Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Edit request on 12 July 2012

Couldn't see another request on here for this; at the end of the #Ownership and finances section it reads "This club has applied to register with the Scottish Football Association and to participate in the Scottish Premier League." - Can this be updated to the latest which is that the option to participate in the SPL is now no longer possible and that they have applied to join the Scottish Football League at Div 1 and/or 3?

Kennedy ^(talk) 15:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agree - I'm sure both sides in the currect dispute would agree that this would be more accurate than current version. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose because it not decided if it one aritlce or two and if it two then it factual correct if it one articlke it is wrong--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That homestly shocks me, Andrewcrawford. Even an editor who believes that there should only be one article would surely prefer that sentence to be updated? They may believe the article is wrong but would they actual prefer for it to be even more wrong? That would be very depressing if true. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

no i dnt want the article to be wrong, lets take it that tomorrow it annocue it is brand new club, then we will have to make quite a few changes o this aritcle including this, i only oppose because tomorrow should be dday and we can all hopefull havea better idea, if that changes happens then you will have the ditor who want it to be one aritcle complaining you have changed something from past tense to present tense change the rest let snot have those arguments until we know for sure--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but thats just stupid. Its wrong whatever happens tomorrow. The club is no longer applying to the SPL. Thats it. Its a fact. Its now applying to the SFL. I'm not putting a POV here, just clarifying the facts. If something happens tomorrow then we change it tomorrow. Articles should be up to date, not just 'lets just wait and see what happens tomorrow' Kennedy ^(talk) 19:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

they might nto even get into the sfl that not even certain. if you read above i didnt oppose a similar change then i tried to make a comprise statement but since that doesnt suit either side of the argument then it wont happen, by make this one change we encourage the bickering t wont harm to wait one more day, the article has been like this since it was locked so explain what harm one day will do? to clarify i aint opposing because it wrong, or becaus ei think it should be one article i am opposing because of the arguments it will bring and the fact it could change again--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Kennedy, it's extremely unlikely that Rangers will be back in the SPL for next season, but it's not 'fact'... yet. The vote taking place with the SFL clubs can actaully vote 'no' to RFC going into the 'SFL' and then vote 'NO' to Dunfermline and Dundee resigning SFL membership so they can join the SPL. So in those circumstances, RFC could have no league membership & the SPL would be 1 club short with nobody to fill the gap.... and perhaps look to do another deal for RFC to rejoin the SPL. I know it's hugely unlikely, but RFC not being in the SPL is not 'fact' yet, on this basis i think we shoudl wait til the vote is cast. I think it's likely the entire RFC page will change. Ricky072 (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason for a minor edit to take place to the article at this stage, lets wait and see todays developments and see if there is a clear statement and sources helping to resolve the main dispute with the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Purely because we should wait until the SFA ratify this decision. Its become clear that this isn't over, SPL2 rangers rejoining the SPL[1] or the SFA withholding there licence only if they are in higher league is currently all options open that can be sourced to the BBC and the Herald. I agree we should remove applying for the SPL because they aren't and they won't. It will only be the SFA and the SPL that could make that decision. We should not replace it because we are essentially adding more uncertainty, we should wait until SFA or SPL make announcements which will probably be Monday.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

PRECEDENTS: Luton F.C, Bournemouth F.C & Rotherham F.C

Having already presented the case that Leeds United F.C set the precedent in how Wikipedia should document Rangers, I also present 3 more cases where clubs have fell into administration, failed to exit adminsitration via a CVA, and consequently sold their business & assets ('the club' in most views) to a Newco, who have then operated the club.

Luton F.C: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luton_Town_F.C. - OLdCo: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/04977080 (in liquidation), NewCo: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/04977080

AFC Bournemouth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.F.C._Bournemouth - OldCo: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/03333372 (in liquidation), NewCo: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06632170

Rotherham United F.C: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_FC - OldCo: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05764000 (in liquidation), NewCo: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06550400

Precedent has already been set within Wikipedia on how it presents articles on Football Clubs to have underwent the process of liquidation & sale to a NewCo. The same club is represented within the same page. In the case of Chester & Halifax it's important to recognise the difference. These clubs did not purchase the assets of the old clubs. They are different clubs, with different names & different badges, created entirely from scratch by supporters groups following the dissolution of the previous clubs. These are known as 'phoenix clubs'.

It's improtant for Wikipedia to recognise the difference between Sports clubs which purchased the 'assets' from the OldCo to NewCo & carried the same legal identity as the same club, and 'phoenix clubs'. Ricky072 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to give me some details about Rotherham United not exiting via an agreed CVA because a quick google search brought up this article which clearly says "The club were saved from liquidation in 2006 when creditors agreed to a Company Voluntary Agreement." That would appear to contradict that Rotherham United was a club which "fell into administration, failed to exit adminsitration via a CVA..." Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, rotherham went into administration in 2006 an exited via CVA. That article is from when Rotherham fell into administration again in 2008. As you can see that article is dated 18th March 2008 when Rotherham went into administration a 2nd time. Rotherhams NewCo was formed 2 weeks later, on the 1st of April 2008: http://data.companieshouse.gov.uk/doc/company/06550400 Ricky072 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into this. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ricky072 I've spent a couple of hours researching this and it is quite interesting. Basically a number of clubs have not agreed CVAs to get out of administration and have used a newco, then applied to get the oldco's 'golden share' transferred to the newco. However, from what I see, these clubs were told that they would only be able to get that golden share if they accepted a range of sanctions and conditions - otherwise they would have been out of the league and would indeed go out of business. The conditions seem to involve the newco being told exactly the rate in the pound they had to pay towards the creditors of the oldco, points penalties and other conditions like having to provide bonds etc. If these clubs agreed these conditions, the league effectively recognised the newco as continuing from the oldco, and, I suppose, history etc remained intact. Of course the difference in the case of Rangers is that they have not (yet) been given a route by which to earn recognition as continuing from the oldco. They applied to get the SPL share but that was overwhelmingly rejection (it would appear on the grounds of 'sporting integrety') - even Rangers' offer of agreeing sanctions did not persuade. Therefore, whereas Leeds, Rotherham etc were able to accept sanctions to enable the newco to take over from the oldco, Rangers have been given no route to do the same. Considering what happened to Livingston when it entered administration for a second time (relegated two leagues I seem to recall) this lack of sanctions being applied to Rangers may raise the question 'why?' It could be that since Rangers have entered the liquidation process, the club is seen to have paid the ultimate punishment. Anyway, in summary, considering that the clubs you mentioned were given a 'with sanctions' route to 'carry on' though in a newco but that Rangers were not given such a route, does appear a major difference between the cases. Perhaps the Newco Rangers will be given a 'with sanctions' route by the SFA as the price for getting Rangers' membership - we'll have to wait and see. The SFL vote tomorrow will also be significant as it appears that a number of SFL clubs regard the newco as a new club that should start at the bottom like any other new club - we'll see soon enough. Thanks for your work Ricky072 - it's made for an interesting evening! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Progress at last Fishie, maybe we've made the first step here in trying to achieve a concensus. I think you would agree 1 thing however from these cases, is that, it IS POSSIBLE, for a club to go down the newco route, but yet still maintain the same identity, or, a 'continuation of the same club' (a phrase you used earlier). If you are willing to conceed that point, (and given the above research i think we could achieve a concensus on that poitn at least) the debate can then move into another stage, which i would describe as "is it up to the football association's to decide if a newco is allowed o carry on as the same club?". That is actually a very interesting debate, and it brings up a great example you mentioned a few days ago; "Darlington FC". I would argue that n membership with an FA is not what defines a club (See Gretna, they changed membership from English FA to scottish FA on 2 occasions if i remember correctly, but still the asme club). In the case of DArlington however, the Newco purchased the assets but the FA decided they could not use the same club. Perhaps a rule change because too many clubs were 'newcoing'? On another note, if the new owners of Darlington purchased the rights to the club name 'Darlington FC', could they challegne the FA ruling in court? Aslo Darlington are a conference team, which is not governed by the EFL, who took hold of the cases of the clubs mentioned above. Ricky072 (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ricky, as it happens I have always thought that a club was more than 'assets and business interest' and therefore buying those alone did not amount to buying 'the club'. What I suppose I am conceding here is that there are cases where clubs have survived going through an 'assets puchased first' route when relevant authorities have allowed 'the club' to be deemed transferred to a newco on acceptance of various sanctions and conditions. (That doesn't mean I actually believe that is correct, but it has happened and I have to recognise that.) In the cases we have looked at, the newcos were able to gain the transfer of the golden shares from the oldcos to retain league status upon accepting sanctions and conditions. This, of course, has not happened with Rangers FC since the other SPL clubs refused to support the transfer of the SPL share to the newco Rangers for reasons of 'sporting integrety'. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fishiehelper2, The Rangers FC membership is still being held with the SFA, not the SPL. If the SFL votes Rangers FC into its league and the SFA assign Rangers FC's membership to the new company then the SFA view it as the same club, the existing membership was never cancelled. If football sanctions are also imposed, for additional sporting integrity, then it reinforces the view that the SFA see it as the same club, otherwise it would be unacceptable. So this would again be closer to Leeds than say Halifax. S2mhunter (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm just back from holiday and not surprised to see little movement in this dispute. Here sre my thoughts though I doubt they will change anyone's mind as it appears most contributors have already made their minds up and are then looking for sources and arguments to justify their opinions. I think any precedent should be from Scotland rather than England since different football authorites have different views about these matters. The cases of Gretna and Livingston are particularly relevant - look at the punishment they got for just going into administration! Livingston got demoted two leagues! Yet Rangers has now entered liquidation and no sanctions have been applied to the newco! Why? - it can only be because it is viewed as a new club. If in the future the newco is offered and accepts punishments for the unauthorised payments made to players by the old Rangers, then we can say that it is viewed as a continuation of the old club, but just getting old Rangers' SFA membership in itself proves nothing other than it is seen as the successor club. Remember the SPL would not accept the newco Rangers into the SPL because it was seen as a new club and so to jump straight into the SPL would be unfair from a sporting integrety point of view. If they regarded it as the old club, they could have taken it in with say a 30 points penalty, but they didn't. If the SFL clubs also vote to force the New Rangers to start in Division 3, that will be more evidence that it is viewed as a new club and not just a continuation. As things stand just now, I am largely persuaded that New Rangers is a successor club rather than the same club, and should be a separate article from the original Rangers. I know this viewpoint may be the minority of those who comment on this talk page, but that is not surprising since loads of Rangers fans can be expected to be on this page and they don't want to accept what has happened to their club. That is why I also don't think these pages will ever be unprotected again because Rangers fans will not accept an outcome that says that the new Rangers are a new club (which I think it the likely outcome from a dispute resolution process) and other editors will not let Rangers fans impose their point of view against the outcome decided by the process. I don't expect to comment often as I don't believe most readers reading are really willing to be open to persuasion as a result of what they read from those who take a different view. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

