets and business interests of the club in the event of rejection. This has all the hallmarks to me of someone who came in to this thinking he could make a quick profit by buying the club for only £8.5M as part of an agreed CVA, or at worst getting the assets and business interests and continuing football at Ibrox, with no care nor consideration as to whether this killed the original Rangers FC or not. All he wanted was to gain assets/club/whatever cheaply which he could then sell on at a huge mark-up. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
But you are only putting forward your opinion, all of this is just yoru opinion on Charles Greens motives. the current company that owns and operates Leeds United was created by Ken Bates 3 days before he put Leeds UAFC ltd (1920) into administration. I woudl argue in the cases of both Ken Bates & Charles Green they were 'covering all bases', with the main focus being on achieving a CVA, and purchasing the business & assets via Newco being 'plan B'. If Bates managed to get a CVA there would be no need for a newco, the oldco would become debt free upon the payment of CVA. The fact that he created a newco 3 days prior to placing the company into admin suggest he knew this was a possibility. Ricky072 (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Did Bates make an agreement in advance to purchase the 'assets and business' if his CVA was rejected? Green did and it was announced prior to the CVA proposal being placed before a meeting of the creditors. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, KPMG's deal with Bates was done so quickly that CVA rejection was not even considered "Shortly after their appointment the joint administrators agreed to sell the business and its assets to a newly formed company called Leeds United Football Club Limited" http://www.kpmg.co.uk/news/detail.cfm?pr=2873.
However, that was what happened "20 Why should the Football League make an exception for Leeds and grant Forward's and Bates' new company its "golden share" of membership despite the purchase not having been done via a CVA, given that the League has insisted on the CVA process for all 41 of its other clubs which have fallen into insolvency since 1992?" http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2007/jul/27/leedsunitedtheunansweredqu?cat=sport&type=article
Furthermore, the Blue Knights' offer was not considered because Duff and Phelps wanted the newco as part of the offer, so it was the administrators who imposed this constraint "club’s administrators urged Kennedy to adopt Miller’s hybrid blueprint " and "Joint administrators Paul Clark and David Whitehouse believe it will be easier for any buyer to go newco" http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2012/05/02/rangers-in-crisis-american-truck-tycoon-bill-miller-closing-in-on-hybrid-deal-to-buy-ibrox-club-86908-23844791/ S2mhunter (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about the speed of Bates deal but this report makes clear that he won the necessary 75% of the vote for the proposed CVA. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
it's completely irrelevant, because the CVA ultimatl failed and they went down the newco route. it should also be noted that the arguements you are putting forward are all based on your moral hallmarks and perception on 'intnetions'. Read your own source you just posted. Bates proposed CVA was 1p/£1. He was trying to dump 99% of the clubs debt. Do you think it's right that they owed HMRC in the region of £7m but would have only paid £70'000 had the CVA gone through? By your same logic, when HMRC announced they were opposing the CVA, he could have said 'OK i'll increase my offer', but he never. Like Charles Green, he realised he couldnt satisfy HMRC and went down the NewCo route. The 'mind set' of the players involved is completely and utterly irrelevant. The simple fact is both Leeds & Rangers respective OldCo's liquidated & the business & assets were sold to the Newcos. Do you honestly still think that Halifax Town is a closer precedent to RFC than Leeds?? Ricky072 (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Like Charles Green, he realised he couldnt satisfy HMRC and went down the NewCo route." - Bates didn't have to 'satisfy HMRC', he just had to satisfy creditors who had between them 75% of the debt. He managed that, but then the result was subject to a legal challenge. In Green's case, the importance of HMRC was that they alone rejecting the proposed CVA meant that Green's proposal would not achieve the 75%. As for the best precedent, I see the Rangers FC case as one where the club had massive debt, it was realised or thought likely that the club would be liquidated and a newco was set up to carry forward the 'spirit' of the club, and that newco is now seeking to replace the original club. That's what happened with Halifax. I know the newco Rangers bought the assets of the original club, but the principle, to me, it is the same - a club going bankrupt preparing its own replacement. Regards Anyway, as you suggest, all this discussion on the minute details is not going to persuade either side - that's why a dispute resolution is necessary.Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your bias & point blank refusal to accept Leeds as precedent in this particular matter is almost astonishing, based upon incredibly weak points-of-view based upon motives, completely ignoring the legal facts and will be transparent to any neutral who considers the facts. You say "I see the Rangers FC case as one where the club had massive debt, it was realised or thought likely that the club would be liquidated and a newco was set up". So did Leeds, they also had "massive debt", a Newco was "set up" (to use your words) 3 days before Bates put them into voulntary administration (meaning he was preparing for a newco route). You say "thought likely that the club would be liquidated". Source? This is complete guesswork and speculation, almost accusing Green's attempts to gain a CVA a complete sham just for show. In the case of RFC a CVA was goal an a Newco was the backup plan. Same for Leeds, before HMRC launched a legal challenge to the CVA, Ken Bates recognised this and quoted saying "If there is a legal challenge it could take two or three months to get to court and be decided. In the meantime who is going to pay to run the club? 