Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 33

This is an archive of past discussions about Rangers F.C.. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

HMRC appeal

HMRC have been granted permission to appeal the Big Tax Case verdict. Sparhelda 15:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Winding-up order

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-deny-they-are-facing-a-winding-up-1590772 http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/revealed-rangers-windingup-petition/4020

This is becoming a bit of a story, worth mentioning here or any of the separate articles? Sparhelda 14:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Winding up orders are exceptionally common in business. just means there has been a dispute of an invoice and they couldn't come to an agreement to settle it. VanguardScot (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree, it's just that news outlets are making a big deal of it. Was on the Daily Record's front page even. Sparhelda 22:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Not convinced there is enough in this alone to justify including it in the article, but if we tie it to Charles Green's admission that the company is currently running at a loss, perhaps the point is more significant - especially when, contrary to Cherles Green's assertion, the share prospectus gave no indication that the company would trade at a loss for the first year. [1] That said, I think it better to leave any mention of this out of the article for now to see how this develops. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

every winding up order hearts have had isnt meation in the article why because its not notable whilst it s a winding up order, to which hasnt even been issued yet, but if the winding up order develops to the point where it is acutally threatening the company or club then it should be included. but reading it, it looks like a more personal debt with green rather than teh company but there goign for hte compny as it easierAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Board of Directors

I understand the reasoning we don't have the board of directors listed but I still find it a bit odd when you consider most other football club articles. To show the distinction can we not have the names but title it as 'board of directors of holding company' or something along those lines? Sparhelda 15:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

ive got nothing against it as just board of directors but it opens the page up new club debate, the same club debate was this article is about the club not the company and by adding it we fuel the new club debate and its not like its goner away peole still try to push there [pov. as i say i dnt object just trying tio keep the article as per consensusAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

We can add a board of directors section, it makes no difference to the arguments about whether it is a new club or not, the sources are clear on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanguardScot (talk • contribs) 18:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well the chairman is listed in the info box and there hasn't been any objections as far as I know. Sparhelda 18:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

if possiable can you try find some 3rd party references to back it upAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the individual appointments? Sparhelda 17:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

no no even if you have one source that meantions all of them that would be fine, if not it be need ot be invidual ones, it aint crucial as it not really a high pirioty part of the article but owuld be need for ownership oneAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to the current board of directors which isnt a primary source. Directors — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanguardScot (talk • contribs) 19:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

excellent thanks for that ill get it done laterAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but football clubs don't have boards of directors - companies do. It would only be valid to include details of the Board of Directors if the company and the club were the same entity, which in Rangers case we know isn't the case because the company purchased the club. Therefore, this section should be removed from this article, and the reference to the chairman in the infobox should also be removed for the same reason. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

After checking several SPL pages they list board of directors should we remove them aswell or have football club pages always included them?. BadSynergy (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As I explained in my comment, in cases where the club is itself a company, then there is no reason why Board of Directors should not be included. Rangers FC is different as the club was acquired by the company whose directors are listed. Since this article is about the club and not the company that owns the club, then the Board of Directors should not be listed here. As I say, other football clubs are different in this regard. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

i agree with you fisherhelper hence why i objected originally, but i think this might be a issue that needs to be brought up at the project as its a issue of do we include it, as ther eis other examples like aresnal etc where the company owns the club and the board directors are included there to. as i say i agree it better not thereAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrewcrawford. I don't know enough about the Arsenal setup to know if it is the same. However, if a club becomes a company, or a club starts life as a company, and then that club/company entity is bought by a different company, then if the original company still has a Board of Directors then that would be directly to do with the club, but if it was just the holding company it wouldn't be. Perhaps also relevant to this discussion, of the 10 Third Divison clubs, only the Rangers FC article includes details of the Board of Directors. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And we can't even compromise like I suggested before, i.e. the title saying Board of Directors of holding company? It's ridiculous if the man who runs the club, Charles Green, can't be listed in the main article. Sparhelda 17:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Editors have argued successfully that this article is about the club and not about the company that may run it. This is a consequence of that. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for it to be a consequence except for the likes of yourself trying to prove a point. Sparhelda 22:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Add share issue info under "liquidation & current ownership"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20773142 Does anyone think that the last part of this section should mention the most up-to-date corporate status, the successful £22m share issue raised in December 2012? Which i think may also be a british record for a football club in a share issue if i'm not mistaken? Ricky072 (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You can only add that it is a record if you can find a source to say it is a record. VanguardScot (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Lord Nimmo Smith

I have added the opinion of The Right. Hon. Lord Nimmo Smith, a former Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Supreme Courts of Scotland, sitting in the High Court of Justiciary and the Inner House of the Court of Session, that "Rangers FC" was purchased during the asset purchase from the Oldco. Given the continuing confusion among some regarding the status of Rangers, I think this direct quotation provides useful clarity. As a chair of an independant commission charged specifically with investigating the Rangers saga, his reliability and trustworthiness as a source appears to be second to none and beyond reproach. Gefetane (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The removal of the very small amount of content relating to Lord Nimmo Smith's judgements is not justified. Rather than be out of kilter with other sources, it actually chimes exactly with the vast majority of RELIABLE sources (we've seen numerous times that media interpretations are contradictory on this, only official football authorities have remained consistent) that agree that Rangers FC continues following Green's asset purchase, despite the demise of it's previous owner and operator. The implication within the article is overwhelmingly clear - Rangers FC is still here, it was bought by Charles Green - now we have an impeccably reliable source stating exactly that. Gefetane (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Lord Nimmo Smith has interpreted that by buying the business and assets, Green's consortium bought Rangers FC. That is an ninterpretation, albeit from someoneone whose judgements carry weight. However, what most reliable sources state is that fact of the transaction - the business and assets of Rangers were bought. We know that Rangers FC continues: the question is did Green's consortium buy Rangers FC or did it buy the assets and business and then continue to run the club. Adding Nimmo Smith's interpretation makes it seem like the former though most sources support the later. The may seem a pedantic point but the reality is that senior football clubs are bought on a regular basis when the 'company' gets bought - Rangers FC was different as the company was not bought - just the assets and business. This must be accurately reflected in how the transaction is characterised. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The company was liquidated and is now in effect a dead duck, with only the business and assets of that company bought - I agree that is important, I agree that is different, and I agree that needs to be stated clearly in the article, and guess what - it is! Clearly in the introduction. I am not suggesting that is removed.

I am merely adding a key detail from a reliable, independant source that tells us what we already had established through consensus - the purchase of the assets, the brand, the business and the football memberships was - in effect - the purchase of "Rangers FC": that is the football entity, not the corporate entity (The RFC plc), which - remember - is what this article is principally about. Gefetane (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute in ownership section

Please discuss and reach a consensus on what this should be, both sides have valid arguements and points, but both sides need to back it up with 3rd party reliable sources, as it stands its not and it will have to be changed later. I suggest having the lord nimmo report reviewed at Reliable source noticeboard firstly to determine is it a primary source as it looks like one to me, and secondly if it isnt what is it reliabilty. I should also noted when looking at the edit summaries things i am seeing are POV and also things that go against what wp:rs says no source is more reliable than another and certainly no source holds mroe weight over another. I do nto intent to take part in this discuss it minor issue between a few editors on teh content, however when i get to reviewing this section i will have to change it to as the sources themself say and that might not be to either sides liking, i have reviewed the sources briefly and the ones used dnt back up what is said well, so i suggest getting more sources.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Be my guest and have it reviewed - it is an independant commission, chaired by a Supreme Court Judge, so to suggest there is any issue with bias/unreliability is quite bizarre. At the moment sourced content is being removed only due to a couple of editors POV and that is not acceptable. Gefetane (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

in wikipedia terms that does not matter one bit, reliabilty does not mean oh he is a judge so that makes it reliable. i aint going to have it reviewed i aint bothered about it, and as of now it is a primary source unless noticeboard determines otherwiseAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Andrew, I disagree on this one having looked at WP:PRIMARY. The source has been used ONLY in the context of describing the asset sale from Oldco, an event which the author was NOT "close to", nor "directly involved", nor in a position to offer an "insider's view of [the] event". It is being used as a secondary source, as Lord Nimmo Smith is describing what has previously taken place (asset sale, 5-way agreement) not *in this context* offering novel judgements or interpretations. Gefetane (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, Lord Nimmo was interpretating that the purchase of the business and assets amounted to the purchase of Rangers FC. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Chairman - Malcolm Murray?

