Talk:PFC CSKA Sofia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:CSKA-sofia-logo.gif

Image:CSKA-sofia-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarian Cup

At the Bulgarian Cup page,it reads that CSKA won the Cup 19 times.In this page it reads that thay won 23 times,at down it read 10 time holder.WTF?What is the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.142.108 (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Date of foundation

The infobox states that the club was founded on 28 October 1948, but the article says 5 May 1948 and doesn't mention the October date. Would someone more knowledgeable care to correct or explain this? Cheers. - Nzd (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Its 5th May Zippo 09:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The club is founded in 1923 as OFC Athletic-Slava'23. Why do you change it to 1948? Proudbulgarian (talk) 11:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.cska-rz.co.nr/

  Triggered by \bco\.nr\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 05:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Greatest Team

This section is rather a personal opinion than a fact. Therefore I think it should be removed. - User:Xqt

I replace it with "The best 55" --Scroch 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What a buncha commies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.188.176 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing sourced content

Please, stop removing well-sourced and balanced texts. I understand that, as fans, you wish everything with the club to be fine and all. However, this is an encyclopedia, and not a fan forum. The club is still in administration and the new entity could or could not compete in the league. This is currently represented in the text and erasing it serves no purpose other than self-service. Also, bear in mind that such behaviour is considered disruptive and could leave to a block. The same goes for threats. And for making racist and otherwise pejorative statements. --Laveol ^T 09:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not a fan page

So, I see that most of the people here don't get the idea of Wikipedia. This is not a fan page of CSKA, but an article about CSKA and all here should be listed. You keep deleting sourcered information, because you simply don't like it. I don't like a lot of facts, but this doesn't mean I have to delete them because i don't like them. This article should be closed and PFC CSKA Sofia listed as defunct club. CSKA-Sofia is a new club formed by merge of Chavdar Etropole and Litex Lovech and there is no way 2 differant clubs to merge and get the all history of a third team. I can discuss that all day long and show you (again) facts that CSKA Sofia is not CSKA-Sofia. I have no problem with the CSKA fans, I don't have problem and with the team, i'm totally ok with the idea that CSKA will get the team that deserve, but this is just one new start for the team and should be respected and represented with a new article. Same and for the other CSKA team which is going to start from A Regional Group. I would love to discuss this with an administrators and people who are here to make everyone correct and not with fans who keep believe they are right because they are fans of the club. -Chris Calvin (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

G'day, regarding the current edit war around these changes: [1], I would like to encourage parties to discuss the merit of the disputed content, rather than continuing to edit war. Frankly, I have no knowledge of the topic, nor do I really care, but the constant reversions need to stop. I have temporarily fully protected the article and request that interested parties begin talking and discussing the merits of the text. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You can see where we got to with TVBoy in the discussion above. The present version of the lede is what the two of us got to. It is the consensus between not mentioning any of the recent events involving the club (what user Zourich wants to achieve) and having a separate article on CSKA-Sofia (what other, now mostly blocked, users wanted). The text is properly sourced with links to football's main governing bodies: UEFA, FIFA, and the Bulgarian Football Union. Nobody has so far objected against the fact that those are the most relevant of sources in this particular case. I did seek help from wiki project football, but to no avail. The only objections raised against the present version came in the form of edit comments describing it as vandalism which it clearly isn't. --Laveol ^T 12:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for joining the discussion, definitely seems complex. I agree that some sort of compromise solution is probably the best, and sources such as UEFA and FIFA makes sense to me. Are there any other opinions, and or sources that advocate an opposite view? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the opposing view is opposed mostly to renaming the page to CSKA-Sofia. I am not exactly sure what the problem with explaining the issue is. I am yet to receive an explanation here or on the Bulgarian wiki. Problem is that the old club went bankrupt and the new owner renamed another club to CSKA. Since he could not use the original name (still in use by the original entity) he had to use an alternative one. He is the one against the club being called CSKA-Sofia and has even went as far as expelling journalists from certain media because they were using this name. So, he would be the one side to this and he has been using some brutish methods to try and enforce this opinion. Still, he is part of a league that calls his team CSKA-Sofia. The other group would be some hardline fans who evidently don't want the whole story to be part of a wiki article. I do not know of any other official entity that supports the claim that none of this has ever happened. --Laveol ^T 09:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said bellow the club's name is not "CSKA-Sofia", it's "CSKA", "Sofia" is just the home city. The legal registration has nothing to do with the trademark name, some media outlets are writing it like that because they do not agree with the license taking from PFC Litex Lovech and are writing it like this based on the legal registration. UEFA, FIFA and BFU are also writing it like the law registration because by the time of the updating of the info at the beginning of the season the old legal entity was not yet banckrupted, now it is and it does not operate nor represent anything. Football clubs have gone thought many restructuring over the years, this is why CSKA is written to be founded in 1948. Many legal entities have changed so far, but the club is still considered to be founded in that year. This is just another restricting, it is the same club, with all it's chests, colors, grounds, etc. I am OK with saying what the legal registration in the law system is in the article, maybe we can just unbold it or put that in the history section so that KZL1948 and Zourich stop deleting it. But I am against any major changes or splitting of the article, just because there is no trademark change of the club whatsoever. Only a licence and legal registration are taken from another club, CSKA Sofia is still one club, Litex Lovech is another and competes else ware.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 08:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

PFC CSKA Sofia was dissolved on 9 September 2016, whilst PFC CSKA - Sofia (PFC Litex Lovech until recently) is participating in 2016/17 First League since 29 July 2016. I would ask for a reliable source like UEFA, FIFA, Bulgarian Football Union, Bulgarian Commercial Register, Bulgarian Court or another credible institution and unless such is provided, which in fact is highly unlikely, I will edit that part. --Ivo (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

See the section above - it is about trying to achieve a compromise version. --Laveol ^T 17:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

BG89, again you are trying to put your fan hate above anything else, masking your edits as "sourced". I can give you also sources, proving that the club PFC Levski Sofia, which you so graduetely support, has been dissolved in 1948, and later the club that becomes PFC Levski Sofia is actually Dinamo (Sofia). Can you denie that? And can I edit in that case that case that PFC Levski Sofia has been found in 1990? There is no other club with the name PFC CSKA Sofia, the legal registration is PFC CSKA - Sofia EAD, in which "CSKA" represents the trademark, and "Sofia" is the club's home city. "CSKA-Sofia" is not the name of the club, the name of the club is "CSKA", "Sofia" is just the name of the city. The previous entity is bankrupted, it does not operate, nor represent anything. The new one takes and currently operates all of the club's trademarks, shirt colors, chests, playgrounds, bases, sites, and the same coach as from the begging of the season till 21 August 2016. The previous entity has been registered in 1999, it is not "original", there is no such thing as an "original legal entity for a football club" - all of the football clubs have gone thought many restructures, namechangings, etc. The new entities are successors of the old ones, thats why CSKA is said that it's founded in 1948 and Levski in 1912. FIFA, UEFA and others have written it like this because the old entity wasn't still bankrupted as of the update of the information and they wrote it like that (based on the law registration) in order to register the club in the systems. Now there is no more operational "old entity", there is only one. PFC Litex Lovech still exists in Third League, it has absolutely nothing to do with PFC CSKA Sofa. Every edit BG89 makes on article will be reverted as fan trolling and vandalism, because as I see again he does not want to discuss anything, as he says "I will edit that part", he just wants to humiliate the club and then troll in internet fan forums that he proudly did put the "dash" in the Wikipedia title name. And yes, I did find out you are doing this, you may want to denie it, but I still know that it is true. Also Vivacom dynamic IP sockpuppeting is forbidden and you will be reported every time you make such edits.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 08:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Guys, I suggest we tone it down a bit. That's why I really wanted some outsider to have a look at the whole issue. There's no need for personal remarks and citing the fact that Other crap exists. TV Boy, do you have anything against the present version of the article, including the info on the new firm and with all (most? of) the weasel words removed? --Laveol ^T 08:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really, as I said abouve I am OK with saying in the article what the legal registration of the club is in the law system, maybe we can redefine it saying for example "the legal registration of the club is PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD", maybe unbold it and move it in the history section or some ware else in the beginning paragraph so that KZL1948 and Zourich stop vandalizing, and explain more precisely how the restricting happened. But overall I am OK with the current info.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 09:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I placed it in the lede as it is currently the way the organizations address the club. It could be removed once everything settles down. You're welcome to redefine it though. --Laveol ^T 09:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@TV Boy, stop deleting and editing my posts. This is your final warning. The next time you change even a single letter from something written by me, trying to make it look as if I never wrote it or wrote something else, you'll be immediately reported. I've already told you that if you feel you can contribute to other pages, just do it. Your funny accusations about fan bias and the VIVACOM IP just make me laugh because I don't have a single device using their service. Report "me" to whoever and for whatever reason you want. That's of no concern to me because I already know the answer you will get.

It's time to get back on track. TV Boy is a supporter of the club dissolved on 9 September 2016 and he is looking for another club to support which explains his efforts to manipulate the content of PFC CSKA Sofia and all related pages. The current article is misleading and is implying successorship between CSKA-Sofia and CSKA Sofia. The focus of this discussion should not be on formalities such as acceptable wording of some paragraphs or the "-". The most important question is: "Should CSKA-Sofia be regarded as a successor of CSKA Sofia or not?". IMO, the answer is No because CSKA-Sofia has nothing to with CSKA Sofia except for the name which was changed when CSKA Sofia still existed. Also, the argument about the trade mark questionable to say the least. We have two teams which claim to be "the real CSKA". One is competing in the top league of the Bulgarian football and one started from the lowest division. Both were founded a few months ago and both use logos which have little to no difference from the logo of CSKA Sofia. The trademark of the bankrupted entity is owned and impounded by the National Revenue Agency which means that neither CSKA-Sofia, nor CSKA 1948 are operating anything. Also, it's absolutely not true that UEFA, FIFA, BFU etc used "-" because CSKA Sofia was still an existent entity. After its liquidations none of the above-mentioned organisation change removed the "-" and none of them accepted CSKA-Sofia as a successor of CSKA Sofia. Quite the contrary.--Ivo (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not against the rules to structure the conversation, so I'm not doing anything wrong. You are duplicating the topic on purpose, so I removed the duplicated statements. If we get to this check users can easily determine if you edit under these IP addresses, but anyway there is a thing called "The Duck Test", which you obviously pass - the IP's are dynamic, used from a mobile phone, from the Vivacom network. You can denie it, but the test so far proves that it was you. There is no club dissolved on 9 September 2016, only one legal entity that does not own anything got bankrupted. The team, along with the players, were moved on to the new legally registered entity, even with no general change whatsoever, the new entity operates everything the old one does, the trademark, name, chest, colors, stadium, etc. There is only a different registration due to a license taken from another club, nothing else, it is the same club CSKA Sofia along with everything. There are no two two teams with the name CSKA - there is one team "PFC CSKA Sofia", and another called "FC Central Sports Club of the Army Sofia", which has different chest, different trademark, different log, different stadium, etc. This team is made up from people who do not like the current management of the club, they went on to create a new one, but they don't ever claim to be "the same club". In the first case "CSKA" is the full name, while for the second team "CSKA" is only an acronym of the full club name. It is confusing, but we need to differentiate that. For example is also a team in the same amateur league that FC Central Sports Club of the Army competes in called "FC Levski-Rakovski Sofia", which uses almost the same chest as PFC Levski Sofia, but plays at a different stadium. Wikipedia is not a law firm, nor a court to determine whether one firm uses something legally or not - for Wikipedia the facts are of importance, and the facts are - we have a club PFC CSKA Sofia, operating the trademark CSKA, and registered in the law system as the entity PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD, playing in Sofia, using these emblems, stadiums, etc as described in the article. BFU passes the information to FIFA and UEFA, thats why it is written like this, in a resent document by UEFA the clubs name is spelled exactly as PFC CSKA Sofia, no dashes, no nothing. The organizations don't care about accepting something that is a successor of anything or not, they only regulate and register, thats all. Now that the old entity has bankrupted the info that BFU passes for the organizations is due to be updated, and starting from the next season I am quite sure that it will be changed.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 15:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You aren't structuring anything because you are just deleting and editing the comments of other users with the sole purpose of changing the direction of the discussion and to avoid arguments which are unfavourable for your position. "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page". On this page alone, I'm the second person complaining from your attitude (personal remarks, false accusations, disruptive editing, uncivilised behaviour, total lack of cooperation', intentionally posting wrong information etc) The same complaints from your actions can be read on the Bulgarian version of this talk page. It's high time to end that absurdity...