the division they go into has no relation to it being a new club if that the case then by your theory livingston and motherwell as new clubs but there not. the spl vote them out on sport integrity and because there fans want it and refused to go to match's if they didnt, and they have decided the tv money shouldn't be the judge and go back to gate money. sfl putting them into div3 is sporting interegy again and fans saying they wont come ot matches if they go to div1. your right transfer the membership doesnt mean it isnt a new club but it a also doesn't mean it is the same club either. They might nto even get into the sfl, and in which case a lto of reports are suggesting there might be spl2 or they might get into the spl because rangers still hodl the share until the replacement club is decided and it is sold to themAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you could argue that every single new club to enter the Scottish league has always started in the bottom division, so if an exception were made for Newco Rangers it could be argued that this is a recognition that Newco Rangers were not a new club. I don't accept that argument myself as id the SFL clubs were to vote for that option it would clearly be due to the deasl they have been offered and not dure to how they view the newco clu.

To pick up a point from above, I think there is merit in looking for Scottish precedent in this case and not relying on how things have been dealt with in England. However, I can't think of another club going into liquidation and then its assets being sold to a newco as a way to try to carry on without the debt. Perhaps the Scottish football authorities are making precedent for how such conduct will be viewed in Scotland in future. The next few weeks may bring some clarity, though I doubt it - anything remains possible ranging from newco being not allowed to join the SFL and going bust itself, to the SFL rejecting the newco and the SPL decide to step in and allow them to play in the SPL after all. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

i agree fisherhelper it should be scottish precedent not english or italian or so on, but it should also be a case for cae basis as say if enter to div3 menas new club livingsotn would be but there seen as the same club so that agrumetn doesnt hold water the only one who can answer this questionis sfaAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Newco Rangers treated as new club by SFL

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

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

Very strong evidence that there should be this article for the new club, separate from the article for the original club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

i think your reading into that what you want to read into it. It merely states that a club relegated from the SPL automatically gets membership in the SFL. Obviously this wasn't the case as Rangers were never relegated. Where in that statement does it say the recognise RFC is now a different club? Ricky072 (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on Ricky072, I was willing to concede to your argument when you correctly claimed that clubs in England had left administration without an agreed CVA and kept their identity. Can you not bring yourself to admit this point here? The statement is unequivocal: "any football club which is relegated...from The Scottish Premier League, shall automatically be admitted to full membership". The clause I have missed out from the whole sentence merely explains that this provision is "in terms of the Settlement Agreement between the League and The Scottish Premier League"

The decision to award associate membership means that the Newco Rangers is being treated as a new club rather than a club moving down from the SPL. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That is almost stating the obvious that any club relegated from the SPL relinquishes their SPL membership and is granted SFL membership at Division 1 level. How can you take anything from that basic rule? Also, what is the difference between 'associate membership' & 'full membership' ? Ricky072 (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a few practical differences, but the real significance here is that it was decided that newco Rangers should get associate membership rather than full membership. Associate membership is usually only used for new clubs joining the league or for a cub that is bottom of the erd division for a couple of seasons in a row and may have to be voted to retain its membership. Clubs coming down from the SPL automatically get full membership. The fact that associate membership is what has been granted here indicates that the application has been treated as from a new club rather than an ex-SPL club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I'm reading the SFL Constitution and Rules - Section 7, and can't find anything that supports your assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalantichrist (talk • contribs) 15:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

When Gretna went bust, i presume that Annan athletic were admitted into division 3 with an associate membership? Does that mean that from 2008 they are a new club from the one founded in 1942? Should they have a seperate wikipedia page for 1942-2008 & from 2008-present? Ricky072 (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you deliberately missing the point? The SFL has an agreement to accept any football club that is relegated from the SPL, and accepts them as full members. Therefore, the fact that they have not accepted the newco Rangers as full members - giving them only associate membership, illustrates that the club has been viewed as not a continuation of the club that had been in the SPL last season. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Deary me, Rangers at no point were ever 'relegated' (thought this was obvious), they were refused entry. http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/docs/SFL_Constitution_and_Rules.pdf Page 123 "“Associate Member” means a football club however constituted which is admitted to the League pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of these Rules;" How can you possibly derive from that that the SFL don't recognises RFC as the same club? Throughout the SFL voting process they have regularly reffered to them as "Rangers .F.C". We aren't dealing with a relegation here, we're dealing with a team making a brand new application to join the league. Ricky072 (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Think of it this way. Lets say for talking sake Hibs are found guilty of match fixing. The SPL memebrs get together and vote that hibs shoudl have SPL membership terminated. Hibs then apply and are accepted into SFL3 with an association membership. Are they a new club? Ricky072 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