I can understand that the ownership of the club is relevant in the infox and Rangers International Football Club Ltd is listed as the owner. However, is Malcolm Murray Chairman of that company? If he is, the chairman of the ultimate holding company is not relevant to an article about the club and so should be removed. If he isn't, it is misleading to include him as 'chairman' since he is the chairman of the company that operate the club, rather than chairman of the club itself. Therefore, either way, this should be removed. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources clearly state him as the chairman of Rangers. Sparhelda 01:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes but you know that he is chairman of the company and not the club, and other reliable sources say he is chairman of the compsany - why do you prefer the sources that imply what you know to be inaccurate over the sources that are accurate? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing inaccurate about it, the club became incorporated into a new company structure which has a chairman, CEO etc. If the club hasn't got those staff then who runs it? Sparhelda 03:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, I don't know if this helps but the Rangers FC website states Malcolm Murray is Non-Executive Chairman [2], which I suppose means of The Rangers Football Club Ltd and not Rangers International Football Club Ltd. Regards Eddie 12:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2mhunter (talk • contribs)

As Andrew always says we put what the sources say not what we think. Sources say Malcolm Murray is chairman of Rangers Football Club and quite frankly I think it's a complete non issue. BadSynergy (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't stop myself commenting on this - when you see a source saying that "Malcolm Murray is chairman of Rangers Football Club" you have no hesitation in interpreting that as about the club, but when you see sources that speak about 'Rangers Football Club being liquidated' - ah but that's a different story!!! If you 'put what the sources say', I expect that you will also be adding comment and sources that shows that Rangers Football Club was liquidated...thought not. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't it already been established that sources clash with each other on this? Sparhelda 15:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

They clashed on the subject of RFC yes however where is this clash on who is chairman of RFC? BadSynergy (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi BadSynergy, the sources say different things as some say he is Chairman of Rangers Football Club and others say that he is chairman of the company. Of course we all know that he is the chairman of the company that operates Rangers FC and we also know that the distiction between club and company is important in this article. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ally McCoist is employed by the company as well technically. Can we not list him either? Sparhelda 17:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if you want to argue that the club and the company are basically one and the same, that will have consequences for this article. I thought editors wanted this article just to be about the club and not about the company operating the club. If that's what you want - fine. I won't be the one objecting when sources that state that Rangers FC was liquidated get added, and editors start comlaining that they just want this article to be about the club. In summary - be consistant: this article is either about the club alone or it is also about the company that owns and operates it. Once you have decided, tell us all so we can edit the article accordingly. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've accepted there's some ambiguity and I thought it seemed like the logical compromise to have the title as 'RFC Holding Company Board of Directors' for the time being, so important figures like Charles Green, Walter Smith etc are listed but the separate entities idea is still pointed out. However, you don't seem happy with that idea either. I'm not one for edit warring but I strongly believe the articles should not be butchered of all listing of the board members that run the club day-to-day. Club and company may be separate but they're strongly linked, nobody has denied that. Sparhelda 19:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The club was relaunched under a new company structure. It is the same club, operated by a new company. Malcolm Murray is the chairman of the club and of RIFC Plc. It is that simple. A complete non issue. VanguardScot (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Resorting to questioning the status of the Rangers Chairman, without a single source to back such a claim up - is this where we have come to? The attempts to push the defeated 'new club' agenda against the consensus seem to be becoming increasingly undignified and desperate. Inevitable I suppose. Gefetane (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we un-hide the directors list then? Is there any opposition to this barring the one specific user? Sparhelda 19:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I am going to be even more unpopular for pointing this out but Malcolm Murray is Chairman of Rangers Football Club Ltd and Ally McCoist is the Manager of Rangers Football Club. It would be inaccurate to suggest that Ally McCoist is the manager of Rangers Football Club Ltd. Similar, the chairman is the chairman of the Board - thats what he chairs! The Board is the Board of the company. If this article is about the club - and the consensus is that it should be - then it should be about the club and not about the company that owns and operates the club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I ask again, have you gone round all the club articles that have had new company structures and removed all listing of board members? Sparhelda 22:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Tell you what, Sparhelda, if you can tell me another club article where a consensus was arrived at that the article was about the club alone, then I may just do that. Note: don't just tell me names of clubs that may have "had new company structures" but tell me articles where the consensus, after discussion, was that the article was about the club alone. Anyway, back to why you believe that the directors of the company that operates Rangers should be listed in an article where the consensus is that the article is about the club alone.... Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources state that they are the chairman, chief executive etc of Rangers. I believe just because club and company are separate it doesn't mean they aren't incorporated together into a structure where the club has board members, and I also feel these figures are too important to not be listed. Not to mention that the 'holding company' or something can be mentioned in the title of any board sections if you want to avoid portraying any doubt. Sparhelda 23:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Coincidentally Murray gave an interview to Sky Sports News yesterday, referred to as the chairman of Rangers every time, no mention of holding company. Sparhelda 00:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So is it now being claimed that Murray is chairman of two things? VanguardScot states above "Malcolm Murray is the chairman of the club and of RIFC Plc". And what exactly does he chair? Does he chair meetings of the company board as well as meetings of the club? The truth - for what it's worth - is that Murray chairs meetings of the Board of the Company. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

when i get chance to come back and start reviewing the content again against the sources i will make sure that what is said as per sources. can i also remind you all that you are edging on a content war i will request it gets full protection again if you continue keep it here until you come up with a consensus. i also like to remind you about wp:truth and wp:primary as both sides are going on about the truth and about football authority which are primary sources, both the truth and football authority only matter to you as fans arguing about what the current rangers is, but for wikipedia it means nothing unless backed up with reliable sources which it is, it is backed up that the company is in liquidation note there not liquidated yet, that the current club is deemed by 3rd party sources as anew club and the same club. there is only one part of the article to which has no 3rd party reliable source, which is the bit where it says the history and goodwill where bought but as i have not got to reviewing that section yet i have not removed it, but when i do if there not a source or if i cant find one it will be removed until a source is found that is not a primary one.

please get back on track and remind the core principles, wp:rs, wp:consensus, wp:verifiable, and lord nimmo report would need to be submitted to wp:rsnb to confirm if it deemed 3rd party or a primary i aint 100% sure myself. also note i aint involved much in the debate one because its something that between yourselfs and not about the articles itself ie minor content issues and secondly i have only just got back out of hospital so not wanting to tie myself down with this when i am still recovering but i thought i should try steer this back on trackAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, this reliable source makes explicitly clear that Malcolm Murray is chairman of the Rangers plc board. [3] Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

While calling him 'Rangers chairman' in the same source. Sparhelda 12:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems to confirm, then, that when he is being referred to as 'Rangers Chairman' it is referring to him as Chairman of the plc. I agree that he should not be listed in the infobox as this article is supposed to be about the club and not the company running the club. Including him in the infobox has the effect of confusing the issue as it blurs the distinction between the club and the company. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)/

Ally McCoist's employment is with the company as well, can we not list him? Ditto with the players. The PLC board acts the board of the club. The titles can easily include the company references as a logical compromise but that keeps getting ignored. Sparhelda 18:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you deliberately not seeing the point? Ally McCoist's role is directly to do with the club - he manages the club. Malcolm Murray's role is not directly to do with the club - Murray chairs the Board of the company that owns and operates the club. What you seem to be arguing is that the company that runs the club and the club amount to much the same thing - that was an argument that happened several months ago and the clear majority who took part in that discussion believed that this article was about the club alone, and not about the company that owned and operated it. Malcolm Murray is clearly part of the company structure and is therefore not relevant in an article about the club alone. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The company that runs the club isn't relevant to an article about the club? Right. Sparhelda 22:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Rangers and liquidation

