Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 21

How should this article introduction begin (WAS or IS?)
There has been excessive debate above which details all the arguments and i understand a wider request for comment will be taking place but that will take some time. It is clear that changes were introduced to the article without consensus that fundamentally changed the article to a point where many editors have major concerns and the page has now had to be protected. It is possible the article should be reverted to a previous version before those controversial changes were made, but I would like to just ask a simple fundamental question to find out how people think this article should start...

Rangers Football Club was a football club...

or

Rangers Football Club is a football club...

A simple answer of which people believe is more accurate with a brief explanation if people want to give if would be great thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * IS - Rangers Football Club still exists, it existed before the incorporated company was formed in 1899 which has now gone into administration. The club was sold to a new company Sevco Scotland LTD led by Charles Green which operates under the trading name "The Rangers Football Club". HMRC stated that the club could be sold despite the original company entering liquidation. The Club and the Company are two separate things. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WAS :Was for me as they were, they now have nothing, not even a member of staff never mind a player or even League. --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IS The only reason i say this is because the article is not about the PLC it is about the club, regardless if we say teh club dies or not, you keep saying the new club is goign to call itself rangers fc once the old one changes to rangers 2012 so if the new club si called rangers fc and the old one is, then the article shoudl say is for now unless hte new club is called something elsethen it will be was or if this aritlce is made to be the plc but nither this change or change to plc can happen wihtotu consensus so any editor who would just do it cant Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably WAS - I think 'was' is probably better than 'is' because it is difficult to see how a football club can continue to be a football club when it doesn't have any players (remember eleven left as free agents and the rest transferred to Newco Rangers), has lost its place in a league and is not going to apply for a league place or sign players as it is being liquidated. The only argument for 'is' would be the point that it is still a member of the SFA which only clubs can be. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IS Should be following previous wikipedia procedure regarding newco clubs which is putting the relevant information on the club page. BadSynergy (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WAS - Per WP:VNT sources for the Sevco club being new, distinct etc. are plentiful, easily enough to justify the new article. WP:RSs for the demise of this club also abound (the actions and words of all the players who cleared off were particularly telling). Personally, I find the arguments for the separation of club and company to be bizarre. The sources are always weaker as well, because invariably they're not independent. Fans and staff etc. don't want to start again from 0 titles, while administrators, HMRC etc. don't want to bear the brunt of any "social unrest". The BBC hedged it's bets: The answer lies principally in the eye of the beholder. Some supporters will view the new Rangers as the same Rangers, while others will feel the old Rangers no longer exist. I agree and think we need to give the correct prominence to each viewpoint. Rangers' supporters feel it's the same club so this should be represented, fairly, in both articles as a (significant) minority position. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IS - Until a formal outcome to the dispute resolution process is completed then the original version of the article should stand as per DR. The current version is both misleading and confusing to readers who would like to know more about the club who for all intents and purposes existed before it became a PLC in 1899 and still exists after that same parent company were / will be liquidated and replaced.  Monkeymanman (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion section to keep above clearer for individual answers
Please use this section for comments on points made by each person in the above section. thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

An incorporated company was not formed "The Rangers Football Club", formed in 1872 became a Limited company.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB P.L.C was incorporated in 1899 and Sevco Scotland LTD was incorporated in 2012. "The Rangers Football Club" is a trading name of that new company, and that new company bought the club from the old company.  BritishWatcher (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Rangers Football Club was incorporated as a Limited Liability Company in 1899, by law it meant they had to change their Legal name to include either Ltd or Limited, hence why they were then called The Rangers Football Club Ltd. I know Sevco Scotland was incorporated in 2012, they're a new Club, you dont have to be a Football Club before incorporation and you don't have to be incorporated to be an Amateur Football Club. You have to be Incorporated though to be a Proffesional Football Club though. Also the only way to buy a Football Club is to buy the shares of said Club, if you do not buy the shares you don't takeover the Club--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry you are confusing the difference between club and company, we can discuss this further in the section above if you want BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * superbhoy if that is the cause you can only buy a club if you buy the shares then charles green owns rangers the club because he bought the sahres off whyte for £2 it was in teh news a while back i will see if i can get the source and if you see that will you acept the club was bought???-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib ) 19:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no differance between Club and Company, that's where your going wrong. The company that owns Rangers is The Rangers FC Group Limited(which is owned by Craig Whyte), they still own Rangers. Here's a link to Craig Whyte's takeover of Rangers http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/4d/76/0,,5~161357,00.pdf Educate yourself, so that you know what your talking about in these discussions.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * i should point out that there no difference is your point of view wikipedia is abotu soruces-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The name is meaningless though, would Celtic suddenly be a New Club is they changed their name to Celtic Glasgow?. Would Aberdeen turn into Celtic if Celtic sold the names Celtic FC and Celtic Football Club to Aberdeen? clearly not. A name is a name, a Club is a Club.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Superbhoy, there is a difference between 'Club Name' such as "Arsenal F.C" and 'Company Name', which is "Arsenal Holdings PLC". A 'club name' is an asset which is deemed as intellectual property.  You can start a new company and call it 'The Arsenal of London FC 2012 Ltd' & create a new football club, but you cannot legally call it "Arsenal F.C" because the "Club Name" Arsenal F.C is owned by "Arsenal Holdings plc".  Sevco Scotland Ltd currently holds the legals rights to the name "Rangers F.C".  I hope that clears it up for you.  Ricky072 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that thats what im saying, anyone could call themselves anything. It doesnt change the Club they are whatever their name is. Celtic could decide to become known as Champions of Scotland, it would still be the same Club. Aberdeen could have bought the Trademarked names of Rangers FC and Rangers Football Club off of Rangers and decided to call themselves Rangers FC from now on, but they wouldnt be Rangers. Celtic could have bought the copyright of the Rangers Badge and decided to put it in the inside of the shorts at the back next to the arse, it wouldnt mean Celtic became Rangers. Trademarks, Names and Copyrights aren't Clubs--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * did i say tha tno i am talkign about the wikipedia article which is called rangers fc so if the new club is called that it should be under this article but that a different matter, my argument for using is doesn tmatter, here is masterpiece for you ;) "Mr Green completed his purchase of the 140-year-old club's assets with £5.5 million, which is believed to be in the form of a loan that the club repays, having paid just £2 for Craig Whyte's shares." it clearly states green has bought the shares and there many other sources say the same thing, and your argument above is to buy the club you need ot buy the shares this says he bought them so he owns the club doe she not???? Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * [more sources http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/13/rangers-charles-green-craig-whyte] "Green confirmed he had given Whyte £1 – the same value paid – for his 85% stake in Rangers, and said: "I gave him a pound out of my own pocket too, so he has made a 100% profit.""

