Talk:CSA Steaua București (football)

This page is fake
The information is deceiving AntonescuFCSB47 (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

dfsfs AntonescuFCSB47 (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It seams that I can't post links, so enter UEFA's site (be it UCL or UEL) and have a look where the history is. That team from Liga IV isn't organised as the ex champion of europe (1986) by any national or international federation (FRF, LPF or UEFA).

The lawsuit between CSA and FCSB is only about the brand, not the trophies, not the history and surely not about the sport identity.

1. The court's decision was only for the brand 2. All the Football Federations recognize FCSB as Steaua's successor 3. The majority of people know that FCSB is the real FC Steaua. I mean there are only 2000-3000 people from the ex Steaua ULTRAS who betrayed the team for personal interests VS millions of people who support the team from Liga 1.

So Legal, Social and by the Football federations, FCSB is the ex-FC Steaua!

PS: What really happened! In the comunist era, each fotbal team was owned be a minister, company or a state force. FC Steaua was owned by the army (Ministry of Defence). This is something that I think you know already.

But in 1998 the Army gave the fotbal team up to a non-profit association because of UEFA rule implementations (no departmental team was allowed in the European competitions). Then by 2003 the team collected many depths and was nearly declared bankrupt by the court. But in 2003 the team was reorganized as an action based society, Becali bought the majority of the stock and become the owner of the team. There is nothing illegal with that!

So the page has so much bull**** information...... AntonescuFCSB47 (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - FC Fcsb is not Steaua. A judge's decision matters way more than what a football federation, which is just a private company, just like Nike, Adidas or McDonalds, decides to put on its website. If a judge said that FC Fcsb is not Steaua, it doesn't matter what anyone else says. - TPTB (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A judge's decision or opinion has no weight on what Wikipedia includes or omits. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a Court Decision not a judge's opinion and what shall we do? Let's spread fake news on the biggest encyclopedia on the internet just to make FCSB fans happy...

Vandalism + Erroneous Information in Steaua vs FCSB lawsuit section
Please roll back Scheianu's update in the Steaua vs FCSB lawsuit which I would consider as vandalism: << But then again, a court also ruled that OJ Simpson was innocent when it was fairly obvious that he was responsable for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and then again everyone can edit a Wikipedia page. Currently, UEFA consider that Steaua's achievements belong to FCSB on their official website. >>

From the same paragraph, please delete "The club which had acted as Steaua throughout this time was ruled to be a distinct one, established in 2003, and was summoned to change their name and logo[19]. Additionally, they were legally stripped of their association with Steaua's historical record[20]." There is no reference to the club being stripped of any historical record. On the contrary, please visit UEFA to view that FCSB history record is still untouched, despite the name change

Taras bulba 47 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Taras bulba 47 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime I understand how consensus works, and it makes perfect sense since Wikipedia is maintained by contributors. But we're facing the following problem: contributors with a malevolent agenda create a Wikipedia article where they disseminate false or truncated information, without relevant references or proof (just interpretations derived from primary references). Following this, they obtain protection of the page, and therefore nobody can edit the page without reaching "consensus". How can one reach consensus with these guys, when they have an agenda and reject any attempt of reasoning? Even more alarming, how could the authors of this article produce this with the approval of the administrators? How come nobody verified this information? You are asking me to reach a consensus with the authors - the only consensus I can and I am willing to reach is the truth. The information in the sections I described is at most tangent with the truth, most of the affirmations being blunt interpretations made to support the authors' claim. This situation is really absurd to me. Based on your saying, I could create a Wikipedia article where I would write that the Earth is flat and the Sun is circling it, I would somehow obtain protection and then I would reject any attempts to modify the page simply because there is no consensus. The facts that I would present in the article would be the result of a very rich imagination that has nothing to do with reality, but that wouldn't be a problem - I would not be willing to reach a "consensus" with reality so my page would remain unmodified. Really? Is this what comes out of Wikipedia? Did we actually reach this level of relativisation of the truth? Anyone can be "right" as long as they're the first to say whatever they wish to say?