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. The implications are that the club would close down."[1]. You continue to argue that because the respective CVA's failed for different reason, the entire situation is different. It's irrelevant, if a CVA fails, it fails. If a company is liquidated, it is is liquidated. If a Newco is set-up to purchase the business & assets, then a Newco purchases the business and assets. The only fundamental difference in Rangers vs Leeds is that the English FL granted Leeds permission to transfer their share in the EFL, where as the SPL did not. To summarise in it's most basic form, the assets which form a football club were moved from 1 legal entity to another in the case of Leeds & Rangers. Goodwill (history, club name & the legal identity of the club) was inclusive of such transaction. In the case of Halifax, the business was wound-up, including it's assets. The new club has a different name, different legal identity, different badge. It's the same as Leeds City, which folded in 1919, hence the creation of Leeds United. Ricky072 (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
My bias? If the SFA were to say something unequivocal like "we are transferring Rangers' membership of the SFA to the newco club because it is the same original club in a different corporate structure", I would accept that and agree that a single article on wikipedia was appropriate. However, if the SFA were to say something like 'it had agreed to transfer Rangers' SFA membership to Sevco Scotland and welcomed the new Rangers club into membership', would you accept that the reference to 'new Rangers club' means that it was not being regarded as 'the same original club' and accept that two separate articles on wikipedia were appropriate? Over to you to demonstrate lack of bias on your part...Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The governing bodies have already refferred to Rangers as 'Rangers F.C'. Neil doncaster is chairman of the SPL, here is an interview with him where he explains Rangers are the same club (and infact he mentions there were 4 clubs in England where there was no CVA and a Newco, and specifically mentions Leeds): http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/top-football-stories/rangers-takeover-doncaster-reveals-newco-could-escape-spl-exit-1-2302872 but when i accuse you of bias, i'm talking specifically on this issue of Leeds being the precedent. I done some extremely thourough research and sourced out nearly every relevant document as proof that the process was the same (newco set-up, CVA failure, newco assets purchase) and you continue to simply refuse this factual evidence and don't want to recognise Leeds as precedent, when they clearly are. And your excuse being that in your opinion, Bates' "attempted" CVA was more genuine. Ricky072 (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
And that what i find most annoying that neither side of the argument is willing to accept the other side is right to and make comprise i have tried two times now to make a comprise that would reflect the situation but both times both sides oppose because it would not suit with there POV, not pointing fingers at anyone just annoying that this might end up have to be settled by the high up of wikipedia and that way will end up annoying one side and getting a about 40 odd articles on full protection permanently because the higher ups will take either stance of one side or take the side of both sides are right. I might have noticed i am taking less to do with thearguments and only realling posting sources that support both side of the argument case.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see how there can be a compromise on something so very fundamental. Either Rangers football club WAS a club, or IS a club (and under control of this company). if we can not get over that hurdle i fail to see how any alterations to wording will be possible. One side has to be right and the other side has to be wrong. there is no middle ground on if a club exists or not, merely uncertainty and the only way that middle ground would work is if it put Rangers Football Club might be a club.. which would look silly and still be just as bad for those of us who believe the rangers article and this one are grossly inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with BritishWatcher - I'm afraid I also don't see any compromise as being possible because the issues are 'black or white' with no possibility of any shade in between. For example, is the club being liquidated? - the answer can only be 'yes' or 'no'. Should there be one article or two articles? - it can only result in a 'yes' or a 'no'. I suspect that you will be right with your prediction that whatever the final decision, it will end up requiring some articles on full protection permanently. This is not what wikipedia should be about but I can't see any way for it to be avoided. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we should put the debate on hold until after the SFA make a desicion on what to do with Rangers' membership following the vote of the SFL. Here's hoping it makes things clearer. S2mhunter (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The two views are irrelevant, for the time being there are two companies, one new, one in the process of liquidation, thus we need two entries. Whether these get merged later or not depends largely on the rulings of the SFA/SFL and those are at present unknown. For the record, the handling of the Leeds Wikipedia page is very unusual, generally all iterations of these companies get their own page (See F1 teams and any number of football phoenix clubs). Hackerjack (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Leeds are not unusual Hackerjack, if you see Charlton, Middlesborough, Luton, Bournemouth, Rotherham United, Napoli & Fiorentina aswell. All these clubs have undergone liquidation where-by the business & assets have been purchased. The general standard for Wikipedia seems to be when the governing bodies agree to allow teh club to maintain the same club name. This is the case with all the clubs i just mentioned, all contained within the same wikipedia page. When a club has a name change' or is a 'phoenix club' (no assets purchased from OldCo to NewCo) Wikipedia tends to represent them as different clusb on different pages. This is the case of Chester & Halifax. Ricky072 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know ...