User hippo is altering the lead to say rangers where liquidated and that the club assest where sold and nogt the club, this is against consesnsus and against what some sources say, i admit some say the club asset where sold and ranger liquidated but we reached a consesnus that it was the same club so if user hippo wants to change it please discuss it here Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course it should be mentioned. --John (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hippo's error is based on a duplicitous definition of the word "club". If you define "club" as the company, then of course it was liquidated, it's assets were sold etc. BUT this page - in light of the fact it spans two companies, one of whose history only began in 1899 - needs to draw clear distinction between the continuing association football "club", Rangers F.C., and the two corporate entities which it transcends. The word "club" therefore - to avoid the confusion - should apply to F.C., with the word "company" used when describing the corporate entities. If Hippo wants to say the company was liquidated, assets sold, that is quite acceptable, but using the word "club" in this context is not appropriate. Gefetane (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hippo should really read the talk page archives where we went over all this stuff for ages. Sparhelda 23:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I wrote that Rangers were liquidated. I didn't say that the club was liquidated or the company was liquidated, because I don't want to get involved in a club/company debate on here. Rangers were liquidated. It isn't contentious and can be well-referenced, though it shouldn't need to be. Suggesting otherwise, or avoiding mentioning liquidation in a summary of the situation, is POV pushing and suggests an absence of the competence needed to edit an encyclopedia. --hippo43 (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

its well reference that it was the company that was liquidated but that some say the club was liquidated so you are pushing a POV i have nothing against liquidation in the lead it the way it worded suggest the club to which a consensus has been agreed and is linked at the top of the page in common statement and responses you will find it says it is the same club that is the consesnusAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, I've read your list of opinions above, but it really doesn't amount to much. It's a list of your views on the subject, backed up with a handful of sources which require some interpretation to count as evidence for your views. It doesn't do any harm but proves nothing either way. --hippo43 (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

here is the consensus Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the association football club Rangers F.C.. which, since the Summer, spans two companies, one which was liquidated, one which is now going strong. Simply saying "Rangers were liquidated" is only legitimate if you are using 'Rangers' as shorthand to refer specifically to the old company TRFCplc (oldco), which this article - whose topic spans TWO companies - cannot do. Make all the unfounded accusations you like, but it's simply a case of meeting the demands for clarity and accuracy. What exactly is the problem with being clear about what is being referred to, especially when the danger for confusion and misunderstanding (caused by using 'Rangers' duplicitously: for oldco AND newco AND the F.C. that transcends both) is so clear? Gefetane (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Gefetane, either you don't understand the word duplicitous or you are being uncivil and failing to assume good faith. Was it also duplicitous of other editors to state that "Rangers became insolvent and entered administration"? Of course not - it is clear enough for this article. That the article is currently written based on the assumption that there are two separate companies but one club which has remained the same is all very well, but it doesn't change the fact that there is some ambiguity on that point in the real world.

Andrew, the section you refer to is a vote on whether editors believe it is the same club, not whether we should point out that Rangers were liquidated in the lead. It is a list of editors expressing their opinions, based on their original research/synthesis of some sources, or their understanding/misunderstanding of the situation. A vote of 12 wikipedia editors, most of whom are big fans of the article's subject, is not a substitute for facts, or for reliable sources. It should be very obvious that some sources treat the current version of Rangers as the same club, while others treat it as a new club, but that there are very few good quality reliable sources which explicitly state one or the other. It might be convenient to have an article based on the assumption that it's the same club, but it's not as easy as that. As far as I can tell, the belief that "the club and the company are different entities" didn't exist before the whole liquidation saga. For example, every annual report published by Rangers that I've seen clearly viewed the company and the club as the same thing. How strange.

Anyway, Rangers were liquidated, it's notable and fairly well known, and it should be in the lead. Why it was left out until today, I really don't know. --hippo43 (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hippo. No, I didn't use the right word there! My point was simply to highlight the confusion that comes from using one word 'Rangers' for 3 different entities in this specific context ie. the club continues, the company does not. Whilst media interpretations do vary between different journalists, in terms of the relevant official sources there is no ambiguity that Rangers FC has transitioned from the previous company to a new company. The evidence from bodies such as the SFA/SFL/SPL/UEFA/ECA is available on this page if you are not aware of it. Also, please refrain from stereotyping editors as "big fans" of the article's subject as it is totally irrelevant to considering the merits of the matters at hand. Gefetane (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Except there is ambiguity on exactly what happened and whether the club was separate from the company. It is a convenient ambiguity that allows the new club/company to trade as if it is the old club - it keeps fans happy and keeps newspapers busy and probably doesn't do any harm. If there are good quality sources which explicitly and unequivocally clear up the matter one way or the other, I haven't seen them, but it doesn't really matter.

I am not stereotyping anyone, and so what if I were? The editors who voted in the discussion referred to by Andrew C are mostly, obviously, Rangers fans, and so this should be considered by any sensible person when considering what value, if any, to give to their interpretation of this situation - it clearly is not a representative sample of well-informed, disinterested people. As I tried to explain above, however, that whole discussion is irrelevant to the question at hand - should Rangers' liquidation be mentioned in the lead. Obviously it should. --hippo43 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If you believe the poll as wrong and a admin cloing it was wrong to judge a consesnus then do are the mediation cabel syuggested make Request for comment and open it up to wider wikipedia community, consensus can change but until you get a new one you are acting on your own pov and claiming ownership of hte article to which will be judge to be vandelismAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, calm down. Obviously there was agreement among those 12 editors that they see Rangers as the same club as before, but that is all it is. I can't see any consensus to omit the significant and well-known fact that Rangers were liquidated, which is what this discussion is about. If there were any such consensus, it would be a very strange one, and it would be difficult to explain, IMO. --hippo43 (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It should go without saying that Wikipedia operates best when issues over content are judged on the merits of each case, rather than attempting to diminish the value of editors' contributions by attempted to portray them as biased for whatever reason. You seem to think speculating about which football team an editor likes or dislikes is relevant, but I assure you that whether Editor X supports/despises one team or another will not make their contributions regarding content any more or less valuable. Whilst official sources stating Rangers FC are a new football club do not exist, as you seem to be aware, the contrary position is actually very well supported by reliable, official 3rd party sources:

Are you aware the club's presiding league authority, the SFL, state Rangers FC as having continued? (SFL website)
Are you aware that UEFA's official website makes clear that Rangers FC has continued? (Season 2012-13 squad details included within "Scottish Cup/Squad" section on original RFC page)
Are you aware that the SPL's independent commission re. Rangers, chaired by Supreme Courts of Scotland judge Lord Nimmo Smith, made clear that Rangers FC has continued?
Are you aware that the European Clubs Association, the UEFA-independent organisation representing 207 top European clubs, has made clear that Rangers FC - one of it's founder members - has continued?

For whatever reason media sources have been curiously inconsistent and self-contradictory in reporting of this matter, which makes the official sources such as the football authorities/legal position as expressed by Lord Nimmo Smith all the more important. Finally, I have no problem mentioning liquidation providing it is clear that it was the old Rangers company that officially entered liquidation, not an association football club that remains active to this day and is certainly not in liquidation. Gefetane (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but these sources mostly do not state any such thing. They imply that Rangers is the same club. As I said above, it is a commercially and regulatorily convenient point of view for organisations (including the newco) to take after the fact - not one that was widely held pre-liquidation, but probably a harmless one, which I'm not really concerned about. Anyway, this is exactly the debate I intended to avoid, as the issue here is liquidation.

As for the preferences of editors who took part in the discussion over how the sources portrayed the current club, I don't see that as an irrelevance. It should be obvious that all editors are 'biased' in various ways through their own knowledge and opinions. Pointing out that the opinions of a group of mostly Rangers-supporting editors is not a substitute for facts or for reliable sources shouldn't be contentious. After all, this is the same group of active editors who decided to leave liquidation out of the lead, which was a very curious omission. --hippo43 (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

i suggest you re read wp:nor and wp:agf as you aarte not assuming good faith tha thte eidtors invovled in the consesnsus acted in good faith, and you are assuming you know what the football authoritse are doing unless you have a source that beyond a doubt says teh club was liqudiated and not a news source because they both support and oppose the same club idea to which the article meantions, liqduaition is fine in the article but only in the company context because that is beyond a doubt the company is in liquidation what we cant do is sypthise as to wheter the club has been we only report what the sources sayAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hippo, please see Leeds United, Luton, Charlton, middelsborough & Bournemouth wikipedia pages. These clusb have underwent the process of liquidation & newco at some point in their history but the editors of those pages didnt feel the need to mention it in the lead, infact, it's barely mentioned at all, these pages refer to football clubs and document very little corporate history. Ricky072 (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ricky, I haven't spent time on these articles, but from what you say it would seem that editors there are missing a trick. Why would they not mention a pivotal event in the history of the club? Because editors want it to be about the football side of things only? This article is about Rangers Football Club, not just the team or results on the pitch, but also the history of the organisation. The fact that the club was liquidated very recently is significant here. It is important to cover why the newco version of the club now play in division 3 - it is an unusual situation and merits a clear explanation up front. As the lead stands now seems about right to me. Until I added liquidation, it mentioned insolvency and administration but not liquidation, which was (presumably unintentionally) misleading. --hippo43 (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hippo,

I see you have formed some theories in your head that explain why the official authorities accept Rangers FC continued. Interesting conspiracy stuff, would love to see some evidence for these motives you attribute to them. When you've got the time that is.
You say the official sources I presented you "mostly" do not state Rangers are the same club, but they "imply" the fact. Use whatever terms you like, the fact is the continuation of Rangers is the only explanation for eg.
- The SFL stating the CURRENT club's founding date as 1872/listing trophy history
- UEFA adding CURRENT season details to the club's original page
- Lord Nimmo Smith stating Rangers continue, and distinguishing explicitly between club and companies.
- The ECA stating the CURRENT Rangers were founder members of the organisation
Once again you fail to explain how the particular team an editor supports is at all relevant to the editing of this article. Saying "X was added by a supporter of Y" is irrelevant as to the suitability of the content X within the article, which should be judged on it's own merits. Surely that goes without saying. Gefetane (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