Again, I provided the justification that the following paragraph "Additionally, they were legally stripped of their association with Steaua's historical record" is not supported by facts, by giving you an official reference: the UEFA website. If that is not enough, I can come with multiple other references, all third-party, showing that FCSB has never been stripped of any honours or historical record and that this in fact has never been a subject of discussion or judicial action. The quoted statement is nothing more than a malevolent extrapolation of the truth, i.e. the team now named FCSB has lost the rights to use the "Steaua" trademark, logo and name. There's no reference about change in statute, stripping of honours, etc. Taras bulba 47 (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Its correct what Taras bulba 47 is saying! AntonescuFCSB47 (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:AntonescuFCSB47 I'm afraid we need to do our homework and collect as much information as possible and bring it here, making the administrators understand how far from reality the article is in this state. That may probably not be enough, we'd still be asked to reach a "consensus" with the original authors :) Or maybe the admins will show a sign of good will and at least ask the contributors of the ro.wikipedia if this article is in accord with the Romanian version, and whether the creators of this article (TPBP especially) have or have been not banned from editing pages .ro due to actions such as disruptive editing and vandalization. I know the answer to this question. Do they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taras bulba 47 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

~


 * Comment - Yes, do your homework first. The fact that you haven't and that you need to shows that you really have no idea what you're talking about. - TPTB (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Fully protected
Since a number of editors do not appear to be able to stop themselves from edit-warring on this page, often without sufficient rationale or sourcing, it is now fully protected. You will need to achieve consensus on this talk page to make changes, and then submit a request using . Please note that if the same behaviour occurs after the protection expires, the likelihood is that this will be met with blocks for the editors concerned. Black Kite (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 October 2017
I would like to add the following line to the Steaua vs. FCSB lawsuit section of the article.

"According to recent comments made by Constantin Danilescu, a former Steaua Bucuresti employee who worked for the club until 1999, during the 1998 separation, CSA Steaua did not relinquish ownership of the team's name, honours or brand, as it was falsely believed until recently.(reference - http://www.digisport.ro/Sport/FOTBAL/Danilescu-Cand-ne-am-transformat-in-societate-non-profit-noi-ave) The club only allowed the non-profit it partnered with to use these elements, but the non-profit never had any right to sell them. This means that the claims made by Fotbal Club Fcsb, a team founded in 2003, which pretends to be the owner of the Steaua honours, are in fact false."

I'd lie to add this part between the first and the second paragraphs in the section. - TPTB (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC) TPTB (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 October 2017
Thanks -- Begoon 23:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In infobox, please change " => "
 * File:Steaua.svg is Commons file, which will be deleted as Commons cannot host fair use files.
 * File:Steaua București.svg is local en.wiki fair use version of file (with optimised svg code)
 * ✅ --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Begoon 23:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Purpose of this page
The honor section and history should remove those won by the limited company/new club FC FCSB, they improperly use the Steaua name, but does not mean the real owner of the name Steaua won the trophies. This page should only cover the foundation of the club until became the limited company, and then the re-establishment in 2017. Matthew_hk  t  c  18:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Matthew. The purpose of this page is to provide the public with information about the Steaua Bucharest football team. Real information, not fake stuff or anything else. People need to understand that the team ceased all activity between 2003 and 2017. FC FCSB was founded in 2003 and took over Steaua's place in the first league, but this has been done illegally, as was FC Fcsb's usage of the Steaua name and brand. FC Fcsb should have never used the Steaua name and brand in the first place. Had they used their real name from the beginning, there would have been no misunderstandings. And, of course, they would have never been seen as Steaua Bucharest in the first place. It's quite likely that, by this time next year, another court ruling will either have FC Fcsb erased or have them relegated. So far, court documents have shown that this team was never Steaua Bucharest. In spite of this, no one really wants to explain how this team was allowed to play in the Romanian first league. This page will help us tell the story of the real Steaua Bucharest and also make sure that there is no void created on wikipedia once FC Fcsb is declared bankrupt and closes down. - TPTB (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * the cut off date should be 2003 or 1998, looks awkward for the period as non-profit organization but also as FC Steaua București, which basically where that name should redirect to where, if the proposed move was passed? Matthew_hk   t  c  13:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