sorry for being late been out since 1pm, although i agree with you fisherhelper in principle of what your saying and accept that for wikipedia that consituites original research, i will definitely support you on it be a serperatae article i can see some other sources categorically stating what oyu have but for now i can not find anything to suggest it is definitely new club but indications suggest it is , however that isnt good enough for wikipeida criteria to jufify it. once i have had dinner i will start look up reports and news source is suspect there been a fair few already on this. but the critical sfa response isnt there and the fact there talk of sfa forcing spl2 or forcing spl to accept rangers as club 12 means this debate is far from over, no where is this clear cut i really wish it was so we could just put this to bed, to be honest i am really sick of all of it but i will campaign until we have definitive answer, i wondering if you are feelign the same about it fisherhelper :)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

ricky completely different scenario as you pointed oyut alreadt hibs history has a 1 year gapAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The SFL statement today clearly states that Rangers F.C will play in the Third Division. How does a club that doesnt exist according to the article, play in a league? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

because it is still unclear if there deemed a new club by the football autorthies and secondly they dnt have sfa membership yet so they might not get to play--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, i'm merely trying to evaluate Fishies theory that a club granted an association membership is therefore a new club. The SPL members get together to decide upon punishments in certain cases. So i'm asking a question. IF an SPL club is guilty of match-fixing and the SPL clubs decide to terminate memebrship, and that club then applies & is accepted into SFL3 with an 'association membership' are they a new club? Ricky072 (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet the SFA have been one of the bodies heavily lobbying for Rangers to go into div1, i find it unlikely they would do that if rangers wont even have SFA membership. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)ok i can see where you coming from but i see where fisher is comign from, lets just assume that charles green knows he has formed a new club and only way to keep the old supporter onboard is to pretend it is the same club, know oyu wont that but the sfl will have seen some detaisl regarding the club that might suggest it is new club so given assiocate member, but in the same can rangers have broke the rules and if it seen as a contunie club they teh sfl could be handing down punishment to retrict rangers for now whilst in teh sfl makign it easier to expe them the point is none of us know and both you and fisher and speculating on it until i see a deefentive source saying it is the same club or new one i will contunie the fight to take this up the dispute resolution--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

britishwasher i assuming you onyl read between the liens because the sfa pushed for it and mgiht overurle because they know spl clubs are goign to die without the tv money sky said they will only tolerate rangers out of the spl for 1 seaosn that is why, nothing to do with membership, regradless if we see it as seprate club and company or the same when the plc went into liquidation the membership was terminated--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

trying to get a source for this jsut now, but fisherhelper rangers are being described as relegated to dv3 like retna and livingston give me tiem to track a source down, bbc scotland news ie on tv i jsut seen this--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers do not have a football Licence. They are obviously very likely to be granted one. Todays decision by the SFL will only happen if the SFA Ratify that decision and grant them a licence, it was already quoted today by Green that originally the SFA would only grant that licence if it was Division one. The answer to this we won't know until the SFA release there statement.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Until it's clear that Rangers F.C. have been officially dissolved, then it should, at the very least, be described in the present tense. From what I can read, that's not clear. That said, precedent is to split clubs that have been dissolved and reconstituted; see F.C. Halifax Town, and Wimbledon FC vs MK Dons vs AFC Wimbledon. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That would of been the case but when the new article was formed against consensus at that time that all changed. Not much we can do about that at the moment just need to see how it plays out.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Fisher all that means is that they are a new member of the SFL they applied out with normal relegation and promotion procedures. They are a new club to the SFl that does not mean they are a new club. Im not saying they are or aren't a new club just that you are reading too much into that particular rule.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Two articles

From what I can see there is a lot of discussion whether or not the two clubs are separate entities or a continuation of each other, citing SPL rules and legal precedence and the difference between "administration" and "liquidation". This whole discussion appears to be completely missing the point. The club is almost certainly going to maintain the same supporters, ground, common name, badge, many of the players and staff, and most fans will consider the "old club's" history part of their new club's. All of these things are exactly what this article is about and someone coming to Wikipedia and searching for "Rangers FC" will expect all this information to be on the same page, regardless of the legal restructuring and financial troubles that make up but a small part of the history of "Rangers". The spirit of WP:COMMONNAME is worth noting here. ed g2s • talk 17:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well that was the original plan, specifically to wait and see how legally and commonly they were known. That never happened mainly because one editor went against the consensus at the time and created the new article. Its been as dispute res and many discussions have taken place as you can see no one can particularly agree one way or the other. There are clubs that have gone down two articles and there are some that have kept the same, loads of clubs have been compared but in reality very few actually have had the exact same situation. Currently the common term is Newco Rangers that will likely change to Rangers again over time.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome ed_g2s (where have you been all this time ;o). I've been saying this from the start. It would facilitate a neutral researcher to find the story of a football team called Rangers FC on 1 page, especially now as know we know there will be a team called Rangers FC playing football in Scotland's Division 3 next year. So in a sense, Wikipedia is abstract to the whole entities etc discussion, otherwise it just gets confusing. One solution, in the short term, could be to put in the box on the right hand side "Founded 1872, Incorporated 1899, Re-launched 2012". That way we're not saying either way, leaving it open to the reader to make their own minds up. S2mhunter (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

when i put the request for comment live next week now it has been copyedited then reply with what your saying and repsond to the questions, as edinburgh wander says there was conesensus to wait and see but one user went against that create a new article that went to afd but wa skept so we have to work with two untila consnsus is reachedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The creation of 2 articles and the refernce toRangers in the past tense was done without concencus by editors who openly admit to being supporters of Celtic FC & is a form of vandalism. Ricky072 (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Of course it should be one article. Why would anyone have done something so bizarre? And why hasn't anyone fixed? At best it's Crystal Ballery. Nfitz (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Seems to be clear consensus that it should be one page. I've redirected. Someone with the right permission should fix the damage to this page. Nfitz (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ricky i agree with a lot that you say but please drop the Celtic bit. Yes the person who did it was a celtic fan but there are many others who agree with that. Im a Hearts fan it really has nothing to do with the situation. I agree far more with your points than i do theirs but i see weaknesses in some of the points as Black Kite pointed out before. There arguments for separate articles are impassioned but don't make a lot of sense at times although they are backed up by a whole heap of modern sources rather than actual legal or precedence that yours has. They probably should be one article but given what will need to be covered in it the article will be far too big, so will likely need sub articles. Really we have tried to sort out but has proven hard this probably won't be sorted for a while but in the end it will be.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

EW, i'm sure you will agree that the changes to the RFC wikipedia page was not done in good faith to achieve factual accuracy, neither was the creation of the new page by 'superbhoy1888'. In regards to your point about too much info for 1 article, i already proposed a solution for that on the Talk page for 'Newco Rangers'. Like Leeds United, they have a 2nd page which documetns the company 'Leeds United Football Club Limited' which gives a more detailed article on the creation of that Newco and buy-over of the club from the oldco. Ricky072 (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with Celtic fans, purely a reflection of sources. From the BBC today: Rangers chief executive Charles Green says he will not challenge the vote by the Scottish Football League to place his new club in Division Three. If Celtic, Manchester United or Barcelona had died and spawned a "newco" franchise the principle would be exactly the same. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And if you read the article Green seems to view the club as the same, not a newco, for example "The people who brought shame on this great club are no longer part of it and everyone at Rangers is focused on rebuilding the club on top of a solid financial foundation". There are examples throughout the article that illustrate Green's position that this is the same club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalantichrist (talk • contribs) 18:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course he does, but so what? Is he a reliable, independent source? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

He's involved in discussion that neither you nor I have been, so he's a better source than either of us. If you're going to use the headline of an article to substantiate your point, at least have the decency to treat the material in that article with the same weight.