"Whyte has agreed to sell his 85 per cent shareholding in Rangers for £2 to Charles Green, who is leading the consortium in place to take control of the club." Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Andrew That deal was conditional on the CVA being accepted. AFter it was rejected Green withdrew his bid to buy the club and just bought he assets. Adam4267 (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No Craig Whyte never sold the Club, technically he can't as the Club is suspended from trading at the moment. To remove the suspension they need to release a set of accounts, infact they'll need to release two but they obviously aren't going to do that now they're in their death bed on an incubator waiting for the switch to be put off--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * adam what day was the cva rjeect ;) and what date is on teh herald article ;) Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * acutally you can sell a company sicne that how you liek to put it evn in liqduiation proceeding but that a different nto realted to this discussion Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Charles Green’s consortium bought the club’s assets for £5.5million two weeks ago, buying out Whyte for a nominal £2.'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadSynergy (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew you can buy a Club thats in Liquidation but thats not the point. You cant buy the Club if they are suspended from trading, the Club is suspended from the Plus Market Stock Exchange for failing to report a financial report for 2011.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * you do realise what you have just said dnt you????? if that was true then ranger could never be sold but that isnt the case, plsu stock isnt just to do with teh shares of teh company, it how they generate them, there suspend form trasind on the plus market but nto suspend from tarading elsewhere udner that pretense a company who is suspended on one stokc excjage is in limbo Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

here is anotehr soruce backing up the club lives on "A sweetener of £1m has already been negotiated as the TV companies see an appeal in the novelty of covering Ally McCoist’s new-look squad in a lower league for the first time in their 140-year history." it says being in the 1st diviison for the firs ttime in there 140 year history. now i know some will say that the sun is being bias but unless you can provide proof they are then the soruc eis relible Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 08:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC) here is another that says green is the new owner of rangers "The Light Blues have been at loggerheads with the governing body since their judicial panel imposed a year-long transfer ban because of the way previous owner Craig Whyte ran the club. ... New Rangers owner Charles Green, has already admitted the club made a mistake turning to the courts and he is keen to defuse the situation and for his club to move forward." clearly state he is the new owner of rangers regardless hwo oyu rea dit,
 * You could read it as: 'New Rangers' owner Charles Green...Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * fair point but do you agree that is open to interpation? also you never comment on the one that says about the history, and it says previous owner craig whyte now ou state he is the owner of this club artile article but the oruce says he isnt Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced statements in article.
Where is the reliable source that states that Rangers FC no longer exists? Not OR, not comparison to this club or that club, not long winded argument about company law. Where is the source?

The source given, http://news.stv.tv/scotland/108240-rangers-crisis-ibrox-and-murray-park-hived-off-to-separate-newco/, DOES NOT state that Rangers FC no longer exists.

Furthermore, there are sources that say Rangers FC does still exist. For example, the Financial Times of Jun 12, 2012 states that "the club will continue to exist", although "it will do so under a new company structure."

This issue is quite simple. Unless there is a reliable source that says Rangers FC no longer exists, we have no business putting it in an article. It doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia.