What you claim happened: CSKA changed it's legal registration and nothing else changed, so it's the old club under a new legal form.
What actually happened: CSKA has been highly indebted for over a decade which forced the club to enter administration in 2015 followed by liquidation in 2016. Meanwhile, PFC Litex Lovech and PFC Chavdar Etrople merged and created a club called CSKA-Sofia. Technically speaking, Litex was bought by Chavdar and after that renamed to CSKA-Sofia. The new club is supported by the majority of the supporters of the former CSKA, however, another club named FC CSKA 1948 Sofia was established approximately at the same time and is supported by the rest of the fans of the dissolved club. Both CSKA-Sofia and CSKA 1948 claim they are "the true CSKA" but none of them was related to CSKA. You are obviously supporting CSKA-Sofia and are trying to present CSKA and CSKA-Sofia as the same club which they were't in past, aren't now and will never be in the future. This position if supported by all institutions that have a say such as FIFA, UEFA, BFU and the judicial system. All of them regard CSKA-Sofia as a new club unrelated to CSKA. There are two huge flaws in your arguments:

1. CSKA-Sofia(renamed Litex) or the new entity as you call it doesn't operate anything CSKA did except for the stadium which is state-owned. Both CSKA and CSKA - Sofia were/are nothing but tenants, which obviously doesn't make them owners of the stadium and the same club. According to the commercial register, the full name of CSKA - Sofia is ПРОФЕСИОНАЛЕН ФУТБОЛЕН КЛУБ ЦСКА - СОФИЯ (PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB CSKA - SOFIA) with tax identification number 110501548 and the full name of CSKA is ПРОФЕСИОНАЛЕН ФУТБОЛЕН КЛУБ ЦСКА (PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB CSKA) with TIN 130212106. The club known as CSKA became insolvent and was dissolved earlier this year because of high financial debts. CSKA-Sofia(until recently PFC Litex Lovech) hasn't acquired CSKA and consequently isn't operating any assets that belonged to the dissolved club. You can't provide a single reliable source supporting your claims.
2. CSKA stands for Central Sport Club of the Army, so CSKA in CSKA-Sofia and FC CSKA 1948 means effectively the same. The names of both clubs were intended to be as close as possible to the name of the dissolved club. CSKA - Sofia added "- Sofia" which refers to the city of CSKA and CSKA 1948 added "1948" which refers to the year of establishment of the dissolved club. The only major difference between CSKA 1948 and CSKA-Sofia is that the owners of the former decided that to start from the amateur football while the owners of the latter chose to rename another football club which was owned by one of them.

Just for your information, Levski Rakovski is officially affiliated with Levski. Levski Sofia's youth system consists of 2 separate, at least on paper, football academies. One is based at the sport complex of the first team and its youth teams are called Levski Sofia. The other one is called Levski Rakovski where Rakovski stands for the football stadium. More than half of the children in Levski Sofia's youth system train at Rakovski sport complex and the academy is entirely funded by the parent club. Levski Sofia and Levski Rakovski either share the same logo or there are just minor differences because they are one club. But I'm not sure how is that relevant to CSKA, CSKA Sofia and CSKA 1948" --Ivo (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I am structuring the discussion and not altering any of your comments. Your actions and reactions surprisingly mirror 1:1 with those of user GOOR in bgwiki, but that's another thing for another time. What happend is that the old legal entity that the club operated with - PFC CSKA EAD, went bankrupted for a number of reasons (bad management, etc.). The new management was unable to fix the damage, so they formed a new entity to operate the actives of PFC CSKA Sofia. This entity was formed with restructuring those of PFC Chavdar Etropole and PFC Litex Lovech, who already had licenses. This was done with legal shifts, which were unpopular, but they are legal since the the controlling bodies approved them. PFC Litex Lovech and PFC Chavdar Etropole went on to play in amateur leagues because of this, because their PRO license was taken, it can be seen here and here where they play. Some fans were unhappy with the desision to take another clubs's legal entity registration and PRO license, and fans of rival club "PFC Levski Sofia" declared CSKA as "dead" and "a renamed Litex", because they took another clubs license. Fans that were against the managment formed their own amatheur club which is called "FC Central Sports Club of the Army 1948 Sofia", short acronym "FC CSKA 1948 Sofia", which has different chest, emblems, stadiums, structure, etc. The difference between the clubs is that in "FC CSKA 1948 Sofia" the club's trademark name is an acronym, while in the second - PFC CSKA Sofia, the trademark is "CSKA" and is not an acronym - this is the full name of the club. It may stand for "Central Sports Club of the Army", but that's not the trademark name anymore, it's just "CSKA". In reality, nothing really changed with the normal functioning of PFC CSKA Sofia - it just got legally restructured, it management was kept almost the same, the other two clubs Litex and Chavdar play in different leagues. Because the restructure was not yet complete due to the beginning of the season and the old entity was not deleted from it BFU wrote in the systems the club's name according to the commercial register name, and not according to the trademark. Because of this people went on telling that the club's name is "CSKA-Sofia", which is not the case. The club is one and the same, nothing really changed in its overall structure, just it was legally re-registered with legal shifts. As seen in this document, and in this the clubs uses the trademark name "PFC CSKA", and only signs legally the documents using the law registered name - "PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD". Everybody can put whatever year they want in the names of their clubs. As I said before BFU, FIFA, UEFA does not really care if one club has history way back or another - that's not their job. Their job is to regulate and register. I gave the example with FC Levski-Rakovski Sofia, because the case is somewhat similar to that of FC CSKA 1948 Sofia and PFC CSKA Sofia - they names are the same, but they are different clubs. Levski-Rakovski may have the same owners as PFC Levski Sofia, but they are still two different clubs, their youth teams even play against each-other. The same goes for PFC CSKA Sofia and PFC Litex Lovech - they may have the same owners, they both exist at the same time, but they are still two different clubs - one plays on First League, and the other plays in Third League. They may even play against each other. Nothing overall has changed in their trademark names, chests, stadiums, etc.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 15:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

As it was said numerous times, this is an article about the trademark CSKA Sofia and not about current entities, firms and stuff. As I am not against mentioning some of the events and operations, regarding the club, that took place lately, this, however, should take place in the history section, not in the main paragraph. Thus, the text "The club is operating legally under the firm PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD, after the previous legal firm that represented it - PFC CSKA EAD, went bankrupt as of September 9, 2016." should and will be removed from its current possition. There are thousands of articles for sport clubs in here and not in single one of them is mentioned "under what legal firm the club is operating legally in this particular moment" in the very first opening paragraph. I don't see a single reason, why this article should be an exception. Zourich (talk · contribs) 14:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Today it was announced that the club has entered documents in the court to change the name of it's legal registration in the law system from "PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD" to "PFC CSKA EAD", in order to match exactly the registration name of the bankrupted entity and to end speculations such as "Is this the same club?". This was made possible after the old entity was made inactive, so that new ones can be registered with it's exact same initials, something that forced the management to register the new one as "-Sofia" in August, because then the old one was still not set inactive. No changes to the trademark or emblems will be made. So I think this closes the case now after the change is made a fact, the information in the first paragraph should be removed from there and moved in the history section, explaining briefly what changes were made to the registration in that period and why. BFU and UEFA will be updating the registers in the beginning of 2017, from which the club should bare its official name now, simply because there will be no more excuses to write it according to the legally registered entity name - there will be no difference between them whatsoever from then on.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 09:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the news. This might be the thing I mentioned above. As for Zourich, you're actions were enough evidence that you did not want any of the recent events concerning the topic of the article included. You were blocked exactly for constantly deleting the sourced info. Furthermore, this particular case is not exactly the same as other cases - if you're having Ranger's in mind when you're writing this. --Laveol ^T 11:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion about the case being the same or not or whatever, is highly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the common practice for constructing football clubs articles. You will always fail finding another article, where in the opening paragraph is mentioned "under what legal firm the club is operating legally" at the moment. In fact most of times it isn't even mentioned anywhere. So if you insist the text should stay I recommend you start adding it in the first paragraphs of the articles of as many other clubs as you can, starting with the Bulgarian championship, then no one touches it anymore. If you deny, then it will be considered as a deliberate double standard and the text will be deleted. That's the only deal I can propose. Zourich (talk · contribs) 22:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If this article was really about the trademark, it wouldn't be dedicated to the history and the achievements of the football club but would contain utterly different information. Of course this page is about the football club and that's why the current discussion is on its talk page. The legal shift (Litex and Chavdar) was intended to allow the new club to participate in First League and was necessary because of UEFA's and BFU's regulations. Litex couldn't be relocated to Sofia without consequences because Lovech is more than 150 km away and the club would be considered as newly established, thus would be ineligible for a professional license. Therefore Chavdar Etropole was included. CSKA has never been part of the deal and even at that time there was a real chance the club could continue its existence under Vasil Bojkov. Also, it's not true that FIFA and UEFA don't care about these type of transformations. Actually, it's exactly the contrary. The have very strict rules and regulations opposing such practices and monitor them very carefully. UEFA and BFU are those who have the last word and they already took stance towards the case explaining on multiple occasions that CSKA-Sofia is new club unrelated to CSKA. Just a few examples: on page 21 in a document of UEFA about the championships of the country-members it is written: "PFC Litex Lovech has been excluded for the 2015/16 championship due to disciplinary mesures. For the 2016/17, PFC Litex Lovech has changed its name to PFC CSKA Sofia." Also, CSKA-Sofia was classified as a new and different club in a letter of UEFA to BFU regarding the participation of CSKA-Sofia/Litex's youth team in UEFA's Youth League. Borislav Mihaylov, the president of BFU, who is also a member of UEFA's Executive Committee gave the following explanation: "One club changed its name which is not illegal". The deputy CEO of BFU, Pavel Kolev reiterated that CSKA has nothing to do with CSKA-Sofia which has no right to claim the history and the honours of the bankrupted club. He added that the new club has 4 titles at best referring to the titles Litex has won. Since Mihaylov is a club legend of Levski, let's see what said Emil Kostadinov, a member of the Executive Committee and a club legend of CSKA. Asked in a recent interview about CSKA and whether he watches the games of CSKA-Sofia he answered: "No! (...) My CSKA is gone. I don't care about other clubs with that name." The veterans of CSKA refused to support the club of Ganchev and publicly declared this is not the club they played for in the past. There are a few exception who've been been involved in the new club and reportedly got paid by CSKA-Sofia. In regards to bulgarian-football, this is an unofficial fan project which is nowhere close in terms of credibility to BFU and UEFA. Many other sites like sportal.bg which is by far more popular than bulgarian-football use the name CSKA-Sofia and refuse to accept any connection with CSKA. Anyway, their editorial policy is also irrelevant because they aren't authorised to determine the status of CSKA-Sofia. That decision is within the competence of BFU, FIFA, UEFA, the judicial system and they were unanimous. As for today's article about an eventual new name change, that doesn't affect the discussion. No matter how they call the firm, CSKA-Sofia won't become CSKA if they remove several letters and the hyphen. Ivo (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It is about the trademark and all the legacy names the club has had from 1948 till now. The club has been thought many restricting from then till now - there is enough information. The legal shift was made in order PFC CSKA Sofia to compete in the First League using legal registrations of other clubs - many Bulgarian clubs have done it many times. It is legal, because it has been approved by the controlling bodies. I don't want to repeat myself - BFU passes info about the subject to UEFA and FIFA - yes, the registration of PFC Litex Lovech was used in order the club to continue to play in First League, because Litex's registration had PRO license. After that PFC Litex Lovech continued to exist in Third Amateur League, because no PRO registrations are need for an amateur league. Legal registration of PFC Chavdar Etropole was also used in order to be transformed in to a flagship owner firm. This club also continues to exist in Third League. No structural, or management change was made into the club - manager Milko Georgiev of the bankrupted entity is still in the same position after the restructuring. The old entity went bankrupted due to high debts of previous owners, when the new ones came they were unable to save the club from going into bankruptcy, so they restructured a new entity in order to operate the actives of the club. No overall visibly change was made to the club itself, it still has the same colors, stadiums, emblems as before. The bankrupted entity is inactive, it doesn't exist and doesn't own anything, doesn't operate, it is in a legal procedure of liquidation. Everybody can state whatever they want and can be fans of whatever they want, but the facts are there is no change to the club whatsoever to separate the article, or delete further info about the club - nothing dramatically has changed in it's overall structure. Some people and media outlets are against the new owners - this is visible, but the facts are like this, and Wikipedia is all about the facts. As I said before many legal entities were change in the past by many of the BG clubs, many times they have been restructured, but nothing overall dramatically has happend in them. PFC Septemvri Sofia is a clear example of that, they have restructured themselves at least 3 times in the last 6 years, the same way as PFC CSKA Sofia, for various of reasons. Nobody ever makes that much of a deal about them, the only problem here is that PFC CSKA Sofia has a lot more popular, that's why everybody are making such a deal for such things. PFC CSKA Sofia still exists as PFC CSKA Sofia, full stop.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 16:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation and arbitration