This is the problem Clavdia chauchat, the same article has in the box at the left side, "The former Sheffield United chief executive is reforming Rangers as a new company, But the 'newco' did not get the required votes for re-admittance to the SPL Instead, the new Rangers will start life in Division Three." No mention of a new club so even articles are inconsistent. And so it goes on... S2mhunter (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In case you don't know, Digitalantichrist, Wikipedia works by citing reliable sources. We are interested only in what we can verify from published, third party material. I'm not a gloating Celtic fan or part of some imaginary papal conspiracy to harm Rangers, but my reading of the sources is that this is a new club. Hence two articles. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm citing your source. I haven't plucked a new source out of thin air, I'm relying on the exact same source as you, but for some reason you prefer to cite the headline which seems to put words into Green's mouth - at no point in the piece does he refer to Rangers as a "new club". He does, however, express continuity. Digitalantichrist (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

ineed, you say wikipedia is only interested in what it can "verify" but then say "my reading of the sources". Is this the standard of wikipedia, one contributors selective reading to fit a POV? Ricky072 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that way. I'm done here. Digitalantichrist (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

claudia i jsut read the article no where does it say new club in fact it says old comapny heaidng for liqudiation and that teh club is being punished for peopel no longer heeree, if it was new club ie brand new how did they have peopel there before???--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, well obviously we have to read the sources and then make our own judgement about their reliability. I do think you should be careful about being so quick to smear the other side in this debate. That might be how it goes down in whatever Rangers web forum you've recently migrated from, but here we have a couple of guidelines WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL you may want to avail yourself of. To S2mhunter, I suppose in a way Green's brand new outfit is now the only "Rangers" in town since the original club are in a moribund state. Sometimes Aldershot Town are given the shorthand Aldershot, but again, different clubs different articles. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If that was directed at me, then I'm afraid I have to disappoint you but I've never posted on a Rangers forum, but nice attempt at an ad hominem, perhaps you should read the guidelines. The problem with your stance with regard to reading this article and weighing it up for reliability is that the only thing you seem to be relying on is the headline, which seemingly supports your opinion. Sadly, the real test of reliability, especially with regard to the headline's veracity, is to be found in the article text, and nowhere in the article does Green term Rangers as "new". As to your point on Green not being reliable, if that's the case then why cite an article that almost exclusively relies on him as the material source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalantichrist (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• The other article is now up for deletion, so might as well take discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newco Rangers ‎ Nfitz (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes the other article was nominated for deletion less than a month ago and the result was 'keep'. What has happened since then has made the case for keeping it even stronger. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

fisherhelper since you recent comments in the alst few days have made me think you might be more neutral that fighting for one side just wondering you though on this source [2] "Regan argued the 140-year-old Rangers, Scottish football's most successful club, should be dropped just one league to the First Division." regan saying the club should only drop to div1 but he refering to it as the 140 year old club, note to other editors you can comment to just curious of fisherhelper comments to this oneAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrewcrawford. The article seems to be written by 'Agence France-Presse' for a US audience (as indicated by the conversion into dollars). In addition, it doesn't quote Regan but interprets what they think he wants. Overall I would dismiss this source as less reliable than others that I would regard as more reliable and paint a different picture. I realise that wikipedia is build on reliable 3rd party sources and where sources contracdict would suggest that quality news organisations like the BBC are more reliable than Agence France-Presse which I had never even heard of before reading that article. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

AFP is one of the world's oldest press agencies, as is stated in its wiki page. Agence_France-Presse Digitalantichrist (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrewcrawford - just realising what a big news organisation they are! I've visited their website and here is the article on their website about 'Rangers'. Of particular concern is the sentence "Already expelled from the Scottish Premier League (SPL), following the formation of a new company or newco that took place after Rangers entered administration..." That is clearly inaccurate - Rangers were never 'expelled' - remember Rangers had a vote for who their replacement should be in the SPL and they were the only club to vote for the newco! Therefore - wouldnt rely to closely on anything it says. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ive just had an argument with someone citing the daily mirror saying they were Relegated which isn't even possible. They applied they failed, applied again and failed hardly relegation. Note the BBC and other do report that the SFA have suggested they may not get a licence for division three. This isn't settled and given some of the SPL's chairmans comment tonight this is not close to being over. With just over two weeks to go until the season starts cant help but think this is going to be delayed given new fixture lists need to be created due to clashes the police won't allow.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus Changing?

ok i am keep tally of the newco deleteion. It appears consensus is changing to have one article again. So i propose we create a sandbox version that we can have ready to go live if this is the case anyone have objections?Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe there is consensus to change to one article, not yet anyway. That said, there is no harm trying to put together what a single article may look like as a way of persuading editors that a single article could work better than what we currently have. I have already said elsewhere that Clydebank F.C. has a single article but it works well because it makes clear that the current Clydebank FC is a different entity from the previous club to bear the same name even though the current Clydebank FC owns the naming rights and insignia of the previous club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

oh it hasnt changed yet but it startign to swing the other way jus tnow, i wont vote on it, but it will take a lot more before it can be said it has changed but the last one was keep about 10 merge about 3 or 4 this time it is merge/delete about 13 and keep about 9. but i agree that makinga version that shows both in one might be a way to say it can be done and we can see how people take it so here will be the sandbox Talk:Rangers F.C./sandbox. i article forgot to put a ? in the title correct that now--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Also some of those say keep for now appear to be saying wait for the SFAs decision when there is more clarification. So if there is no consensus on that, it may need a new proposal afterwards.. So preparations for a single article or for turning that second article into one about administration/liquidation of the old rangers company should possibly be started so we have BritishWatcher (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

well the sandbox is there edit away ill reveert any clear vandelism of it but any change that is inlien with what is happening and making it one article ill leave for you to bicker over ;)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ckydebank should not be precedent because it's entirely different and the situation involved the purchase of another club. Any number of other clubs who have underwent the simple process of liquidations & newco purchase should be precedent here. Good idea with the sandbox Andrew, i've made some changes to the article which detail a little further the insolvency of Rangers. Ricky072 (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Not only do I not see consensus changing but the broadcast media now consistently and increasingly refer to the new club as 'Newco Rangers' or less often 'Rangers Newco' to distinguish from the former club. TerriersFan (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So how to you propose to remove the bias and pov from the other article. Because if it stays thats what it will be.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

3 year accounts issue

Looming large, how can “Rangers” gain league/SFA membership when they cannot produce requisite three years of accounts? The SFA answer: ” the…policy relates to applications for a new membership. In this case, Rangers Newco will be applying for the transfer of an existing membership held with the Oldco. Rangers Oldco submitted the necessary financial information for 2009 and 2010. It did not submit for the year 2011, which resulted in the Judicial Panel sanctioning the club a total of £160,000 for various breaches of its Articles of Association, and also imposing a transfer embargo which has been subsequently set aside after the Court of Session ruling by Lord Glennie.” That is – transferring old to new is not the same as a new club pitching up and wanting in. Q&A SFA 2.219.177.74 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Also SFA related is the news about possible punishments for the new company Possible punishments I forgot to sign in but it's BadSynergy lol 2.219.177.74 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Good find, hopefully this situation with if it is an new club or the same club will be resolved once the SFA make their decision then. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Can the same club hold membership of the SPL and SFL simultaneously?