One more point. Chair of the independent commission looking into Rangers FC, The Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith, states clearly that the new company "purchased substantially all the business and assets of Oldco, including Rangers FC". This is the legal position according to the Supreme Courts of Scotland judge. If his interpretation does not stand up as a "reliable" source, justifying adjustment of the introduction within the article, I don't know what would. Gefetane (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hippo, the article is entitled "Rangers FC". Rangers FC is a Football Club (that's the FC part). A Football Club can't be 'liquidated'. A football club is a business which is a going concern. Much liek a resteraunt or car manufacturer. A resteraunt, like "The Fat Duck" can't be 'liquidated', but the company that owns it can. Don't get me wrong the Wiki entry for football clubs should ofcourse document some aspects of he corporate life associated with the clubs, particualrly the insolvency event admin/liqi/newco which happened at Rangers because it was so well documented, but, the main focus ofcourse on the FC pages is of the sports team rather than corporate matters. Ricky072 (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Gefetane, you're attacking a straw man. This discussion is about including Rangers' liquidation in the lead. You may notice I haven't actually suggested amending the article to say that it isn't the same club, though - as you pointed out - there is definitely not unanimity among sources on that point. Your interpretation of what sources mean when they do not explicitly state something is interesting, but not much use. My understanding of why the 'same club, different company' viewpoint has proved popular is obviously just my opinion - it's not a conspiracy theory, as I didn't suggest any conspiracy took place, and I don't need evidence to back it up. It would be interesting, however, to see good quality sources from before when the shit hit the fan which considered the club and company to be separate. I haven't found any yet, and interestingly Rangers FC plc's annual reports consistently (AFAICT) treated the club and the company as the same, and did not list a football club as an asset of the company, or among the subsidiary companies.

If you don't understand why polling 12 largely Rangers-supporting editors on their views of some sources proves very little here, then I can't help you. For clarity, the same would be true if this were an article about any other club, or any other subject which arouses strong passions and attracts fans as editors.

Ricky, the liquidation stuff in the article doesn't deal with "the corporate life associated with the club" - as if that is some sort of irrelevant side issue - it deals with the very nature of the club (the subject of the article) and its existence. (If this article is intended to deal largely with the sports team, I would suggest renaming it to something like 'Rangers FC 1st team'.)

If a company is The Fat Duck Restaurant plc, then yes, the Fat Duck Restaurant can be liquidated. Or if the company is the Ford Car Manufacturer plc, then the Ford Car Manufacturer can be liquidated. If a football club called, say, The Rovers Football Club plc, was liquidated, then it would of course be accurate to say that Rovers Football Club had been liquidated. Before its liquidation, The Rangers Football Club plc was obviously a football club (that's the 'football club' part). --hippo43 (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hippo. You clearly seem to sympathise with the "new club" position, yet, by only make superficial comments and vague unsupported remarks you negate the requirement to actually support your position - quite a luxury! To be fair to you, you seem genuinely uninformed about the distinction between football club and the company that owns and operates the club. Rather than rely on my interpretation, Lord Nimmo Smith's Independent Commission provided a lucid analysis within his findings. Perhaps you respect his opinion more than all these other editors you seem to dismiss as footie fans, or do you think he identifies Rangers as one continuing football club, that "continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator", because he's a fan too? Gefetane (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi hippo43, you are of course correct but that will make little difference I'm afraid - I tried to argue the point that the club became a company and therefore the two things were one and the same, but the implication of that would be that the demise of the company also meant the demise of the club. We now have the strange situation where Rangers FC PLC couldn't get a CVA and at that point had all its asests sold to another company that chose to use those assets to continue to run a football team - which the new company insisted was still Rangers. However, the old company was still recognised as Rangers FC officially until the SFA later agreed to transfer Rangers SFA membership to the new company. So the question is: during that period between Rangers' assets being sold to the new company and Rangers' SFA membership being transferred to the new company, where was Rangers FC - did it still remain with the original company though the assets were sold, had it been transferred to the new company though the SFA still recognised it as staying with the old company, or was the club in both places at once? Like you, I agree that this is all semantic nonsense to avoid the inevitable conclusion that the current Rangers FC is a new club that is a direct replacement for the old Rangers FC - but you'll be up against it here trying to argue that point! Best of luck. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, may I let Lord Nimmo Smith answer? "[in the context of the SPL rules]"Club" is defined in terms of "the undertaking of an association football club"... an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated... it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator."

The fact that LNS also states that "On 14 June 2012 a newly incorporated company, Sevco Scotland Limited, purchased substantially all the business and assets of Oldco, including Rangers FC, by entering into an asset sale and purchase agreement with the joint administrators" implies that he believes the club IS the assets, and the SFA membership transfer is in effect a rubber stamping stage. The analogy I'd use is of a computer game - the "club" is the tangible assets (the player), the SFA membership is the playing identity (the username), against which the player's performance is attributed, without which participation is not possible. Gefetane (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

the scottish courts see the club and the company as serperate and that goes as far back as them entering administration, the club is asset of the company how it listed in annual reports i dnt know. as for the plc being the club that is your interuption of the sources no where does it says the company is the club nor is there anywhere it says the club is the company, that is original research and teh fact the sources say both means the sources dnt know but the article reflects that fact, as for the comapny that is not dealt with in the ownership page this page is about the club only i dnt think it appiorate to rename it 1st team no other article does that including aresenal one which is shows a holding company. please note i have nothing against liquidation in the article in fac ti encouraged it but it got removed but because we cant say one way or the other if it was the company or the comapyn and the club that was liqudiated then i only support meantion liquidaiton of hte plc which is not disputed only meantion Rangers entered liquidation, although this doesnt speficially say the club did it kinda applies it so is misleading readers, i am currently working on getting this article to FA first to GA and if there is a problem with the way it reads it will be brought up there, and i am no where near finished but i am planning to get the references to back this all up, the ECA is 3rd party reliable source and says its the same club. as for your arguement that you cant find any source from aroudn the time of the 14th june saying the club and company are serperate that is irrevelent , you cant just say you want to build a article on old sources new evidence means a new consensus hence why i am encouyraging discussion here as it might lead to new consensus of its a new club but even if that is the case we dnt need two articles it can easily be house din one article jsut needs it reworkedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

i suggest to you both hippo and fisherhelper please re read wp:truth wp:nor wp:consensus wp:rs wp:verifiable. everyone who is making there points here are correct. you must remember the problem for wikipedia is we can not choose what to put if the sources say both we have to put both and that is what the article is doing, you also should re read wp:npov and all these policies should be re read by both sides as you all clearly forget what wikipedia isAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hippo, if we go back to my comparison of a resteraunt, a resteraunt cannot be liquidated. The Fat Duck is the resteraunt, it's the brand name. The Fat Duck resteraunt has a Wikipedia page, which you can look up. This concerns the resteraunt, not the company. Infact, by visiting the Wiki page you can read information about the resteraunt, it's accolades, it's menu, etc. But nowhere on the page does it mention what the Company name is which owns it (The Fat Duck Ltd), nor does it mention the company number (03677212), nor it's registered office, nor it's financial performance, nor it's shareholders. If the Fat Duck were liquidated and the Brand name, goodwill, building itself, equipment & other assets were sold to "Hippo Ventures 2013 Ltd", and the resteraunt continued to operate as normal, do you think the Wiki entry would update to reflect this, when it didn't even mention the name of the holding company before? These Wikipedia entries don't go into any great detail of corporate performance of sports teams, some premiership clubs, such as Reading FC, the wiki article mentions absolutely nothing of the clubs ownership or financial affairs. I would have to search elsewhere to find out if Reading FC was a limited company or a PLC, who it's share-holders were, etc. Ricky072 (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice work Hippo; it's astounding that the biggest piece of news concerning the club was kept out of the lead by fans. Andrew, you've been saying this about GA and FA for a very long time. You should accept that you will need help if you are going to do this. --John (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

i know i need help but i am happy to do it myself just take a logn time, and yes its important part of the club history but the context of the words is important i gave up trying to keep it in back august/september time, we cant do original research, the sources dnt confirm one way or another if the club has truly went into liquidation but they beyonda doubt confirm the plc has, i am gratefully somone else has started to readd it and get form of consensus here that its important and should be ntoed but the word context is the only issueAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

as gettign it to FA requires vigious checks and so if it pass FA then i will feel happier that inpartial editors who not been invovled will have reviewed it and confirmed the soruces say what they do meaning we can say the article is corect :)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

