Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Edit request on 1 March 2013

Rangers have a new kit manufactuaer for 2013-2018 which is PUMA New kit sponser for 2013/14 Blackthorn cider

82.9.21.55 (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, but you need to cite some reliable sources if we are to include this info - please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also, you need to be a lot more specific about where in the article you would like it to be added, the wording you want, etc. so that I know exactly what you want to be done. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2013

You best put in our new kit maker Puma and their 5 year deal and our new kit sponsor Blackthorn Cider and their 1 year deal to the Sponsor and Kit Manufacturer section on Rangers F.C. TheGlasgaeJimmy (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: Sorry, but you need a source for this - see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Feel free to reactivate this request once you've posted one here. Also, you need to include the specific wording you would like to see in the article. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

So now we're reporting each other

This seems a very unpleasant way to try and solve issues, was there a consensus on that board of directors debate that I missed? Sparhelda 23:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have went through the talk page archives and at no point during the same club/new club debate was it decided that all reference to company details would be removed from this page. Like I said a while back this whole issue is pointless and I am starting to agree with Gefetane and Escape Orbit. BadSynergy (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If there was some kind of official consensus, admin decision or whatever that said there should be no company details listed then I'd back down. But otherwise I don't see why we should be browbeaten. Sparhelda 13:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I notice you made the same chance three times yesterday. If you have been reported for that, you have only yourself to blame as this artice has 1RR. As I see it, you are the one trying to add all sorts of information about the company that owns Rangers FC without a consensus to do that. You complain about being 'browbeaten' but you are trying to browbeat others into submission. Wikipedia works when editors try to build consensus and that often requires compromise. I'm up for a serious compromise but not for your attempt to force your view by continually making the same edit.Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Spirit if you and Fishie want to remove company information from this page get a consensus. So far I have yet to see any attempt to do so and Sparhelda has repeatedly offered compromises when he did not need to. BadSynergy (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Including the "Chairman" in the info-box seems a standard part of a football article. This is a football article, therefore should reflect this standard. I'd say it's clear that the editor responsible for removing this information was doing this only to make a point about the club/company distinction that thwarted their "new club" project - otherwise, why bother? As the policy explains, this was either "simply to prove a point in a... dispute" or an attempt to "try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed." I said this agenda pursuing was disruptive, and so it has proved as the page was locked down and a fair contributor has been reported. I can only request the editors in question refrain from tampering with this page if it is only to make a point about the status of Rangers FC, as this status will not change and pursuing their agenda is therefore futile. Simply put, get over it. Gefetane (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

As a way of moving forward - unlike some other editors, I have interests in other articles - I think S2mhunter's compromise suggestion is sensible. I've made the change which now makes clear that Rangers FC was reformed as a new company and therefore it follows that including company information is appropriate. Hope that satisfies all parties. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, Fishie. But no. "Re-formed" is a term commonly used to describe new clubs, with new names and new histories, that replace former clubs that have gone out of existence - such as Chester FC/Chester City, Airdrieonians/Airdrie United etc. In contrast, reliable sources attest the association football club owned and operated by Oldco/Newco, Rangers F.C., has - notwithstanding the corporate change - continued in existence throughout this saga, retaining it's name and history in the process. Use of that term will only cause confusion and mislead users, which might suit your purposes in this instance, but is not in the best interests of wikipedia. Do we really need to re-open the same debate about this that we had a few months ago? What was that you were saying about "moving forward"? Gefetane (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I remind you, Fishiehelper, what you said (above) a couple of weeks ago: "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)" Despite my position - and the weight of evidence on the "same club" side - having changed 6 months down the line from our original discussion of this term, I accepted this compromise and "relaunch" is in the lead section. Further dispute over one contentious word - "reformed" - achieves nothing but a headache for everyone tired over raking over old, and become older, ground. Gefetane (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What you say is true - I accept that I thought relaunch was an acceptable compromise at the time. What has changed since then is that some editors are trying to add detail about the company that oens the club. Perhaps I was mistaken to believe it, but I thought that the consensus was that this article was about the club alone - that is the context within which I though relaunched was an acceptable compromise. If we are now saying that this article is also about the company, I think it is reasonable to point out that the club was reformed as a new company, as is reliably sourced. I am only asking for this to be added - as suggested as a compromise by S2mhunter - because of the attempts to add company information. If the consensus was to leave company information out, then 'reformed in a new company' is not needed. What is appears some editors want, however, is for company information to be added but miss out the sourced statement that Rangers was 'reformed in a new company'. Hence the impasse. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to engage plenty of fair discussion on this. A clear compromise was listing the directors under 'company structure' and the chairman having 'of company structure' in brackets etc. That way the much desired distinction is made and these important figures at RFC are still listed. The suggestions about 'relaunched' etc is not compromise, simply trying to take advantage of the situation. I'm not trying to push POV, I simply want this to be like the vast majority of other football club articles. Sparhelda 19:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sparhelda, the compromise suggested by S2mhunter was to make reference to the fact that Rangers reformed as a new company - that then makes clear that this article is about the company as well and opens the door for the edits you want. However, it appears you want to include company details while ignoring this important information about the club being reformed within a new company structure. Why? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Because Rangers FC were not "reformed". No reliable sources state this, only interpretations from media hacks that have proved unreliable and contradictory in this case, where as all reliable sources state Rangers were formed in 1872/73 and show them with continuous history. No "reformed" date is given on any official pages. The liquidation of the old company is crystal clear within the introduction, there can be no possible accusation this information is being concealed. Gefetane (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No Fishie, the company structure was reformed while the club remained in tact. There is no theme of company foundation dates going in the infobox of football clubs, while there is for chairmen etc. It was a significant event yes but it's well covered in the article. Sparhelda 22:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Fishiehleper & spiritofstgeorge should be banned from editing the Rangers FC article, full stop. They have made it clear that in dissent of losing the 'new club' debate they will from now be as disruptive as possible to the article. Ricky072 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok this is getting out of hand, i do not want to be requesting full protection again it is preventing other editors who wish to make useful contrubitions form doign it. I really do not want to go down this route but..... if the following users Fishiehelper2, Spiritofstgeorge, Gefetane, Ricky072 and Sparhelda do not start to show signs of trying to comprise and accept each other arguments then i will be requesting a Topic Ban for all mentioned. Now this is not anything against any of you, and i hope you are not going to get annoyed at me, but i am watching this dispute, and you all have valid points but you all have agendas, the new club camp want to try impose either nothing about the company or to have it that the company is part of the club so opening is it a new club debate, the same club camp do not want anything mentioned that could perceived to be that it is a new club. Let me remind you, that although primary sources can help identify things like it is the same club, they have to be backe dup with 3rd party reliable sources that verify it, 3rd party sources do say "REFORMED WITHIN A NEW COMPANY" but they also say "MALCOLM MURRAY CHAIRMEN OF RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB" now it is not for any of us to decide if he is the chairmen of the club or company if the sources say it then it should be added, but equally if the sources say it was reformed it should be monitored. Please do no think i have not seen you trying to comprise and reach a consensus but you are now pushing POV's, if you where to be topic banned you would not be able to take part in consensus making in time you are topiuc banned for and not allowed to edit the article i rather you all never had this but if you all dnt start Workington together and accepting each other right then that is what might happen. Also 1RR does not apply to this dispute, the troubles relates to religion and the secterism section, if the dispute was on that section you might have breached 1RR but since it is not you would only need to worry if you breach 3RR and 3RR does not just mean reverts it also means just changing the text to your POV 3 times within 24 hoursAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion. Before you guys continue down unpleasant lines, why don't you try Mediation? It often manages to resolve solutions to previously intractable problems. It depends on all parties agreeing to the process, which means everyone needs to be a good faith editor, but I don't see bad faith editors here, just (at worst) some grumpy ones with firm ideas. I think you should try it. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Last time mediation was tried for thre bigger dispute the guys at mediation did not want to take the case on, hopefully they would this time and the above editors agree to it and try get a solution to there dispute. But i do feel it wont work because as you said it the firm ideas that is the problem and there interuption of the source, to which should not matter if the sources says it then wikipedia does, please note if you take it to mediation please do not include me as i have not got a preference to either way in my mind this is just aminor disptue between yourselfsAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Firm ideas is always an issue for mediation cases, many of which are successfully resolved. Interpretation of sources, similarly, is a fairly common issue, too. And I'm not involved either. Just a lurker and an experienced Wikipedian. --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Just to say that I am still willing to compromise by modifying the 2nd paragraph to something like “Its business and assets, including Rangers FC, were bought and reformed within a new company <sources>” because it means that the info box only states that the club was founded in 1872 and permits us to move on and add club as well as company details (Malcolm Murray is Chairman of the Company that in turn operates the Club so therefore sources in that sense rightly refer to him being Chairman of both). I do not know if it will be acceptable to all, but if it is, I do hope that it brings to an end this particular recurring issue, as I believe the article would then cover well both sides views of what happened last year. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