Just a thought: Rangers FC has not been expelled from the SPL, had its membership terminated, or resigned. It retains membership of the SPL until its share is transferred to another club. However, the new Rangers has been accepted as an associate member of the SFL. If Rangers (1872-2012) and the new Rangers are the same club, we would have a single club holding membership of the SPL and the SFL simultaneously. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

they don't hold the share any more that has been pulled back after the vote was rejected. That share will be awarded to the new SPL replacement. Ive said this to you before stop using things like this or whether they were granted associate membership its not a valid argument, there are better arguments for and against, it looks desperate when you should just use sources or look at actual legal precedent. Actually they don't even hold SFL membership yet, that will only happen when the SFA ratify that decision and giving stories like this today may not happen.[3] Edinburgh Wanderer 16:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I know you are pulling out all the stops Fishie to find some evidence that fits your POV, but the league share issue ins't it. If the OldCo held a valid SPL membership they would not have released a fixture list with "club 12" on it in their place. A 'league share' is something which is 'owned' by the league which they give/retract regularly (usually via relegation). An interesting point you could explore is the Duff&Phelps ducument which details the transaction of the business & assets to the newco. Listed in the assets section funnily enough is "the SFA membership". Ofcourse, the SFA has to approve of such a transfer. But it does throw up some interesting questions, can an FA membership be 'sold'? If the SFA approve of the transfer, is that then concrete evidence then that it's the same club as it kept it's SFA membership? IF the SFA insists on giving them a new membership and tearing up the old one, is it a new club? Is an FA membership even relevant, considering Gretna switched membership between the FA & SFA on different occasions? All interesting points, but i think your barkign up the wrong tree with the 'SFL association membership' thing. Ricky072 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Far from 'pulling out all the stops', I have been trying to cooperate with the initiative to see if it is possible to produce a compromise single article that deals with the original and reformed club in one article rather than two. Unfortunately, I now don't believe it is going to work as editors are still trying to edit out changes that challenges their POV that the new Rangers is still the exact same club. So we will just have to wait for dispute resolution to take its course because no compromise appears possible. Thereafter, whatever the outcome, I assume full protection will be required on articles. Quite sad. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

a compromise isn't possible. It leads to a mish-mash of edits of some editors trying to edit it in a fashion whereby the club is recognised as the same club simply under new ownership, and editors like yourself trying to edit in a fashion were it's a new club in place of the old one. There needs to be a definitive answer either way. Either it's a phoenix club like Chester or it's the same club like Leeds. Seems clear to me which model the page should follow. Ricky072 (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, if compromise isn't possible, consensus isn't possible. We'll just have to wait for rulings to be handed down and thereafter fully protect articles. Not how wikipedia is supposed to operate but it is the reality we face. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think most commenters above could probably agree that a consensus isn't possible for two reasons: first, this is obviously an emotive, 'niche' issue and a neutral perspective is going to be hard to come by. I was hoping more neutral commenters would emerge, but they haven't, and it's hard to believe they're going to. Second, both sides of this argument can draw on very well established precedent to assert conflicting viewpoints. Ricky072 has laid out the case quite objectively - even without much mention made of Hibernian - that holding companies which purchase (or in Hibs' case, inherit) key intellectual property or assets from a previous, disintegrating parent company, are assumed to continue the unbroken history of the club whose key assets have been transfered. Again, though, that's only been 'assumed' in certain situations with certain clubs. It's not universal. Outwith British football this approach to club continuity is always going to be in the extreme minority. In global sport and with few exceptions, when a club's corporate structure dies sans a complete buy-out, the club dies too. Furthermore there aren't exactly academic sources to consult regarding how Rangers should be documented in this matter, and an objective scan of the media reveals that reporters are not of one mind on this issue either. The fact that certain government and footballing authorities tend to refer to newco Rangers as though it were the old 1872 club does not necessarily mean that Wikipedia shouldn't standardize Rangers' case to the greater global template of sporting corporate failures. I'm worried there's just too solid a case for either side of this issue for it to be settled through consensus. I hope I'm wrong about that.Westvirginia63 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Scottish precedents - RS material

Some source material, see ([4]) 11:39 and 11:40: "Annan Athletic chairman Henry McLelland says that the newco scenario has happened before and the precedent is that Rangers should start again in Division Three ... In the last four years we found Gretna in the situation where they entered administration and then liquidation. There was no-one there who could rescue them; so a place was vacant and we got that. Livingston found themselves in a similar scenario and again, the SFL demoted Livingston from Division One to Division Three. Now, it's quite simple: we cannot make exceptions because it's Glasgow Rangers."

Hope that's helpful. --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

firstly that is not a reliable soruce it live feed, secondly it does not say gretna was new club or not, although we know gretna fans formed anew club, the problem is ther eno prior preceedent that i can think of in scottish football apart form potential airdieoens other than them i dnt know, please correct me if i am wrong what other scottish club has been liquidated and started a newco and bought the assets of the oldco, and by old and newco i mean company i aint saying the club is dead or alive, but i like a comparision scenario in scottih football that has had a similer route, gretna doesnt count they went bust, but the fans formed new club but didnt by the asses,t airdieoens went bust but new club formed and bought clydebank, or for thos who say clydebank is bust ther enot, they still play at areigonal level with no ground etc i think it something liek junirpos they play in now, airdie utd the new club form bought clydebank so they coudl get there sfl place. so i please ask other give mea scottish example similar to rangers--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what the situation is with Livingston or why they got thrown into division 3, but the legal entity that runs the club is still trading: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC142420 and in the case of Gretna, they were completely wound-up and created a phoenix company from scratch. So neither Gretna nor Livingstone is precedent here. Leeds, Bournemouth, Luton, Rotherham, Charlton, Midlesborough are all better examples of companies that were liquidated but the same club continued on. Ricky072 (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

livingston where ask to paya bond of about 1million so they coudl stay in sfl1 after being relegated but since they could got demoted to div3. english teams are not really comparable and unless we someone can meantiona scottish example which i doubt htey can becaus ei dnt think there has been one, we are in a new ball game for scotland, each nation rules differ hence why italian club differe from english as they differe from scottish clubs but i think since ther enot beena example liek this is scotland we have nothing to compare with hopefulyl teh sfa will celar this upAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Could Clydebank FC serve as a precedent for how we could deal with Rangers FC on wikipedia? If you check the article, it starts off making clear that Clydebank FC was formed in 2003, and the goes on to detail previous clubs with the same name. Of course, the current Clydebank FC owns the name and insignia of the previous Clydebank FC which was bought over by Airdrie United and renamed.

Perhaps this would be a compromise way forward: change the current Rangers FC article to start off by making clear that the club was formed in 2012, and then have a section about the previous club? That would please 'one side' of the dispute because there would only be one article rather than two, and please the 'other side' because it makes a clear distinction between the current Rangers FC (2012- ) and the previous Rangers FC (1872-2012). Just flying a kite...Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Loads of quotes appearing on BBC live vote coverage: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/18798033

makes no difference dweller it is lvie feed and the quotes are from fans as well as people in teh game but it aitn a reliable source it only help keep up with what changing jsu tnowAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

it could be the way forward fisherhelper i have no objection but i fear some might because i did suggest something similar about another change but lets see how it goes down, clydebank probally is the closet scottish rpecedent we might haveAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Clydebank or livingstone as their are huge fundamental differences. Livingstone still trade as the same corporate entity, the company wasnt liquidated, i think they used some form of CVA but couldnt put forwar a bond to the SFL to guarentee they could fufill fixtures, so got thrown into Div 3. So nothign like the RFC situation. The clydebank one involved buyanother club and merging them, so again, thats a huge difference to RFC. Ricky072 (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ricky, the key similarity between Clyebank and Rangers is that the newco Clydebank now own the right to the previous Clydebank's name and insignia, and the newco Rangers also owns the right to the oldco Rangers' name and insignia. I concede that a key difference is that ownership of the Clydebank FC name and insignia didn't pass directly from the oldco to the newco as it was acquired by Airdrie United from the oldco Clydebank FC before being transferred on to the newco Clydebank FC. Nevertheless, this is an example of a newco being created that owns the identity of the oldco. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, so try this one [5] --Dweller (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Dweller, the annan chairman is clueless. He is also depserate for RFC to go to division 3 so Annan get 4 big pay-days against Rangers. It's been explained above that Gretna & Livingstone are very different scenarios from Rangers. Ricky072 (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Airdrie bought Clydebank in full and turned them into Airdrie United. Airdrie United then sold the rights to a new owner who formed clydebank. Clydebank in fact never went to the wall they turned into Airdrie. Tottally different. Oh and today went well SFL saying will let into div three but now Herald and channel 4 report that Regan told Green publicly that SPL2 will be pushed ahead.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think SPL2 is highly unlikely, i dont see how they can possibly set up a league when the SFL beings on the 27th of july, 14 days from now.Ricky072 (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Several clubs Dunfermline and Clyde strongly felt the decision could be ignored with Dunfermline even suggesting Rangers may be kept in SPL. Thats even more unlikely, however there were already suggestions before today that the season start may be delayed. When the Sfa finally comment we will know for certain. I personally hope they leave as is. My main point is Clydebank are a poor example.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, no precedent has been set for Rangers in Scotland. You have to look to England or Italy to see examples of clubs to have been purchased via liquidation/newco method. Ricky072 (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The precedents in Scotland are Gretna FC, Third Lanark, and others who suffered the same fate as the now defunct Rangers FC (IA). WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The ownership of new 'Rangers'