DHooke1973 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * correct but conesensus also matter and sicne we can not estbalish one that why we heading down the disptue resolution procudures we are in mid process of havinga request for comment, but since nither side fo the argument will agree it will be long winded process to get the article changed whether that for the argument of the club is still alive or to teh arguement the club is dead because it does not represent either one correctly jsut now Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, i have asked a question above if the article should start Rangers Football club is a football club... or was a football club.... Hopefully if people respond to that we may get a bit more clarity of where the consensus is at present. sadly this inaccurate article has been locked on the page for about 10 days, and until a couple of days ago there was not even a dispute tag. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If there's no source for the original statement, consensus is irrelevant. Where's the editor who locked this article? He/she can solve this thing immediately by reverting the unsourced material. There is NO reason for including assertions that can't be sourced. DHooke1973 (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone formally proposes we revert to a certain article version that might be a way of seeing if there is consensus to get the article reverted, but the admin that locked the page has commented above and is not involved in which version is right nor wrong, nor do they have to be. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

How about this BBC report that includes the sentence "However, the demise of Rangers and questions around where and under which circumstances Charles Green's Ibrox newco will take its place after being denied entry into the SPL, has resulted in turmoil." Notice that 'the demise of Rangers' is dealt with in the past tense as it follow that phrase with 'has resulted' rather than 'will result'. In my dictionary, demise means 'death'. That said, Green's replacement club will probably keep the 'Rangers' name going. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is needed then is two or three such sources that will curtail debate. All the OR and interpretation in Talk is unnecessary. DHooke1973 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fishiehelper2 I believe the past participle refers to the verb 'result' rather than attaching any meaning to the state of Rangers. Dramatic journalistic vocabulary such as demise does not dictate the club/company identity are one and the same. Besides the use of the word Rangers is not qualified as to whether it refers to a company, club or both. Many media sources refer to the statement of "re-launching the Ibrox club" means that they see the identity of the club separate from that of a company. This is through the use of the term "re-", so the club was first launched as a company before i.e. 1899, and "the" club, enduring, rather than "an". On Wikipedia consistency, source here shows Steve Gibson believes Rangers follow Middlesbrough http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/rangers/2012/06/14/rangers-in-crisis-middlesbrough-chief-steve-gibson-insists-newco-ibrox-club-s-identity-will-never-change-86908-23895658/. S2mhunter (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the problem with this debate: if I provided a source that stated exactly "Rangers FC is now dead", someone would suggest that it was just sloppy journalism that was actually referring to the PLC, or the journalist was a Celtic fan, or it was only referring to the strictly legal sense and not taking into account the wider definition of 'club'....I don't believe wikipedia will ever find a solution that will be accepted sufficiently to allow Rangers articles to be unprotected or even semi-protected in future. Edit wars will break out as soon as protection is lifted because the two sides of the dispute see things so completely differently that a compromise seems impossible and the outcome can only be a win/lose for one side or the other. Very depressing. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This situation will need resolving on the friday if a decision is made on which league rangers will play in. If a number of editors continue to block corrections to the article then i will be taking this to an admins noticeboard because the joke of a version on the article that currently exists should not be staying on there indefinitely. You have been unable to provide clear sources specifically stating the club itself no longer exists, whilst many sources still do talk of rangers/rangers football club, you have failed to provide sources saying that Green did not buy rangers football club, you have failed to provide a source that states business and assets is not the club, you have failed to answer if HMRC was lying or wrong when they said liquidation would not prevent the sale of the club, you have failed to explain or provide sources showing the club and company are the same thing and not directly answered questions that make it blatantly obvious that they are two separate things, previous precedents suggesting this article handling is all wrong have been dismissed. A small number of editors on this page are seeking to defend the status quo wording that was imposed on the article with absolutely no consensus or basis from sources and it has been locked in place for over a week now. But i guess we shall have to wait and see what happens friday. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * a consensus can be reached by neutral editors ie non of the ones here who have there own pov and interuptions hopefullt request for comment will do it or the formal mediation failing that it will probally head to someting liek arbcom to rule on. but the big point is, whatever the decision both sides of the agrment will have ot accept one of them wont be happy i cant say who side tha twill be i ainta crytsal ball but one side will be unhappy but i will be happy as long as there a consensus one way or another. Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * sorry britishwatcher admin noticeboard wont do anything it is content dispute and since boths sides can provide sources to support there claims that are reliable nothing will change instead of getting work up over it and determine to have your way you have to udnerstand wikipedia rules and they might not suit yoru agenda but that the way they are, i hope you aint imply i am one of those small amoutn o editors because if you do i dnt get how you see that i support both sides Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I had two individuals in mind in particular that are rigorously defending the status quo and it was not you Andrew. I hope this can be resolved here, i think that on friday we may get additional sources that will overwhelmingly show the current wording is incorrect and that rangers football club still exists and will be playing in a league next season. When that happens, i am hopeful that everyone will accept the basic principle (that the article should start IS not WAS), but all im saying is if such a decision is made by the authorities, and the additional sources become available but change is blocked because of a small number of editors then i will be raising it on an admins noticeboard to get additional neutral eyes on the situation and more opinions. Clearly it would be totally unacceptable if Rangers were playing football in a months time whilst this article continues to claim they dont exist. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * that is what i am doing with the request for comment admin noticeboard is not for content disputes which this is and probably be on friday even if there is more sources to verify it please read the below sources and the quote si have done showing why there is a problem ie because some say it is liquidated and some it is not, and yes there could be biased by the editor wirtitng it but it could also be there interruption of it, but the bias argument could be either way ie rival fans who write these articles say dead, rangers fan writing the article say alive so that is not a argument that can be used. anyway review the sources below and see why the problem wont go away soon, can someone also post a link to all wikipedia articles that are on rangers i only follow this one and the newco one because they are the only one of interest to me but for the request of comment i will need to detail all article so hopefully someone here will know all the articles better than me

Ok both sides of the argument have been asking for sources to say the other side is right i have been collecting them over time