- Thanks. I've been editing this article since January 2006 (more than two years before you) and I've been an admin since August 2006 so you may take it as read that I am familiar with policies like WP:NOR. Finally I am thoroughly impartial on the subject of Rangers FC. I believe you have previously shared that you are a fan of the club so you do need to be careful with WP:COI. --John (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

John, being impartial as you are, and realising the importance of specifically mentioning the part of liquidation in a club's history (after all, it could be Rangers, it could be another club, what does it matter to you?) then I expect you will be striving to change the Leeds United page which has no mention at all of the liquidation of the oldco? I'll be interested to know how you get on. It's an odd coincidence that NONE of the editors so determined to apply their logic to Rangers regarding the fate of a club post-Oldco liquidation, are at all concerned with applying this to other clubs who have underwent the same process. Indeed, Middlesborough have no mention of the L-word in their opening section despite having an entire article dedicated to the "club's liquidation". It seems you have some work to do. Gefetane (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

i supported the club a long time ago then in 21st century only watch eurpean games the spl is boring. but even though i have said that i have been neutral i personal think the club no longer exist and there a new club withe same name but i dnt care about this new one. trust me when i say i have had family members have a go at me for letting rangers bad side ie sectarianism been known, it that is the reason i am neutral i hate it, but my neutralkity can be well seen in the archives esicpally on the new club debate i sti;ll support both sides are right, but i do take your point i know i really have to be careful to what i doAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This business about liking or disliking a club is simply irrelevant. This is quite different from WP:COI which is aimed at formal relationships between article subject and editor. The bottom line is content should be judged on it's own merits according to Wikipedia policies and best practice. From a glance at an editor's contribution history I could easily launch a character assassination on an editor and explain why they are not "impartial" editors of this page, but I don't, because it would be a waste of time. Because, providing contributions are legitimate for other reasons, it doesn't matter. Gefetane (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

indeed Gefetane, i often wonder myself why certain editors continue to push certain aspects of the Rangers page but don't push the same criteria upon other clubs. Like you mentioned, Leeds, Middelsborough, Charlton are all examples of clubs that have had holding companies liquidate and are now operate by newco's. Fishiehelper seems unforgiving in his flawed opinion a club becomes a company, therefore by teh same logic Leeds became a "new club" in 2007 while Middlesborough and Charlton did so in the 80's. ! point i've always made in these discussions is to follow precedent. Leeds, Middlesborough, Charlton barely mention liqudiation or newco's within their pages, certaintly nowhere near the detail in which it is logged on the Rangers page. Thy are skipped over with a sentence or 2 on financial difficulties. So why don't the same editors push the same issues on these clubs pages? This is what leads me to question their agenda & goodfaith. Ricky072 (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

there two reason i can think for, not saying this is fisherhelper or anyone reasons just reasons i can think. first and majorly the coverage that has surronded ranges and there finical troubles and liqudiation has been huge and as such you have some saying the club is consigned to hiustory and other says the company is and new company took over. secondly its rangers and there a lot of bad blood with them, and it hasnt been helped by the EBT's which a lot perceive as cheating.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, you can explain away the initial interest with publicity. But - the fact remains - once the irrefutable evidence that the Oldcos of Leeds United/Boro/Charlton etc were liquidated is made available to them, these liquidated-company=end-of-the-club editors are only a few clicks away from "improving" (in their eyes) these other important wikipedia pages by applying their logic to these other clubs. Yet they never do. Gefetane (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello - I see I am being mentioned - specifically "Fishiehelper seems unforgiving in his flawed opinion a club becomes a company". Well I happen to believe - and continue to believe - that when football clubs (like any other club/society, association) choose to change their legal status by becoming limited companies or plcs, the club is continuing with a different set up. You will notice that you never getting separate officials being elected for the club and the company - the chairman of the company is the club chairman. So don't now try to persuade me that club and company are automatically separate entities. The old Rangers Football Club choose to take on limited liability status and then further changed its status to PLC. It then went insolvant and could not agree a CVA to exit administration so entered liquidation. The assets were sold to a separate company that was set up to enable a continuation of Rangers to carry on playing (surely a phoenix club?) and that company then changed its name to Rangers Football Club Ltd. Some editors believe that these events mean that the old Rangers has been replaced with a new Rangers whereas others believe that Rangers has continued without a break since 1872. These different viewpoints are reflected in the sources in a way that is not the case with any other club mentioned as precedent. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources are there for you to apply the same theory to Leeds, Middlesborough, Luton, Charlton, etc... you just have no interest in atetmpting to change those articles. Why? There is a direct quote from Ken Bates who described his newco as "the new leeds", heres the link for you: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-465926/Leeds-limbo-taxman-challenges-Bates-buy-deal.html here's anarticle on the liquidation process at Leeds: http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/yorkshire/news/321645-liquidators-agree-leeds-united-creditor-claims.html?news_section=253059# all the same evidence is there - so you can see why applying your theory that 'club becomes company' only to Rangers strikes as anti-Rangers bias, when you don't seem to care a jot about applying your same convictions to other clubs where they underwent the same liquidation/newco process. Ricky072 (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ricky - we have had these discussions before and I would have thought that by now you would at least have assumed that I am a ggod faith editor rather than an editor who is only on wikipedia to push a particular line in a select few articles - you may be surprised to realise that some editors do just seem to edit a few select articles which could lead to accusations of bias - in my case you will see that I have edited over 1000 different articles. As I have said previously, wikipedia is built on what sources report - Rangers stands apart from the clubs you mention because while many sources in the media referred to 'new' Rangers, 'newco' Rangers, and the end to 140 years of history etc, this was not the case with the clubs you mention - an essential difference you choose to ignore. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, there is clearly a political line of consistency in the articles you have edited that would explain why you might take an attitude - a "bias" to use your own word - to Scotland's widely-perceived UNIONIST club. However, as I have explained before, I see this as totally irrelevant to your value as a contributor and only raise the point in reply to your own comment where you seem to implicate other editors with the "b" word, whilst exonerating yourself.

With regards to your point explaining away the non-editing of the other liquidated-oldco clubs, it's all very well saying Rangers should have been treated as a different case because the media - initially at least - reported it differently. However on many occasions 'new club' editors, increasingly so as the media consensus has shifted, fall back on the logic of a company being liquidated meaning the club ends. If they choose to use this principle as a basis for why the Rangers article should be edited, one would presume it would also apply equally to other liquidated oldco clubs, rather than be - as it appears - a treatment singled out for Rangers FC only. Gefetane (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You are all just falling into arguments and bickering if nither side has anything else construtive to add that is with core policies we best close this for archiving there nothing to gain with either side arguments ther enot based on policies but opinions of what each other is doing i dnt see any editor not assuming good faith so there nothing wrong, your intruptaion will always be different nothin will change them so unless either sie has new evidence and backs it up with reliable source and use key policies can we drop the bickering pleaseAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Just thought i share some information i have finally managed to get, please be aware this is wp:or and can not e sourced so can not be added to wikipedia but on personnal level might answer some questions for everyone.

Ok here goes and i will tell you this it is strange..... Rangers football Club playing in Div 3 are a new club, but a major but they are the same club that played in SPL last season. One thing crucial to this is SFA membership i aint sur why it plays a big part in this so the new club can take on the history and titles of the old club as the information i got does not explain this. The reason rangers in div3 are deemed a new club is purely because they had to trasnfer teh club from the old company to the new company, now again please do not ask me to explain this i have no idea as the information i got doe snot explain this either. So Rangers football club are a new club but the same club as last year with history and all, also should be noted some of the reason this is the case is due to how limited companies work which allows trasnfer of a business which was the club from one company to antoher. Please bear in mind this is original research it personal research i have been doign for months now, it in no way can be used on wikipedia i am only sharing this information for you own personal information, please do not give me your reasons why this is wron etc i am only saying what i got from the information i have got it makes little to no sense to meAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Should have also said from buying the assests and business from the plc they have the right to to play as rangers football club, they could if they choose to play as THe rangers but where forced to use The Rangers until the plc changed it name and offically meant they could use the name this is something do to with companies not football itselfAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

An interesting, if a little baffling, contribution. The sources are clear that the football authorities treat the subject of this article, the FOOTBALL TEAM/CLUB "Rangers FC" (not any particular corporate entity), as having continued. For wikipedians editing this article, that's what matters! This existential/semantic discourse is an interesting sideshow, but largely irrelevant. Football is a game governed by the rules of the game and the sport's governing authorities. Their decisions, the status they bestow on their member clubs, however arbitrary, immoral or offensive they may be, trumps all other opinions and whatever "truth" our interpretations may lay claim to. Gefetane (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus ? By whom, you Rangers supporters are making this up as you go along,whether you like it or not the club was liquidated,how can you sell the history if the only thing liquidated was the business side ? its incredible that there are people here willing to actually lie to perpetrate this myth.It also breaches the good faith policy of wiki its integrity in a time where there are lots of people ridiculing the accuracy of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.119.168 (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC) rangers do not exist the rangers merely bought the now defunct clubs assets and the supporters have all decided to start supporting the new club so rangers WERE a club a new page the rangers 2012 should be made up

please read the faq at the top of the page before dreading up old topics without new evidenceAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

How is this page even allowed to continue? This page has been hijacked by fans of a club that went bust. To suggest that "Rangers FC" was an "Asset" of Rangers FC Plc is complete and utter nonsensity.