Not really a WP:RS yet, but those interested might find some useful info here. One of the many odd things about this saga totally absent from Wikipedia; Ticketus' sanguine reaction to £26m going down the tubes; is perhaps now explained. I'm a neutral editor, but one of the great ironies for me here is that Celtic fans (the 'Rangers Tax Case' blog, Phil MacGiollabhan) have consistently done the digging and sounded the warning signs, while Rangers fans - a deferential bunch - have done the three wise monkeys routine. Even now they are towing the party line, with one club dead and the next club heading for a surefire "insolvency event" all of its own. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

For a neutral editor you seem to enjoy stirring the pot with a pointless post which you admit is not reliable so has no relevance to this article. thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A Celtic fan forum deary me 2.219.177.74 (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Listen, I support the mighty Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. and in the past we've teetered on the brink. Should the worst have happened, I like to think I'd have accepted it with some humility like Chester, Darlo and so on, instead of all this desperate pretending: "mummy, it's not fair, whatabout, whatabout the others... boo hoo.. bigger boys did it and ran away." My advice to Rangers fans would be stop wasting your time on here, open your eyes and act, stop letting chancers pile yet more debt and shame onto your club's corpse, while there is still something left to save. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your claim of impartiality went out of the window with that post to a celtic fan forum.Monkeymanman (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in what people actually make of the content. I'd taken it as read that you guys would have the blinkers on, like you had when the Celtic fans were telling you about tax cases and Craig Whyte etc. etc. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I still fail to see why bringing this up is relevant or helpfull. At least other editors attempt to use proper sources rather than trawling rival fans forums for their opinions on the matter. I mean really why would you think this would help with this page? 2.219.177.74 (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This non sequitur from a Wikipedia editor might be the end of the road for me taking Wikipedia very seriously. It's a bit funny, sure, but I think as a rule it's probably not neutral to go straight for caricature in the middle of a debate, no matter how cartoonish one side might be. I would have never said this before, but reading these bizarre (drunk?) rants from someone on a Wikipedia taskforce - even though I agree with some of Cladvia's points - makes me want to give up this discussion. It's clearly not being viewed seriously. Fair enough. I suppose it's true that there are much more important things to flesh out.173.81.158.246 (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Clavdia your "advice to Rangers" fans might be better served elsewhere, this isn't an internet forum on the subject, the debate should solely be limited to wikipedia's documentation of the facts. The fact you post a link to a discussion on another football forum as being some kind of talking point is way off base. Ricky072 (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

An American perspective

We have had a few cases in North American sports where the identity of a club as an institution was separated from the identities of one or more ownership groups. The most famous case was that of the NFL's Cleveland Browns: the owners of the Browns moved to Baltimore to start a new franchise, the Baltimore Ravens, while the Browns (ostensibly) went on hiatus for a few years before resuming play under new ownership (and with an entirely new group of players and coaches.) In the case of the Rangers FC, the team clearly still exists as an institution: it is simply been reconstituted under new ownership (and it has been relegated to a minor league.) The past tense is only warranted if the post-bankruptcy club never starts playing in the third division. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting perspective from North America. Further evidence that we are not dealing with a new club comes from the administrators of the old company (remember that, as matters stand not even the old company has been liquidated - it is still in administration). In an interim report issued on 10 July 2012 the administrators mention such matters as: "an amount of £5,500,000 received from Sevco in relation to its acquisition of the business, history and assets of the Company" (i.e. the history continues into the new company), "The history and spirit of the Club have been preserved by the sale which completed on 14 June 2012 and it is now the responsibility of the new owners to secure its future" and "the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club". http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/a2/b6/0,,5~177826,00.pdf So, the club goes on and is now operated by a new company ("newco"). BBO (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

When I look at the web site, I definitely see that it talks about one club, which still exists post-bankruptcy.Timothy Horrigan (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

American "clubs" are all franchises. British clubs are not. I appreciate your input, but the situations are the polar-opposite of each other. The simple facts are that they don't share the same membership, there are currently TWO organisations representing Rangers - The new one and the one in liquidation that won't exist in a few weeks. The club and the company were one and the same, read the sources. Also, who in their right mind honestly thinks that "history" is a tangible asset than can change hands for money? Come on. Andevaesen (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"Also, who in their right mind honestly thinks that "history" is a tangible asset than can change hands for money?" HMRC, http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/cgmanual/cg68010.htm . Common practice in business. http://www.triumphmotorcycles.co.uk/the-triumph-company/15460 "110 years of Triump" (the brand Triumph), yet the limited company that currently owns the brand (purchased from a bust company) only existed since 1984. Just becuase you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's wrong. Ricky072 (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly enough the Wiki page for Triumph says it "was a British car and motor manufacturing company". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_Motor_Company Just saying.--Tim D Enchantah (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia documents companies differently from Sports Clubs. If Triumph was a football club it only speak of the brand 'Triumph', and mention within the article it folded in 84 but had it's assets purchased by a new company, who took the brand forward. Ricky072 (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is article still in past-tense?

Media has been very clear that Rangers have been relegated 3 levels to Third Division. Not that that the team no longer exists. Could whoever has ability to edit this article, fix this bizarreness? Nfitz (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the old Rangers is being liquidated and the reformed Rangers is starting again at the bottom of the senior game. I know that posting this will provoke some editor to come back and state that 'only the company is being liquidated' to which the reply will come 'but the club and the company was the same entity', which will lead to... etc etc etc - that's why there is a dispute and page protection is necessary until a way forward can be found. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We have about 1,000 media references that say the team is being relegated. This is no different than many other cases in the past such as Leeds - and not even as extreme as others such as Newport County. In those cases a single page was used. Obviously it should be one page to stick to precedent. Please fix this asap. You either know it's wrong, or don't respect the precedents previously set in the project. Nfitz (talk)

The real question is "Is the football team playing in the Scottish 3rd division, whose whose home ground is Ibrox and play in the colours 'Royal Blue, white and red' To be known as Rangers FC or not?" It does not matter what fans of other Scottish based clubs want to believe, at this moment in time a club called "Rangers" will play in the Scottish 3rd division this year, this club will be based at Ibrox, they will play in Royal Blue, white and Red, and a significant number of the team will have previously played for and be under contract to a team referring themselves as "Rangers". The SFA/SPL still refer to this club as "Rangers" therefore the wikipedia entry should refer to the club in question in the present tense. The club still exists whether or not the fans of other Scottish clubs wish it to or not. However in order for a resolution this particular entry to be made, wikipedia needs to establish if a club can continue to exist after it's assets are sold off in the form of a newco or not, since it is possible for a dissolved company to be reborn (or become a phoenix co). Then logic suggests that a club should be able to be reborn (as a phoenix club). As at 16/07/2012 Newco Rangers have been granted permission to enter the 3rd division of the Scottish football Leagues. This is suggestive that the SFA recognise Newco Rangers as "Rangers FC", thus the club still exists. It should be noted that if the SFA/SPL decide that Newco rangers CANNOT play as Rangers FC then via a long drawn out legal battle several other football clubs/companies (including Celtic) could be forced to change there names. Long Robin 79 (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The SFL has accepted a team called 'The Rangers Football Club' into membership, which is likely to be known as 'Rangers' rather than 'The Rangers'. This club that came second in the SLP last season were 'Rangers Football Club', also referred to as 'Rangers'. TRFC is the club that bought Rangers' assets and business interests after it failed to get an agreed CVA and entered liquidation. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad you agree. Now that we have consensus, can someone fix the page. Nfitz (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC(IA) ceased to be a member of the SPL on July 4th, and when its membership of the SPL was revoked, so was its membership of the SFA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.18.172 (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The SFA are offering Green Rangers' oldco's share right now. Rangers' SPL membership went to a vote and SPL clubs voted against meaning it went to Dundee (after another meeting). Please read SFA statements on the matter to end your confusion because last thing this page needs is to go over old ground. BadSynergy (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC (IA) have never had an SPL vote held to determine their membership status, the recent SPL vote was to permit Sevco Scotland Ltd., a first time applicant, to enter the SPL, not to remove anyone from the SPL. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia precedent