I'm concerned with the content of this page which I feel is being used as a fan page and there is a strong pro-CSKA - Sofia bias. Currently, this article represents exclusively the view point of Grisha Ganchev's club, despite the fact that it's in conflict with the generally accepted view, supported by those who have a say, such as UEFA, Bulgarian Football Union, Bulgarian judicial system and Bulgarian Commercial Register. I've been trying my best to initiate a discussion regarding CSKA, CSKA 1948, CSKA-Sofia, Litex, Chavdar Etropole and so on for over two months but little no progress was made. In fact, we are exactly where we started or even worse! We witnessed vandalism, multiple edit wars, removal of sourced content, personal remarks, multiple reports on the admin noticeboard, protection of pages, socking, false accusations of socking etc. Everybody is free to agree with me or not but in my opinion most of that was intentionally caused by one of the participants in the discussions who keeps acting like he owns this page and as if the other users are his inferiors. Ever since the day I told him I can no longer tolerate his attitude and I'm about to ask for for a third opinion/mediation/arbitration, his attempts to countermine the discussion and prevent me from asking for mediation became very aggressive. He went as far as lying that I'm behind anonymous IP edits which have been following his own account for years in highly specific topics which very few people are interested in. Anyway, it's high time this farce to stop. Before asking for formal mediation, I'd like the opposing points of view to be summarized in a few sentences. I'll try to summarize them based on the discussions but everyone is invited to help me and suggest changes:

1. There was a merger between PFC CSKA, PFC Litex Lovech and PFC Chavdar Etropole the result of which was restructure of PFC CSKA. The legal shifts, which were somewhat controversial because the creditors were harmed but certainly not illegal, allowed the club to get rid of its huge debts. Nothing else changed except for the legal entity representing the club. CSKA-Sofia is just the name of the new firm behind PFC CSKA. We have a classic Rangers scenario. What went bankrupt wasn't PFC CSKA but only its previous legal registration. FC CSKA 1948 is a club established by a fraction CSKA's supporters who unjustifiably claim the club went bankrupt and Grisha Ganchev tried to replace it with renamed Litex. FC CSKA 1948 is neither moral, nor legal successor of PFC CSKA and has no right to claim its history and honors. What representatives of Bulgarian Football Union and UEFA.com say about the lack of connection between PFC CSKA and PFC CSKA-Sofia is irrelevant because this is just their personal opinion.
2. PFC CSKA was highly indebted which forced the club to enter administration and later went bankrupt. Grisha Ganchev, the controversial owner of Litex, who was also in charge of PFC CSKA since the middle of 2015, decided to rename PFC Litex and move it to Sofia. However, there were obstacles caused by UEFA's rules and regulations. This how Chavdar Etropole became involved in the whole process. In a fictitious deal Chavdar acquired Litex which was later renamed to PFC CSKA-Sofia. The name was intended to closely imitate the name of PFC CSKA. PFC CSKA-Sofia and PFC CSKA aren't related and PFC CSKA-Sofia is a new club which isn't a successor of PFC CSKA and has no right to claim its history. This view is unanimously supported by UEFA, BFU and the Bulgarian court, so Wiki should not be an exception. There is no Rangers scenario. Eventually we will have NK Olimpija Ljubljana (2005) and NK Olimpija Ljubljana (1945) situation but that is based just on future intentions. Both PFC CSKA-Sofia and FC CSKA 1948 should be treated equally in regard to PFC CSKA and only the future will determine which of the two clubs if any will become a successor of PFC CSKA.

--Ivo (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

BG89, I explained to you millions of times why the information is written the way it is, but you simply don't want to understand. I updated it again, explaining the case in the best way possible, based on what we agreed with Laveol above. Your opinion on the topic is highly fan-based and highly explicit, and you seemingly won't accept anything else rather than declaring the club CSKA dead and the new club as a renamed Litex (Lovech) called "CSKA-Sofia (Sofia)". Now I will explain briefly for the last time and I won't bother again, because I got tired. There is no bias at all, you think there is because you are a fan of the rival club and you think the way you think - and no body can change that. There is no actual difference in ownership between the club that played in Third League and the one in First League now - there were just legal shifts with the firm and license of another club made in order for CSKA to play in First League. There is no generally acepted view of anything - you think that and you try to invert information in order to prove yourself right. The article is based on facts. This is what Wikipedia is based on. And the facts are like this - there is a firm PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD, that represents the club PFC CSKA Sofia, this club identifies itself with it's chest, shirts, colors and stadiums, as well as the trade mark PFC CSKA, this is the "ID card" of the club. The previous entity went bankrupted, so in order to save the club that "ID card" was transferred to another firm. In this case "ID card" = the club itself, the firm is just the entity it operates from, which was changed many of times in the past. The entity name written in the Bulgarian commercial register is different from the trademark name that represents the club - this is a thing and can happen, for example BTK EAD and Vivacom - the same thing, but the first one is the registration name, the second is the trademark. BFU and UEFA don't recognize anything - they regulate and register.

In the First League site all clubs are written based on their registration name - PFC Levski EAD, PFC Neftohimic 1958 AD, etc. In order to avoid confussion, because in August when the clubs are registered in the league system the previous entity was not yet made inactive BFU wrote the club as "CSKA-Sofia", this cannot be changed at least until the winter break. In September the old entity was finally made legally inactive and from PFC CSKA said that they will change the name of the legal registration to match the one of the bankrupted one in order to avoid any confussion. BFU pass the information to UEFA, they just re-write the same thing BFU has passed them on, nothing else. They don't recognize anything, they register and regulate. There are legal disputes over the emblem, this is why BFU are not putting it. Wikipedia is not a court, nor is an institution, it is driven only by facts. And the facts are that this is club is using this emblem and trademark name in it's official matches, and it identifies itself in this way. We cannot change that, this is why the article is written this way. Some people don't like that, but this is no concern of Wikipedia. Inverting facts and "mirroring" things in order to support your opinion doesn't make them truth.

FC CSKA 1948 Sofia is completely a different thing from PFC CSKA Sofia, it is a different club, made from people who did not like the management of PFC CSKA Sofia. It's full name is "FC Central Sports Club of the Army 1948", it is founded in August, nobody from it claimed that it is the same club as PFC CSKA Sofia, has different chests and stadiums, and the people from it just said they wanted "a club that goes back to the roots of CSKA", not that this is the same thing as PFC CSKA Sofia. This is why it's name is "FC Central Sports Club of the Army 1948", in acronym FC CSKA 1948 Sofia. The thing of the name of PFC CSKA Sofia is that it's name is not an acronym anymore, it's just "CSKA". The clubs FC CSKA 1948 Sofia and PFC CSKA Sofia are different. PFC Litex Lovech is still a different club, using the same chests and colors as before, playing in the same ground, but without a professional license, playing in the Third Amateur League. The same goes for PFC Chavdar Etropole. Their legal firms had licenses that were needed, so they were transformed to represent something else. This is done milions of times in BG football history, many examples for it - PFC Septemvri Sofia, Botev Plovdiv, Beroe Stara Zagora, Neftohimic, etc. CSKA is more popular, this is why this is happening. No idea about NK Olimpija Ljubljana, I do not follow Slovenian football.

BG89, I am telling you truthfully what I think - trying to turn every accusation that I made against you against me is the most despicable thing ever. It simply lacks originality trying to win an argument with another person, meaning that you lack statements and are unable to win this argument at all. You think that Grisha Ganchev is controversial, if there are any controversies about him you want to add, you are more gladly to enter them in his article, with sources, neutrally, without any POVs, and without adding them in irrelevant articles just cause you don't like the guy. Masking things as sources and good-faithed edits is vandalism. Unfortunatelly, this is not the bgwiki, where more people are into the topic and administrators are Bulgarians, that is why I got blocked while reverting BG89's controversial edits, just because the admin's don't really care if the thing he is entering is true or not. I really want you to stop now, you simply lack arguments to win this argument on the topic, trying to disrupt the information and the case won't help.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 17:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem with this whole dispute is that evidently noone cares about the whole issue. Frankly, I'd have the article locked up for any kind of editing at least until New Year. As I already stated, to me at lest, it seems sufficient to include everything that has happened leading to the club being re-established (sort of) under a new company, while also retaining the same name for the article. Also to include info on the present name of the club according to the relevant parties which would be FIFA, UEFA, and the Bulgarian Football Union. I see that this part has somehow been removed. I'd really like to see an actual arbitration here, as the case is somewhat unique, but it does not seem like it could be happening. --Laveol ^T 18:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New article?

It seems that there is a very heated debate, not being easily settled, on the situation with the club named PFC CSKA Sofia. Perhaps a separate article should be created to lay out the various claims made by the parties in dispute. A title could be something like Dispute over the identity of PFC CSKA Sofia? This article could reflect that there is not agreement, and cover all the points gone over in the dispute on this talk page. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe this is the right way. We need neutral people to look over the case and decide what is the right thing to do. —Chris Calvin (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

And what exactly is going to be written there? Which media outlets and fans which side are supporting? I just don't see this work at all...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 08:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The cases being made by each side should be presented, but no conclusions drawn, because that would be original research. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Its time to be clear

So, a year later noone provided conformation, that CSKA-Sofia is a legal successor of PFC CSKA Sofia and we got a lot of conformations that PFC CSKA-Sofia is indeed a new team, using the name of CSKA, but nothing else. I believe this article is "vandalised" by CSKA Sofia fans who are hard to admit there is a new team. There is nothing bad in this, a lot of teams got in a simular situation and they have now new articles for the teams. You are free to support the team you like and recognize it, but in this case the CSKA-Sofia team should got a new page like PFC CSKA Sofia (2016) and the old moved to PFC CSKA Sofia (1948) and this article to be kept as disambiguation page leading to the PFC CSKA Sofia (2016), PFC CSKA Sofia (1948) and PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia or the old CSKA to be moved to PFC CSKA Sofia (1948-2016) and the new to keep this article, but I don't belive this would be fair to PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia.

So, here are why I belive/i'm sure this should happend:

1. On 27 May 2016, the legal firm that represented PFC Chavdar Etropole - "PFC Chavdar EAD" was renamed to "PFC CSKA-1948 AD".[2] On 6 June 2016 the legal firm that represented the club PFC Litex Lovech - "PFC Litex-Lovech AD" was renamed to "PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD",[3] in order for the club to use PFC Litex Lovech's professional license to apply for the reformed First League,[4] with "PFC CSKA-1948 AD" being written in as its owner. The shift was made because the old legal firm - "PFC CSKA AD" did not gain a professional license, and later went bankrupted and ceased operations as of September 9, 2016. - This is writen on the CSKA page. Its clear that Chavdar and Litex were merged, so Litex team to gain CSKA name and to be moved in Sofia. In the BFU rules, a team could change it name and move to other city in the same region. Lovech is part of North-West region and Sofia in South-West. Etropole is part from South-West also, so merging Litex and Chavdar made possibel for the new team to be based in Sofia. Also, at the end it was confirmed that the old firm is bankrupted. Thats why the new team did not played in the 2016 Bulgarian Supercup.