Hi all. I noticed that the Newco Rangers are being admitted to the SFL with associate membership. Does anyone know whether clubs who are relegated from the SPL to the SPL get full membership or associate membership? If the former, it would provide powerful evidence to support the view that Newco Rangers is seen as a new club, distinct from oldco Rangers. Thanks Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

SEE BELOW - found answer myself

Edit Request: Rename & Restructure this page

  • Following the precedent set by Leeds, this page should be structured similarly to this Wikipedia article which documents Leeds 'New company': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_United_Football_Club_Limited
  • Note the main difference is that this Wikipedia entry merely documents a company and does not present itself as a club, to avoid confusion, if it did, then Wikipedia would have 2 almost identitcal entries for Leeds United A.F.C.
  • The title of this article should be Sevco Scotland Limited [2] . "newco" is merely slang for 'new company'. Within the article it should describe "Sevco Scotland Limited is often refferred to as 'Newco Rangers' or 'Rangers Newco', a phrase used to describe the new company which owns & operates Rangers F.C".
  • Following the Leeds structure the opening sentence should read "Sevco Scotland Limited, founded 29 May 2012, is a limited company, of which are Charles Green is Director and CEO."
  • The contents & sections i would suggest be entitled as;
  • # Rangers in Administration - summary of Rangers being led into administration.
  • # Charles Greens Consortium - a detailed article of Greens takeover bid, his proposed CVA, it's failure & subsequent business & asset purchase of Rangers F.C to Sevco Scotland Ltd
  • # Failure to transfer SPL membership - a summary of events which describe the process whereby the SPL member clubs must vote on the approval of SPL membership, and the subsequent NO vote.
  • Sections to be added later to include the final solution in terms of league membership (matetr ongoing) & later "First Months of Operation" to documents the Newco's corporate performance.

This is the most logical solution, and ofcourse maintains consistency with Leeds United & other such clubs to have under gone the 'newco' process. The Rangers F.C page wil link to this page which should be a more in-depth article documenting the Newco & Charles Greens takeover. Ricky072 (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Whilst i think your proposal is far better than the status quo, i do not really see the need for a full article simply on the new company which will always be limited in terms of content consider all the football side of things belongs on the main rangers article. I think an article simply on the crisis covering the lead up to the trouble, the administration, incorporation of Sevco, sale of club to Sevco, and the fact the old company is going into liquidation. The main rangers article would then simply have a section that handles the corporate governance explaining the two separate companies, administration, transfer of club, liquidation of old company etc. However it is best we wait and see what happens tomorrow. both of these pages have been so flawed for over a week 1 more day wont hurt, but considering the increased interest there will be in the rangers article tomorrow when the news comes, there needs to be something on the shelf ready to put into the article if it can get consensus if clarification from the football authorities reassure those editors who currently believe was is more accurate than is. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Explain.Ricky072 (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this page is about the club that Green's consortium has put in place to replace Rangers FC which has entered liquidation. If it is established that that club does get accepted as a member of the SFA and also gains entry to a league, then we will be in a position to see whether the name of the article needs to change to reflect what the club will actually be called. If it is indeed 'Rangers FC' as seems to be the clear indication, then we can address the issue of suitable names for article about the old Rangers and the new Rangers at that point. Regards Fishiehelper2