Rangers Football Club "is a football club", not "was a football club". Rangers FC continues with football assets sold into a new company structure, as explained within this statement from the administrators and a statement from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Other football clubs, such as Charlton Athletic, Middlesbrough FC, Fiorentina, Napoli, etc, who have undergone similar processes, liquidation prior to re-ownership of football assets under new company structures, have one wikipedia page, this clear precedent should also apply to Rangers Football Club. Gefetane (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

True, not to mention the SFA views it as the same, "In this case, Rangers Newco will be applying for the transfer of an existing membership held with the Oldco." Transferring membership not applying for a new one. BadSynergy (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What relevance does that have other than proving that the SFA is considering transferring membership from one club to another? If anything, it simply emphasises that Rangers FC (IA) are not the same club as Sevco Scotland Ltd. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

History Remains Intact

Ok much has been said online and in people’s workplaces about Rangers losing their history due to the formation of a newco. Below I have stated evidence which disproves this myth hopefully once and for all.

Now it should be noted that the most verhement pusher’s of the ‘no history myth’ are Celtic fans. Why? Simple, they are bitter. Since their inception they have been jealous of all things Rangers and this gives them the opportunity to right all the wrongs done against them. Poor wee mites.

Now what is the basis of their argument?

That a newco breaks the timeline of a club. Well the problem here is the distinction between the company that operates the club and the club itself.

Rangers indeed have been registered since 1899 as a PLC and again re-registered in 1981. However the actual club was formed in 1872. So according to Celtic fans the years between 1872 and 1899 didn’t actually exist and are just a figment of our imagination.

So how can we prove that company and club are different? Quite simply by looking at the latest litigation between Rangers and the SFA. Have a look.

http://www.scotcourt…2CSOH%2095.html

Note the first two sentences:

This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as “Rangers”). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association (“the SFA”), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA and by the Judicial Panel Protocol which sets out the disciplinary rules relating to the conduct of members of the SFA and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to enforce such rules.

Clearly Lord Glennie finds the distinction between company and club. Newco are now the ‘company’ that run Rangers Football Club. If this were not the case then the above judicial review would now have been scrapped. This we know is not true as the SFA are still going to decide on it or Charles Green will accept the initial punishment of the transfer embargo.

So there we go we now have clear legal evidence that a company and club are seperate.

Who else should we look to for more evidence? The SPL maybe? Well the SPL are currently investigating Rangers for use of EBT’s and dual-contracts with a view to more sanctions. However this investigation has now been suspended so the SPL can gain clarity on newco’s responsibilities to ‘historical’ misdemeanours. One SPL source has told BBC Scotland that part of the Rangers newco’s application for league membership could depend on them taking responsibility for past transgressions. But wait a minute, surely a newco doesn’t have ‘past transgressions’. Again, it will be an issue that the ‘club’ did and not the company, therefore history still seems to be playing a part.

Even SPL Chief Mr Doncaster admits as much.

“You would expect the football club to take with it responsibility for anything that emerged from that investigation”.

Note the use of the word’s ‘football club’.

Ok, now we have established that company and club are different what did Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps have to say on this matter.

“The Club will continue to operate as it has always done but within a new company structure.” – Paul Clark

“However, we should make it clear that Rangers Football Club will continue within a new company structure and the Club survives and will continue playing football at Ibrox.” – Paul Clark

There are many more quotes from D&P but let’s move on.

So what about this liquidation malarky, after all this is the main reason for the disappearance of our history isn’t it? Well according to Celtic fans it is, however HMRC seem to have a different view.

“Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox.”

Now remember what we read above, company and club are seperate entities, HMRC believe this too.

And on the subject of liquidation, what do the liquidators have to say? Well appointed liquidators BDO partner Mr Cohen said this:

“will not mean the end of football at Ibrox – only the end of the company that ran the club”.

Again we are back to the company/club stuff again, anyone seeing a pattern?

Clearly we have now established that history belongs with the club and therefore the club no matter who or what company owns it will retain it.

But, but..what about…

Airdrie? New club didn’t get admitted to SFL. Clydebank was purchased, moved to Airdrie, renamed Airdrie United. Situation completely different.

Gretna 2008? This is an entirely new club that just uses the Gretna name, they didn’t even lay claim to Gretna’s history

Third Lanark? Started FORTY years after the demise of the original, surely only a joker would use this as an example, oh wait….

Clydebank(Juniors) – now they are clutching at straws, for a team that’s been reformed so many times using this as an example should be ridiculed.

These are the only examples that can and are used against the case for Rangers history. Pretty weak, eh?

So what of other examples of clubs who have been in a similar situation to Rangers and retained their history? Well three teams stick out, Leeds United, Charlton FC and Middlesborough. All had their companies liquidated and all moved on. Now I suggest anyone who doubts this look up the official websites of these clubs and have a look at the ‘History’ sections. I think you will find that their histories are indeed intact.

Ah but, they are English so that doesn’t count. Oh really, liquidation laws applied to Leeds Utd, Charlton FC, Middlesborough and Rangers are the same laws. They apply to both England and Scotland, so no argument there.

So what does Steve Gibson of Middlesborough say about newco and history? Well have a read.

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/boro-fc/boro-fc-news/2012/06/15/steve-gibson-in-message-to-glasgow-rangers-fans-84229-31189858/

“It’s a bit like your local pub. The landlady changes and the name above the door changes but it’s still your local pub.” – a simple analogy that pretty much sums up the situation although please read the whole of that article.

Some people will make a big deal of Middlesborough being English, but if one looks far enough back into the Scottish football records like Celtic fans did with ahen, Third Lanark, then we can find the example of Hibernian FC. Now Hibernian FC ceased to exist in 1897, ten years after winning the Scottish Cup and three years after winning Division Two yet these honours still remain on Hibernian’s history even though the club wasn’t reformed until one year later. How can this be? Could this be why Hibernian fans are keeping schtum in this matter, in case Celtic fans want one of their only two major honours erased?

This Hibs example alone proves that the SFA have set a precedent in clubs reforming and keeping their history intact.

Now I could return to Celtic’s example of breaking timeline, you know, where they formed three different companies of which only one runs the club, that’s right, the one formed in 2001 but we’ll leave that for another day as the above will be too much for them to digest for the moment.

So there we have it the case has been presented you can make up your own mind. However I will point out that all of the above are facts. Nothing has been made up, it’s now up to you to decide, do Rangers retain their history?

My answer. Oh course we do.

Further information:

Giovanni De Stefano’s view: http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/blogHome2.php

Sandy Jardine/Official Rangers view: http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2824686

13/7/12 – SFL chief executive Longmuir said: “Today has been one of the most difficult decisions to be made by all concerned. “The member clubs have voted to willingly accept The Rangers Football Club as members of the Scottish Football League. The Scottish Football League’s only acceptable position will be to place Rangers FC in the Third Division of the Irn Bru Scottish Football League from the start of season 2012/13.”