2. The new team qualified to Europa League after finishing 2nd in 2016–17 First Professional Football League (Bulgaria). But on 29 May 2017 a UEFA letter to the Bulgarian Football Union declared that the new CSKA were not allowed to compete in European tournaments for the following two seasons as they were considered to have been re-formed as a new club and thus did not pass the "three-year rule".[5][6][7] A few hours prior to the Europa League first qualifying round draw, UEFA replaced them by Dunav Ruse, the fourth-placed team of the league.[8] - UEFA confirmed that they do not recognize the new CSKA as the old, since if they did that this will be a huge violation of the rules and would allow and other team to violate the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations and would allow the teams to get in debs and then rename other team and never pay their debs.

3. The new CSKA letter to CAS.[9]

3.1 So, we got the full document leaced in the media were we can see everything clear. In the letter, the new CSKA admits they are a new team who got a "fresh" start and they presendet the reason that "only their concurents in the Bulgarian league would win from their expell from Europa League", never proving that in the letter. The second point start with "CSKA-Sofia is a football club, previously competing under the name "Litex Lovech"" providing and admiting that the team is reformed Litex and then explain how this happend, explained in short by me in point 1. At C.21. they explain why the team use the old team website.

3.2 The reson listed is "The purpose of using of the old website by the new football team "PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD" is based on purely marketing considerations, since the owners of CSKA-Sofia are longtime CSKA Sofia fans." - Its good that a fans of the old CSKA want to build their team close to the old one, but "due to marketing considerations" is not something making one team inherits the history of other. In the same situation FC Lokomotiv 1929 Sofia got a new article and the old club PFC Lokomotiv Sofia was listed as dissolved. Same with the new FC Shumen 1929 and the old FC Shumen 2010, with the new PFC Neftochimic Burgas and PFC Neftochimic Burgas (2009–14). The almost exact case could be seen outside Bulgaria with NK Olimpija Ljubljana (2005) and NK Olimpija Ljubljana (1945) articles.

3.3 At the final of the letter: "There is no legal, operational or financial connection between football teams and legal entities "PFC CSKA AD" and "PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD".""(V) PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD is not the legal successor of PFC CSKA AD and it has not assumed assets and liabilities of this former separate legal entity;" - So, if there is not conection between the two teams, why would the new team use the old one article?

Final. So, i believ all these referances and explanations prove that the teams are not the same and should got separetad articles, but this doesn't mean that people should stop supporting the new club as they supported the old one. Same happend with fans who now support CSKA 1948, I see no differance in the way CSKA 1918 and CSKA-Sofia are affilated with the old CSKA Sofia. I found myself as a neutral since i'm not a fan or hater of CSKA Sofia or Levski Sofia, i'm here as a fan of bulgarian football and neutral wikipedian explaining what should be fair to do with the articles which is:

— CSKA Sofia, founded in 1948 and dissolved in 2016, be moved to PFC CSKA Sofia (1948)

— CSKA Sofia, founded in 2016 by merging Litex and Chavdar, be moved to PFC CSKA Sofia (2016)

— CSKA Sofia II, the now ex second team of the new CSKA, be moved to PFC CSKA Sofia II (2016)

— PFC CSKA Sofia article becoming a disambiguation page. —Chris Calvin (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Chris Calvin, why did you waited so long to join this discussion in such a way again? I don't get it... There are a lot of confirmations and if you looked way back into my comments on this page you will find them. This club uses the symbols of CSKA - the emblem, the logo, the colors the trademark, the site, the history and the stadium. They are now operated by a new legal entity. The previous entity was founded in 1999 and not in 1948 and as again legally as nothing to do with the one of the 1990 CSKA Sofia we have the same case here. It WILL be a double standard if you created separete articles for 2016 club and not for the 1990 and 1999 club - it is the same thing. We have a restructed legal registration that now represents something else - CSKA in particular. Litex has a different registration that operates the actives of the Litex club as before. And most importantly CSKA Sofia IS A MEMBER of USC CSKA Sofia- the flagship organisation that moderates the CSKA brand and history. This IS the most important thing, as this is the legal way to prove that the new legal entity is a successor to the old one. FC CSKA 1948 Sofia is in fact "FC Central Sports Club of the Army 1948 Sofia" and have nothing to do with CSKA Sofia - it is not a member of USC CSKA Sofia, just uses similar name, that's all.

What you say about UEFA is also not true - in the letter UEFA admits that this CSKA is the same thing as the old CSKA and was made to substitute it and even gave it the same coefficient in the draws. You are skipping that intentionally! CSKA had a ban from UEFA competitions from 2015 because of debts and now a new one excuse of the restructing - and that is it. They admit that Litex Lovech continued to exist in the Third League and took part in the Bulgarian Cup, the same goes for Chavdar Etropole.

The letter to CAS is a lawyer's defense to prove something in front of the court to bypass the UEFA bans - that doesn't mean that what they say is 100% true, they are saying it so they get a win in court. If you are a lawyer you would know that. If they were defending the other way they would have their bans doubled because of PFC CSKA AD's debts. I am not saying it was right go throught all this just to get the club to play in Europa Leagua ASAP, but according to them it needed to be done. Anyway, the originality of the letter cannot be proved and listed as a source on Wikipedia's rules because it is uploaded originally to a shady sharing site and was released by "PFC Levski Sofia fans" which is just silly.

"CSKA-Sofia" is not a real trademark! The trademark is CSKA, and "Sofia" is the city it is from! It's just a legal registration in the commercial register. The Bulgarian law premits companies to have a trade mark different to their registration - for example BTC EAD and Vivacom, Cosmo Bulgaria Mobile EAD and Globul... PFC Litex Lovech's reg was "Litex-Lovech", but nobody wrote it like that, right? It is again a double standart.

In Bulgaria such restructions are done numerous times by numerous clubs. PFC Septemvri Sofia with FC Pirin Razlog and Conegliano German is a fresh example. If we are to have different articles for these "different and new clubs", we wolud have had at least 10 seperate articles for each club, wich is just stupid. I don't know why do you keep spliting the articles about PFC Neftochimic Burgas - as I said the legal registration entity in the commercial register only carries the trademark, wich contains the history to the new one - de-facto they are the SAME CLUB! In this case the legal registrtion is the same! Exclusion to this is just "Chernomorec Burgas", where things got so messy there is no way to track the original trademark.

I honestlhy don't get why are people making so much big of a deal about CSKA's registration restruction as this was done numerous times before by numeorous clubs - FC Dunav Ruse and PFC Botev Plovdiv are just one of the top-league examples. Or I do actually - because of the popularity of CSKA Sofia and many people, who are supporting other clubs, or are against the new managment of the team. So finally, the confirmations that this is the same club are obvious - even the whole coaching team of CSKA was the same some several months after the restructing. The trademark is the thing that carries the history and identifirs, not the leagal entity. It is just a commercial registration in the Bulgarian law system. It will be huge dobule standart, not fair, and completely false if the articles are separeted. It is time to look to this situation with the obvious facts, and not with the squeezed-out documents and "leaks" about court cases. For Wikipedia the de-facto facts are what matter, and I already said what they are numerous times before here.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 09:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Last time I left this discussion because i manage to talk with CSKA fans which I believe don't have a neutral view of the case. Correct me if i'm wrong, but CSKA stands also for Central Sports Club of the Army, so the case is the same. I never say that CSKA 1948 should inherit CSKA Sofia history or anything, i'm saying that both clubs the new CSKA and CSKA 1948 shouldn't use the old CSKA article. Don't involve USC CSKA Sofia, which has nothing to do with proving that the new CSKA is the old CSKA.

What I say about UEFA ether is actualy TRUE. If you want to convict me in what you say, prove it, for me what you said are just letters you made up, because you believe in that, but if you are correct the penalty you are talking abould should end in next season. But UEFA clearly say that they are stoping the new CSKA because of the "3 years rule" and they won't play in Europe in the next 3 season. What is not clear here? In fact, where did you say UEFA adding CSKA as the old team, all I say before they put Dunav in the draw was CSKA without emblem, using the coefficient of Litex( later using the national coefficient because they were listed as a new team). So, you are saing something and proving nothing.

The letter is not the only document proving that words. Easly can find you the Bobby Mihailov intervew where he said that the team is in fact Litex successor.

Stop telling me that. I'm not trying to trend the new CSKA under the CSKA-Sofia trademark. I believe that CSKA should be trademarked as CSKA, but beeing differant from the old one like PFC CSKA Sofia (1948) and PFC CSKA Sofia (2016).

Now, these are a differant cases, because the old legal firm merged with other club legal firm and the assets and liabilities stayed in the newly created teams. In the new CSKA case these all come from two other teams which were not affilated with the club they are claiming to be. Nor Chavdar nor Litex had something with the old CSKA. All I saw is Litex stuff and players been kept in the new CSKA, were did you saw CSKA staff and players from the old one? You are looking on the case as a fan. What about the interview of Petrus Buomal in goal.com were he explain how his Litex contract was extended, but under the name of CSKA. You see the conection? You are the one who is not looking on the case and seeing the "obvious facts". Litex was reformed into team under the name of CSKA. I found no fair to help the new CSKA owners with their marketing trick to use the old trademark when its clear they are not and they won't become just because they don't like the facts and the fans want to keep it like that. As I said, support CSKA as you supported the old CSKA, other fans will support CSKA 1948 the same way they supported the old CSKA. I'm telling you what should happend abouth the articles and I hope soon a person who is not involved in supporting any bulgarian club will look that case and see that acording wikipedia rules i'm right in that and we should move on.

Again I'm here as a neutral wikipedian, not suporrting the old CSKA, the new one, CSKA 1948, Levski or any other club affected in this case. I read the news, looked over the case and the facts and telling what should be done and I believe this is the right way to do about this case. —Chris Calvin (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Chris, you are obviosly lying! Look at this picture from UEFA.com just before CSKA got removed from the website - this is the same coefficient as the "old CSKA" - 4.175! UEFA DOES consider this to be the same club, and if they didn't got expelled they would have got the same coefficient! Litex Lovech's coefficient is 4.875! They are stopping CSKA based on the three-year rule because there was a license takeover from Litex Lovech - it's CSKA re-registered and therefore the club did not got the same license for the last 3 years - this is the three-year rule! In the statement that UEFA issued they clearly say that this was made because the old entitiy - "PFC CSKA AD", reffered to as "the old CSKA", has been substituted by "PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD", which took over the branding and identity and continues to maintain the CSKA brand, due to the first one being bankrupted. Yet this was made with a legal shift that allowed the new entity to run the CSKA Sofia club without the previous debts.

Borislav Mihaylov's words were that the legal entity of Litex Lovech, that carried Litex's license was restructed in order CSKA Sofia to carry this license, while Litex Lovech started in amateur divison. Check this one out in bTV's website - it is there!

USC CSKA Sofia is the flagship organisation that maintains the CSKA Sofia brand, the history, and everything else. Being a member and being recognised by it is the only way you can claim any CSKA history up to 1948 year. Here's some history to you: "PFC CSKA AD" was founded in 1999 by Vasil Bojkov, tooking over the assets of the inactive "ZULNC CSKA Sofia" (ЗЮЛНЦ ЦСКА София), owned by Iliya Pavlov, which was formed in 1990 after the fall of communisum in Bulgaria and the transformation to a private club. It has no legal ties to Iliya Pavlov's inactive enity, but has become a member of USC CSKA Sofia and continued to represent and use the brand "PFC CSKA Sofia". An alternative entity, owned by Lyuboslav Penev, called "FC CSKA AD", was formed by the same time as Vasil Bojkov's PFC CSKA AD, but was not recognised bu USC CSKA Sofia and ceased to exist shortly after. In 2016, THE SAME WAY AS Pavlov's CSKA ceased to exist, PFC CSKA AD ceased to exist as well, falling bankrupted. A new entity with a pro license was formed on the ground of Litex Lovech's, called "PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD", to continue to represent the brand "PFC CSKA Sofia". Litex Lovech took over another license and started playing in third league. These were legal shifts, that were made according to the law. "FC Central Sports Club of the Army 1948", with an acronym "CSKA 1948", is a new amateur club with different branding in compersion to "CSKA Sofia", where "CSKA" is the full brand and not an acronym. It ceased to mean official "Central Sports Club of the Army" since 1990. As a sum up - there are no different clubs in 1948 and 2016 - just different entities, and if you create these 2 articles it WILL BE FALSE, and false info is not allowed to Wikipedia and you may get sanctioned.