False or inaccurate information on this page
This club, this entity, was formed in the summer of 2017 by the CSA Steaua București sports club. It currently plays in the Liga IV (fourth league) and officially owns 0 honours.

To add the history of FC Steaua Bucuresti to this page is incorrect: 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * FCSB, even if it lost the right to use the name of Steaua, is still regarded by UEFA and the Romanian Football Federation as the club which holds the 26 league titles, the European Cup etc.
 * Even if FCSB would change its whole identity it would still keep the honours and history through CONTINUITY (the unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over time) See what happened to FC Red Bull Salzburg in 2005.
 * CSA Steaua is only supported by a small group of ultras (around 1,000 fans). The majority of Romanian people regard FCSB as the real Steaua
 * The CSA football project is to be questioned as clubs that don't belong to a private business aren't allowed to play in the first division. Thus, the Army could sell the club again and claim they are the real owners of the brand after another 20 years!
 * The conflict of the Army only started after Becali preferred to play European matches at the Arena Nationala and the Ministry of Defense started to lose money with Stadionul Ghencea

Split suggestion at original Steaua article
Hi, I have added a section here suggesting that the post-2003 club should be split off from the historic Steaua, then both FCSB and CSA 2017 followers can argue over who holds the honours etc, but neither side will 'own' them at present on Wikipedia and can just refer back to the older articles. To keep it all together, could I ask comments on this to be added to the discussion on the FC Steaua talk page (link above) rather than here. Just didn't want any interested party (I know there are several!) to miss the chance to comment so mentioning it here as well. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Steaua Bucharest honours
Below is the real list of honnours for Steaua Bucharest. The team does not share any records with the team known as FC Fcsb. Steaua Bucharest has won just 21 national titles, just 20 cups and just 4 Romanian supercups. It is also the winner of 1 European Champions Cup and 1 UEFA Super Cup. And that's it. The team has no other titles. Please don't promote the lie that Steaua has 26 national titles. It does not.

Domestic

 * Liga I / Divizia A
 * Winners (21) – Record: 1951, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1959–60, 1960–61, 1967–68, 1975–76, 1977–78, 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89, 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98, 2000–01
 * Runners-up (9): 1954, 1957–58, 1962–63, 1976–77, 1979–80, 1983–84, 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92


 * Cupa României
 * Winners (20) – Record: 1948–49, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1955, 1961–62, 1965–66, 1966–67, 1968–69, 1969–70, 1970–71, 1975–76, 1978–79, 1984–85, 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89, 1991–92, 1995–96, 1996–97, 1998–99
 * Runners-up (7): 1953, 1963–64, 1976–77, 1979–80, 1983–84, 1985–86, 1989–90
 * Supercupa României
 * Winners (4) – Record: 1994, 1995, 1998, 2001
 * Runners-up (1): 1999


 * UEFA Champions League / European Cup
 * Winners (1): 1985–86
 * Runners-up (1): 1988–89
 * UEFA Super Cup / European Super Cup
 * Winners (1): 1987