Thebunnet1690 (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)thebunnet

Sorry to tell you that you are repeating points already made, and disputed. Please also note that in your last quote abovem the SFL has accepted "The Rangers Football Club" into membership: correct me if I'm wrong but was the original club that was a memner of the SPL last season not called "Rangers Football Club"? Why would the same club use a slightly different name? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"An SPL statement read: "It was agreed that the SPL would work with the Scottish FA, SFL and Rangers to facilitate Rangers FC taking their place in SFL Division 3 this season." This article is about Rangers Football Club, and clearly that club will be playing in Division 3. It is time for this nonsense with a small number of editors filibustering to stop the article being fixed comes to an end. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree Watcher however because of the petty rivalry I don't see a consensus being reached. It's just sad that things were allowed to descend this far. From the changing of this article without consensus to the creation of a fantasy team page that's changed names a fair few times. It's a shame because several editors have put a lot of effort into reaching a consensus only to be ridiculed because it doesn't suit an editors POV. BadSynergy (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The club was forcibly relegated

http://www.polskieradio.pl/43/265/Artykul/646239,Rangersi-wyrzuceni-z-ligi-W-ich-miejsce-zagra

Because i used non-english source, so someone must translate it and confirm it's true --82.139.5.13 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Which was the last team in any league in the world that was voluntarily relegated? --Dweller (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

'Relegated' is just a term being used by some within the media as a descriptive term, to describe Rangers falling from the SPL to division 3. Rangers were not 'Relegated' though, that much is obvious considering they finished 2nd in the league. When the SPL blocked the transfer of SPL membership from the oldco to the newco, it left the newco without a valid membership in any league, therefore made an application to the SFL in the same manner any other club being kicked out the SPL would, or a team coming through the junior ranks to the professional leagues. Ricky072 (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The other view, of course, is that Rangers have not been put out of the SPL. Rangers are leaving the SPL because they have entered liquidation. The other SPL clubs could have decided to transfer the SPL share to the new Rangers instead, but decided that 'sporting integrety' meant that that option was unacceptable. The New Rangers have had to re-enter the senior game at the bottom - division 3 of the SFL. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully the SFA will let us know if they have allowed oldco's membership to transfer to newco then we'll be getting somewhere on this article. BadSynergy (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's currently a sticking point as the SFA today told Charles Green the SFA membership of OldCo to NewCO will only transfer over if the NewCo accepts sanctions for rules broken by OldCo. If that does happen i think this issue will be put to bed once and for all. Ricky072 (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I just seen that and posted a new section below on it. BadSynergy (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

SFA sanctions

Just as I posted about transfer of memberships I came across this latest link and I'll highlight the relevant information.[6].

• STV understands Sevco Scotland led by Charles Green is currently unwilling to accept the imposition of a 12-month signing embargo, originally placed upon the club by the governing body on May 11. However, the Scottish FA has made clear to Sevco that it will only transfer Rangers' membership to the new company if it agrees to the imposition of the registration ban.

• If the newco owners, who bought over Rangers' assets in a £5.5m deal, refuse the proposal, the governing body will either transfer the membership but allow its appellate tribunal to reconvene, leaving open the possibility of Rangers either being suspended from the game for an indefinite period or being thrown out of the game altogether.

• Should Sevco refuse to meet the Scottish FA’s demands, it will be forced to apply for a completely new membership not tied to the former club. However, as the newco does not meet the financial requirements set down to join the organisation, it would not be eligible and would not be able to play football in Scotland.

• If the company led by Mr Green accepts the imposition of the signing ban, Rangers will take up a place as an associate member of the Scottish Football League and will play in the Third Division this season. Clubs must have membership of the national association to play in a league.

• The Scottish FA also want Mr Green to agree to pay all outstanding football debt as another condition of the membership being transferred. It is insisting on the new company taking responsibility for any sanctions later imposed by the Scottish Premier League following its investigation into alleged non-contractual payments to players.

• The two parties must reach an agreement before Rangers' season starts in 12 days time in a Ramsdens Cup tie away to Brechin City on July 28.

So if Green accepts the punishments, the oldco's membership will be transferred over to his newco therefore it is a continuation of Rangers.

If he refuses he will have to apply for a completely new membership not tied to the former club meaning a new club. BadSynergy (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure i agree. Firstly, the SFA should simply decide if its a new club or not, it should not be a case of "you can be the same club but only if..." and secondly, does a new FA membership define a new club? Did Gretna become an entirely new club when they resigned form the English FA and were given a bradn new memberhsip wit the SFA? Ricky072 (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You would think that Ricky but that's what seems to be going on. At least we know it will be revealed before 28th of July. BadSynergy (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In this interview[7] with Neil Doncaster he is asked why the SPL will help a club that isn't a member of the SPL to facilitate its entry into Division three. He states that it is an existing club if not a new company. Just over 40 seconds in.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Good find Wanderer BadSynergy (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's Green's response and also it highlights the point that the newco will be expected to accept sanctions that would have befallen the oldco effectively meaning it would be seen as the same club [8]. BadSynergy (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it means that it's the same SFA membership, nothing else. The punishments would apply to any new club who applied to hold the SFA membership previously held by the now defunct Rangers FC (IA).WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's right. Had Green's consortium applied for a completely new membership, there would be no talk of inheriting the punishments of the old club along with their SFA membership. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Implicit acceptance of the club/company distinction

Re-reading this nightmare of a talk page, if I'm not mistaken every single point has been debated here except this: if the SFA penalizes Green's newco for the SFA's grievances with the oldco, all the while stressing that it is penalizing Rangers today for Rangers' crimes of previous years, then this article needs also to assume Rangers' continuity as a club. This must be done for these SFA sanctions (among other things) even to be comprehensible when written about on this page. It would be bizarre for Wikipedia editors to claim themselves (or the BBC?) to be more valid authorities on Rangers' institutional continuity within Scottish football than Scottish football's authorities as such. I agree with critics of the club/company distinction here in their assertion that we shouldn't be having a deep, opaque, philosophical discussion about what it means to be a club. For the purposes of member clubs of the SFA, the SFA defines (implicitly and explicitly) what it means to be an SFA member club, just as encyclopedias define what words currently 'mean' (that is, how they're properly used) or transportation ministries define what it means to have a road-legal car. The debate going on here has already been settled by the authority set apart to decide on debates like these: because the SFA considers it possible to fine Green's newco for mistakes by the oldco, it clearly considers itself to be dealing with 'Rangers FC' as a continuing institution rather than an old club from 1872 and a new club founded this year.

Obviously, meanings change, and the prevalent use of words changes, and so encyclopedias change. The SFA may later alter its implicit stance on Rangers. If it does so, this page should be changed to reflect that. Since it has not, the fact that it has been pre-emptively changed reflects a simple misuse of language. Doesn't it? Is that really a subject about which there can also be endless, partisan debate? And if this point isn't substantively debated, or eventually ceases to be debated for the same reasons, don't we have a tacit consensus here? 206.248.205.66 (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I've not long posted the SFA's stance on this issue and as far as they are aware they are dealing with the same Rangers. BadSynergy (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. The moment they change this stance, I'd understand this page changing to reflect that new stance. Until then, I have a hard time understanding what all the debate is about - but please enlighten me if I'm missing something. Granted, this stance is relatively new, so I totally understand why previous debate has occurred, and as I said somewhere far above I think both sides (until now) made quite good points, and were impossible (for me) to decide between. If the SFA considers newco Rangers to carry responsibility for the oldco, because both are the same sanctionable entity, I think it's hard to claim that newco Rangers should be described as operating 'a club with no history.' What about the history for which they're being penalized?173.81.158.246 (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well hopefully it is the beginning of the end of this mess. BadSynergy (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westvirginia63 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The punishments are not attached to any club,but to the SFA membership itself, whichever club happens to hold that particular membership at that moment in time.