How UEFA define the licensing of a "Club" is clearly outlined in their very own document http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf - “A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions…”. You notice the two words "Legal Entity". That is how UEFA define a club under their licensing rules. Another area which is beyond belief is they claim that "History" was transferred. If it's the same club, where did it get transferred from and where did it get transferred to? Because they claim that the Company and Club are separate but are they now saying that the "History" in fact belongs to a Company rather than the club? It really is beyond risible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Investigation in dual contracts concluded, article update?

The results of the investigation found that there was no sporting merit gained by Rangers failure to disclose payments, and fined the oldco £250k, but no titles to be stripped. The article should be updated to reflect this. The full report is published on the SPL website here http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/Commission%20Decision%2028%2002%202013.pdf , and 1 particular quote to put the obsessed 'Fishiehelpers' mind at ease with his failure in understanding of club/company; "On 14 June 2012 a newly incorporated company, Sevco Scotland Limited, purchased substantially all the business and assets of Oldco, including Rangers FC, by entering into an asset sale and purchase agreement with the joint administrators." Ricky072 (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes Ricky072, Lord Nimmo has repeated his previous finding on this point. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

We won't be able to do it while this board of directors stuff continues. Sparhelda 14:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this helps to explain the board of directors stuff. An SPL commission is confirming that the company and club are separate entitys, but that the company that currently operates the club (Rangers Football Club) is 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd'. The parent company of which (Rangers International Football Club Plc) owns it in its entirety. So ^[1]. can be added. VanguardScot (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for Board of Directors debate

Is there a way we can move towards one then, even via the compromise i've tried to push? While we're hiding them it's pandering to those that believe there should be no listing of those important figures at the club at all, I feel strongly about it but obviously would accept a consensus decision either way. Sparhelda 18:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The clear consensus was that this article is about 'the club' alone. Unless that consensus changes, we should not be including details about the company. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In your viewpoint, i'm not one for edit warring but I won't be backing down on that basis Fishie. Sparhelda 18:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

So, Sparhelda, you're not for backing down on the basis that the consensus is that this article should be about the club alone? Well if you intend to ignore consensus and continue to make changes that go against consensus, edit warring is precisely what you will be doing. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

We have an ownership of RFC page why not just link it to there? Oh and Fishie consensus was about if it was the same club not that the page alone is about the club unless I missed this consensus debate. BadSynergy (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been a bit of time since that consensus was achived and i will be honest i cant remmember if the consesnsus also said it should be about the club alone, but i remmember because the push was it the same club and the sources confirm that that the article is about the club but i cant be sure what was said abiut teh company side of things. however i said at the time when it was added it will add confussion and leave the new club debate open, i was the one thqat suggest it be better leaving the article entirely about the club but i am not sure if consesnsus followed for that so that might be where the confussion is because i proposed it. however i still think the board nto sure baout teh chairman because oyu dnt need to be director to be a chairman, should not be meantioned because the owenship artilces deals with it no point in dublicationAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Many people will read this main article and not bother with any of the others. If a distinction has to be made I really don't see what is wrong with titling it as 'company structure' or along those lines. My belief is that a figure such as Charles Green who is always in the media talking about Rangers should really be listed here, even this week there's been heavy press speculation about him and the chairman having a fall out so someone like Malcolm Murray should be listed too. Not to mention a former manager being a director etc. Sparhelda 21:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because this article is about Rangers FC, that is no reason to exclude key information about the running of the club - of which the identity of the Chairman of Rangers most certainly is. I am honestly convinced that this "debate" is the result of certain editors intent on disrupting the page due to frustration that their "new club" perspective died a death, rather than a genuine attempt to improve this wikipedia article. I am disappointed in AndrewCrawford for encouraging this disruption. I think time would be better spent taking action against editors who think adding 8-month-old quotes for the sole reason they say "new Rangers" in them is a productive contribution to this page. Is there a page on wikipedia that gives advice/therapy for editors who have lost arguments and cannot move on? If so, someone please provide these the links for the benefit of those concerned. Gefetane (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gefetane, I added the 8-month old quote because it was made by someone who was appointed a director of the company just in November, making his views of more note. As for me 'needing therapy' for having lost the new club argument, I trust you have not forgotten that it was I who suggested early on that an acceptable compromise was to make reference to the club having been relaunched (which was easily sourced), which you accepted while thanking me for conceding that 'relaunched' meant it was the same club. My efforts then were designed to be construction and though you may not like my contributions, I think it is unfair to suggest that they are designed to be destructive. By the way, I appreciate your concern for my mental wellbeing but I am not an editor who makes 99% of my contributions on wikipedia about Rangers and Rangers related articles, so have plenty of articles that interest me. Perhaps other editors, for whom Rangers is their sole reason for being editors, see articles in terms of 'winning' and 'losing'. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact a very clear compromise won't even be accepted shows how ridiculous it is. Sparhelda 10:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

there is no disruption, the disruption is the edit warring on the page, untila consensus is achived on talk it better to hide it then nither side is right or wrong, i have no strong preference if it is there or not, i have no agenda in whether it is a new club or the same club personlly i dnt care, my only agenda is get the article to FA to archive that everything has to be well refernece verified and the stuff above i am still working on, but most importantly the article has to be stable and no content dispute, whether you like it or not, the new club wont go away it never will because rival fans think it is and as long as ome refernece it as a new club including fifa then there no way for the debate to go away, by leaving it as a club only article you remove that problem because regardless if it is a new club or thr same club if the article is solely about the club then the article is fine, as soon as you add company information to this pae all your doing in encouraging other editor to say that you argued the company isnt the club but now you are saying it is so it must be a new club. if you all feel strongly about this you have two options go to dispute resolution noticeboard or better option is to doa request for comment which would then get uninvolved editors and editors with no knowledge in teh subject to give a opinions so forminga neutral consensus but you have to be aware the outcome might not make oyu happy. i wont take you thinking i am being disruptive personally as you have strong feeling towards the subject and it was hard work to get eht article the way i is now and you dnt want to see that undone but i follow the guidelines and FA requirements so the guidelines say it has to be resolved on talkAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect Andrew we both know by hiding it you're pandering to Fishie's side. Why should the onus not be on him or someone who agrees with him to take it to dispute etc? There was never any consensus about company information and individuals never being listed, and I simply want this to be like the vast majority of other football club articles where boardrooms are listed, or at the very least the chairman is in the infobox. Plus you're forgetting that it creates problems for the content of other articles, basically every board member Rangers have ever had will need to be edited to say they were in fact with the holding company. Sparhelda 14:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

i can see why oyu think that, but i dnt really care either way, but the article is going back and forth, so until a comprise or a consesnsus is agreed it better this way, it will only create problems for other articles depending on the results of this discussion. as for onus, the onus is on you and fisherhelper as the dispute resolve around you two and what you think should or should not be there, its aminor content issue so its between you two to reach a consensus on how to handle itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Sparhelda, but what you regard as a compromise isn't actually a compromise in any way as it involves adding material about the company structure to an article supposed to be about the club. There is a separate article about the Ownership of Rangers F.C. - if you are suggesting that these articles should be merged, then make that case. But what you are actually doing by inserting company information that is already in that other article is merging the articles by stealth. If you want to merge, propose it and build a consensus. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense, I bow to your superior wiki experience but I know two articles don't need to be merged to have relevant connections mentioned and/or listed. Majority of football club articles have boards listed including ones with complex ownership structures, basically that would be setting a precedent that these articles should never mention boardrooms. Are you happy to go around all the football club articles and do this? To go around the wiki pages of the likes of David Murray since you're basically saying Rangers have never had a chairman? The arguments about club and company being separate was never to say Rangers are a special case, as was pointed out in the many debates there's several examples of new company takeovers after a liquidation event. Oh and as has already been pointed out, the consensus we had was that reliable sources say the club is the same, nothing to do with this article content. Sparhelda 14:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Having protection on this article is not what I want to see. Can I suggest a compromise? How about we agree to include reference to Malcolm Murray in the infobox as 'Company Chairman' and leave out mention of other members of the company Board from this article. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this really why there's protection? I didn't believe we'd quite got into edit warring territory yet. Sparhelda 03:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