Club liquidated or Club/Company are the same
"June 14 - Charles Green completes purchase of Rangers assets and business following the club's liquidation, hours after a consortium led by former manager Walter Smith makes a late bid." says club is liqudiated "Both Steven and I and our agent fought hard with administrators during negotiations to insert clauses that offered protection to staff and players at the club. I am extremely proud of the actions we took but I am disappointed and angry that Rangers Football Club no longer exists in its original form." says the club no logner exists "Green needs seven other clubs as well as the soon-to-be liquidated Rangers to vote in his favour at a meeting next Wednesday and, unless there is a U-turn from at least one chairman, there will be no top-flight football at Ibrox next season." says club is liquidated "The decision means the troubled club will now be liquidated with prospective owner Charles Green hoping to confirm his newco which will be known as 'The Rangers Football Club'." says club is liquidated "Rangers duo Naismith and Whittaker reject contract transfer to new company Whittaker remarked that: We owe no loyalty to the new club, there is no history there for us." says new club " The consortium led by Charles Green believe the players' contracts should transfer from the old, soon-to-be liquidated Rangers. " says soon to be liqudiated rangers "Meanwhile, manager Ally McCoist says Andy Little and Salim Kerkar have been offered new contracts at Rangers. Both players' deals to the old Rangers expired this summer and McCoist hopes the pair will sign on with the relaunched Ibrox club." relaunched club does not neccessarily mean new club but could men new club "Green's Sevco consortium bought Rangers' assets after the club was consigned to liquidation with debts that could reach £135million, mostly to the taxpayer." says the club is getting liquidated "The clauses were inserted amid speculation over the Glasgow pair moving to England or into a European league but they have proved costly after Rangers went into liquidation last month." says rangers are getting liquidated "Charles Green's Sevco consortium had their application to replace the old liquidated Rangers in the Scottish Premier League rejected last week." "The demise of Rangers hasn’t quite sunk in yet, not if the Scottish media is to be believed - apparently it is they who are still going strong and Scottish football that is on life support.

The Glasgow giant ceased to exist as an entity several weeks ago, yet reading the columns of several Scottish newspapers and listening to the multitude of pundits on the TV and radio, one could be forgiven for thinking that Rangers are still alive and breathing."  "Rangers, who are being relaunched by a new company after the former incarnation could not be saved from liquidation, had their application to replace the old Ibrox club in the Scottish Premier League formally rejected on Wednesday."   "The issue of where to place Rangers originated when the club could not be saved from liquidation and was relaunched by a new company."   "However, the club's recent liquidation has complicated the process, with the newco club having not yet registered as a member of the SFA. "  "We owe no loyalty to the new club. There is no history there for us."  "Meanwhile, manager Ally McCoist says Andy Little and Salim Kerkar have been offered new contracts at Rangers. Both players' deals to the old Rangers expired this summer and McCoist hopes the pair will sign on with the relaunched Ibrox club."  "The issue of where to place Rangers originated when the club could not be saved from liquidation and was relaunched by a new company.

Club not liquidated
"Season ticket income looks vital if he's to avoid pitching the club back into administration. So Charles Green now has control of the assets, but faces hostility from his customers." This is a video you have ot watch it to see wha tti says "the club's assets have been transferred to a new company while Rangers Football Club plc is liquidated. " "specifically the section that states; ISSUE ONE: THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER TUPE APPLY 2. It is now clearly established that, in order to decide whether TUPE apply to a particular transaction, it is necessary to ask two questions: 2.1 does the function which is being transferred constitute an economic entity? 2.2 will that entity retain its identity after the transfer? As TUPE has already been established to apply in the case of Rangers then they must have satisfied the courts already that they are the same economic entity as before and they have therefore retained their economic identity." "Q. After the liquidation/death of Rangers FC PLC and the creation of a brand new legal entity, when can/does the new company become a new club? A. As of yesterday, the new company operates the club. Of course, it does not yet have membership of either the SPL or SFL, which is an essential rquirement for any professional football club." "the history of the club remains with the club, so the club moves from Rangers Plc into the new company and all of the titles and 140-year history will remain with the club."

"Rangers' parent company is being liquidated, meaning the new owners need to win the approval of seven other clubs in the 12-team SPL if they are to maintain their status." "The Edinburgh club are still owed £800,000 from Rangers for the player." "The issue is complicated by uncertainty over Scottish Football Association action, with an appeal hearing due against Rangers before Green bought the club's assets and business.'There are sanctions that could withdraw the club's ability to play,' Green said. 'Part of my job is to work through the issues and make sure we're playing football and we're playing football at Ibrox for many years to come.'" " And it stresses that either way, the sale goes on and Rangers, the team, does too." [http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html " This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA"), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA and by the Judicial Panel Protocol which sets out the disciplinary rules relating to the conduct of members of the SFA and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to enforce such rules. " "We are acutely aware that events at our club, brought about by people who are no longer here, have triggered a crisis in Scottish football," he said. "Ally McCoist, the staff and players have nothing to apologise for

"But the club needs to make an apology. It is only right that someone expresses our sorrow and regret."' if it is a new club they wouldn't apologise for a club they dnt own and wouldn't talk about people who are no longer there, also " the old company was consigned to liquidation " "Rangers FC plc entered administration in February owing up to £134m to unsecured creditors. The company will eventually be liquidated and has been replaced by a new company run by Charles Green." "Irrespective of what’s decided by the two league bodies in the coming week, the Tribunal, having been handed the case back by the Court of Session on appeal from Rangers, must find an alternative to their original sanction of a one-year transfer ban.