 * Intercontinental Cup
 * Runners-up (1): 1986


 * Comment - Crowsus, I noticed that you took it upon yourself to protect this page. This is great. It's good that admins have started to show at least a little interest in the real Steaua team. However, you need to understand something. There is no FC Steaua Bucharest. The team that won the European Champions Cup in 1986 was called CSA Steaua Bucharest. The CSA is often left out. It's just like the AFC in AFC Ajax, or the CF in Real Madrid CF. It is an abreviation for "Clubul Sportiv al Armatei" which translates into "The Army's Sports Club". This is why it's so important that you do not add the "FC Steaua" to the article. FC Fcsb was called FC Steaua Bucharest. However, it used this name illegally, as it had no right to it, to the Steaua brand or records. And Romanian courts have already proven this. FC Fcsb was founded in 2003. It took the name FC Steaua Bucharest at that time in order to substitute the real Steaua team, who was, due to corruption, set aside. Romania, in the early 2000s, was worse than the wild west. People would do anything they desired if they had enough power and influence. And Becali was one of them. He paid off people inside the Steaua club to allow the football department to shut down, and he inserted his own team, illegally, in the Romanian first division, replacing Steaua. He did this with the help of corrupt officials inside the football federation. Fortunately, the bubble burst after 2010, when the Romanian law system started to work again thanks to the European Union. Becali even went to jail for trying to bribe the players of another football team. Before the judges, lawyers representing Steaua Bucharest proved that FC Fcsb was not Steaua and that it had no right to use the Steaua brand and name. However, although the team changed its name, crest and everything else, and has stopped selling products with anything Steaua related on them, the Romanian Football Federation has refused to inform UEFA that FC Fcsb is not Steaua and that it has no right to the Steaua brand and history. It's because of this that UEFA still shows FC Fcsb as the winner of the 1986 ECC. But that's a lie, since the team was only founded in 2003. Here is a link to a picture of Becali, FC Fcsb's shadow owner(he owns the club, but not on paper. He has other people for this. They sign all the papers and, in case anything happens, they go to jail instead of him. He is the club's owner only when on camera), with FC Fcsb's sports certificate. https://images.gsp.ro/usr/thumbs/thumb_924_x_600/2016/09/24/762160-rkx4017-gigi-becali-acte-certificat-de-identitate-sportiva.jpg The certificate clearly shows that the team was founded in 2003. It says so right on it, on the bottom right corner. That's why I ask you not to use the term FC Steaua in the Steaua article. FC Steaua was an entity that operated illegally. It doesn't exist now and it never won any European title. Steaua Bucharest is not just a football club. It's a sports club, with many different departments. - TPTB (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't protect it (nor did I ask to), some admin who I hadn't seen here before put a lock on both articles but didn't explain it in the talk page of either...? Crowsus (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I hope you understand what I was trying to say. There is no FC (Football Club) Steaua. - TPTB (talk) 10:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @TPTB Check your facts! The team that won the European Champions Cup in 1986 was named "FC Steaua Bucuresti" (see the name on the trophy: https://ibb.co/cbcbxm ). Again: CHECK YOUR FACTS! Taras bulba 47 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @Taras bulba 47 So your big proof is a picture of something that may or may not be the UEFA European Champions Cup of 1986, that may or may not be approved by UEFA. Your facts are awesome, mate! I guess you sure showed me. But how do you comment the recent story in GSP that says that FC Fcsb doesn't really exist?http://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/exclusiv-bomba-anului-fcsb-nu-exista-m-am-intalnit-cu-talpan-si-mi-a-aratat-actele-motivul-pentru-care-juristul-csa-nu-mai-apare-in-presa-528599.html - TPTB (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * TPTB, you keep showing your stupidity around here for some time and I'm sick of it! FCSB has played without pause in the first league since 1947, your "real Steaua" from the fourth league is the actual clone!8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 17:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Request ban for 8Dodo8
The user 8Dodo8 continues to vandalise the page and to post lies. Additionally, he is extremely aggressive and, as you can see above, keeps insulting users who do not agree with him.