The CAS letter is a layer's defence trying to win a court-case that would allow the club to bypass regulations and fines and play in Europa League ASAP. This is all that it is. Anyway, it cannot be proven to be original to Wikipeda rules because of the source of it and were it has been uploaded. Sorry.

Petruse Bumall says that he has been transferred to CSKA from Litex, i.e. what you say is again false. Boris Galchev and Bozhidar Chorbadzhiyski were one of the few examples that remained in the club from the Third League to the First. Yes, Litex and CSKA had the same owners when CSKA was in Third League, and the license takeover allowed some players to join CSKA. Litex currently is 100% owned by Litex Commerce JSC. and Great Wall Bulgaria.

By your edits in the last few months I am 100% convinced that you support the new CSKA 1948 club and have been looking for ways to split the article ever since. Now, whet the situation got all "noisey" in the media and some "documents" got "leaked" you felted it is finally time to strike and split the articles. I am sorry but this is just not right. There are numerous facts that you can't just ignore. As I sayed - in Bulgaria a club is not represented only by it's legal registration. You are the one who keep creating new articles for every license takeover of a team over another. FC Lokomotiv 1929 Sofia and PFC Neftochimic Burgas (2009–14) are just some examples that you created. In BGwiki there is no such thing. I believe I sayed what I needed to say and have proven my point by now...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 12:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should check the UEFA profile for the new CSKA. See there is writen No record in UEFA competition. How? Check any other team and see the writen record. Why is the CSKA one missing? Because this is a new team, so your information here is not right. Don't call me a liar please.

You mean that interview? Bobby Mihailov: CSKA(that new CSKA) is the successor of Litex. Clear as that \and don't tell me his words that he recognize the team as the old one. Its like me changing my name to Dimitar Berbatov and claiming i'm the top goalscorer for the Bulgarian NT.

USC may support the team, but this doesn't men that this is a ne team. The new CSKA can't claim the titels and the history of the old! Transfering 3 players from the old club doesn't mean this is the old club. The second team of the new CSKA was full of Litex players, first team too, staff is the same...How 3 people make CSKA the old one but 100 doesn't make it Litex?

STOP adding CSKA 1948 in that case...Why you are trying to make me look like I support that team. Believe in what you want. I made a lot edits for a lot teams. I edited a lot Arda article recently, is that mking me an Arda fan? Made same whit Neftochimic, so i'm a Neftochimic fan? Or Inter Dobrich fan? Maybe Kariana Erden fan? Editing pages and adding more information doesn't make me a fan. After the last time we talked and I stoped discussing this case until more inforaion came, I made a lot edits for CSKA article, including making articles for the latest debutants. Why you don't say that this makes me fan of CSKA? Don't attack me personal please! BGwiki is so outdated in many ways, I don't want to discuss it, i'm not making edits there. —Chris Calvin (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

These pages for the domestic championships are with information provided by the local federation, in this case the BFU. It's just a page for the club in the local tournaments, and because of the restructing most of the fields were left blank in the system page, just because the BFU did not provide enough information. As I said UEFA clearly recognises this CSKA as CSKA - giving it the same coefficient. You have no comment on that I see, right?

In the interview he clearly says that LEGALLY CSKA is a successor of Litex - because it took its license, but because now CSKA operates this license the club is CSKA. Stop faking things please.

There is NO OLD CSKA! The previous entity was found in 1999 and had no direct legal ties to the 1990 one, nor the 1948 founded club! Legal entities operate trademarks and claim sporting achievements, which are moderated in this case by USC CSKA Sofia. It has the authority to do so, and it has the end-term trademark rights by the original logo with the single star and the term "CSKA". This is why the new amateur club is registered as "Central Sports Club of the Army 1948", and calling itself "CSKA 1948" only as an acronym, because it has no legal rights to use "CSKA" as a full trademark. I checked and in the Trademark Agency their emblem's registration is appealed by guess who - USC CSKA Sofia!

You are a person and this a football club we are talking about. Don't try to make from the fly an elephant, just won't work.

Staff and players can change between clubs - Litex and CSKA had the same owners when the shift was made - why not? Nothing wrong in that, its a management disision. Nothing illegal in that. CSKA continues and operates as CSKA and Litex as Litex - your point exactly? I don't see it.

If you don't want me to make assumptions for you, then stop making such for me! You are the one that called me a "fan vandalisor" of the page! I gave you enough evidence and you still continue to say there is non! Its fine that you made good edits, but stop trying to force your personal opinion over the obvious things! You just refuse to take anything I give you! I don't care what you thing for BGwiki - its still the "home" wiki for these articles, a lot from the text here is translated from there and you can't just ignore it even if you try to.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 08:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

On a picture with low quality got from somewere? What you want me to comment? UEFA also listed the with the coeficient of Litex, and the last day before the draw they were listed with the national coeff. So this is just a page and someone forgot to add information? Well, if they recognize it as the old CSKA, they should had the information long time ago..and how did you get that info? Couldn't find it. Still, the legal firm is CSKA-Sofia and should apear as PFC CSKA-Sofia Sofia, but all prefered to short it. I have no problem with that, but shorting it or beeing in the USC doesn't mean that this is not new team.

So, are you trying to prove that we should get 3 CSKA pages or? The case back then is differant and I won't coment it. I'm here, to discuss the 2016 changes, not what happend in 1999 or to talk about CSKA 1948. You are the only bringing that team name in the topic. And you are not right, again, because if you are right we couldn't have teams such as Botev Plovdiv and Botev Vratsa. The now defunct Lokomotiv 2012 Mezdra and Lokomotiv 1918 Mezdra are examples. I can found a team called CSKA*Sofia and I can claim that this the real CSKA. Ok, here is an other example. I have a firm, Apple Inc. is dissoved, I change my firm name to Apple Inc. Do my firm can claim the history of Apple Inc.?

Well, your point exacly? Come on, you are plaing it blind or? I'm curius how you are going to explane it to someone neutral. You see, this CSKA got like 75 stuff and players from Litex and 3 from the old CSKA remained? I personally know players who played for Litex and were "'moved to this CSKA". They explained me how some of them had Litex contacts still, while playing for CSKA, because the team was the same and they had to wait until the new contracts with the new name of the team arrived. Telling that only for you, maybe this will help it to realise it, none of the players will go and say it loud, we all know why.

I did what? Did I used your name? I believe that there are other people adding just what they had in mind, deleting other refered information. You, in other hand, are trying to deffend your opinion by explaning. But if you believe i'm "forcing my personal opinion", why didn't you think you are doing the same? And "home" page? Seriously? Most of the articles about bulgarian football here don't have equivalent in the BG wiki? How could the "home" had less information..—Chris Calvin (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Ha, low quality image? That's all? Its a screencap from UEFA.com from when the club was there, it has been removed from there scinse, but UEFA HAD the intention to let CSKA in Europa League, just decided not to in the last moment. And now, just because it's no longer there yyou are trying to "prove" that they also uused the national coefficient and the Litex one for CSKA? That's a lie Chris, they never used these coefficients, only the original CSKA one, I was checking that page constantly before they took CSKA down and CSKA's coefficient was only listed. When Wayback Mashine shows up with the archive of the UEFA.com page I will post a direct prove. I am pretty sure you know that as well as a football follower, just trying to fake it now. That info was EVERYWHERE in the media, please.

I told you multiple times the legal firm registration is a different thing from the trademark. "CSKA-Sofia" is not a trademark, but just a registration that means just that - "CSKA" from "Sofia", the full original club name is "PFC CSKA Sofia". Its not shorting, its the club name. I told you that USC is a moderation organisation of the CSKA brand, no one can claim anything of CSKA's identity and history without being recognised by it. Its not a new club, just a new firm. Even if you try and found a new club with CSKA something in it without USC you can't claim to be anything. The case in 1999 was exactly the same, but nobody made a big deal about it...

The team got restructed, taking some of Litex's players and license because it made a jump and skipped a level due to the championship restructing. It got some of the management from Litex due to CSKA having the same owners with Litex in that time, since then the Litex ownership as been transferred to Litex Commerce Jsc. nd Great Wall Motors. Other teams also went bankrupted and then restored and if it was for me the Lokimotiv Mezdra articles would be merged.

BGwiki is referred to as a "home" one because it is the Bulgarian wiki for Bulgarian stuff. I did a lot of editing there, and then I transfer things here, if you edit only here OK, but if the info is available there, because most of the refferences are in Bulgarian it is easy to look them up there first. That's all. There is a dobule standard about CSKA's case and I don't find it right for it to be a thing just because a club is more popular than others. If something like this happend to Slavia or Cherno More its like almost nobody would even notice it...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 06:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I can write that on paint and picture just the same, thats what i'm saying. In fact, I checked UEFA club team coef. and CSKA is listed there, proving your point, but for me this is Catch-22, because they admit the team history in one place and not in other, with also banning them on the 3 year rule.

And I told you a few times that this doesn't mean that this CSKA could gain the history of the old. They can be under the USC hat and everything but this doesn't mean they are the old CSKA. They are CSKA, but differant just like NK Olimpija Ljubljana (2005) and NK Olimpija Ljubljana (1945) articles.

And in 1999 the situation is a bit differant. The club WAS recognized and approved to play in the UEFA Cup. Also, there is a change from A joint-stock company to majority owner company. So the legal firms are conected and not like in this case. None of Chavdar or Litex are conected to any CSKA team, this team becoming part of USC CSKA doesn't mean that this team is a successor and the Olimpija case is not acceptable here.

So, do we need to talk more? Nor me or you will change other mind, I believe that we both have good points, because the case is so complicated. We need a neutral point of view to decide.—Chris Calvin (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

There are ways and software to prove if an image has been altered or not. In this case this is a screencap from the uefa.com page. UEFA looks at the licence, which is issued at the legal firms. In this case the legal firm changed all its identity to a new one, therefore they apply the same rules as if it is a new club. That doesn't mean that this is automatically really a new club, just the same regulations apply as if this is a new club.

USC is a moderator, they decide if one club is CSKA or not. In this case they are pretty clear. I don't know enough facts about that Slovenian case, therefore I can't really take it as a part in this argument, just because I am not familiar with it.

In 1999 the situation was the same. ZULNC CSKA Sofia by Iliya Pavlov was transformed to PSC CSKA AD, and Luboslav Penev founded a new joint venture "FC CSKA" which became the now-bankrupted PFC CSKA AD, with shares taken over by Vasil Bojkov. Because PSC CSKA AD was stripped of the trademark of CSKA and did not get a license, falling inactive, the trademark was given to the new PFC CSKA AD by USC CSKA Sofia, with BFU considering this to be the legal substitute of the previous firm, therefore the club continued to be operated by a new firm. This was approved by the BFU and with their help the club participated in the UEFA Cup. In reality there is no legal connection between Pavlov and Bojkov's firms, just activity transfers. In this case is the same, just we have firms that previously operated Litex and Chavdar being restructed so they can take over CSKA's activities and the operation of the club, because they have a license that the old one did not has because of debts. Litex and Chavdar continue to exist in the same way they existed before, just in different leagues. Nothing different in their structure of existence as well.