'm not willing to compromise - we have 2 editors here who have dedicated themselves to being a disruptive as possible without foundation on the basis they did not get their own way in the "new club" or "phoenix club" deabte. They were outdone by rock solid evidence and precedents. Leeds United for example, in 2007 the oldco was liquidated but the club was purchased via liquidation by a newco. See the Leeds wiki page, it lists the chairman of the company. Like i said, Fishiehelper & spiritofstgeorge are simply being mischevious and disruptive of the article becaue they are bitter about losign the "new club" debate, on which they are factually wrong. Ricky072 (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That sort of attuide ricky would most likely result in you getting a topic ban, wikipedia consenesus is abotu comprise, the sources say it was reformed if you are willing to turn your nose up at asource that goes against what you think then you are doing what the new club debateors did last july only look at sources that suppor thtere argument. you are being very negative the editors who had the dispute in the first place had come to a argeement it yourself, gefetane and spiiritsofgeorge that preventing closure of this dispute now i encoruage you all to start to compruise or i will fill for topic bans for you which means you wont be able to take part any longerAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If we comprise on factual content then we may aswell shut Wikipedia down today. Lets just write in the infobox underfounded "both 1872 and 2012 (it's a compromise!). Follow the facts and precedents. Let Fishiehelper & Spiritofstgeorge first edit the Leeds page, to ether be a new club or remove the chairman from the info box. If successful in the case, they can come back and edit the Rangers page. Ricky072 (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong the onus is on you and them to do it, ther eis no precedent, you use other article to help make the article you are working on better but you are using it as a way to block and change which are valid under reliable sources and verifabilty. if gefetane and spiritsofgeorge have the same attuide you are i will report all 3 of you to admin board because you are being disruptive and POV pushing, sparhelda, s2hunter and fisherhelper are comrpuising and makign it clear but because that is against your's agenda then you wont accept it sorry not how wikipedia works, how you all forget it was me that pushed the article to where it is now because wikipedia policies meant it had to be this way, those same policies mean it has to change againAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Ricky072 will disagree with this but I believe I have a track record of looking for evidence and also being guided by seeking compromise. As pointed out earlier, I was happy to suggest the phrase 'relaunched' fully understanding that it would be seen as a victory by those arguing that Rangers FC is the same club as before. I am now happy to accept the 'reformed as a new company' suggested by S2mhunter as a way of accommodating the view that Rangers FC is the same club but reformed in a new company. Unfortunately all I get for not being willing to accept the uncompromising stances of other editors is the suggestion that I should be banned. Well I can see why some editors would want to silence those who have a different opinion, but wikipedia is not supposed to be like that. As an editor that has contributed to over 1000 different articles, I do resent when editors who only contribute to a couple of articles related to Rangers think that they have the right to categorise me as disruptive because I dare to disagree with them. Sorry, but if wikipedia allows articles to be controlled by editors with a biased interest in those articles, the whole project will be underminded and brought into disrepute. Building consensus usually involves compromise - why should this article be any different? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This is no different, hence why i said above that it ricky, gefetance possiable and spiritsofgeorge i would be proposing a topic ban for, although i meantion you and sparhelda originaly, it was because you are still both a bit uncomprismising, but you are both trying to reach something you both agree on which teh sources say as well, but the other 3 have mad eit clear they will not comprise full stop and it that type of behaviour as well as what you said with they have only been invovled mostly with rangers articles is the reason why they would be the one getting propused, but you have to bear in mind you can been seen as having a agenda of pov pushing but that depends on interupritons, i am not taking sides on this i am trying to get this dispute resolved and just now the three many obsulactles i can see are the 3 i will propuse for topic bans if they contunie this negative attuideAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I do a fair bit on Rangers articles and the original dispute did get me using Wikipedia again, but I think a thorough look at my contributions would show i've done a fair bit on other football articles the last few months. Sparhelda 19:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sparhelda i can asure you just now i have been looking at the contruibutions of all 5 editors and only 3 stand out to which a topic ban would suit, i do not want to go down this route but i dnt want to get full protection again for the impeding future so topic ban will sort the underlying problem 3 editors who are being disruptiuve by not comprising on wording, if what was being asked to comrpise was not being backed up by 3rd party reliable references to verify it i would be on there side but those editors are ingoring the reference for what i can only assume is there POVAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Report me if you want Andrew, i'm simply following facts and precedents. You're not in charge here. Ricky072 (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

YOu are correct i am not in charge nor have i tried to be, i am merely trying to get you to comprise and find a consensus but you are unwilling to to which i feel is badAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that there are a number of editors here that are in blatant violation of edit warring policy and are all in danger of being blocked for it. I don't think anyone wants that, but it is going to happen. I suggest that they stop this behaviour and start coming up with compromises that everyone can live with. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I see Andrew has waded in threatening various editors with topic bans EXCEPT the one editor at the heart of the disruption. Remarkable. Anyway, a COMPROMISE. Let us remind ourselves that this dispute is about Chairman/Board of Directors issue and the compromise should be on that basis. Even though the consensus clearly seems to favour one side, in the spirit of generosity and in an effort to bring this farce to an end, I'd suggest a 50/50 split:

• The "Chairman" info is retained in the infobox, as standard for football pages.
• The "Board of Directors" list is removed into the ownership page, with a link perhaps directing users to it. Gefetane (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That still leaves out the pretty important figure of Charles Green from any listing on the main page. However, the way this is going on i'm on the verge of taking anything I can get. Sparhelda 21:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Andrew reported me because i put forward a stance on the talk pages that 'compromise' shouldn't simply be given to appease disruptive users. I think it's more a dent to his ego i've challenged him as he thinks he runs the show round here. As for the infobox - someone tell me why every other club on Wikipedia has a chairman listed, but not Rangers? It's just a bitter reaction from those who lost the 'new club' debate. Ricky072 (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggested that a while back Gefetane got no reaction from Fishie or Spirit so maybe they might now. BadSynergy (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Another point which needs to be made. Fishiehelper, the innocent wee lamb that he is (acccording to Andrewcrawford), keeps trying to tar editors he disagrees with by using descriptions like "editors with a biased interest" or "agendas", as if he himself can view this subject at arms length and takes an objective, neutral perspective. We are getting lectured to on neutrality by a guy who made a determined effort to get the offensive/insulting term of abuse "Huns" added to the list of Rangers nicknames. A guy who, on the basis of his contribution history, clearly favours a team that has a bitter rivalry with Rangers and favours a political stance - Scottish Nationalism - diametrically opposed to Unionism of which Rangers is so inextricably linked culturally. Please cease these accusations of bias and focus on the content dispute and compromise required to bring it to an end. Gefetane (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That point of reply aside, I have suggested a fair compromise and a way ahead and I hope other editors take this on board as a means of ending this ridiculous dispute about such a trifling matter as the inclusion of a few board members on a page. Gefetane (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Why would you want to compromise with a bitter, agenda driven troll like Fishiehelper - the fact he attempted to have as Sectarian slur listed as Rangers 'nickname' should be worthy of a ban in itself. I see no need to compromise on facts and established precedents to simply appease disruptive users. It's a matter of fact a club is a seperate entity from a company, but nobody ever breaks bones about such things, the media would never refer to Malcom Murray as The chairman of the company which run Rangers FC - even if technically that's what he is - but simply 'the chairman of Rangers'. The arguement that the chairman should not be listed on a club page is not an arguement that applies soley to Rangers, it's an arguement which would apply to every Wiki entry for a football club - so why start with this crusade here? Fishie can go run his test case on Aberdeen, or Leeds. Remove Stuart Milne & Ken Bates as Chairmen, if successful in those efforts, come back and make your case. Ricky072 (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Can i make this clear i have not said fisherhelper is innconent, nor have i said that abotu sparhelda, but any non invovled editor would see they work on other articles to so making it less likely they havea bias. but i am happy to see you are trying to comp[rise and find a solution to the dispute. you also seem to forget it does not matter how wee a dispute is, if a editor thinks the content is wrong for the article they are allowed to challenge it,.

I see your points that every other club article has it so why shouldnt rangers article, but i also see the other side, you argue the article was about the club and not the company that ran, hence why the ownership article was created to take ownership out so making it a far easier case it is the same club in terms of this article, i have no strong preference if it is added.

Please stop seeing me as the one taking sides, if that was the case then i took you guys side during july and helped achive a consensus that it is the same club, but you are not saying i am taking the other side, i am not i aint taking either side because you are both right all i have tried to do is guide you toa consensus via policies, comprise is one of those thingsAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Arsenal having a separate ownership article but the chairman still listed is a pretty key example. Sparhelda 13:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Mediation

I suggested this above, but you guys are too keen to argue to have really noticed. The kind of issues you're dealing with are capable of being resolved with the help of a skilled and patient third party who doesn't give a hoot about Rangers. I strongly recommend you find a mediator. Especially as the rhetoric is hotting up. You're all good faith editors who happen to disagree about things. It'd be a shame for the dispute to escalate or rumble on interminably. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Mediation would be appropriate if there was a serious content issue at hand - but there isn't. This is about whether or not to state the Chairman in the infobox/list the board of directors on the page. Its such a trifling matter of so little consequence that to waste anyone else's time on it would be an embarrassment. What IS animating the editors are the motivations behind this dispute and the strong whiff of Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point about it. Best thing would be to accept the compromise above (include Chairman bit, remove Board of Directors bit) and move on. Gefetane (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how heated editors can be about minor issues. Have you ever looked at WP:LAME? Here, for example, is a mediation I took on that looked at whether "Demi" Moore's first name is short for "Demetria". The very fact that the compromise you're talking about hasn't been accepted should show you that it's not obvious to everyone that it's the best way to move on. --Dweller (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it supports the WP:POINT aspect that this dispute is not so much about the content at hand, but past grievances with a more important dispute. Gefetane (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2013

I would like to see the honours of the club in description box.