I request that this page be protected against this guy. He is clearly in this just because he hates Steaua Bucharest. I, as a fan of Steaua Bucharest, keep to this page. I don't go to his team's page, to cause problems over there. I think he should do the same. - TPTB (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I come to this page because it is FAKE. All the honours this club claims to have actually belong to FCSB, because that is what the competent organisations say. Both UEFA and LPF regard FCSB as the real Steaua. Also, the army just sued FCSB for the trophies a few days earlier, so until I don't see CSA winning that process this team has ZERO HONOURS. Cheers!8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 09:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * UEFA.com is the official website of UEFA, but it may not be the official point of view, despite UEFA did recognize FCSB is the successor of the club by the holder of UEFA Licesne, thus the most recent UEFA coefficient. Matthew_hk   t  c  14:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The user 8Dodo8 continues to lie. 1. UEFA did not recognise FC Fcsb as the real Steaua Bucharest. It did not issue any press releases stating such. In fact, when asked by the Romanian media about its position, it declined to comment, stating that things have to first be sorted out at national level, by the Romanian Football Federation. 2. Steaua did not sue FC Fcsb for the honours. It is true that the club recently started another lawsuit, but this one is just so the court will officially recognise the Steaua sports club as THE ONLY owner of the Steaua honours. This is one of only two solutions Steaua can use to prevent FC Fcsb from using its honours illegally. The other being an official request to the Romanian Football Federation. 8Dodo8 doesn't know anything about these lawsuits. He just imagines things and uses them as excuses to vandalise the page of a team he admits to hating. Like I said before, this guy should not be allowed to be here. - TPTB (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You are incredible, you are accusing me of things you do! You don't know anything about these lawsuits! You don't even write the name of the club correctly! It's FC FCSB, with capital letters! You live in your mind and try to put these "facts" on Wikipedia. I will not edit this page anymore, not because you are right, but because there is nothing that can make you see the reality! You only see what you want to see.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 23:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , at least for UEFA coefficient, https://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/club/index.html, UEFA did not blanked the previous season, but it did not thing to recognize previous honor either. Matthew_hk   t  c  04:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As you can clearly see if you click on the link, the coefficient is calculated for the previous 5 (FIVE) seasons. It's just that. Five seasons. No one ever said that FC Fcsb did not play in European competitions in the previous 5 seasons. But that doesn't mean that they are Steaua. They are not. And they do not own the Steaua honours. - TPTB (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

More on UEFA coefficient, one ruling said PFC CSKA Sofia was a entirely new club thus reject the club to enter 2016–17 UEFA Europa League, but at the same time recognize the club for 2014–15 season result on UEFA coefficient. As the owner of CSA Steaua București, those football honor under the name "CSA Steaua București" had no dispute under the club or its CSA successor, but for FC Steaua București era, just any reliable source and news reporting on any court ruling is required. Otherwise it just an edit war that both of you will be blocked. Matthew_hk  t  c  19:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't speak about other clubs, but I can speak about Steaua, as I know this problem very well. A lot of weid things, illegal things happened in Romania after the fall of communism. Steaua wasn't the only club to get hijacked. Universitatea Craiova suffered a similar fate. And probably many other teams as well. Recently, Universitatea Craiova (CS Universitatea Craiova), a team that was reactivated just a few years ago, was recognized as the real Craiova, although a team with the same name pretended to be the real deal and had the UEFA coefficient and everything FC Fcsb had. The Romanian Professional Football League recognized it as the real deal and also recognized that it was the owner of the Universitatea Craiova honours. The same thing should happen to Steaua. And it will happen at some point in the near future. The fact is, the owner of FC Fcsb is a really wealthy ex-politician, extremely influential and corrupt. The guy pays the Romanian media to misinform and tell lies about his team. FC Fcsb lost every lawsuit it had with Steaua, but the media refuses to report on these things and to inform the public. The Romanian Football Federation also refused to acknowledge them, because Becali, the fc fcsb owner, has them in his pocket. So this is our problem. There are very few correct news reports on the things that happened between Steaua and FC Fcsb. People like 8Dodo8, who are fans of Steaua rival teams and who hate Steaua, are against the truth because this way they can make fun of Steaua. Like I said. The guy is a supporter of Petrolul Ploiesti, information which can be found on his own page. What is his deal with Steaua? Why isn't he helping the Petrolul page, instead of disrupting the Steaua page? I really don't know of any country where a court order is treated as a joke. And there are several court orders which clearly say that FC Fcsb was not Steaua Bucharest, that it never owned the Steaua honors and that it's not even allowed to pretend that it is Steaua. What more does anybody want?! - TPTB (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Any claim need reliable source. Matthew_hk   t  c  10:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Check out the CS Universitatea Craiova page and you'll see that I'm telling the truth. - TPTB (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC on this article's content
FC Steaua București, the most notable football club from Romania, lost its name and logo following some Romanian Justice Court decisions and became "Fotbal Club FCSB" in early 2017. Meanwhile, the Romanian Army, which had owned the club until 1998 and is still in charge of several sport clubs, "restarted" its football department (CSA Steaua București (football)) in the summer of that year and commenced play in the fourth league.