Noone not affiliated with this case at all has joint in so far, an I am quite sceptical anyone joining in at all. Just too much unnecessary fuss was putted in the air...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 15:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there an unaffiliated user suggesting a pretty obvious solution to some of the problems in the section below? I'm pretty fed up with having Wikipedia censored for the sake of a businessman and his project. All the information on the case should be included and the best way to do it is via a separate article. --Laveol ^T 16:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I undesrstand what you think and some of the problems may be resolved by the suggestion of the user below, but I am just pessimistic about would it actually work. I am also fed up with people trying to make this case such a big deal because this procedure has been done and is beeing done every single year by multipule clubs, but when one of the most popular clubs does it - boom! Everything goes haywire. I don't want popularity, fan base, fan opinions, personal-something against managment involved in this case at all, if its CSKA thats done it - so what? In the article it is written in the most neutral and objective way possible I think. If you want to explore all the details and what other people think of this - OK, create the article, time will tell it has any results or not.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 18:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm done with explaining the 3 year rule. If you are right, any time that a team ownership is changed the team would get a 3 year ban..USC DOESN'N deside which club is CSKA, they accept the team under the hat, but this doesn't mean its CSKA. See, I don't say this new CSKA is not CSKA, it is, but its not that old CSKA and can't claim all the history, thats why I suggest differant articles. We are saying all the same everytime, so i'm happy to see finally a differant user to join this.—Chris Calvin (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I already told you why they got the 3 year rule - because of the legal restructing - a club that already had enough bans got a new license of another club and is trying to play with it. That's all that it is. And you are wrong - that's exactly what USC does. It is the same CSKA because everything else identifying other than the legal registration is the same. The old legal firm got almost the same restructing process in 1999, just with fewer fuss about it at the time.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 08:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

If you think the article is anywhere near NPOV, you must have not seen it for some time. Go ahead and read the latest version of the history section. And yes, it is a big deal and one that has been well documented by a multitude of sources, including UEFA. --Laveol ^T 13:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Laveol, a copule of months ago you and I agreed on the current version. Why do you plase these tags now? What made you change your mind? I belive the main problem is that people, including you by looking at your comments, just don't like Grisha Ganchev and what he did to the club. As I said, it's really not a big deal, but people's personal opinions on the managment and the whole situation in the club, including the media, make it look like it is. Things are what they are, and noone can change that. What sources? BFU and UEFA, who say multipule non-related things on the same time? Or "leaks" by Levski fans? Please, this is just not serious...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 16:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

No, what we agreed upon was a version that detailed everything that had happened and included a specific mention in the lede as to the actual name of the club. It was subsequently removed by what I can only describe as hardline fans and nothing was done to protect the text on your behalf. You've been debating everything else here, but you seemed to have liked what the article had turned into. Otherwise, you would have reverted the edits. And yes, the title dispute ytag is more relevant - it is what you've been discussing here for almost an year now. It has to stay until a consensus has been reached. --Laveol ^T 12:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. OK, some things were NPOV and unsourced, I also don't think they are approprite there in the way they are, so I removed them. The title of the page is not disputed, just the content, so this template is irreleveant. Unless you whant to change it to something completely else like "PFC CSKA-Sofia Sofia"...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 16:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I will not be doing any more reverts, as it would be nonconstructive. But, please, if you do not like the tags and do not want them there, try working out a solution with the others as well. Here's what my proposed version looked like - the text has subsequently been removed from the lede, and it is as valid and needed as ever, especially given the latest events around the club. We might need to file an official arbitration to get the whole issue cleared though. I might try and look up for any such solution. Oh, and, please, refrain from personal attacks, really. --Laveol ^T 13:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The tags indicate that the article is not neutral - it what way? I don't see anything that praises and over-tops Grisha Ganchev and the management's actions or sporting achievements. Everything is written in Wikipedia standard as far as I can see. The second tag suggests that something is wrong with the headline - nope, we all agree (?) that the headline should be PFC CSKA Sofia, whats under it is just different. That is what I make out and is why the tags are not appropriate. The version to what we agreed was almost exactly as what it is now. Users KZL1948 and Zourich, which I assume are the "hard-core fans", made some edits, most of which I managed to remove. In your version "CSKA-Sofia" is written as it is a trademark, which is not and thats why I edited it as "PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD", which is the full legal registration name. The trademark is PFC CSKA Sofia. I already said that "leaked" documents that came from shady sources cannot be proven trustworthy of Wikipedia standards. Even if they are official documents, we need a trustworthy source for them.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 17:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I promised not to make any more reverts, but The TV Boy, you should really familiarise yourself with how maintenance tags work. They are put there precisely because there is a dispute surrounding the article title or content. That is even what you said in your edit summary. Please, reconsider your decision to remove the tags, as it borders on vandalism.--Laveol ^T 17:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Man, stop with that personal attacks...So, everyone who support the idea of separetad articles is a CSKA 1948 fan or Grisha Ganchev hater? But you are sure you are right and you are somehow neutral in that case even if you are a fan of the team..How avoiding paying obligations is not big deal? I could say a lot for that case both positive and negative, but we are not here to discuss if GG is the good or the bad. We are here to discuss is this CSKA in position to compleating under that article. And the article doesn't change anything...Things are indeed what they are, this CSKA is a new team and due the fact that there is a conflict in taking one's team name, but beeing successor of other team, starting a new article would be fair. BFU and UEFA give us enough evidance that the team is indeed new, even if getting the CSKA name. The team is under the USC hat now, but this doesn't mean that its the old CSKA. What if tomorrow they say that Botev Plovdiv is getting under their hat, Botev, even with the name of CSKA won't become the old team. Make the differance. I still find PFC CSKA Sofia (1948) and PFC CSKA Sofia (2016) options as the best. Clearing that both teams are CSKA, but not beeing a compleate successors. We all agree on the CSKA-Sofia naming, but should be listed in the full name, as every other team having the full name added. —Chris Calvin (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am pretty convinced that there are personal opinions about stuff in play here, because the thing with the license shift has been done multiple times and NOONE said anything! I don't care who the owner of the team is, I don't care what he did is right or not, the fact is that he did it and that's that and noone can change it. Even if we write false stuff based on what we think is right or not that won't change anything, we would just write things based on our personal opinions, which is against what Wikipedia is - an encyclopedia based around true facts only, free of original researches and personal opinions. The debts thing also has been done by both Botev and Loko Sofia but noone again said a thing, and seems like it is legal to make that shift since all clubs continue to play normally. Writing how much bad it is is just yet again a personal opinion that has no place in Wikipedia. There are mechanisms to determine if a legal entity is a successor nd carries the same identity and club as a non- operational one. UEFA and BFU has not said official that this is am entirely a new club, they even state that it is indeed the same, please stop it with that, its false! And stop it with the 1948 and 2016 articles, there is no such thing, its false! This is a huge double standard if you do it since this is not the first time CSKA has made such a shift! CSKA-Sofia is not a name, the dash is just part of the legal registration PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD, which identifies just that - CSKA from Sofia.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 08:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If a new article is created for CSKA i demand new articles to be created for these clubs also : Beroe Stara Zagora ( an renamed club called Olimpik Teteven in 1999 ), Lokomotiv Plovdiv ( renamed Velbazhd Kyunstendil ), Botev Plovdiv ( renamed Metalik Sopot ), Ludogorets Razgrad ( renamed Razgrad 2000 ), Dunav - 2010 - Ruse ( new club, dosen't have anything related to the old one ), Etar VT Veliko Tarnovo ( renamed Botev Debelets ), Pirin Blagoevgrad ( that's like 5-6 club they create with that name ), Septemvri Sofia ( renamed Pirin Razlog, before that renamed Konelyano German ) --Scroch (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Lokomotiv and Velbadzh are merged, Botev had their announcment that they did the same, Ludogorets is listed as a new team founded in 2000, Etar had their current 3rd page if you haven't noticed, Pirin had 2, Septemvri also had merges. Won't comment Beroe and Dunav, but if you find it fair, separete the articles, but I believe it's unnecessary because of the low notability of the teams.—Chris Calvin (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Lokomotiv and Velbazhd didn't merge, Lokomotiv's NPO was dissolved and Velbazhd's JSC was renamed to Lokomotiv. Merger between PFC Botev 1912 AD and Metalik Sopot never occured, the fans NPO brought Metalik Sopot's JSC and renamed it, the original Botev 1912 is still written in the Registry Agency and it's marque was never sold to the new club ( unlike CSKA where the new club brought all actives from the old one ). For Pirin this is like 5th club they make in the last 10 years. Beroe's old JSC ( the one that was Olimpik Teteven ) went bankrupt in 2010 and the new one brought some of the actives from the old JSC. And final " but I believe it's unnecessary because of the low notability of the teams" this is total nonsense and you should be ashamed of what you just said. --Scroch (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe all this teams have an articles and also had talk page, so feel free to start a discussion. This here become in discussion about half of Bulgarian teams and stuff not so much related with the case if this CSKA should be kept on this article or to be listed on a new one. I don't know for what activities you are talking about since I showed a documend about the new CSKA gaining the activities and passives of Litex and if you are talking about the auction, well I don't see the name of the winner anywere in the owners list of CSKA.—Chris Calvin (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The winner is the biggest fan club of CSKA and is clearly backed by the owners of the club. Exactly the same was as the other three participants were clearly backed from a rival club owner --Scroch (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the article title and contents

There has been a huge dispute going on here about whether this is still the same club, following the bankruptcy of its old firm last year. It was re-established prior to the bankruptcy by the merging of two other clubs, with the re-established entity striving to assume the history and legacy of CSKA Sofia. Some fans say it is still the same club, others that it isn't, and some even say another club is the "real" one, but the main thing is those are all opinions by fans i.e. impossible to reach any consensus with each other. An outside opinion is not only needed, it is the only way to pass the deadlock here. The current title of the article is PFC CSKA Sofia‎ and little of the club's subsequent history (post-bankruptcy) is included in it. Including UEFA's refusal to allow it into the Europa League. I am not sure what the policy towards such cases should be (as I have not witnessed any case like it), but any editor with experience with association football could help us here. Mind you, it is not, how to say, healthy for Bulgarian users to edit the article or even take part in the discussion, as they might become targets of off-wiki harassment (another reason why I am filing this RfC).--Laveol ^T 13:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I've finally managed to find an English-language source that has a somewhat accurate summary of the whole situation. It comes from a somewhat reliable source and has no reason to be partial to any of the sides of the story. It is available online and also in print as part of the 23rd issue of the Football quarterly December 2016.--Laveol ^T 21:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope, that's just Dimitur Angelov's personal opinion in that interview. Also the article is one-sided. Not a reliable source at all.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 07:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Who would be impartial then? The author has no reason not to be impartial, since he is not a fan of any of the clubs. Unlike any of the other sources we might have. --Laveol ^T 15:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The author jus wrote what Ducheto said, and he's definitely not impartial...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 14:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

My comment: the official bankruptcy is something that is done by the court - it decide whenever to do it. "PFC CSKA AD" stopped all operations as of 1 June 2016, with them being taken over immediately by "PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD" - the new firm. This includes staff, players, activities, etc. This was clarified on the club's website. "PFC CSKA AD" was under operation by a law personnel - Dora Mileva, assigned by the court to lead the firm through the bankruptcy process. The new firm, which was formed on the bases of PFC Litex Lovech's old firm because it had a license for top division, took out all assets and operations of the club, as I said, as of June 2016. PFC Litex Lovech continued to exist in Third League as no professional license is needed there. Nothing really has changed in terms in the use of the PFC CSKA Sofia core identification, other than the operational firm and some of the management that govern the club.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 17:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The old legal firm of CSKA stopped all operations in 2016. After a marge between Chavdar and Litex a new team was founded under the name of CSKA. Due the fact the team have conflinct in gaining CSKA history, but beeing a legal succesor of Litex and indeed gaining most of Litex stuff, players, activities and passives, this team should get a separeted article. The refounded team of Litex merge with Botev Lukovit to gain a Third League spot. I already presented few references about why this team can't continue using this article and getting a new article will be the righteous decision.—Chris Calvin (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

According to Bulgarian law, legal firms can be fully reformed to become and take the activities of something else. CSKA took the firm that carried the license of Litex Lovech to play in First League, with Chavdar Etropole's former firm acting as a flagship company, Litex Lovech took the firm and the license of Botev Lukovit to play in Third League and got promoted to Second League, Botev Lukovit continued to play in the fourth level and got promoted back to Third League, Chavdar Etropole got the firm and license of FC Pravets to play in Third League and FC Pravets plays in fourth level. That's it. If the law premites it and its legal to do it, why not? Some of the staff and players, NOT all of them got transferred from Litex in order for the club to make the jump from amateur division. "Leaked" documents cannot be proven trustworthy. This is the same club as before, just restructed and playing with another's license.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 08:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, 90% of litex team and stuff are not all of them. This team is a renamed and relocalated Litex and can't claim its the old CSKA, because the got the name. This was you said about the legal firms...lol we have sick problems in laws...I proved already my point, gave enough references and everything, I explained why should this team get a new article, because we are discussing this, not the way or how CSKA ended up here. I will try to stay away from the discussion, since we are looking more neutral point of view, outside Bulgaria, whom can't be called CSKA, CSKA 1948, Levski ect. fan..—Chris Calvin (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