Also would like a paragraph or two about Willie Waddell and his time at the club.

Links to the scottish league cup, Scottish cup, european cup winners cup, glasgow cup and super cup should be added too.

Please add these as I am dissapointed to not see them.

Thank you

2.220.110.161 (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The infobox does not contain honours there is no need for it, the section honours covers it fine, Willie waddell does have information on this page but if you are looking for detail you need to visit the history page, Scottish league cup, Scottish cup, European cup winners cup already have links in the article wp:mos states you should not overlink ie put multi links to the same page, the Glasgow cup isn't notable, nor is the super cup. sorry that this disappoint you but you should read over Wikipedia policies so to help you understand what can and can not be addedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Rangers OldCo v NewCo

It is a deliberate misconception that the "current" RFC is the same club as the previous RFC, this is in fact impossible, the reason being, RFC are still the subject of a liquidation process, the Company and Club, the last incarnation of RFC did NOT have a holding company, it was a stand alone single entity, having been purchased (as a single entity) from Murray International Holdings, by Craig Whyte for £1.

Charles Green did not buy the Club, he bought the Clubs assets, the Club in fact, still exists (in liquidation), and he created a brand new Club and registered it as a Company, Sevco5088, which he has since changed the name of to The Rangers Football Club Ltd, he then also created a holding company, The Rangers International Football Club.

Those facts alone, make it perfectly clear, that the current club, playing in the SFL 3 is not, and cannot be, the same club as that being liquidated, as they are coexisting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkybhoy (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of factual inaccuracies in your post. Firstly Charles Greens consortium bought the assets of the old company, which included Rangers F.C., Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park. Please see above discussions for links that reference this including the SFL website and The SPL's commission into Rangers payments. Secondly you say Sevco 5088 Ltd changed name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd. That is also not true, Sevco 5088 Ltd still exists, it was a company called Sevco Scotland Ltd that changed name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd. Thanks. VanguardScot (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read the archives on this talkpage. Sparhelda 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

he "assets" Green purchased was the football club. All a football club can ever be is a collection of assets. Ricky072 (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is pathetic.

For years the wikipedia article for Rangers F.C. has been a joke, with very clear pathetic point scoring efforts all over it, with Rangers supporters trying to paint the club in a good light, and anti-Rangers persons trying to make it a page to smear the club.

It is now worse than ever, the page is a pathetic bunch of mumbo-jumbo that is clearly trying to make Rangers F.C. appear to be a new club when it has been stated by just about everybody that has anything to do with football that they are the same club. Sevco5088 this, RFC2012 that, The Rangers Football Club PLC blah blah blah. It doesn't make it appear either way at the moment, so it's time to stop adding your point scoring sentances in after each line. It is making the page longer than it needs to be, uninteresting and boring to read.

This is meant to be an encyclopedia for adults to read and understand. At the moment it is a clear tug of war between those that want the club (wrongly) painted as a new one formed in 2012, and those that are trying to stop that lie being peddled.

Sort it out. Mrspy (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your post is a bit of rant - the article deals with the events over the last year in a factual manner, is there any particular part you disagree with?77.97.35.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The article deals with the events over the last year in a factual manner? I'm sorry but I don't agree. There are conflicting opinions all over the section "Ownership and finances", that of the media, Neil Doncaster, Charles Green, with who knows how many citations after each sentence to keep the point included. The article is uninteresting. If somebody tried to get this article published in a hard back encyclopedia it would be laughed off of the desk and rightly so. It is boring, uninteresting, and the conflict between those who are pro-Rangers and anti-Rangers is all this article, and in particular the section that reads "Ownership and finances" is about. Mrspy (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Chairman of the company that owns the company that owns the club...

Forgive me for not going away, but the fact remains that Malcolm Murray is the chairman of the company that owns the company than owns Rangers FC. (ie, he is the chairman of Rangers International Football Club plc, a holding company that owns Rangers Football Club Ltd, the company that owns Rangers FC.) To imply that he is the 'chairman of the club' as is implied by the entry in the infobox is misleading. There are clear sources that show he is the chairman of the board of Rangers International Football Club plc, but these are being ignored in favour of sources that refer to him as 'chairman of the club'.

This issue will not go away just because some editors are unwilling to confront it. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have kept out of this argument recently, but I have seen some sources reference him as the chairman of the club and some as the chairman of the holding company. So I don't see any point in removing it, the sources are there. VanguardScot (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been confronted to death and resulted in a lot of unpleasantness. Sparhelda 01:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No - all that has happened is that I have been confronted for daring to mention it. Well the current version is not acceptable as it is misleading. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And i'm afraid the majority disagree. Sparhelda 12:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Groan, he's back. Oh well, one more time...

• Here's a long list of news sources from the past month that attest that Murray is "Rangers Chairman"/"Chairman of Rangers" etc. Sources are unanimous on that fact.
• Even IF "Chairman" refers to the company, not the club, there is no reason at all, nor has it ever been agreed through consensus, that EVERY mention of corporate/ownership info be expunged from this page.
• Identity of "Rangers Chairman"/"Chairman of Rangers" is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion on this page, as is standard on numerous football pages.
• I'm not against compromise. I offered to remove the list of "Board of Directors", but is seems most editors do not believe even this is warranted or has been justified. Gefetane (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I probably could deal with that compromise but i'll admit being reported has left a bitter taste on the whole issue for me. Sparhelda 14:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Fishie, why is it only Rangers you are making an issue of this for? This theory applies to ALL Football Clubs. If you were to win this debate, then it would set precedent to remove the 'chairman' from every info box on Wiki Football Club pages. Ricky072 (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the Millwall FC page. The chairman listed is the chairman of the holding company (Millwall Holdings PLC) and not of the company that runs the club. That is the closest situation I can see to the Rangers situation. i.e. a chairman of the holding company being listed as the chairman of the club. If you want to continue this dispute you will need to get consensus at WP:FOOTBALL because this will affect much more than the Rangers article. Good luck, but I cant see much chance of success to be brutally honest. VanguardScot (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi VanguardScot. Generally I am not against details of chairmen being included in football club articles. I viewed the Rangers FC article differently as I had believed that the consensus was that the article was about the club alone and not about the company that may own/operate the club. You recall that this was a distinction made vociferiously last year. However, I am now told that there was no such consensus and that this article is about the company as well. If that is the case, then I pointed out that the fact that 'the club was reformed as a new company' was relevant - but of course, that suggestion was also dismissed out of hand, despite the fact it is well sourced. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious all the entries concerning 'clubs' focus very much on the 'club' with some details, to an extent, on the clubs corporate affairs. Rangers are no different from Leeds or Arsenal. These pages document the club, and mention the chairmen in the info box, and both mention the corresponding companies and corporate history, and also have external articles concerning the companies also. Your campaign to remove Chairmen from the info box applies to all 'club' pages on the basis you are campaigning for a complete seperation of club/company within articles in your straw clutching crusade. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry anon but my 'campaign' to remove references to the chairman of the company that owns the club was founded on the basis - now disputed - that the article was solely about the club. Now that it appears that this article is not about the club only, then the debate moves to the fact that the club was reformed as a new company in 2012 - a fact that some editors do not wish to see included despite it being well referenced and despite 'reformed' being different from 'formed'. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you expect us to believe it took you 3 months to work out "it appears that this article is not about the club only"? Are we expected to believe it took that long to scroll down and notice the large "ownership and finances" section within the article? I detect some dishonesty. I suspect Andrewcrawford may feel a little embarrassed he took this smoke-screen "debate" on the Chairman issue, that you transparently manufactured in order to make a point about your insistence Rangers were "reformed", so seriously. Gefetane (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

But the consensus was that it is the same club, unbroken and therefore no 'reformed'. Sparhelda 00:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Fishiehelper,