neither of you have got into a full edit war, but there is a disagreement on content, and in essence that is what wp:ew says that if there is disagreement on content and both sides make changes it is a edit war, but full edit war is where you both revert each other and that heads you both fora block, so hopefully nither of you will be blocked now because it is protected, so to prevent both sides putting there own prospective in which has happened for the last 7-14 days but a slow rate, i request full protection so you can try achieve a consensus between you here, i didnt want full protection makes my job hard to but if the temption to edit is gone and the ability to edit gone for the foreseeable future then hopefully you can both find a solution. once you can come to agreement i will get it unprotected and put back to indefinite semiAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I am going to make a suggestion that hopefully fulfill but your criteria. we reinstate chairmen but put in brackets company chairmen so making it clear we are not saying he is the chairmen of the club but the chairmen of the company that runs it. and we add the directors but section title it Company directors and add a description saying something in these lines The following is a list of directors that work for the company that runs the club. I dnt expect this will be perfect but hopefully you can work a solution from this??? or find a better one you both agree onAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The simple solution is this - everyone agrees upon the obvious reality that HOWEVER you define the subject of this 'Rangers FC' article - club/company/alive/dead/resurrected/relaunched whatever - the "Chairman of Rangers"/"Rangers Chairman" referred to in a million and one reliable sources is a central, high profile and key decision-making role in relation to RFC and must therefore be conspicuous within this article, at least for the sake of the user who comes here wanting to know important facts about Rangers FC. The utterly ridiculous part of this discussion is that it is irrelevant what the consensus was about whether this article is about the club or club and company, in EITHER case the Chairman of RFC/RFC Ltd is a crucial role in relation to the running of Rangers FC. Gefetane (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

you are correct reliable sources do say he is the chairman of rangers fc, i aint seen one that says the company, however reliable sources is only one key part of wikipedia, another is consenesus, this does not have anything to do with the original consenesus on the same club debate, this is to get a consenesus on how to add the information to the article and what should and should not be included. it does not matter how crucial a role someone plays that isnt relevent, but in this case because the sources say it, it makes it relevant, and this being about the club is what the same club debate was about, that the company and the club are serperate entities, if you are now saying there the one and the same your basically open a can of fish for the new club debate because that effectively mean your saying there liquidated, but that wont be enough to change the article we need a consenesus and reliable sources to do that which at the moment isnt likely to happen, my point is why argue one thing then say another later? oh i have no intentions of opening up the new club debate unless something big in reliable sources comes along to say it is and gives it reasons and proofAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This debate is ridiculous. You could say that Rangers FC has infact, no employees. They are all employees of a company that runs Rangers. Peter Hill-Wood is listed as chairman on the Arsenal page, yet the company that runs Arsenal FC is actually Arsenal Holdings plc. Ricky072 (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

it does not matter if you think the debate is ridiculous or not, a editor has concerns about the content and is in dispute about it, as long as wikipedia policies are followed then it doe snto matter, it was those same policies that help bring the article back to what it is now, so do you ingore policies that makes the article not what you want but only take the one that help yoru cuase????? this is not a directed at you ricky in particular just in general to everyone. i think i will get someone formt eh project to pop in and give a unbais response someone not involved in this pageAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Andrew i'd be happy with the suggestion you make above for now, an official consensus would still be good but if they were listed in that form i'd feel more relaxed about the dispute. Sparhelda 13:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

if fisherhelper agrees that it woul be fine in that context and that you agree on a consenesus later to formalise it better then i will request protection be removed. fishierhelper wha ti suggested above "we reinstate chairmen but put in brackets company chairmen so making it clear we are not saying he is the chairmen of the club but the chairmen of the company that runs it. and we add the directors but section title it Company directors and add a description saying something in these lines The following is a list of directors that work for the company that runs the club." if you agree fisherhelper i will request the removal of protection and yourself and sparhelda can work on making it more accurate to reflect sources and the wording of the articleAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't recall reading anything in the wikipedia guidelines that says if one editor comes up with a daft suggestion everyone else should fall into a "consensus" in some fudged half-way house. Someone please phrase this in an "agree/disagree" format so we can at least see if there really is a dispute among the larger sphere of editors of this article, or merely - as I personally suspect - one or two familiar individuals causing mischief as fallout from the failure of their "Newco Rangers" enterprise. Gefetane (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

if fisherhelper agrees to the above then there is longer a content dispute, and a consenesus is formed from more than just agree or disagree, the only reason a consenesus was formed for the same club arguement that way is it i a very complex issue and it be impossiable t achive a consenesus for or against, if you like i could open the request for comment for whether it is the same club or not but dnt expect a consenesus coming form a support or oppose as consenesus come from arguement susing guideliens to. if fisherhelper cant agree to teh above then the next step i suggest to above is go to the project for outside opinion, as merely doing a vote wont be good enough as there already isa biased in the other direction just like you are applying there is biased in teh newco wayAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if fishie agrees or not - I don't. If we are now going to include details of the Chairman of the company and the Board of the Company, I think we should also include in the infobox that Rangers FC was founded in 1872 but reformed in 2012. Those who say 'but that was the corporate structure that was reformed' can't have it both ways - this article is either just about the club or it isn't. If it isn't just about the club, the reformed in 2012 should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritofstgeorge (talk • contribs) 17:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There was never any agreement that we can't have company details, the consensus was about reliable sources saying the club is the same. Sparhelda 18:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sparhelda, if that is the line you are taking, then Spirit has a point. Maybe we should also be including details of 'reformed 2012' in the infobox. Is that a compromise that would work for you? - include Malcolm Murray in the infobox as Chairman of Rangers Football Club ltd, include in the infobox 'reformed 2012' and also include a section in the article about the company directors. I could accept that. But would you? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you could mention that there was a company re-form but the clear distinction has to be made, i'm just taking the line of fact that there was no consensus for banning company details being listed, if you managed to get one then by all means I would back down. I take it you don't agree with Andrew's suggestion then? Sparhelda 19:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok we addiontal put founded 1872
Reformed 2012^{[n 1]} in the infobox as well as what i put earlier. sipiritsofgeorge although i appericate you dnt think it right, if this change is agreeable to the parties who are disputing it can go live and then you can bring up another talk page request to alter, personally i dnt have anything against reformed 2012 in the information box but i think we need to meantion sometihng in the main part of the article as well, if fisherhelper and sparhelda agree to the comprise it means the article can be unlocked againAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

^ We put a note explained what happened briefly happened

Hello, in the words of Billy Connolly, I'm not saying "love me love me I'm thick", but isn't this getting needlessly complicated! Including information about the company that runs a club (owner & chairman) is part of the template for other FC articles so we simply need to agree on who they are and add them. I do not remember there being consensus that this article was only ever to be about the club, it was about whether sources refer to it as being the same club as before, so including corporate information is relevant to a reader. As for adding new info box data, the insolvency is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph and the 'new club' is already stated in the article. I'm not hopeful mind you... Regards S2mhunter (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Have to say i'm extremely edgy on ideas of including 'reformed' since that's basically bringing the new club side into it, if we're going to mention foundations of companies as well we'd need to include 1899 and whatever else. If it was made clear in the infobox like 'company structure reformed 2012' then I suppose it would be fine, although i'm not sure why it would be needed. Sparhelda 22:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I will strongly oppose any attempt to add "Reformed 2012". Reliable sources attest that Rangers FC's existence as an SFA club was not interrupted due to its SFA membership being transferred between the two companies, ensuring continuity. The fact that the club was sold to another owner and operator does not constitute being "reformed". The liquidation of the Oldco is not being denied or hidden, it is stated clearly in the introduction to the article, as is the asset sale etc. I suspected these protests about the club Chairman was a strategy from the usual suspects to push the failed 'new club' line, and the re-emergence of the discredited suggestion of adding "reformed" into the Rangers FC infobox seems to suggest that suspicion was correct Gefetane (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I do agree Gefe, it seems to me one or two users are trying to use this board of directors debate to their advantage as far as the new club argument goes. However, I'm not keen to back down on this issue as I feel it's important for the article. Sparhelda 23:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrewcrawford. I think that it should say "Founded 1872 (reformed 2012)" in the infobox. That does not mean it is a new club but the same club reformed. However, a compromise that accepted that as well as including the chairman in the infobox and also details of the Board members in the article would be fair. It would also recognise that this article is more than just 'the club' alone, as several editors are arguing it should be. I also think SpiritofStGeorge would be content going by the comment above. Unfortunately, it appears that Gefetane would be opposed to this, despite there being numerous sources that make reference to 'reformed Rangers' such as [4] where it clearly state "Businessman Charles Green led a consortium to buy Rangers' assets for £5.5m and reformed the club as a new company." Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you have finally placed your cards on the table with the admission that having "REFORMED" placed in the infobox is sufficient for your concerns about the Board of directors/Chairman to melt away. I am sure that makes the real nature of this particular 'dispute' clearer in the minds of editors. As long as it is standard that changes in the corporate status of a team do not belong in the infobox for an association football club article, "reformed 2012" should not be added, and certainly not alongside information on the F.C.'s founding date, of which it is of no relation. Gefetane (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