That's simply not true - Litex is Litex and continues to play in Third League and got promotion to Second League. The two teams had the same owners and CSKA simply got Litex's license, by having its legal firm being restructed into a new one, so that CSKA can play in First League. In order to make the jump to professional football some of Litex's players were transferred to CSKA. CSKA is the same CSKA, just with different registration, it has done this before, Litex is the same Litex in now Second League and has also done similar thing to this before when they were called LEX Lovech... We may have sick laws, but that's what we've got here - according to them what the clubs do is 100% legal.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 21:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I will try to explain the topic as objective as possible. First of all, we need to say that during the season 2015/16 CSKA Sofia and Litex Lovech had the same owner - Grisha Ganchev, during his rule in CSKA for 1 year, he found that the debts of this club are too great to be covered or at least to be covered with his abilities. Therefore he decides to bankrupt CSKA Sofia and bring the other team Litex Lovech in Sofia and rename it. What's more, he attempted to change CSKA name into FC "Lupi" . Then after the successful start of liquidation of CSKA assignee Dora Mileva took control attempting to save the club. Meanwhile, Chavdar Etropole rename their amateur club and move it in Sofia and became PFC CSKA-1948 AD and then bought Litex Lovech forming CSKA-Sofia This was legal operation, which is forbidden by the BFU rules, because every licence holder is represented by its name and city, if they are changed it will inevitably lead to cancellation of this licence. However, for unknown reasons, I don't want to speculate, because there are only rumours, this was allowed. Following this acquisition, the new CSKA-Sofia use the structure of Litex, all players, staff, coaches had contacts with the new team without signing a new contract, all youth teams of Litex automatically became CSKA-Sofia and even they wanted to participate in UEFA Youth League as Cup winner , from the attached document you can see the first attempt of CSKA-Sofia to participate in Europe tournament as a successor of Litex Lovech. In addition, to support my claim that all players having contracts with Litex were considered as CSKA-Sofia players, you can see Bjørn Maars Johnsen case where CSKA-Sofia lawyer try to pursue him after he left the club, this summer the same happened with Arsénio Martins Lafuente Nunes, because UEFA recognise CSKA-Sofia as a new club, despite the efforts of CSKA-Sofia to prove that they are Litex Lovech. In the same time, a new club was formed - CSKA 1948 by fans who didn't want to participate in this Chavdar-Litex merging and they started from the lower league and gain promotion, this year they will play in 3rd division. Also, Litex Lovech was re-established and bought Botev Lukovit gaining his right to participate in the 3rd division, there are no licences in this division, so it was a legal procedure. Meanwhile, CSKA tried to start the new season with Dora Mileva as a director, however, the previous owners didn't pay the rent at Bulgarian Army Stadium which leads to the expulsion of the team from it, which breaks the last hopes of this club to be saved. What's more, CSKA-Sofia perhaps has serious political influence since they used the club logo a year illegally and a legal pursue didn't start, this leads to having an empty place for CSKA-Sofia logo in BFU site for 2016-2017. Despite this, they won the auction of CSKA logo but don't have the money or don't want to give it to pay and take officially the original CSKA logo so now they are using a modification of the official logo. The last prove that CSKA-Sofia is not CSKA was from UEFA who said directly that this is a new team by not giving licence for Europa League using the 3-year rule of new teams. With all this I want to explain that both new teams CSKA-Sofia and CSKA 1948 are equally successors and not successors of CSKA and choosing one of them because it is playing in higher league is not a fair decision.In addition, CSKA won the Bulgarian Cup at 2016, but neither CSKA 1948 or CSKA-Sofia didn't play Supercup game. What's more, the arrogance with which are acting CSKA-Sofia trying to prove that they are successors by law to Litex and by moral in front of the fans to CSKA is ridiculous, their attitude toward the reporters who do not accept them as CSKA is threatening and blaming the Bulgarian Union for their own problems is hypocritical since they allow them to play in First Division against their own rules and becames even more strange when all this comes from the exact same person who bankrupts CSKA in first place just to avoid paying the debts - Grisha Ganchev. Considering that CSKA Sofia, CSKA-Sofia and CSKA 1948 have their own timelines starting last summer, it is a logical decision, in my opinion, every one of these teams to have separately Wikipedia page, they have different logos, different events which happened and different managers during this time and can't be combined in 1 article. Жълто и Черно (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A football club is represented by its trademark name firstly, the legal firms that operate them can change in between the seasons. The old legal firm PFC CSKA AD, having faced financial difficulties, was bankrupted, with absolutely all its operations being transferred to a new one - PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD, which was restructed from PFC Litex Lovech's firm because it had a pro license. PFC CSKA AD and PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD HAVE NOT operated separately, the first one ceased operations immediately after it transferred the club operations to the new one. PFC Litex Lovech continued to exist in the same way in the Third League, taking the place and license of FC Botev Lukovit. PFC CSKA AD was attempted to be renamed to FC LUPI AD so that the registration initials "PFC CSKA AD" in the commercial register be taken immediately by the new firm, unfortunately this action was blocked and that is why the new firm had to add "-Sofia" in its registration, because two firms cannot be registered into the system with the same name. Litex players were transferred to CSKA because the team had to make the jump from amateur to professional level in just a month. Dora Mileva is a law representative, she does not "operate" the firm, she only protects the creditors interests in front of the court, she has no play in this restructing. CSKA took Litex's license and its spot, yes, that is something that is allowed to be done by the BFU regulations, it has been done numerous times by numerous clubs, examples are Septemvri Sofia with Conegliano German and Pirin Razlog, Beroe Stara Zagora with Olympic Galata, Botev Plovdiv with Metalik Sopot, Etar VT with FC Debelet... should I continue? It can be done. PFC CSKA AD was established in 1999 after a similar takeover, it was never the "original" firm as you are trying to claim. This time with CSKA it became such aa big deal because of the clubs fame, which is a HUGE and unfair dobbule standart. CSKA 1948 is a different new club which uses a different trademark, is not part of the flagship organisation that moderates the CSKA brand and logo - USC CSKA Sofia. They have nothing else. The logo of PFC CSKA Sofia was blocked in NAP because of debts, now it is payed back. CSKA had a ban from UEFA from 2015 and now they have a new one for getting another team's license. Thats all. CSKA's brand is still alive and operational, same goes for Litex, Chavdar Etropole and Botev Lukovit - they are all the same seperate clubs. I'm sick of people trying to destroy this article just because its the team they don't like or owner they don't like. You can't change anything that's happend, you just have to deal with it once and for all and let it rest.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 19:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain me what's the difference between renaming Chavdar Etropole and renaming Metalik Sopot. It's not forbidden by BFU rules, BFU clearly says that a club cannot move from one zone to another fr example you cannot move club from Northeastern BFU zone to Southwestern, but it is legal to change cities there are multiple cases for example Makedonska Slava Simitli moved to Blagoevgrad and renamed itself to Pirin 1922. --Scroch (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Also according to BFU rules if a team is in liquidation procedure the membership is terminated, there was no way PFC CSKA AD to participate in the season 2016/17 at any level. Also Grisha Ganchev cannot pay right now the money because the court should hev rule over the complaints of several people and companies. The emblem that's used is just a jubilee emblem same case as Slavia and Levski did few years ago, the new Botev Plovdiv for example is using an emblem that dosen't have anything in common with the old one and the old one is still being sold from NAP without any interest of anybody to buy it --Scroch (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course Scroch, I will gladly explain the differences. In last 20 years many teams changed their original name and/or city like Velbazhd Kyustendil to Plovdiv or Olimpik Teteven in Stara Zagora, therefore the Bulgarian Football Union took decision to stop this practice allowing clubs to change their city and name only in their respective region, without possible migration from Lovech to Sofia or from Vidin to Burgas. This rule was followed until the summer of 2016, when BFU broke it under pressure from higher authorities and it was allowed to Chavdar Etropole to move from Sofia Oblast to Sofia City and Litex Lovech licence to move from Lovech in Sofia which was forbidden by the BFU rules. As for all the other examples, all teams are from the respective region except Septemvri Sofia which happened immediately after Chavdar-Litex case and their owner who is a close friend with BFU president - Borislav Mihaylov took advantage of the exception which was made. Also, please remember once for all that in amateur football there are no licences. Licence is given only to professional teams and every licence represent the club name, address and other details which are connected undisputed with this team and his finances hence in amateur football we have a "right to participate" which is winning only on the field and it is not defended by the BFU regulations as untouchable and moving in the same region is permitted. Therefore Etar bought Debelets, Litex bought Botev Lukovit legally (don't you ask why Litex wanted to buy exactly Botev Lukovit when they could acquire much easily team from another region), because these are teams from their respective region and do not possess a license.

To answer to the defender of Grisha Ganchev, CSKA didn't stop operation immediately, they started pre-season camp and Dora Mileva was acting in order to save the club from bankrupt in order to increase its value. After that, the government took the stadium from CSKA which lead to their withdrawal from the championship of 2nd Division. What's more, defending the person who actually destroyed and attempted to rename CSKA Sofia means that you are most probably part of his PR department or from the numerous hired reporters who are working to promote CSKA-Sofia as a successor of CSKA, because the things which you are attempting to explain are extremely subjective and I wasn't very interested in this case in last year, however with this ugly attempts which are made to change the real events, you motivate me and I am ready to spare from my time to explain every detail which is at my disposal to show that CSKA-Sofia is equally successor of CSKA like CSKA 1948, because both teams are newly formed, it can be clearly seen by UEFA statement who accept CSKA-Sofia as a new team (already explained in prevous message) and this is the reason for the ban, because it is accepted as a new team, not because of the old debts like you tried to add in your message. Meanwhile in Bulgaria by the BFU laws this team is a successor of Litex, it can be seen from the official statement of BFU , because the licence is undisputed and using Litex licence they accept all successes and debts, as you can see. So, at the end we have Chavdar Etropole, which is renamed and bought Litex Lovech claiming that are CSKA and a newly formed team which is CSKA 1948, none of them has nothing in common with CSKA Sofia except the 4 letters in their name, there is no "flagship" organisation, there is no continuation, CSKA didn't participate anyhow in the acquisition of Litex. Therefore they couldn't have anything in common with CSKA, therefore 3 separately articles should be created. If CSKA-Sofia didn't acquire other licence starting from amateur football, then they could be accepted as a successor of CSKA, however, they decided to enter immediately in First Division with another's team licence which is clear termination of any links to the old club. Жълто и Черно (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a flagship organization USC CSKA ( Обединени спортни клубове ЦСКА ) and it is the main carrier of the emblem and the marque CSKA. That's why 1948 had to be named Central sport club of the army, because they cannot use CSKA without authorization from USC CSKA. And on other side the first division football club is member of USC CSKA and has all the rights to be claimed as successor of the nonprofit organisation FC CSKA ( ceased activity in 1999 ) and to PFC CSKA ( working as carrier for the football club from 1999 to 2016 ). It's not up to you to decide who's successor to whom. And talking about paid people in Wikipedia when clearly you're a fan of different fooball club is at least nonsense --Scroch (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Жълто и Черно, PFC CSKA AD did stop operations immidiately, just some people gathered some youth players to send them to camp with another coach to do... something, I don't know exactly, with them claiming to be "the original PFC CSKA AD's team" for some goddamn reason, with no coverage to their actions whatsoever because PFC CSKA AD really had stop operations and none of it's directors gathered any team at all, they just transferred the operations of the club to PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD. This thing with the "camp" was made with some reason, possibly to atempt to stop the transfer process. Dora Mileva is a court representative that oversees actions made by the official managment of a bankruptet firm, and to protect the rights of the creditors in front of the law, she just does not have the legal rights to "operate" and fully run a football club, sorry. Your words lead again to your personal opinion for Grisha Ganchev, and has no cover in Wikipedia's rules whatsovever. Who the owner of the clubs is and what he did is a stale fact, you can't change that even if you try no matter how much you don't like him. The reason for the UEFA ban is that according to regulations such restructions of a bankrupted club to take the license of another club is forbidden and is treated "AS a new club", that doesn't mean that it IS a new club. It is a "legal" sucessor to Litex in terms of using Litex's commersial registration, which now has nothing to do with Litex because it has been transformed to something else. CSKA 1948 is a completely different club that is not part of USC CSKA Sofia - the flagship organisation, sorry. There are no two clubs CSKA, just one re-registered club. Please stop trying to fake things just so you can split the articles, its just far too obvious at this point...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 15:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2017

Request to add Raoul Loé to the list of players in the Current Squad:

|- class="vcard agent" | style="text-align: center" | — | style="text-align: center" | MF | style="padding-right:15px;" | CMR | style="padding-right:15px;" | Raoul Loé Moraes (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If this is a part of a transaction, it might be awaiting official confirmation. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2017

Shashav10 (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2017

CSKA sofia tumor Shashav10 (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

European History

According to UEFA, the official governing body of European Football, PFC CSKA-Sofia has no prior history of European competition; however, in your article, you say that it has. Why are these facts being ignored? Please remove any prior European Football history of CSKA-Sofia from this page as they have none. The issue that I'm raising is about European history only and has not been specifically addressed in the discussions above. I have provided you with a reference from THE ONLY official source on the subject! Why is this being completely ignored?