• "Reformed 2012" is NOT excluded because this article is only about the club, it is excluded because editors don't think it's inclusion is justified.
• Why? Because the term "reformed" is ambiguous and misleading, generally being applied to new clubs that take the place of old clubs, as in the case of Chester City/Chester FC, Gretna/Gretna 2008 etc. Sources are clear Rangers are NOT in this bracket - despite the corporate change, Rangers FC as an SFA member club has continued unbroken. The term relaunched was preferred as a compromise and included within the article.
• Does this mean Rangers plc's liquidation is being "covered up"? No, as it is cleared stated in the introduction AND in the main body of the article.
• "But it's mentioned in lots of sources" - yes, but so is a lot of other stuff that isn't included (such as Rangers being a "new club") because more reliable, official sources disagree with it. Gefetane (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gefetane, I'll ignore the "I detect some dishonesty" comment and focus on the real issue: your opposition to the term 'reformed' is based on your interpretation of what the word means, and based on your interpretation you choose to reject sources that describe Rangers FC as having been "reformed as a new company". Where is the source that says that 'reformed' only applies when there has been a break in a club's existence? Or is this, again, just your opinion? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I never said reformed is ONLY used in one context. Do you need me to explain the meaning implied by describing a term as "ambiguous"? The sources showing the routine use of "reformed" to describe new clubs like Chester/Halifax/Gretna/Airdrie etc, an altogether different scenario to that of Rangers, are only a google search away. A less misleading and contentious alternative term, "relaunched", was included in the article ironically after YOU suggested it as a way to find consensus! I see no reason to move away from this compromise, and I doubt other editors who opposed "reformed" will either. Gefetane (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Chester City FC clearly states "founded 2010" and the previous club has "dissolved 2010" - Chester FC was not 'reformed', but was dissolved and a new club founded. Rangers FC did not end as a club but was 'reformed' - which means 'taking or being given a new form'. Therefore it is the same club as founded in 1873 (or 1872 depending on your view), but reformed as a new company in 2012. By the way, if I can assume from your post that you are against the use of ambiguous terms, I expect that you will object to Malcolm Murray being described as 'chairman' without further clarification (such as "of the company") - or do you only object to ambiguity on a case by case basis? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I could have sworn you consistently ignored my suggestion of listing the board members as 'of company' as a compromise. Sparhelda 21:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed I did when the issue (as I saw it) was whether the article was about the club alone or also about the company that owned and operated the club. At that point I felt that adding details of the chairman of the company went against what I believed had been agreed (that the article was to be about the club alone.) However, if the consensus is that this article is about the company as well as the club, then the clarification you suggested is better than as things are currently stated in the infobox where it merely says 'chairman'. As I am saying, since this article is about the company and not the club alone, the fact that the club was reformed in a new company structure in 2012 is relevant in a way it wouldn't be if the article was about the club alone. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Fishie, why don't you test your theory on the Leeds United page? I've asked several times now, that club & it's wiki is the precedent here. If you truely believe in your assertation that 'reformed' or 'refounded' or whatever weasel word you want to include should be present in the info box, then it makes sense to try to push you assertion on the precedent page first. So why don't you? Ricky072 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Provide me with a source that states that "Leeds United was reformed as a new company" and I will agree that that case is a precedent for this article as far as this point is concerned. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hiding behind "but... what sources say..." is equally as pathetic as your desperate hate-filled crusade. http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/sport/football/membership-of-club-9-remains-a-mystery-after-statement-raises-even-more-questions.17220031?_=f233e57f7a6fcd4dde48ab163bcb8f1d4e960300 It's irelevant what weasal words may have been used or how the situations drew contrasting media reaction, by going by facts (which ofcourse) are sourced, we know that both clubs formed new companies via liquidation of the old company. http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/yorkshire/news/321645-liquidators-agree-leeds-united-creditor-claims.html?news_section=253059 Good luck changing the Leeds page, troll. Ricky072 (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I take it then, Ricky, that you are unable to provide the sources I have requested. If you are really accusing me of 'hiding behind the sources', you really don't have a clue about what wikipedia is about. It appears your mind is as limited as your editing pattern. Anyway - 'clubs formed new companies'? Malcolm Green had nothing to do with Rangers when he formed Sevco 5088 as a vehicle to purchase the club. The club did not form a new company: a new company bought the assets of the club so as to reform the club within it. Hence 'reformed within a new company" - oh sorry, you don't let sources interfere with your opinions. Well for those editors who do - 99.9% of wikipedia editors I would hope - the Leeds situation should be dealt with differently precisely because the sources deal with it differently. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

But wait, sources say Green bought assets, but oh wait, sources say Green bought the club. That must send your tiny fish brain into overload. Sources dealt with Leeds by simply stating the Newco bought the club. Many sources, most noticably Lord Nimmo Smith, have stated Green purchased the Club. The reason being all a club is, is a collection of Assets. The only difference in Leeds and Rangers is that every journo, blogger an wiki editor had something to say about Rangers, hence the innaccurate line of buying assets was pedaled. Let's deal in facts (oh, but that doesn't suit your agenda). A 'Newco' purchased the club from the 'in liquidation' oldco, for both Leeds and Rangers. Sources prove that. Go back to the drawing board and find another angle of attack for your 'but this is a new club' nonsense, and cry a river while you're at it. Ricky072 (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Catch up, Ricky, but we are not discussing whether Rangers is a new club. That dispute has now been settled. However, we are now discussing the issue that this SAME club was "reformed as a new company". Note: same club, but 'reformed as a new company'. Unfortunately, that well sourced comment is suggested to be controversial because some editors appear to fear that it is a concession to those who may suggest that Rangers is a new club. Trying to reject what sources say on the basis that we should follow Leeds United would only be valid if sources had said the same of Leeds United. It appears you now concede that sources do not treat Rangers the same as Leeds United. Sorry, Ricky, but this s wikipedia - sources matter more than your opinions, biases or prejudices. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk)

It's a good job common sense prevails over your assertation only sources matters, otherwise Wikipedia would be nothing but a library of every word, opinion and POV any journalist has ever written. I think i'll edit out any mention of Sevco purchasing "assets". I have sources that state Sevco bought the club, just like sources stated Bates Newco bought Leeds. Ricky072 (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Such an action on your part would not be the least bit surprising as your editing history makes crystal clear. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that what sources say? Ricky072 (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sources do say that Sevco bought Rangers' assets, and yes I do expect you to gradually edit out parts of the article you don't like, whether sourced or not. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ricky and fishie recent edits

I dont want to get involved in the squabble between these two editors, but the section which they were editing earlier today is actually factually incorrect. "A failure to reach agreement with creditors on 14 June 2012 led to The Rangers Football Club plc (since renamed RFC 2012 plc) entering liquidation and its business, assets and history were then sold to a new company, Sevco Scotland Limited, which was later renamed The Rangers Football Club Ltd." The part in bold is not true, the business and assets were sold long before the company entered liquidation. That particular sentence should read: "entering administration and its business, assets and history were then sold to a new company". The time scale is wrong, the business and assets were sold out of administration not liquidation. VanguardScot (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I'm sure the article originally said "entering the liquidation process and its business, assets and history were then sold to a new company". I'll change it to that, assuming that Ricky072 will also agree that that is more accurate. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Rangers were not the fisrt British side to reach a European Final

"HONOURS ... Notable statistics Rangers became the first British side to reach a European final in 1961.[20]"

I think that Rangers should be regarded as the first British side to reach a final in a UEFA tournament and not as the first British side to reach a European final, as the first one to achieve it was the London XI, the team formed by Arsenal,Chelsea,Tottenham and QPR players representing the city of London in the 1955-58 Intercity Fairs Cup and losing the final to Barcelona. Even when not runned by the UEFA, the Intercity Fairs Cup was a European tournament organized by a comitee involving the FIFA and preceeded the UEFA Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.44.188 (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

12/13 League title to be removed from page?

Rangers have still not been awarded the lowest tier's title for this season, they have history of financial irregularities and could still be deducted points. The title will officially be awarded at the final game of the season. Surely they can wait that long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.140.143 (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely nobody is officially champion until the end of the season anyway, regardless of any other factors that may apply? Britmax (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Points deducted? Have you got any sources to suggest that's going to happen? Sparhelda 12:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you any source they wont have points deducted, just going by history, they're known for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.238.12 (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, a grand total of one points deduction in 140 years. Sparhelda 17:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Rangers are league champions is well referenced, If you can provide adequate sources to refute this claim we can have a discussion about it, but as it stands RFC are SFL3 champions. Thanks. VanguardScot (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Francisco Sandaza

This player has been sacked by the "holding company" but can he still play for the club? 90.207.214.138 (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No - usually when a player is sacked by, to use your words, a "holding company", that means he can no longer play for the club. Gefetane (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Very droll. 176.253.91.57 (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

We need to reflect this week's new information that Craig Whyte WAS involved in Sevco 5088. He set it up, with twice bankrupt associate Aidan Early, and recruited Green to the consortium in the first place. Charles Green now admits that he and Imran Ahmad had lied about all this, in order to wrest control of the club's assets for themselves. Pretty much as John Brown (footballer born 1962) had claimed in the summer. When the stadium and training ground were hived off into a separate company, Sevco Scotland Ltd, Whyte was apparently stitched up and is now mounting a legal challenge for his cut. Charles Green says 137.5k from Whyte was "just resting in an account" and he has puportedly tried to return it, though Whyte apparently has evidence to the contrary.

Also the accounts show that the new club are shipping £1m per month, same as the oldco were under Craigy bhoy. There were reports of a winding up order last month too. The attempt to get money for the oldco's players who refused to TUPE over failed in January and this week Sevco were billed for the proceedings. There is also a 500k bill for the Nimmo Smith enquiry into oldco's dual contracts. Indeed, to an outsider, the new Rangers entity bears all the hallmarks of hurtling towards the same grubby, shameful end as its predessessor: full liquidation. Albeit the continuing antics of Green and Whyte could be included in the article to add a bit of colour! (Geddit?)

It's obvious that some of this page's esteemed gatekeepers, if you like, are still in a state of deep, deep denial about the fate that befell their football club. Just because word from the "big hoose" is that you are the same club making new friends on an amazing journey through the lower divisions, does not mean that should be uncritically parroted on here. As such the subject ought to be left to those with an interest in objectivity and building a credible encyclopedia. Our readers deserve so much more than this. 176.253.91.57 (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

What an entertaining rant - thanks for posting! Gefetane (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Did fishiehelper log-out just to post this? Ricky072 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ricky - I like your sense of humour! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format.  TOW  talk  21:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ricky072 has broken the 3RR rule - can anyone stop him?