All i can suggest now is that you take it to dispute resolution noticeboard or to request for comment to get a wider community consensus, dispute resolution will probably not work as there does not appear to be ability to comprise from both sides, as i aint involved with the actually content debate itself other than to try advise you's and make suggestion i am now just stepping down trying to help resolve it, i will continue to make suggestions if i can think of any or comments on what is said if i feel it appiorate but this to me is minor content dispute initial between sparhelda and fisherhelper, but now involves gefetane and spiritsofgeorge, if you all feel with the help of mediator you might be able to find a comprise and consensus file a request at dispute resolution noticeboard, if you do not i suggest makeing a request for comment, with two questions, first being, should the rangers fc article follow precedence of other club articles and include company information or keep it out as it been argued this article is a about the club alone (you will need to word that better), second should the infobox include reformed 2012 with a note mentioned about it is the same club just a new corpate struce hence reformed, as reliable 3rd party sources do mention it, even within the last month (again you might need to rewoird it). i wish you all good luck in resolving this i will monitor the situation if it does not appear to be resolve around the time of full protection lifting i will request a extension, if there been no attempts to continue trying to get a consensus and comprise here, or at dispute resolution noticeboard or from request for comment i will contact one of the football admins to have look and try suggest other things that might be able to be done anyway i am out, i will be doing more work on the articles in the near future hopefully i dnt need to do it via request to editAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The important thing is that we are not side-tracked into yet another interminable existential dispute about same/new club and focus far more usefully on content: the extent to which info on Chairman/Board of Directors should be shown on this page. I'd suggest three options:

Option 1: Not at all
Option 2: A List of the Board of Directors somewhere on the page.
Option 3: Only the Chairman and possibly Chief Executive identified, but not other directors.

Editors should list their preference for which option and explain why. Gefetane (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Given this debate started over deciding who was the Chairman of Rangers FC, and thereafter accepting that consensus was never about whether this article’s content was only ever limited to the football side of things, I do not understand how adding “Reformed 2012” in the Info Box has made its way onto the agenda. The article covers the insolvency in detail, even from the 2nd paragraph. Looking at it from the point of view of an interested Wikipedia reader, and being consistent with other FC article Info Boxes, we need to reach consensus on the Owner and Chairman of Rangers FC, based on sources (an Option 4). Regards S2mhunter (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say option 2, if we're going to list why not all of them? A successful ex-manager is a director as well so I feel that's important to portray. Sparhelda 12:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I made the suggestion of adding 'reformed 2012' to make clear that editors can't have it both ways: this article is either about the club alone or it isn't. I thought the previous consensus was that it was about the club alone, but it now appears that editors are arguing that that was not the case. Fair enough - if this isn't just about the club alone, then reformed 2012 is relevant to be added. Personally, I think the article should be about the club alone, but if others insist they want to add corporate stuff, then I will insist on corporate things as well. You can't just add corporate info you like and miss out the bits you don't like. My vote is no corporate stuff at all, but if others insist, then 'reformed 2012' should be included. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I assume you want to include 1899 as well then if you're wanting company founding years? Sparhelda 13:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Spiritofstgeorge, we are not suggesting adding the Chairman/board of directors because we "like" it, it's because it is a standard piece of information to appear in the infobox of a football club page, which this is. Nor am I resisting your crusade to add "reformed 2012" for any reason other than, as a purely corporate change (old company owning the club replaced by new company owning the club) it does not belong in the infobox, but detailed within the article - as it clearly and conspicuously is! Reliable sources attest the association football club owned and operated by Oldco/Newco, Rangers F.C., has survived throughout this saga, therefore it only requires one founding date. Gefetane (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gefetane, surely only a continuing, surviving club can reform. If it was being argued that Rangers FC was a new club, the argument would be that 'founded 2012' should be in the infobox. However, all that is being suggested is that '(reformed 2012)' is appropriate to add because that is what happened, and it is sourced that 'the club was reformed in a new company'. That said, I would be perfectly happy if the consensus was that this article is about the club alone, and therefore did not include details such as members of the board of the company. Therefore I did not raise the issue to get reformed 2012 added as you seem to think - I would be happy just to have this article about the club alone - but if editors insist on this article being not about the club alone, then I think adding such a phrase is appropriate. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I just can't get my head around this 'only about the club' stuff. The club has to operate as a business via the holding company, that's how it employs people, like has been mentioned Ally McCoist, the players etc are all contracted to the company as well. The excuse of McCoist's role being for the club is hardly valid reasoning either. Charles Green as CEO is negotiating signings for the playing squad, new contracts for players already there, sponsorships for the club etc. Just how much more involved in the club can his role be? Sparhelda 18:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's very obvious what is going on. The article contains information about "oldco" Rangers and "newco" Rangers, on the grounds that it is essentially the same club run by a different company. Some editors don't like this, and have argued in the past that the article should be split in two with the change from old to new. Having failed to get consensus for this, they are now arguing that the article therefore cannot contain information about the new company, on the grounds that "everyone said the article is about the club and not the company". The article is indeed about the club. And a significant fact about the club is the company that runs it, and the persons running/owning that company. Just like with practically every other football club article.

So really what is happening here is a ridiculous argument with no sensible rational other than to make a point. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Escape Orbit, When Rangers' assets were sold to a new company, I believed that a separate article from the 'old' and the 'new' was required. However, the fact that the new company managed to obtain Ranger's SFA membership changed the argument: one article was now more appropriate. However, the club first founded in 1872 had gone through something very few clubs face - the club had had to be reformed within a new company. This is something fundamentally different from when Ranger became a company as that was just the club taking on corporate status. The events of 2012 were much more significant with Rangers entering the liquidation process after a proposed CVA was rejected, it's assets then being sold to a new company, and the club being reformed within a new company structure. So this significant date should be in the infobox, just like for other clubs that have emerged from the liquidation process. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do your research: Leeds doesnt say reformed, neither does Middlesbrough, nor Charlton, nor Derry City - clearly there is no standard for liquidated/newco clubs having "reformed" added to their infobox, quite the contrary it appears. Rangers administration/liquidation is mentioned clearly in the introduction, and in more detail later in the article, which is more than adequate, indeed it gets far more prominent status than in the precedent articles above (which strangely don't seem to keep you awake at night despite your claim to have no personal agenda regarding Rangers). Gefetane (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gefetane, you may believe that those clubs reformed - can you provide references that actually state that any of them reformed? There are references that say that about Rangers. I am not engaged in an anti-Rangers campaign but in a 'let's report what the sources state' campaign - remember, wikipedia is built on what sources report and not on what you happen to believe. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You've been more than happy to dismiss sources calling Murray the Rangers chairman, Green the Rangers CEO etc, hence why we're in this mess again. Sparhelda 19:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No, not dismiss - understand. 'Rangers' is used for shorthand for both 'Rangers FC' and also for 'Rangers FC plc', 'Rangers ltd' etc. Therefore a source that describes Murray as 'the chairman of Rangers' is writing in shorthand. If we are in a mess again, it's because some editors will dismiss a source as inaccurate or imprecise if it says that 'Rangers was liquidated' - that is referring to the company they insist - but when a source described Murray as 'the chairman of Rangers', somehow they don't seem to think the same degree of accuracy and precision is necessary. Perhaps you can explain this inconsistency? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I, for one, do not disagree that some sources refer to Rangers as being reformed. However, due to that fact that more official sources (SFA, SFL, UEFA, Lord Nimmo etc) refer to Rangers as the same club as before, I do not think it justifies putting “Reformed 2012” in the Info Box. So, in acknowledgement and to find a compromise, we should add the word "reformed" somewhere in the article with referenced sources, say even the 2nd paragraph, giving it the necessary weighting you seek. We need to move on and look at the bigger picture here and start representing the article as a one stop information point for those researchers who simply want details about Rangers FC, i.e. company and club. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

^ http://www.rangers.co.uk/club/information/chairman-board

[2] We put a note explained what happened briefly happened

[1] ttp://www.rangers.co.uk/club/information/chairman-board

[1]

[n 1]