Reference: https://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=2608297/profile/index.html (94.175.128.108 (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC))

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please see the above discussions. Stickee (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please change "non-reference to UEFA web-site to reference to the official CSKA-SOFIA info page on UEFA web-site as follows: www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=2608297/profile/index.html"

This reference comes from the only official source of European Football and should be added.

 Already done The UEFA current ranking section links to the relevant UEFA rankings for club competitions page and the External LInks section links to the UEFA PFC CSKA Sofia page Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

CSKA-Sofia and CSKA Sofia

As a matter of fact PFC CSKA Sofia is a new entity and as a recently registered company it has nothing to do with the old club which is under administration. The current content of this page is not in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia and therefore certain changes are required.

First and foremost, PFC CSKA as a new club which is NOT a successor of PFC CSKA. Therefore PFC CSKA Sofia can NOT:

- use the logo of PFC CSKA
- claim the history(including the honours) of the original and still existent club as its own
- replace PFC CSKA as a member of the multisport club (CSKA)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by BG89 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you help with this potential confusion by providing some sources, preferably in English? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The new entity uses the same trade mark as the old entity - which is enough evidence that this article must not be renamed and the new entity is a de-facto successor of the old one. The objects of the headlines of the Wikipedia articles are the trade marks, not the entity registrant firm in the Bulgarian law system, if we are to name them the exact same way as them so the article's name should be PFC CSKA - Sofia EAD. Every Wikipedia article for a football team is named after the trade mark and not as the exact registrant firm.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 16:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that the article should remain where it is, although this club is not a de jure successor of the old one. However, we do need to include info on the fact that the actual CSKA still exists and is still in administration. We should also include the actual name of the club (which cannot be identical to the still existing entity) which is CSKA - Sofia (I'm not sure which hyphen is the official one in this particular case).--Laveol ^T 14:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the full name of the entity that is going bankrupted is PFC CSKA EAD, and the new one is PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD. They are different law entities, but they are still using the one and the same chests and one and the same trademark, which is PFC CSKA Sofia, the new one is claiming to be the de-facto successor of the club PFC CSKA Sofia (which is identified by it's trademark and chest), even thought de-jure they are different law registered entities. Because in Wikipedia the articles are named after the trademarks, not after the law entities (for example Mtel-Mobiltel EAD, Vivacom-BTC EAD, etc.) the name of the article should remain as it is, and in the text or in the template some ware we can include information about how is the full name of the club (PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD), as well as info about the administrated entity, which does not operate anything anymore.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 10:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup, my point exactly. --Laveol ^T 12:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I will proceed with editing the article along the lines I've listed above. I hope everyone will remain civil about it. --Laveol ^T 18:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Added info that the legal firm's name is PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD and the trademark that the club operates under is PFC CSKA Sofia. EAD is nescessery to be there in order to avoid confussion. Also inserted that the previous legal firm PFC CSKA EAD is banckrupt as of September 9, 2016.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 19:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Umm, I do think, though, that the previous wording was better. The club is regarded with the name CSKA-Sofia by all entities that have any say on the matter. It not only operates under the name, but it is its name as far as FIFA, UEFA, and the National Football Union are concerned. --Laveol ^T 19:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It is written like this in order to avoide confusion with the previous entity, because by the time that info was inserted the previous entity was still not yet in a bankrupt and was still registered in the info system in FIFA and UEFA. Now that it is bankrupt is due to be removed from there. In the BFU website it is the same case, and in the First League official site every club is written with it's legal name - PFC Botev EAD, PFC Beroe EAD, etc. The club itself has stated today in it's official site that it's official name is PFC CSKA Sofia and only the legal firm is registered as PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 20:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

First Professional Football League presents this logo for CSKA-Sofia. --IM-yb (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This is because there are still some legal disputes over the the emblem and the BFU does not want to take sides because of this, a similar case to this was the one with FC Steaua București. The club still uses the original the emblem on it's official site and on the shirts, thought.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 16:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is totally misleading. There are 3 entities - PFC CSKA Sofia, PFC CSKA-Sofia and PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia. The last two are fighting for succession for the first one, despite that PFC CSKA Sofia still exists. Yes, its assets are in liquidation, but this DOES NOT mean that the entity will never compete as a football club again. After clearing its financial liabilities, the entity has all rights to start operating again. There are two problems with this article. First - PFC CSKA-Sofia is NOT a legal successor of PFC CSKA Sofia by any means. Second - supporters of PFC CSKA Sofia are split between the all three clubs, as there are many fans who support the plan to clear the financial liabilities of the original PFC CSKA Sofia. Hence, this article is completely misleading and biased. There should be three articles related to each of these clubs. For reference, you can check the articles for the Romanian football clubs Rapid and Steaua. This article is simply wrong.109.121.248.20 (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope. One club in Bulgaria can change its legal entity with a new one. Football regulations allow it. PFC CSKA Sofia is still the same PFC CSKA Sofia in all means, see the discussion. The old entity PFC CSKA AD does not operate anything anymore and once the legal procedure of bankruptcy is over it will be liquidated and erased from all legal registers. That's all that will happen to it. PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD is the name of the new entity that operates everything that was operated by PFC CSKA AD, including trademark, name, chest, stadium, etc. This term "CSKA-Sofia" is not a trademark, just something that people who don't comply with the procedure use because of whatever reason. Wikipedia doesn't care about what people think about the fact that PFC CSKA Sofia took another teams position and what they think about the club. It cares about bare facts only. "CSKA 1948" is a new club with this only being it's acronym, the full name of the club is "FC Central Sports Club of the Army 1948 Sofia". PFC CSKA Sofia's full name is "CSKA", its no acronym in this case. Steaua was in a similar position, but as you can see the name of the Wikipedia article has not change because of the very same reasons. And the article is protected because of persistent abusive vandalism and edit-warring, so no, it won't be changed.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 20:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

TV Boy, CSKA-Sofia does not operate neither of the trademark, name, chest nor stadium of the original PFC CSKA Sofia. 1. The trademark CSKA was auctioned, won, but not paid from CSKA-Sofia. Moreover, winning the trademark does not constitute legal nor historical continuity. 2. The name of the new club is CSKA-Sofia, not CSKA, explicitly because the new club does not possess the rights to be called CSKA. Same applies to CSKA 1948. 3. I do not understand what do you define by "chest" - if you are referring to kit colours, then I would simply dismiss this argument as there are thousands of clubs around the world using red and white colours. 4. Stadium - PFC CSKA Sofia AD did not possess a stadium. The stadium of the Bulgarian army was leased to CSKA Sofia AD, after the entity was forced into liquidation the lease contract was cancelled. Then, the Bulgarian government signed a new contract with CSKA-Sofia. On this point I have to stress on two things: A) The fact that a new contract was signed, shows that the CSKA-Sofia is not a legal successor of PFC CSKA; B) The fact that CSKA-Sofia was chosen for new occupant does not imply any relation with PFC CSKA, the procedure by which CSKA-Sofia was chosen is unclear, and the club is only a temporary occupant. Legally, every other entity could have requested to occupy the stadium i.e. Septemvri Sofia, Lokomotiv Sofia, etc. In summary, your arguments are inconsistent and misleading. The article needs to be revised immediately.81.108.69.157 (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

BG89, log in so I can see you clearly please. The legal firm PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD operates the trademark and everything else operated before by PFC CSKA AD. Everything can be found on the clubs site www.cska.bg. The chest, not the trademark was being held under the bulgarian law since PFC CSKA AD did not pay taxes, they don't own it, just they acquire the right to resale it in order to retrieve taxes. It is still legally owned by the football team, currently operated by PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD. Chest means the emblem, refresh your English please. The trademark, a.k.a. the four letters "CSKA" by itself are owned by USC CSKA Sofia. This is why the amateur club can't use them, they are using "CSKA 1948" as an acronym of "Central Sports Club of the Army 1948". "CSKA-Sofia" is not a trademark, this thing written like this comes from the legal register registration, some media are trying to make it look like a trademark for some reasons, but its really not. None of the clubs own a stadium by themselves, they are all state-owned in one way or another. BG89, stop multiplying yourself with anonymous edits, you don't have any real arguments whatsoever. You are just trying to force youre opinion and point of view over the article.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 14:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

TVBoy, I am the person who started this paragraph. Apologies that I am not registered, I do not write stuff on wikipedia very often. Could you please address each point separately, what are you doing here is mingling a few points in one sentence without any clear answer. From what you have written, I can see that you are presenting information which is simply wrong. The trademark and the crest (I believe this is what you are referring by "chest") of PFC CSKA are not in possession of CSKA-Sofia. You are deceiving the readers here. There is an auction for the crest and there will be a separate one for the trademark.81.108.69.157 (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are BG89, who started this topic, thanks for admitting that, now log in please. I have explained everything in the numerous topics on this talk page, I don't want to repeat myself over and over again, just look at them. Yes, the trademark and the chest are in possession of PFC CSKA Sofia, they are CSKA's mark and chest for god sake! The club is operated by the firm PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD, the previous firm PFC CSKA AD does not operate anything. Because taxes weren't paid the NAP has blocked the chest ONLY, not the trademark. The trademark with the 4 letters "CSKA" is owned by USC CSKA Sofia. NAP does not own the chest, they just can block it and resale it at auction to retrieve the taxes per Bulgarian law. It is still owned by CSKA. Recently PFC CSKA Sofia has licensed out the use of the name CSKA and the chest to London for a fan academy. The license contract was signed and stamped by the firm PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD. If they don't own it and can't use it as you say, how can they license out these things? What you are saying is just gibberish...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 19:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, your comments do not address any of the points that I raised. CSKA-Sofia cannot use the brand CSKA as it does not own it. Please provide sources for this information. Can I ask for Wikipedia moderation here? The page seems to be hijacked by a particular commercial interests 109.121.248.20 (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You don't really care about any points I give and simply ignore everything I say, why even bother? No, you can't ask for anything, because you're not logged in.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 22:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

To avoid any further confusion, please split this article into two parts such as "PFC CSKA-Sofia", which would refer to the team purchased by Grisha Ganchev and a second article such as "PFC CSKA Sofia (1948-2015), which would talk about the original team during this period of time that does not exist anymore. See the following about the Winnipeg Jets of the NHL - pretty much the same situation. "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Jets", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Jets_(1972–96)". I understand that wikipedia does not use names as registered in the business directory, but rather trade marks. By splitting the article into two parts similarly to the article about the Winnipeg Jets, the difference will be clearly there to see. UEFA has two pages on PFC CSKA Sofia as well showing one team as the original and the other as the new entity: "https://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=2608297/profile/index.html" for the new team and "http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/club=50076/#/" for the original entity that no longer exists. Given all, I don't see a reason of why the article should not be split into two to make it more clear and understandable for everyone as it is already done for the Jets. Please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.128.108 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

There are no two clubs with the name CSKA, just one club that has been re-registered. That does not make them two different clubs. UEFA's site has not been updated recently and could not be used as a source regarding PFC CSKA Sofia, because it contains information that is not full. The club has not participated in UEFA tournaments recently, this is why the information has not been updated. There is no reason to make any changes to the articles.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 15:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018

x Stamen Belchev as a manager y Nestor El Maestro Emicska (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018

remove x Emicska (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

The ultras firm “Ofanziva” is no longer in action. Most of the members have formed new firm which has pretty much the same power. Their name is “OFFENDERS” 149.62.203.12 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)