The options likely to be considered are suspension and termination of membership.

Suspension leaves no avenue within the Scottish game for appeal – the only option left for Green would be to lobby the Court of Arbitration in Sport.

But termination of membership would allow newco Rangers an appeal to the SFA Board – who could arrive at a different determination again from either the Judicial Panel or the Appellate Tribunal."  "The re-formed Ibrox club will now apply to play in the Scottish Football League but it remains unclear which division they will enter.

The company will eventually be liquidated and has been replaced by a new company run by Charles Green."  "John Fleck has become the ninth player to object to his contract switching to the new Rangers, with midfielder Jamie Ness also agreeing a move elsewhere – although Kyle Hutton has become the third player to announce he will stay on at the stricken club.

The new Rangers are facing the prospect of being refused entry to the SPL and could be playing in Division One - or even starting over again in the Third Division - should they be forced to apply to the Scottish Football League."  "Charles Green's consortium has since started the process of relaunching the club under the banner of a new company with Rangers FC plc heading for liquidation."   "Rangers FC plc entered administration in February owing up to £134m to unsecured creditors. The company will eventually be liquidated and has been replaced by a new company."  "Many supporters questioned Green’s reasons for buying the stricken club for £5.5million and some have backed consortiums fronted by Walter Smith and John Brown. But a stockbroker is now due to arrive from London next week to help the club launch a share issue."  "The transfer of the SFA membership from soon-to-be-liquidated Rangers to Green's newco could take place at the same time as a decision is made over which league the club will play in."   "However, in this case, the issue is muddied by Rangers FC plc being consigned to liquidation and the newco Rangers having not yet become members of the SFA."   ""   "Meanwhile, Rangers chief executive Charles Green said the 140-year-old club was "deeply disappointed" with the result of the vote and will be applying to join the Scottish Football League - and he will be hoping Regan's plea that they be allowed to join Division One doesn't fall on deaf ears. '''

'If our application were to be accepted, Rangers will play in whichever division the SFL sees fit and we will move forward from there,' said Green, who purchased the club's assets in a 5.5 million pound deal after Rangers went bankrupt in February. ...

Failure to secure agreement with tax authorities led to Green launching a takeover and establishing a new company."  "The old Rangers is currently in administration and will be liquidated shortly. Charles Green transferred the assets to his newco Gers after buying the club for £5.5million. Di Stefano wrote: “I’m aware the assets of the company were sold to Charles Green, but I have spoken with the registrar at Companies House that confirms The Rangers Football Club Plc is a company still ‘only in administration’ and is capable of acquisition, transfer and/or assignment."  "The Light Blues have been at loggerheads with the governing body since their judicial panel imposed a year-long transfer ban because of the way previous owner Craig Whyte ran the club. ...

New Rangers owner Charles Green, has already admitted the club made a mistake turning to the courts and he is keen to defuse the situation and for his club to move forward."  "A sweetener of £1m has already been negotiated as the TV companies see an appeal in the novelty of covering Ally McCoist’s new-look squad in a lower league for the first time in their 140-year history."   "And the Teesside supremo insists he was watching the same club on both occasions despite being the man forced to put Boro into liquidation to form a new company as part of his 1986 rescue package. That’s why Gibson has told Rangers fans the club’s 140-year history will live on despite would-be owner Charles Green set to go down the dreaded newco when a CVA is officially rejected at today’s meeting of creditors at Ibrox."

Clyde statement
Clyde released a statement today, in it included the 3 resolutions put forward by the SFL. The first resolution stated, 'The three resolutions presented to the club are as follows:-

(i) That the Scottish Football League Members agree to admit Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member and agrees to permit Rangers F.C. to play in the League during Season 2012/13.'

Here we see a difference between the two being recognised by the SFL surely this can start to put an end to these repetitive arguments. Clyde statement BadSynergy (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course we can end 'these repetitive arguments'. Rangers FC is a trading name of Sevco Scotland Limited just as it was of the previous plc. The fact that both plcs use the same trading name doesnt mean they are the same club. TerriersFan (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The SPL clearly distinguish between the old and new clubs. TerriersFan (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No they do not, they distinguish between the old and new companies, not the club. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The SFL recognises Sevco as a company and Rangers as a club if both were indeed the same they wouldn't have worded the resolutions like this. If you have a source that trumps the SFL then by all means post it. BadSynergy (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry yes this quote distinguishes between the club and the new company as they are separate things, just as they view the old company as a separate thing too. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read the definitions used by the SFL in its Constitution and rules: "“Associate Member” means a football club however constituted which is admitted to the League pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 of these Rules;"

Therefore, the proposal "to admit Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member" means that 'Sevco Scotland Limited' is viewed as a 'football club', constituted as a company with limited liablity. This provides clear evidence that Sevco Scotland Limited is regarded as both a club and a company.