As of now, FCSB is credited as the successor of FC Steaua by both UEFA and the Romanian Professional League (LPF), owning 26 domestic titles and 1 UEFA Champions League, among others. This is very easy to verify by checking FCSB's UEFA.com profile. However, the fans of the fourth league club CSA Steaua claim that their club has 21 league trophies and the UCL from 1989, which has not been confirmed by any reliable source (UEFA, LPF or the Romanian Justice Court). Currently, they have only won the right to use the "Steaua" brand, and the process about the honours has been only been opened in December 2017 and it will take several years to resolve, probably.

Despite this, User:TPTB called me a "vandal" when I added this sentence on the CSA Steaua page: "However, according to UEFA, FCSB is the successor of Steaua and they hold the records of the former club, including the European Champions Cup won in 1986." He also changed the link from Template:UEFA Champions League winners and it seems nobody is doing anything to resolve this issue for more than one year.

I suggest removing the honours of the club on this article and most of its content which is copy-pasted from FC Steaua Bucuresti, until either a Court Decision or UEFA shows that FCSB lost its right to have the records of Steaua. User:TPTB argues that CSA also won the honours in Court, but this is false: He also called me a "liar" on multiple occasions for trying to resolve this issue. 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 18:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The files for CSA to gain the honours have been submitted at the Court only in December 2017, as I said earlier
 * The links he provides only contain statements made by people affiliated with CSA, not any OFFICIAL decisions.