(talk) 15:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Factually incorrect once more. "Rangers FC" has no entered liquidation, because "Rangers FC" is the name of a football club. "The Rangers Football Club Plc" has entered liquidation. Bourenmouth, Luton, Leeds & Rotherham are all clubs which have been moved out 1 company to another, while the old company entered liquidation. As we can see from how wikipedia documents the articles of 'F.C's' (club names) it establishes the difference between club & company. In the case of Leeds we have 1 page documenting the football club & a seperate page, referenced above, which documents the 'company' which purchased the assets from the liquidated OldCo. Ricky072 (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Factually incorrect once more: there was no was no separate entity 'Rangers FC', distinct or separate from 'Rangers FC PLC' at the time Rangers FC/Rangers FC PLC entered the liquidation process. This dichotomy exists only in the minds of those who refuse to believe or accept that Rangers FC is being liquidated. From 1872 to 1899, Rangers FC existed as an unincorporated organisation: from 1899 to 2012, Rangers FC has existed as a corporate organisation. That single, corporate organisation is now being liquidated. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Wrong again sorry, "Rangers F.C" is a 'club name'. This 'club name' has been purchased as an asset. A 'club name' cannot be liquidated. Here is the proof: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC004276 "The Rangers Football Club Plc" is the name of the corporate entity. Satus: In administration (soon to be in liquidation). It is therefore, a matter of proven, undeniable fact, that "The Rangers Football Club Plc" will be a company 'in liquidation' & "Rangers F.C" wil be a piece of intellectual property (a club name) under ownership of a newco. Ricky072 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay then, the club 'previously known as Rangers FC before the name was sold off to Green's consortium' is being liquidated. And of course, applying that name to another club doesn't make it a continuation of the same club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Once again that is inaccurate. Please see Leeds, Rotherham, Luton, Bournemouth, Charlton, Middlesborough, Napoli & Fiorentina as previous examples of companies that have been liquidated while the clubs have lived on. Ricky072 (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Some one is mistaken, the name was not sold to Charles Green, the club was also not being liquidated, the financial name/ business of Rangers FC which is a separate entity from the club( as stated by the SFA ) was being liquidated and the assets being the club were sold to Charles Green's Company Sevco ( who wish to change the financial name of there company to The Rangers Football Club ) the club existed before the business and still continues under a newco which means new financial company, businesses were introduced to run clubs as a means of finance. There for Rangers FC old is Still Rangers FC under a new financial company.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.38.135 (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Newco Rangers treated as new club by SFL

Newco Rangers have just been admitted to the SFL with associate membership. However, rule 15.1 makes clear that "Notwithstanding any other provision in these Rules, any football club which is relegated, in terms of the Settlement Agreement between the League and The Scottish Premier League, from The Scottish Premier League, shall automatically be admitted to full membership of the League and shall in the season immediately following that relegation participate in the higher or highest Division of the League."

In other words, if the SFL had viwed the new Rangers as a continuation of the club that had played in the SPL last season, their entry to the SFL would have been viewed as a relegation, and they would have received full membership - that they have been given associate membership means that they are being dealt with as a new club.

Very strong evidence that there should be this article for the new club, separate from the article for the original club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Good sources. Probably the best argument to come out for this point of view. In total agreement that this is a new club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.92.139 (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally over read as I've pointed out at the Rangers page. Rangers applied outside the normal avenue. Normally clubs are relegated and they gain full membership, Rangers applied outwith this process as a New Member so they don't get that. Rangers would of been granted associated membership even if they just upped and quit the spl rather than were liquidated as has happened. New member and new club aren't the same thing. This adds no weight either way there are far better arguments than this one to say they should be treated separately.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
You may be correct that there are stronger arguments than this one, but I bet if the new Rangers had been admitted as full members of the SFL, some editor would be posting that getting full membership rather than associate membership showed that the club was seen as a relegated club from the SPL. Well they can't because they didn't. What has happened is entirely consistent with the new Rangers being treated as a new club rather than a continuation of the old. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Im sure someone would of tried that argument, in fact i don't doubt it. Just wouldn't hold water they have to follow the Rules on that one. Any club who is applying out with normal procedures has no choice but to be an associated member. For instance if Hearts announced tomorrow they no longer wanted to remain in the SPl and quit and then applied to the SFL they would be an associated member just like Annan were. So no new club new member they would both have the same issue with this. If you want to prove the point that they are a new club this really isn't the one.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the associate membership thing is highly relevant. If Hearts or whoever resigned from the Scottish Premier League they would be accepted into the SFL as full members. Rangers have been granted associate membership only because they are not currently members of the SFA. Rangers weren't able to apply for membership of the SFA until they were signed up to one league or another. When they are accepted into the SFA they will be upgraded to full members of the SFL. The SFA has yet to consider Rangers' application. The SFA is also to consider whether the new club is to be treated as a continuation of the 1872-2012 club and required to pay penalties and debts accumulated by that club. Or if Rangers start with a clean slate. Presumably (hopefully) the whole matter will be a lot clearer once the SFA rules.Jahprole (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No, if any current SPL member entered the SFL via a route that wasn't relegation, they would be association members. So if if Hibs had membership of SPL terminated for cheating, or say Hearts simply resigned, they clubs would have to apply for association membership. The only exception to this rule is normal relegation from SPL. Ricky072 (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Bates, Ken. "Customs' legal challenge may force u-turn on Leeds takeover". Guardian.
  2. ^ "Companies Check: Sevco Scotland Ltd".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Rangers_Football_Club_Ltd/Archive_1&oldid=1143714881"