The proposal would also allow this club (Sevco Scotland Ltd) to play as 'Rangers FC'. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Good piece of info that could be added to page
The assets bought by Green from Rangers plc has been released. It shows Green paid for the club's employees to transfer to his company under TUPE regulations. As has been posted above the only way TUPE can apply is if that entity retains its identity after the transfer. This bit is also interesting, 'The club's member share of the Scottish Premier League and its membership of the Scottish Football Association were each sold for £1.' This proves that Whyte did indeed sell to Green and was not barred from doing so according to superbhoy. There are several other useful bits of info which can be added to article at some point. Breakdown of assestsBadSynergy (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Included in that link is another link to the Administrators report in full. Certain sections will be of interest on here.


 * 4.2 The continuation of trading operations enabled the Joint Administrators to put the CVA Proposal to the creditors of the Company and after the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors, the Joint Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the Company to Sevco (see Section 5 for further details).


 * 4.4 Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club. The Joint Administrators have completed a handover of operational matters to Sevco and are now undertaking an exercise to finalise all outstanding issues relating to the Administration trading period.

Administrators report BadSynergy (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent piece of evidence BadSynergy which should hopefuly clear up, that from a legal stand point, Sevco are now the legal owners of 'The Club' & it's 'History'. It's very common practice in business. In 1986 Triumph Motorcycles Ltd purchased the brand 'Triumph' 'certain seets' & also "continued Triumph's record of motorcycle production since 1902.". Ricky072 (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Other sections of the administrators report include;

Ricky072 (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 10.5 A successful sale of the business, history and assets of the Company was achieved by the Joint Administrators despite the large number of complexities introduced by various stakeholders in the Club. It should also be noted that as a consequence of these complexities the Joint Administrators are satisfied that a sale of the business was achieved in a timely manner.
 * 10.9 The history and spirit of the Club have been preserved by the sale which completed on 14 June 2012 and it is now the responsibility of the new owners to secure its future.
 * 10.9 The history and spirit of the Club have been preserved by the sale which completed on 14 June 2012 and it is now the responsibility of the new owners to secure its future.
 * Its what I've been trying to explain, Sevco operates the club not that it is the club. BadSynergy (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. the article must be changed. well done, its a great find and the points highlighted above certainly show the club continues to exist and reaffirms that the article is grossly misleading and factually inaccurate. All the changes needed to the article need to be worked out so they can be proposed, i dont know which would be easier to get agreement on, if it should be a request to revert to the previous version (before the controversial changes were made), or simply reword from scratch with the new information BritishWatcher (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Its what I've been waiting for Watcher. I said few weeks ago this article needed a clear source rather than several newspapers opinions. Obviously there was the statements from HMRC,BDO and Lord Glennie but wasn't deemed good enough. Now hopefully they, added with the SFL proposal and administrators report can help reach a consensus. BadSynergy (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * lol well it didnt take long for more denials sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a denial it is a fact, I think you'll find. Definitions HAVE to be pointed out EXACTLY what they mean legally so that the person buying knows EXACTLY what they are getting. You'll find no mentions of "history" there because you CANNOT buy or sell history thats impossible. The words History has no legal meaning in the report and could simply mean "the business history" ie the contracts with JJB or whoever.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The Definitions, pages are the only ones with legal meaning though. If you look through that, that tells you all you need to know. Non Legal Definitions can be massaged for the purpose of fooling people. But they CANNOT legally mask/fake the exact details "the Company and the Club The Rangers Football Club Plc (In Administration), Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow, G51 2XD (Company number SC004276)" or SPA Sale and Purchase Agreement to document the sale of a business and its assets from one legal entity to another; or Rangers / the Company / the Club The Rangers Football Club Plc (In Administration), Ibrox or Playing Staff Those whose principal activity for the Company is playing football and are registered with the SFA to do so;. You'll see EVERY single definition of Rangers/Rangers FC/Rangers Football Club/The Club/The Company all mean the EXACT same thing which is "The Rangers Football Club PLC (SC004276)--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BBC News report today states "The issue of where to place Rangers originated when the club could not be saved from liquidation and was relaunched by a new company." - note: club could not be saved from liquidation and was relaunched. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Definitions can be massaged for the purpose of fooling people.' This is getting ridiculous now superbhoy. So now HMRC, BDO, Lord Glennie, SFL and now D&P are superseded by your opinion? But a couple of newspapers are good enough to change the article to the past tense? BadSynergy (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that state that rangers football club ceased to exist? Rangers could not be saved from entering administration either. it does not mean the club no longer exists. HMRC specifically stated liquidation would not prevent the club being sold.. and that is what happened as the report above clearly shows. By the way i just saw this article on the bbc news site., im thinking of heading over toSan Bernardino and correcting the article to put that it was a city. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No im saying, that in order to help Charles Green, they can fool Rangers fans into thinking it's the same Club for the purpose of getting the sale through. My cousin is a lawyer and could in 25 seconds, prove that in the courts with that one document that the Club still exists and is still in Administration. I could even do it too - Because it tells you in it, Note at no point in the Report does it state that the Club was sold. Tell me where it says the Club/The Company or Rangers were sold in that - You cant, Fact, have a look.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But it does. What on earth do you think " 4.4 Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club. " Means? It could not be more explicit about what happened. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I will say it again in case you missed it (again).. "the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club." - How does that not confirm the club is now owned by Sevco? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But it also states "the club was relaunched by a new company" which could be interpreted that "THE club" (the same one) is now unde operation by a new company. We can all source out articles in the press, each one worded differently to suit a point of view, and all of these are essentially just the point of views of journalists.  The document above is a legal, administritive document.  IT claims that the history lives one and was sold for £1 as "goodwill".  It also claims that "Rangers FC" is now under operation under a new legal entity.  All of this equates to the 'the club' (the same club. the same legal identity) now operating under a new company.  The same scenario as Leeds.  'The Club' was purchased and then operated by a New company.  While you argue that the club WAS the company, there is no evidence to suggest that the 2 cannot be broken apart and sold.  Coca-Coal was asoft drink, which became a company (the coca-cola company).  But in theory another company could purchase the business and assets of 'Coca-Cola' (the drink) from 'The coca-cola company'.  'Coca-Cola' would live on, it would just be operated by new company. Ricky072 (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't do much good superbhoy considering WP:NOR. The report debunks the theory that club and company were one and the same. That along with HMRC, BDO and Lord Glennie is pretty significant. If even insolvency experts and court of session judges won't change your opinion then I don't know what will. BadSynergy (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The definitions page tell us that every referance to The Club, The Company and Rangers means The Rangers Football Club PLC(The Legal Entity) and at no point does it state the Club, the Company or Rangers were sold. The reason for this is that, although they can massage words around it for the purpose of making things look better and things. They cannot legally write falsehoods or lies like for example, the Club was sold or Rangers were sold. Because they werent. You will even see that in the list of what was sold "goodwill" which people percieve to be "history" was not sold, thats because history cannot be bought or sold and again to state you sold history or goodwill would legally be a lie and you cannot do that.