An appeal for help from any watching administrator. Ricky072, who 99.9% of the time just edits this article or closely related articles, has now deleted the same sourced information 3 times within a 24 hour period. His attempts to control the content of this article by ignoring the rules should not be permitted. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

He hasn't "broken the 3RR rule". That requires four reverts per WP:3RR. It may, of course, still be edit-warring, but the appropriate place to take that up is WP:AN3, not an article talk page. Given your length on WP, I would be astonished if you didn't know this already. DeCausa (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You're the one adding controversial content without first gaining concencus via talk page edit request. Ricky072 (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I assume you are addressing Fishiehelper not me. DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I would think carefully before complaining. 3RR is a "line in the sand", but you do not have to do 3 reverts to edit war. Given that you have attempted to add this content twice, despite there obviously being no consensus yet, some admins may be of the opinion that you are equally guilty. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

In my defence - though I am astonished that a defence is required - I only re-added it when I saw, and attempted to address, the reason stated for Ricky's revert. You will note that I have not reverted again as I am not one to edit war. Therefore, one again, Ricky gets his way by being willing to edit war. By the way, surprising as it may seem (as you say I have been an editor a long time) I always regarded the 3RR as meaning no three reverts in 24 hours - so I've learned something today. Sadly the real lesson is that editors who spend 99% of their effort on a single article do get to control the article's content, and editoes like me who spend about 1% of my edits on this article are described as disruptive. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request for Fishiehelper

The resident Rangers troll and his friend St.George are looking to expand the section 'Sectariansism' to 'sectarianism & racism' for the purpose of including comments in the news this week whereby Charles Green (CEO) expressed his personal viewpoint with regards to the term 'Paki' and the 'political correctness' of the term.

I would oppose such change, as on the grand scheme of things, it's irrelevant, this isn't an issue of 'racism' to affect the club on a scale enough to include 'racism' on the page. This is a personal viewpoint of the CEO. Furthermore, the issue in question was the 'political correctness' of using such terms in a non-racist way (i.e, as banter with someone not taking offence), yet we wouldn't retitle the particular section as "Secterianism and poltical correctness" would we?

Therefore i oppose more agenda driven agendas looking to show the source of these editors hate in any negative light they can. Ricky072 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The sole reason I reworded the section heading was to try to prevent Ricky072 removing perfectly sourced material on the spurious basis that the section was about sectarianism only and not about racism. As any reader/editor can observe, the issue of racism was already mentioned in the section prior to my addition to which Ricky objects. I notice he has not tried to remove other references to racism from the section and therefore conclude that he simply objects to material being added that he believes reflects badly on the club he adores to the point of losing objectivity. I am perfectly happy for the section heading to return to 'sectarianism' if Ricky can be 'restrained' in some way. By the way, I am grateful to Spirit for suggesting that the section heading should be widened to include racism as a way of preventing Ricky's spurious objections - just sorry I hadn't thought of it first! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you'd first explain how this is to do with Rangers F.C., rather than just Charles Green. Is there any source that demonstrates this is club policy? Fact is Green's statements are only relevant when they concern or involve Rangers. His friendship with others, his pet names for them, and his thoughts on political correctness are only relevant on the Charles Green (businessman) article. They are irrelevant here unless it can be shown they play a part in the running of the club, or reliable sources have expressed fears that they do. I would also question how Fishiehelper2 has somehow managed to completely reverse his previous position that the article should give Green no prominence on the grounds he is only the CEO of the company, not the club. Apparently this argument no longer applies if Green's personal statements could be used to cast a bad light on, by extension, the whole club. Or is this yet another case of editing to make a point? We either have no Green, or all Green? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well put, at what point does a disruptive user with an agenda become eligble for a ban on editing a particular page? Ricky072 (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

So now I'm been criticised for accepting that this article is more than just about the club, but also about the company that owns it! Rather than being praised for conceding the point, I get criticised when I act in a way that demonstrates that I have concede the point. And while I'm discussing my conduct, I find it rich being described as a disruptive editor when my only 'crime' is adding sourced information that Ricky072 objects to. His ridiculous nonsense is nothing more than an attempt to bully me away from this page - and such conduct has no place on wikipedia. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh I'm not criticising. I'm delighted that you have accepted consensus and the guidelines and standards evident on most other football club articles. Thank you. As for adding "sourced content", you'll understand that there is more to content than just being sourced. There are questions of its emphasis, relevancy and recentism. Silly statements by one person, last week, do not justify a football club getting a section on racism, particularly when you try rolling it in with sectarianism, a whole other issue of far more note. And I see you haven't chosen to defend your addition on that basis. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment --Escape Orbit. I don't object to having edits reverted, but I do object when one editor appears to decide what is allowed in an article. Most of Ricky's posts are related to Rangers or related articles and his agenda appears to be driven by removing negative material. He regards my posts as always negative - which they are not - because I do not believe articles should be cleansed in the way he has gone about it, but seeking to restore balance is viewed as a sign of having an anti-Rangers agenda. Never mind - back to other articles:) regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not bullying anyone, i think the concensus is you have a proven agenda of adding unreasonable, negative content to this article, probably stemming from the unscratchable itch you have of your 'new club' rhetoric. You're smart enough to know that to entitle an entire 'sub-section' "sectarianism and racism" gives the perception that the club has long-term and well sourced issues with racism, which is not the case at all, and certainly not on the level where it should be given the same credence as "sectarianism". This also was not an issue affecting 'the club', it was the comments of 1 individual who made it clear these were his own personal views on political correctness. Again, you know this, but don't let that get in the way of your cheap shot. Ricky072 (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Escape Orbit, this has little if anything to do with the Rangers FC article, I does however seem appropriate to put it into the Charles Green article. VanguardScot (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we indefinitely semi-protect this page?

Semi-protection: The amount of IP vandalism since the article was unlocked yesterday is surely enough to merit indefinitely semi protection for this page? VanguardScot 21:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sevco 5088 / Sevco Scotland

Recent events mean the new ownership section needs a total re-write. It is no-longer clear that the assets were sold from the administrators to Sevco 5088, then hived off to Sevco Scotland as originally thought. Duff & Phelps' final report apparently states that the assets were sold directly to Sevco Scotland... even though there was a binding agreement to sell them for £5.5m to (Craig Whyte vehicle) Sevco 5088 when the CVA failed.

The SFA have now written to Green for "clarification" re. the extent of his collusion with Whyte. 2.123.128.34 (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's too early to consider a rewrite as the recent claims are unsubstantiated. If they were to be, then that would be the time to rewrite. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, i think there is enough evidence, Charles Green stated in his recent STV interview that 5088 at no point where in ownership of the assets, nothing was passed through 5088. Everythign was done directyl from oldco to Sevco Scotland. The D&P document and the Charlies Green interview source that, but what sources do we have that 5088 was involved? Ricky072 (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone got sources for this new information, I try to keep up with the rangers story but this must have passed me by. I'll have a read over it and give my view after. Cheers VanguardScot (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Here Rangers: Craig Whyte prepared to go to court over assets Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Its a strange one, we now have sources saying that Sevco 5088 Ltd was used and those saying that Sevco 5088 Ltd wasn't used (I see D&P final report says the asset and business transfer was from TRFCplc to SevcoScotlandLtd so theres another source). I'm assuming Sevco 5088 Ltd was initially planned to be used, but then wasn't used, as a way to get rid of any liability to Craig Whyte. It seems Whyte paid money into Sevco 5088 Ltd, some journalists are pointing out that this may be why green used Sevco Scotland Ltd instead, so that Whyte can't have any claim on any of the assets. Not sure how were going to sort the article out though, one for Andrewcrawford maybe? Cheers. VanguardScot (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I seen this whilst i was coming on to put why i am leaving, but i will give advice on the matter. The problem is sources contridict, so you have to say both, that the assest where trasnfered to sevco 5088 and sevco scotland but no one seems to to be clear on whether sevco 5088 bought and trasnferred it on or sevco scotland bought it outright due to conflict source how you write this is up to you guys. as i say i am leaving wikipedia the reason why will go on my talk and user page within the next few days, but wikipedia is no longer what i start editing for and is no longer following it own core policies. and since i will be leaving when i put my reasons why i will no longer assume wp:agf and be blunt and honest on things i have been neutral about, i have still to deicded if i will finish with wikipedia with taking this article to FA or not anyway to sum up, wikipedia only says wha tthe sources say, if the sources say both wikipedia does to consenesus is not required if the material is sourced and neutral and does not suit one person POV so it has to say both with sources to override consenesus, but consenesus is required to decided the wording. this will probally be the last ever post by me so bye to all, ive never had anything personal against any of you if i offend or upset you i apogolise right nowAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your contribution to this article Andrewcrawford, you have put a massive amount of time and effort into it and you must be commended. Being new to wikipedia, I joined this article mainly to help get my first article to FA status and was looking forward to doing so and learning the processes and standards of doing so. Without you that is certainly going to take much longer so I hope you stay on wikipedia in at least some capacity. If this truly is your last post then good luck for the future in whatever you do. Yours VanguardScot 21:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

[1] Click on directors. Apparently Green struck off the Sevco 5088 company without the consent of the other two directors. The plot thickens. They're making new friends on an amazing journey through the lower leagues. LOL jk, they're getting re-liquidated. 176.248.74.84 (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Going by CG's latest comments and looking at the D&P final report, it looks like the transaction was from The Rangers Football Club Plc directly to Sevco Scotland Ltd. It doesn't look like Sevco 5088 Ltd was involved. Possibly Green did this as a way to get rid of Craig Whyte on the sly. We'll just have to wait and see how it pans out before thinking about changing the article. VanguardScot 19:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Why should we go by CG's latest comments over his previous ones which turned out to be shite? IMO, we shouldn't be wilfully leaving obselete/wrong info in the article. Don't forget just over a year ago many of you sevcovians were still edit-warring in stuff about Whyte being a billionaire etc. 176.248.74.84 (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