 * Support UEFA and LPF recognize FC Steaua București as the Steaua București honours holder. Nothing official about CSA Steaua honours and record, only the logo. Rhinen 20:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support that Wikipedia should indeed reflect exactly what the UEFA says with regard to awards and titles. According to the UEFA, currently the "CSA Steaua București" of 2018 does not have the 1986 European Cup title; instead, the entity currently known as "Fotbal Club FCSB" has the 1986 European Cup title. The UEFA is presumably not only an WP:RS but is also the definitive source on who or what possesses the title of "1986 UEFA Champions League (aka 'European Cup') winner". The European Cup is an abstract award by a specific organization, like the Nobel Prize is. An abstract award is not necessarily given to a distinct legal entity; for example, the Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 award holder is "You". An abstract award is not a piece of property, but rather is a piece of common knowledge among society that a specific organization has intentionally decided to honor someone with that particular award. Society always considers the bestower (rather than the recipient or the recipient's local judicial system) the final arbiter of exactly who or what currently possesses the abstract award. Thus, if a panel in Norway awards a Nobel Peace Prize to a Syrian peace organization living in Syria, the Syrian government can't force the organization to merge with the Syrian army and then factually claim that the Syrian army has won the Nobel Peace Prize; in such a case, it would be up to the panel in Norway, not the judicial system of Syria, to assess who (if anyone) now has the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, if something makes the UEFA change its mind (for example, if the CSA wins its court case AND the UEFA decides to respect the court's decision), then the page should again be updated at that point to reflect the UEFA's new position. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, Wikipedia can indeed state, with appropriate context, that CSA claims to possess the titles (assuming that's true; the CSA web site seems unclear to me). However, many readers will just browse the honors section without carefully reading all the text; the current layout does not make it sufficiently clear that the awarding organization does not currently recognize CSA's claim to the award that the awarding organization has handed out. I would advocate removing the bulleted list of Honours, and instead stating "CSA Steaua claims all honours granted by the UEFA to Steaua București between 1947 and 2003. However, as of 2018, the UEFA web site states that all those honours reside with Fotbal Club FCSB." Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment UEFA.com and UEFA are two thing, the former just a web portal that outsource to other firm. UEFA coefficient and UEFA ruling on successor seem conflicted in many case in many team. And it seem over interpretation of primary source. By legal person sense or ownership, both current team are spin off of the original one, and should rely on secondary source for consider on the content and honour won. Matthew_hk   t  c  08:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The page source says "UEFA.com is the official site of UEFA", are they lying? For your second point, I agree with you that if a reliable secondary source contradicting this actually existed, that would be an important factor to take into account. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the UEFA.com was buying news article from Reuters, as well as the fact sheet of the club in UEFA.com, meant nothing as "official ruling" of the successor case, the fact sheet in many case went wrong for the players especially "honor" section and other place such as transfer fee (which just copy from news article). UEFA coefficient (which only count for 5 recent seasons) attributed both FCSB and FC Steaua București as one entity, as well as CSKA Sofia and its new legal person as one team, however UEFA Club Financial Control Body ruled another point of view for CSKA Sofia. The case got mess in Steaua București, was the actual split of the sports club and the football club as two separate entity, and by any sense, the honor won by the football section of the sports club should attribute to the sports club, as the football club did not founded yet (only as a football section). However, wikipedia is not a place to express the point of view (otherwise it would be WP:OR), but summarized secondary source in a neutral way (i.e. not cherry picking source to slant on the POV of an user) Matthew_hk   t  c  09:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Against There is no official UEFA position on the matter. In fact, UEFA declined to comment on it. Court rulings clearly state that CSA Steaua Bucharest is the only Steaua Bucharest and then there's the evidence, of course. CSA Steaua Bucharest owns the official miniature replicas of the 1986 European Champions Cup and Supercup. It even displayed them recently, at an event on April 14. Those are the actual, physical trophies. Clear proof that CSA Steaua Bucharest is the owner of the Steaua Bucharest records. UEFA, and it seems that some people don't understand this, is a private entity. It does not decide what another private entity owns. Only judeges do that. And Romanian judeges already decided that FC Fcsb is not Steaua Bucharest and does not own the Steaua brand, name and records. You can check these documents out. They're public. - TPTB (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source, such as a judicial opinion that we can view or a reliable secondary source, that specifically states Romanian judges have decided that CSA owns the records. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * CSA does indeed own the physical honours, but that means nothing in my opinion. A physical trophy can be sold to anyone if wanted. They could send it to PSG, that wouldn't make them UCL winners. And as I said earlier, CSA only won the brand, there is NO OFFICIAL document from the Court stating that FCSB lost the record as well.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 15:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose the blanket removal of honours etc as proposed. The text on the CSA article makes it clear that UEFA credits FCSB as the holders of the titles, but the CSA website claims them. As has been stated above, there are also grey areas when it comes to the physical trophies and the legal position in Romania. What TPTB has stated re court cases is certainly not strong enough to remove any 'old' Steaua honours from FCSB at present (as we have discussed previously, its maybe due to the reluctance/incompetence of the football authorities to enforce court rulings separating Steaua stuff from FCSB), but nor are there grounds to wipe everything from what CSA officials claim either. It's highly unusual for two clubs to be shown as winners of the same trophies on Wikipedia, but this is a very strange (and loooong-running) situation whereby both entities definitely claim themselves to be the true title holders, and while the UEFA position should not be disregarded, CSA also have a strong case too on a legal basis. I feel the current situation, with the honours claimed by CSA shown on their article but clear notes to explain that this is not the position of external agencies, and all wikilinks for said trophies going to the FCSB article, is the correct approach at present. What should be removed is anything related to Becali-era Steaua from 2003 onwards, as the CSA club has no claim on this era and any accompanying text is irrelevant to them. Crowsus (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Currently the lead states only "ownership of the titles is disputed between two entities", and does not state that UEFA credits FCSB. I agree with you that the ownership of the *physical* trophies is determined by the Romanian judges. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
So far no reliable sources have been cited to establish that CSA has been granted these honors by the UEFA. I do not believe that CSA is a reliable source in this context on whether CSA owns the honors. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * So, after closing the thread, are we going to modify the page now or not?8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 16:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think yes, remove the honours, but put/leave a note in the section stating that the CSA club claim them, although UEFA say FCSB. This could just use the same refs as in the lead. Crowsus (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I procedeed to remove the history claimed by CSA and the honours. Some improvements should be made, however. Please proceed on reverting TPTB's edits, I am sure he will bring back the content. And also, he should refrain from linking UCL trophies to this page instead of FCSB.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 10:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2022
I want a request 82.76.116.122 (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Terasail [✉️] 09:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022
Add *Steaua Liberă to External Links as Fan website 89.136.51.123 (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per WP:ELNO, Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Enforceable title
Even admitting that the court verdict had an enforceable title, it has been quashed, so it is no longer enforceable. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Summary of the verdict:

"Complet de judecată: Completul nr. 9 APNumărul documentului de soluționare: 490/2022Data documentului de soluționare: 15.03.2022Tipul documentului de soluționare: HotarâreSoluție: Admitere recurs - Admitere recurs - cu casare - Dispune rejudecareaDetalii soluție: Decizia nr. 490:Respinge cererea de repunere pe rol a cauzei formulată de recurentul -reclamant Fotbal Club FCSB S.A, ca nefondată. Admite recursurile declarate de pârâtul Clubul Sportiv al Armatei Steaua București și de reclamantul Fotbal Club FCSB S.A. împotriva deciziei nr. 682A din 25 aprilie 2019 și a hotărârii intermediare nr.1491 din 27 noiembrie 2018, ambele pronunțate de Curtea de Apel București - Secția a IV-a civilă. Casează deciziile și trimite cauza, spre rejudecare, la aceeași curte de apel. Definitivă."

"Trial panel: Panel no. 9 AP Settlement document number: 490/2022 Settlement document date: 15.03.2022  Settlement document type: Decision  Solution: Admission appeal - Admission appeal - with cassation - Order the retrial  Solution details: Decision no. 490: Rejects the request for reinstatement of the case filed by the appellant-claimant Fotbal Club FCSB S.A., as unfounded. It admits the appeals declared by the defendant Steaua București Army Sports Club and by the plaintiff Fotbal Club FCSB S.A. against decision no. 682A of April 25, 2019 and of the interim decision no. 1491 of November 27, 2018, both pronounced by the Bucharest Court of Appeal - Civil Section IV. It quashes the decisions and sends the case for retrial to the same court of appeal. Definitive."

In plain speak this means that HCCJ performed a reset and a retrial is pending. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are mixing two different trials. The one you are mentioning is not about the honours. It's about the emblems. Dante4786 (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, meanwhile a retrial is pending in both cases. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2022
79.78.250.250 (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC) FCSB = STEAUA
 * No request, so nothing to do. The Banner  talk 09:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

CSA is NOT the most popular team in Romania
According to several surveys, the most popular team in FCSB or FC Steaua Bucharest (however you want to call it). FCSB/Steaua has medium of around 40% of respondents, CSA Steaua isn't even in the top 3. I request this page to be edited and the sentence where it mentions that CSA Steaua is the most popular team in Romania 5.14.142.43 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)