Bad Synergy, can you tell me where in that it says that Rangers/Club/Company was sold, a wee challenge and incase you don't want to waste your time, you won't find it because it was never sold. But do it anyway, it'll maybe make you realise your wrong. I honestly don't know how stupid you need to be to miss what is staring you right slap bang in the face, honestly. It says on it in big clear letters - Look on Page 7 under Proposals, tells you in no uncertain terms what it is.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly you should watch your manner. The document clearly states that 'the club' is now owned and operated by Sevco following the sale of 'the business'.  This would refute your claim that club&company are married together and can never be undone.  By this theory even a simple corporate restructure (of moving the assets of a club you own from 1 corporate entity to another) would be impossible.Ricky072 (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Goodwill is a 'legal lie'? Ok so the administrative document which records the transaction of 'the goodwill' is a lie & illegal?  Perhaps you should call a lawyer and sue Duff&Phelps. Ricky072 (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ricky you don't seem to have the intellect to understand what im saying. I never said Goodwill was a legal lie. I said to legally say you SOLD goodwill would be as goodwill cannot be SOLD. You can pretend you gave it away etc but you cannot claim to have sold it because its something that cannot ever be sold. To say you sold goodwill, would be like me saying to you I will sell you all my organs for £50, give me £50. You give me £50 and then I simply say to you here is my organs, give you nothing but fresh air and walk away - I would not have defined what I meant by "organs" and so you could have me arrested. PS. Can you tell me where is says the Club was sold? I must have missed that --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is purporting the club has been sold? The issue everyone had was if the club was continuing as a newco club or as a phoenix club. BadSynergy (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club." How does that not say the Club is now controlled by the new company which bought the club and its assets from the old company? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I refer you to page 25 of the administrators report of the transaction of The Rangers FC Plc business & assets. "Goodwill" was sold for a nominal sum of £1.00.  It was part of the transaction, it was 'sold'.  I also refer you to section 10.9 which states that The Club it's history & spirit have been sold and is now the responsibility of it's new owners. This document records the transaction of which 'Goodwill' was sold.  I hope that clears it up for you Ricky072 (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bad Synergy I thought you were, is that you now realising they are both different Clubs? So you now accept the Club is still in Administration, still owned by Craig Whyte and still being run by Duff and Phelps?.... "Sevco continues to run the Club" sevco is a Club in its self and the words "continues" is key ie. They continue to run their own Club, how could it "continues" when they are in effect aquiring something theyve never had before - you will find Sevco are legally defined in the definitions..... Ricky, you will not find Goodwill defined legally in the definitions - why? because its laughable and people would have literally urinated themselves if they said he bought history, Charles Green playing along with pretending to buy "goodwill" is total nonsence, unless we know what Goodwill is. Green could actually sue D&P for this to get his money back but we know Green is happy to perpetuate that he bought the Club and the Club is the same and the history is the same, so will have no interest in trying to do anything which undermines that--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They are not different clubs. If RFC were dissolved and supporters had to found a new club then yes it would be a new club. It is a newco club like Leeds etc. Thanks to Fishiehelper I found this article that explains the similarites. Leeds'To many fans the newco being a separate legal entity makes it distinct from the current Rangers' history. However, this was not what happened to Leeds United, to take one example from England, when their assets were moved to a newco in 2007. As far as the Football League and Uefa are concerned, Leeds have an unbroken history.' It is you that for some reason has decided newco clubs mean something else entirely. I didn't you see editing the other newco clubs pages it is as the reporter put it, 'the rivalry is more fever-pitched' in Scotland. BadSynergy (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