To be fair to Green he did get hun death threats, until he spun this "same club" fairy story. For a while it all settled down with the poison-pen brigade trying to bully this fantasy onto the general public and media (and edit-war it into wikipedia). If Green had admitted to being in cahoots with Whytey who knows what would have happened? 176.248.74.84 (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You've lost me on most of that. This discussion was about whether Sevco 5088 Ltd or Sevco Scotland Ltd or both companies were used in the business and asset transaction. Both the SFA [2] and Duff and Phelps final report and only mention Sevco Scotland Ltd. VanguardScot 21:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Craigy Bhoy and his pals at Duff & Phelps cooked up the Sevco 5088 scam in advance. Green tried "the old switcheroo" to Sevco Scotland but, it would appear, you'll have get up earlier than that to put one over Whytey. At present, the situation is far from clear. The fact that ownership of oldco's assets remains shrouded in mystery should certainly be reflected in the article. It could take years for this to go through court. 176.248.74.84 (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This source appears to substantiate some of Whyte's claims and may require some rewording of the current article as it appears to suggest that Craig Whyte was indeed appointed a director of Sevco 5088 and that Sevco 5088 paid £200,000 to gain the exclusive right to buy the assets should the CVA be rejected. If the assets were in the event transferred directly to Sevco Scotland rather than Sevco 5088 on Green's say-so, Whyte would appear to have a case to pursue. We can't speculate where this might lead but we may have to update the article to reflect that some of the details surrounding the transfer of assets may not be as certain as once thought. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Various "spokespeople" have claimed that both companies were used in the transaction and others have claimed it was just Sevco Scotland Ltd involved. Hence we find ourselves in a strange situation where we have numerous sources for both situations. I agree Fishiehelper2, the section (And especially the Ownership of Rangers FC article) will need to be updated to reflect both situations until it becomes clearer through court cases or whatnot. Another point in this whole thing: looking at the companies house website CW is not and has not been listed as a director of Sevco 5088 Ltd. VanguardScot 23:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Another point in this whole thing: looking at the companies house website CW is not and has not been listed as a director of Sevco 5088 Ltd." That is an interesting point because it appears that Green set up Sevco 5088 but then added CW as a director prior to the asset transfer - but the paperwork has only just been submitted. Therefore, companies house would not have been able to include that Whyte was involved as the paperwork had not been submitted as it should have been. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There's not enough to jump to any conclusions here. The the AP01 (appoitnment notification) which supposedly is not yet showing at companies house isn't the end of the story. It depends what the board minutes show - a board resolution with the appointment is the key issue. It sounds like (speculatively) there's going to be a discrepancy between the board minutes and the and the purported AP01. All very fishy but I think it's going to be dangerous relying on news reports on this until some sort of legal proceedings are reported on. DeCausa (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

In some ways this is the same situation as last year, lots of people with guesses about what has happened, lots with of people with opinions about what should happen, very few actual facts. Until there are known facts, the article should be mucked around trying to track the latest speculative guesses that may all amount to nothing in the long term. And that includes the original research being discussed here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The legal stuff will perhaps come down to which of these two spivs is deemed the biggest liar. It doesn't look good for the increasingly unhinged Green just now; the taped recordings, signed documents all support Whyte's version of events. Charlie has publicly admitted to defrauding ("shafting") Whyte. He is now, I think, trying to say the documents are forgeries. Ho ho. He also claims Whyte is "blackmailing" him when it's him who's been taking cash under the table from Whyte! All this can be reliably sourced so why leave it out? 176.253.49.188 (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The article currently states: "Hours after the CVA's rejection, Green completed the purchase of the business and assets, including Rangers FC, for Sevco 5088 Ltd." The first reference given is Nimmo Smith's investigation in which he says that the assets were sold to Sevco Scotland Ltd - no mention of Sevco 5088. I don't think we can leave this unaltered. Can I suggest that the wording be changed to "There is some uncertainty as to the route by which the assets became owned by Sevco Scotland Ltd with some sources suggesting they were first bought by Sevco 5088 and others suggesting that Sevco 5088 was not involved in the actual purchase." Just a suggestion. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally think we should delete all reference to Sevco 5088 Ltd for now. The only source I can find that says they bought the assets first was a 'Rangers spokesperson' to STV in July. D&P final report, the SFA's 5 way agreement and both Nimmo Smith reports don't mention any involvement of Sevco 5088 Ltd. VanguardScot 12:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

176.253.49.188: "All this can be reliably sourced so why leave it out?" It all relates to the company Sevco 5088 Ltd, which currently lacks sufficient evidence of being involved in the takeover in any way. VanguardScot 12:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

But Duff and Phelps' had a binding agreement to sell to Sevco 5088, as detailed in the CVA proposal. 176.253.49.188 (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That's correct yes, but it didn't happen. The assets went straight to Sevco Scotland Ltd going by the sources I mentioned above. We have no idea how legally binding this agreement was and we don't know the small print of the agreement, but that agreement was obviously broken. The details will only come out if it goes to court. VanguardScot 13:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ownership page might need rewrite it says Sevco 5088 bought assets even though the source provided makes no mention of this. BadSynergy (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Beeb still reporting the assets went via Sevco 5088. 176.253.49.188 (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Goes against Judge's report and D&P this whole thing is turning convoluted. '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. The name of Sevco Scotland Limited was subsequently changed to The Rangers Football Club Limited. We shall refer to this company as Newco.' [3]BadSynergy (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The Herald now saying [4] that Sevco 5088 Ltd was not used and assets went directly to Sevco Scotland. Also saying "It also now appears that this was the means to cut Whyte out of the equation, completely." and that "There is no suggestion that Whyte is involved now." VanguardScot 12:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This along with D&P report and SPL commission show that Sevco 5088 never once bought any assets. I have updated the relevant pages to mention that Sevco Scotland Ltd bought the assets, not Sevco 5088 Ltd. BadSynergy (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the changes you've made to the various articles, I'm happy for it to stay like that based on what we can currently reference. As new facts emerge it will no doubt need changed again, but it seems fine for now. VanguardScot 11:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Rangers are not a new club

They don't have full membership of the sfl league. Players left the club because they were liquidated. They had to be voted INTO the league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.137.143.206 (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to make your point a little more clear? Britmax (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own definition of sports club/football team

Again and I STRONGLY reiterate, this is not a beat up on the the defunct Rangers FC, this is about the integrity of Wikipedia which is absolutely paramount when the accuracy has been under scrutiny from other competing web based dictionaries etc etc. Rangers Football Club where liquidated, there is no disputing that, the club itself where liquidated, the club is not an asset,it was not the business that was liquidated, those business assets such as the sponsorship deal with Umbro and Tennents where transferred over to Charles Green's consortium who then applied for a licence to join the SFL and the SFA.Wikipedia's very own definition of a football club reaffirms that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_team although I now suspect Rangers supporters will alter that because basically they cannot handle the truth,no matter if its from an ex captain,or manager. Rangers FC played their final football match last season against St.Johnstone,if wikipedia dont stand up and take a stance against these ludicrous lies then its all but lost all credibility, I have no objects to fans who supported the former Rangers blogging about their club being the same,but not on wikipedia, to quote Joseph Goebbels "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth".well not really, just that people will believe the lie, It'll still be a lie though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.8.212 (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see official sources, and when you're finished, look up the difference between 'where' and 'were'. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you heard of a company being bought out of administration? Rangers Football Club were "bought out of administration" by a new company. The new company bought the business and assets of The Rangers Football Club PLC, which included Rangers Football Club along with their stadium and training facilities. The Same as HMV were recently bought out of administration before HMV Retail Ltd was put into liquidation. The same as Leeds United FC were bought out of administration in 2007 before The Leeds United Association Football Club Ltd was put into liquidation. The same as Clinton Cards were recently bought out of administration before Clinton Cards Plc was put into liquidation. Rangers FC were bought out of administration by Sevco Scotland Ltd, before The Rangers Football Club Plc went into liquidation. This is all sourced to reliable sources in the article, and Wikipedia a consensus has been achieved by Wikipedia editors that looked over all the sources and concluded that this was the case. If you can find any official sources that say otherwise please bring them forward, but I doubt you will find any as the SFL, SPL, SFA, UEFA and ECA all agree that Rangers Football Club were bought out of administration by a new company. Subsequently Rangers FC's SFA license was transferred to the new company. The clubs membership of the SPL was however not transferred, after a vote by the SPL board decided to transfer Rangers FC's 'Golden Share' in the SPL to The Dundee Football Club Ltd, the operating company of Dundee FC. VanguardScot 19:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not, Rangers FC(1972-2012) where liquidated, thats as simple as that, what your doing is telling lies(see Goebbels quote above) because basically you cannot handle the truth, your pretending that your new club "The Rangers" is the same as the liquidated club,its not,at very best your a phoenix club,risen from the ashes of the liquidated club,The stadium and business was sold, not the club,the club was CLEARLY liquidated, its hard for you guys to accept- I get that,but the truth is whats important in regard to wikipedia,if you want to spout that nonsense you should do it on Followfollow or indeed Vanguard Bears where the clientele want to believe the same lies,and the thing is you know in your heart you cannot lay claim to the history of Rangers,and the rest of Scottish football will NEVER EVER let you forget the new football club is exactly that,a new club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.217.229 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You're still to produce one reliable source to back up your point. I suggest a look at the SPL commission into the Rangers situation and/or the SFL website would be a good place to start. The accusations of bias in the editing of this article are simply nonsense. VanguardScot 12:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

your post amounts to nothing more than illiterate rant. Come back with some sources, or start with Leeds United, their operating company "liquidated" in 2007, if you can establish a 'phoenix club' or 'new club' argument there first to set precedent it will give you a leg to stand on. Until then i suggest you free your mind of the hatred and jealousy you seem to possess for Rangers. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want precedent, look at the story of Darlington F.C. and the successor club Darlington 1883. Darlington 1883 bought the assets of the previous club so as to continue to run the club - just like what happened with Rangers - except that Darlington 1883 is viewed as a successor club but the current Rangers is not. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Darlington 1883 are officially a new club according to the English footballing bodies, they made Darlington adopt a new name and badge to get a new English FA membership. Rangers are officially the same club according to the Scottish footballing bodies as the SFA allowed Rangers' membership to transfer to the new operating company. If you wan't to compare Rangers situation to an English club, have a look at Leeds United. They had their golden membership share of the FA transferred to their new operating company, before the old operating company was consigned to liquidation. They also managed to get their golden share of the Football League transferred to the new company, something with Rangers were unsuccessful in doing, hence them applying to join the SFL. VanguardScot 16:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi VanguardScot, you are absolutely correct in what you say about the FA regarding Darlington as a new club. However, the club itself claims to be the same club as is evident from this from the club website: "Darlington Football Club was formed during July 1883 and has over 125 years of history. The club has made three appearances at Wembley, including twice for the Football League play-off finals, and once when we won the FA Trophy. Now, under the stewardship of Darlington 1883, we start the long road back!" So fans refuse to accept that their club has died even when the football authorities say it has! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

so officially we can derive from that, that the footballing authorities (FA's) have the final say. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much 77.97.32.2. It's a bit like Juventus who claim their stripped titles when officially they belong to other clubs. BadSynergy (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to be factually accurate, only one of Juventus' stripped titles belongs to another club, the other one belongs to no one. :P VanguardScot 20:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

at Fishiehelper2, yeah most Darlington fans see themselves as the same club, and the FA consider them to be a "continuation of the traditions of Darlington FC", but the FA and FL state they are officially a new club. VanguardScot 20:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 May 2013

The ownership of Rangers FC remains clouded in controversy as Craig Whyte has released documents suggesting that the club was obtained fraudulently from his and he has threatened court action against the current owners.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22043867 Gherry Sweeney (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

BBC reported couple of weeks later that Whyte has been found to have no link to the current setup. Unless new evidence appears then seems Whyte is mistaken. BadSynergy (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 07:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Graham Spears article

Here's a link to the article in the Herald, Its well written and straight to the point, I think even the most ardent of Rangers fans will concede this current club are not the same club as Rangers.http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/spiers-on-sport-rangers-new-club-or-old-and-the-bbc.1371631860 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.92.1.33 (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

See Also: Richest Football Clubs

The last time either Rangers or Celtic appeared on the list of "Richest football Clubs" was the 2009 rankings. I have removed this link from both Celtic and Rangers articles, yet the edit on this article has been reverted. I argue that rankings from 4 years ago are no longer relevant. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a perfectly relevant "see also" article, Rangers FC appear on the page. If the Celtic FC page was on my watchlist I would have reverted your edit there as well. See Wikipedia:See Also. If you want to change it to something like: Richest Football Clubs (25th in 2009) or similar there would be no objection from me. VanguardScot 16:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I just think, at this point, it screams of "straw-clutching" for achievement. Wikipedia:See Also notes that including articles on this list should be subject to "common sense", and I think both clubs are nowhere near being described as one of the "richest football clubs" anymore in my opinion. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

your opinion doesn't matter. 77.97.35.2 (talk)

This is a talk page...I know certain football fans have made a habit of trying to budge conflicting opinions out the way of a rose-tinted view of their club, but this is a page specifically for discussion. Have the link...if it means that much to you. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Green is not on Board of Directors

I removed as Green not on board - see source [5] Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The Club, or, "business and assets" or both?

It's about time we drew a definitive line on this issue. Many sources of reported that Green / Sevco purchased "the business and assets". Other reputable sources including Lord Nimmo haven't mashed their words so much and stated simply Sevco bought the club - much in the same way Leeds United was reported within the media in their liquidation event. Technically both are right, after all, a "club" can only ever be defined as, is a collection of assets (plus intangibles such as support, traditions, etc). It's time we came to a definitive solution on this Wiki entry on how to report the purchase by Sevco. Reporting that it was both 'the club' (as per LNS) or 'the assets' as reported by some sources, it's mincing the article up to appease everyone and in truth doesn't make much sense. If i bought a restaurant, I wouldn't tell my friends i bought the assets of a restaurant... and the restaurant itself, i would simply state I bought the restaurant. Ricky072 (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ricky. You raise a valid point. Surely the fact of the matter is that when clubs are companies, someone wishing to buy the club does so by buying the company. Therefore, Manchester United was bought by the Glaziers by them buying the majority of the shares in the Company. In the case of Rangers, Green's consortium tried to purchase the club by getting an agree CVA, which would have allowed the consortium to buy Rangers FC plc. However, when that was unsusccessful, the consortium bought the business and assets instead. Reliable sources correctly summarise what happened as reporting that the business and assets were purchased. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You obviously still don't grasp the concept of club and company, or, company and business being 2 seperate entities, although personally i believe you, do but choose not to. When the Glazers bought Manchester United, they bought the company that owned the club and all it entailed.When Bates & Green bought Rangers and Leeds respectively, they bought the clubs leaving the companies behind. With Leeds it was universally reported in this way, and many reputable sources have reported simply Green or Sevco bought 'Rangers' or the 'club'. Like i mentioned, we have other sources whom have 'muddied the waters' so to speak, with the talk of assets. The Glazers also bought the assets of Manchester United. It was inclusive of the club. Hopefully fair minded editors can reach the conclusion to go with the sources and simply report Sevco, or Green, purchased the club via a 'newco' vehicle, as the Leeds precedent sets in it's Wiki article. Ricky072 (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this situation, along with previous 'New Company' situations, has shown that there is more than one way to buy a football club. The way the Glasers bought MUFC (by buying the company, or a majority share of the company in their case) or the way CG bought RFC (by buying the business and assets out of administration, with a new company) VanguardScot (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If you buy the company, you automatically buy the club. If you just want to buy the club without buying the company, you do that by buying the assets to run as a going concern. There is a distinction between the two approaches to buying a club, and this is reflected in the terminology used. Therefore, suggesting that Green's consortium 'bought the club' is hiding the fact that the assets were bought as the means of buying the club rather than the company being bought to buy the club. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is being hidden. The fact that the company entered liquidation and the business and assets were sold to a new company is in the opening section! Gefetane (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

But the club IS the business. IT says in the article o na few occassions that Green bought the Business. AND assets. And Rangers FC. It doesn't make any sense. It should simply state he purchased Rangers FC via a newco vehicle.Ricky072 (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

And as for my recent edits, how can Green purchase "the business and assets, including Rangers FC?". It doesn't make a lick of sense, Rangers FC IS the business and assets. If i bought a restaurant, i wouldn't say i bought the business and the building... including the restaurant. Ricky072 (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Green's consortium was willing to pay £8.5M to buy the club via an agreed CVA but only £5.5M to buy the business and assets. There must be a difference between these options or they wouldn't have been willing to pay more for 'buying the club' one way than the other. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes there was a difference, buying Oldco would have avoided the 3 year European ban and guaranteed retention of SPL place, substantial revenue streams worth £X million ie. the difference between the offers. Gefetane (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Gefetane, there was a significant difference. So buying the 'assets and business' may gain control of a club but at a cost in other ways, whereas buying the club by buying the company avoids these problems. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I took this article off my watchlist a few months ago because I got bored with the endless ill-informed club/company arguments. I popped back this morning assuming the dust had settled and...wow! I'll just add a comment @Ricky072. "business and assets" is the standard lawyers'/accountants' M&A terminology in this situation. It might mean the same thing as the "club" or it might not. It depends on how one defines "the club". If you define the club as activities relating to directly to the football team and its associated support, you might not include certain aspects of merchandising, entertainment licensing etc. I think "Manchester United" has got its fingers in lots of pies that are not directly related to the team, for instance, and "th club" is probably just one of the many assets the owning comapany has title to (unless they are vested in sunbsidiaries etc). Rangers is probably less so. But to give a simple case: say, the business owned some shares in BT, just as an investment is that part of the "club"? I'm a pedantic lawyer, so "Business and assets including the club" seems about right to me. DeCausa (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I also don't see the problem with Business and assets, including the club. There were other assets involved in the deal, so this makes the most sense. VanguardScot (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That is the wording from the independent commission chaired by Right Hon. Lord Nimmo Smith which is, I would suggest, the most reliable independent source of information on this saga. Gefetane (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Direct quote from wikipedia's definition of a Football Club.. suppose youll want to change that aswell(rolls eyes)"The term football club is the most commonly used for a sports club which is an organised or incorporated body with a president, committee and a set of rules responsible for ensuring the continued playing existence of one or more teams which are selected for regular competition play (and which may participate in several different divisions or leagues). The oldest football clubs date back to the early 19th century. The word team and club are sometimes used interchangeably by supporters, although typically refers to the team within the club playing in the highest division or competition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.8.212 (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC) The internet is full of evidence, but the mere FACT that Rangers where liquidated, coupled with the definition of wikipedia's own definition of club is more that apt to prove a point which should not even be up for debate, well really its not up for debate,liquidated -end off! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.47.110 (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could share this evidence? BadSynergy (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Here's an interesting data point. --John (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much sums up how confused everyone was back then, hence why we have to rely on governing bodies rather than people's opinions. BadSynergy (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

According to policy, we have to rely on reliable secondary sources. Governing bodies or quasi-legal decisions might be reliable sources - though this is debatable - but they are certainly not the only ones. When the Herald publishes an article like this, it is significant. --hippo43 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The only significant part of that article was this quote from the author, 'Other Rangers observers - like me - find it hard to escape the view that the current club is a new club.' He is free to have this opinion, just the same as other journalists are free to make theirs (and change theirs by the look of it). BadSynergy (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I posted it because it is in the nature of Wikipedia that we value such secondary sources as newspapers far more than primary sources like governing bodies or the club itself, and certainly far more than fans' views. --John (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This opinion piece by Spiers was in response to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22951447 where the BBC Trust UPHELD complaints that BBC Scotland used incorrect language when describing Rangers as "new club" or "relaunched". Is this even a debate any more? At this debates peak, the BBC wast he main source being cited by the 'new club' camp given their usage of the term. Now the BBC themselves have upheld a complaint, finding it's usage as incorrect. File that next to the Advertising Standards, FIFA, SFA, SFL, SPL, Lord Nimmo Smith and every other official source. Through in a few precedents such as Leeds United or Luton. Graham Spiers has the 'new club' camp in a nutshell, a couple of weak quotes from James Traynor and Richard Gough. Lacking substance and sources on an embarrassing scale. Game, set & match. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Far more than fan's views yet you post an article with quotes from fan's views? BadSynergy (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Spiers article is a secondary source which specifically addresses the issue. It quotes Charles Green, Jim Traynor, Walter Smith and Richard Gough - not simply a bunch of fans. --hippo43 (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Spiers opinion piece is a glorified blog. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It's an editorial piece published by a reputable source, which directly addresses the question. Do you know of good quality secondary sources which likewise address the issue directly and contradict it? --hippo43 (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the BBC trust tackled the issue head on. The BBC reported the finding here in this secondary source news article on the outcome of the complaint: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22951447 many 'secondary sources' (since you don't like primary ones, regurgitation ftw!) have been cited in the debate, where reputable publishers have quoted the likes of Lord Nimmo Smith, Donacaster (chairman of SPL) and Football Finance expert Neil Patey directly on this very issue. All of which far, far outweighs Spiers and... uhm... Richard Gough lol 77.97.35.2 (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And...uhm... the new club's future press officer and future chief executive. Lol. --hippo43 (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The "future CEO" doesn't directly comment on the old/new debate. He simply states that a CVA retains history and traditions. Not sure why that quote is included in Spiers article. Oh wait, i am sure, he's bias and has an agenda to fill in his little blog so he figures that statement 'implies' his factually incorrect POV. And a 'future PR diector', in other words, just another tabloid hack. This is one of the worst cases of straw clutching i think i've seen; lol. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. We all know it's a new club. You know it's a new club. Everyone watching knows it's a new club. The fact that you have to keep shouting "it's not a new club" says it all. New club. lol. --hippo43 (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect. We're talking about official rulings here from law lords & football governing bodies. You may aswell argue that Barcelona aren't really the Spanish Champions because you don't think they are. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. What law lords or governing bodies have ruled specifically on the question of whether it's a new club? I wonder if you can find reliable sources, or official primary sources, published pre-February 2012 which show that Rangers Football Club was an asset or subsidiary of Rangers Football Club plc? New club. Lol. --hippo43 (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. What sources have specifically ruled that Barcelona won the Spanish league for season 2012/13? I wonder if you can find reliable sources or official primary sources, published pre-May 2013 which show that Barcelona FC were champions for 2012/13? Lol! 77.97.35.2 (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of non-answer I'd expect from someone without an answer. If Rangers FC was an asset of Rangers FC PLC, there should be sources from before administration which confirm this. I have looked but haven't found any yet, including in the club's annual reports. If you were able to locate any it would help your case. --hippo43 (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Wihtout an answer? You're the 1 with "evidence" that consists of a tabloid quote from Richard Gough, lol. If you think there is some kind of conspiracy going on to appease the club and it's fans and want evidence pre-Rangers, then there's a host of precedents for you. Leeds United being the prime example. Or does the conspiracy extend to Leeds United also, who are a new club masquerading as the same old one? 77.97.35.2 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, if you can find any reliable sources (just one would be a start) to show that Rangers FC was an asset or subsidiary of Rangers FC PLC, or that Rangers FC and Rangers FC PLC were in any way separate entities before it went into administration, it would help get to the bottom of this. I'm not interested in Leeds United, or conspiracies, and I'm not presenting evidence for anything. As far as I'm concerned, it's a new club. It's obviously a new club, however you try to dress it up, and I'm sure even you realise that. --hippo43 (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you not care about Leeds? Why aren't you on their wiki entry arguing that they are a new club? What's the matter chump, do they not fit your agenda? And nobody cares about what about your 'opinion' nor do we care about how 'far you are concerned'. We care about facts. The facts have been established. Like i said you may as well go argue that Barcelona aren't the real champions of the Spanish league in 2013. Rulings have been made by every official authority concerned from the governing bodies, to law lords to the BBC Editorial conduct trust and even to advertising standards agency, and that's final. There are still people who believe man didn't really land on the moon, you can join that group. Lol. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"Chump"? Really? Leeds United, Barcelona, moon landings - you bring up everything except Rangers. It's obvious that you know it's a new club. Lol. --hippo43 (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes chump, i'm the one with every official source. precedents and facts on my side. You have Graham Spiers and a quote from Rchard Gough, jog along now into bitter irrelevency. Nobody cares about you, lol, tata. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

So you have Leeds United, Barcelona, moon landing conspiracies and now insults, but still no sources to support the idea that the old club was an asset of the PLC. What a surprise. Maybe because it's a new club? Lol. --hippo43 (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well as John said, 'According to policy, we have to rely on reliable secondary sources' not on what Hippo43 thinks. BadSynergy (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

May I remind the two of you, this is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. If you wish to do your tit for tat then take it to your own talk pages. BadSynergy (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It is true we do have to draw a line under this shambles of a page. The quote further up "Other reputable sources including Lord Nimmo haven't mashed their words so much and stated simply Sevco bought the club" is risible. Purposes of his inquiry that Rangers "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" can be found wanting. He perhaps is using Football authority rules with this assertion but that would contravene UEFA's Article 12 on "Club" licencing. However this recognisable entity of a "Club" or "Rangers FC" was clearly not recognised by administrators or Charles Green's consortium because it was NOT LISTED anywhere on the purchase sheet. The question is then, at the point of purchase of Business & Assets; where was the "Club" with it's own recognisable identity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.87.138 (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Lord Nimmo Smith's report "can be found wanting", by whom? You? When a judge makes a ruling, he makes a ruling. When an official body makes a ruling, it makes a ruling. If you cared to research for precedents, out of the professional clubs in England from League 2 level to Premiership, over half of them are now being run by different companies than the ones originally incorporated. Every scenario is different - but Leeds United, Middlesborough & Charlton are just a couple of example of clubs to have gone bankrupt, wound-up/liquidated the company and found continuity in a newco. Both Edinburgh clubs also have that written into their history, with Hibernian even missing 2 entire seasons in the early 20th century due to being wound-up, before starting again from scratch. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

McCoist is right in that this new football club play at Ibrox,wear blue,have the same fans,so in that respect you ARE Rangers,a new Rangers,and Ill accept that,however your not the same Rangers who won 54 Scottish titles,they are an entirely different entity all together,Ive read the whole this page and theres a lot of 'yes but' from the Rangers Fans, but its not factual, and wikipedia is meant to be about integrity and can stand upto scrutiny and in that respect its wrong,If the page where honest it would mention that very very few clubs in Scotland consider this Rangers the same as Rangers(1872-2012),but Rangers fans do.You need to remember - Rangers where liquidated, when you read any newspaper, they use terms like 'CEO of the club' 'chairman of the club' ,its contradictory - If Rangers fans of the old club and the new club want to get on with it, its best they accept they're only a couple of years old and simply move on,rather than lie, fabricate evidence to perpetuate a myth that cannot possibly be regarded as true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.15.107 (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"If Rangers fans of the old club and the new club want to get on with it, its best they accept they're only a couple of years old and simply move on,rather than lie, fabricate evidence to perpetuate a myth that cannot possibly be regarded as true." So the fact that ECA, SFA, SFL and SPL all came out and said that its the same Rangers is the club "fabricating" evidence? The fact that it lies with the governing body to decide if the club can continue as the same or they have to form a new club under a new name, which we have not. Examples have been giving of football clubs from the UK doing the EXACT same, yet this seems to be over looked or regarded as a childish "That does`nt count". People have to accept that it is the same Football Club with a new owner running it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.146.132 (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)