See if D&P wrote in the Definitions "Goodwill - All The Historical transactions, performances(and blah blah) of The Rangers Football Club PLC from the year 1872 until the year 2012", they could have done that but it would have opened up Sevco to be sued by people that The Rangers Football Club PLC owed money to. Thats why its not there. Equally they could have written "Goodwill - All the Historical Trophies and Accomplishments of The Rangers Football Club PLC from the year 1872 until 2012" but that would have literally been laughed at worldwide. Because you cant buy History. I cannot go up to Bad Synergy and say to him "Do you want to buy my history of owning a dog from 1989 until 1998?" it cant be done, how can you buy someone/somethings history. Imagine me buying the History of Maradona and Pele and Claimimg to be the best Footballer of all time.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Superbhoy, this document is a legal piece of evidence that details the transaction of the sale of a business. Your refusal to acknowledge 'goodwill' is merely your opinion and count for nothing.  This is a factual piece of evidence that will recognised by Wikipedia.  You cannot simply say "thats laughable & illegal Duff&Phelps should get sued". The sale of 'goodwill' is common practice in the business world so that Brand names can live on within a new company structure.  See 'Triumph' The motorcycle company.  Although the assets, name, goodwill etc were purchased in 1982 the company lays claim to 110 years of the brands history.  Quote "The new company (initially Bonneville Coventry Ltd) continued Triumph's record of motorcycle production since 1902."Ricky072 (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to claim you bought or own History and perpetuate a myth for their own gain. It's another thing for Duff and Phelps to say they legally sold. Hence why they never, could you imagine an International Company putting its self through the ridicule of saying it sold History from someone to someone else. They'd never have been taken seriously again.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Right heres your chance to convince me superbhoy show me the difference between the Rangers situation and lets say Leeds seeing as they are the most similar. BadSynergy (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again that is your opinion. I have provided a legal document as a source that the history was sold, and the goodwill is a recorded transaction purchased by a new company. Ricky072 (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Simple, Leeds were a New Club but the English FA let them transfer their memberships and licenses and under the eyes of the English FA remain the same Club, likewise Middlesborough - why? I havent a clue, honestly, maybe because they were seen as significant clubs or something. Who knows but for whatever reason the English FA allowed Leeds to be seen as the same club - are they? imo no. As we all know New Rangers didnt get to transfer their licenses or memberships and simply slip into the Old Clubs shoes. They are now in the process of applying to join the SFL. Ricky the fact is the Club wasn't sold, History cant be sold and Goodwill is not defined as to what it is--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again you say 'in your opinion'. We are trying to stay away from opinions and stick with facts.  Goodwill is the clubs history, like i said it is common practice within business.  Here is another article i'd like to refer you to which documents 'Goodwill' as an asset which entitles a phoenix company to retain the history of the previous brand name:  http://www.purnells.co.uk/limited-company/creditors-voluntary-liquidations/case-study-phoenix-company.html  Ricky072 (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia actually has it's own article on Goodwill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_%28accounting%29  it defines Goodwill as "brand, customers, intellectual capital".  Hope that clears that up. Ricky072 (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what it means - nothing. Thats why its never defined in any sale, because its there to perpetuate a myth accepted by both sides of the sale for the purpose of making out something is the same for both sides gain ie. We'll take your acceptable offer and let you pretend to be us.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again you are simply posting an opinion. By Wikipedias own definition Goodwill is 'the brand, custoemrs & intellectual capital'.  Imagine the soft-drink Coca-Cola was put up for sale by the Coca-cola company.  I could start a new company & purchase the manufacturing rights & the recipe so i could produce and sell the drink.  But if i wanted to keep on calling it 'Coca-Cola', the packaging, the logo, the brand history & retain the same customers, i would have to purchase 'The Goodwill'.  If i did not purchase the goodwill i would have to come up with a new brand name, a new logo, new packaging, and would have to try and win over the customers.  I'm sure you will be able to recognise the value in the 'goodwill' in this instance, the Brand name, intellectual capital & established customer base makes 'Coca-cola' one of the most valubale brands in the world. Ricky072 (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, for it to remain the same then they would just takeover the Coca Cola company. If they wanted it to be almost exactly the same like Green wants new Rangers. He would buy the recipe, the trademarks and copyrights plus the assets(buildings where its made) and take on any staff who were involved in employment with them before. Theres no "Goodwill" involved. They could replicate Coca Cola almost exactly the same just like Green is trying to replicate Rangers--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are factually wrong. purchasing the coca-cola company woudl also mean buying ALL of these brands:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coca-Cola_brands  it's legally possible to simply purchase the brand 'Coca-Cola / Coke', the recipe, branding rights etc... from 'The Coca-Cola company'.  To say otherwise is factually wrong. To say 'Goodwill' does not exist is also factually wrong.  Goodwill is an intangible asset and it's inclusion in business transactions is common practice. Ricky072 (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont know the ins and outs of Coca Cola as a company though. I dont know if Coca Cola is a company owned by the Coca Cola Group I assumed it was there. True it could be an asset of the Coca Cola company and an easy sale could be made. --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically a brand name is an assets that can be purchased. You cannot create a new soft drink and call it 'coca-cola'. The only way to do such a thing is to purchase the brand name.  the brand name is an asset contained in 'Goodwill'.  You can purchase the business, assets, manufacturing right, brand history, etc... and continue to trade as coca-cola, the same drink, just under a new company. it's common busines spractice. Ricky072 (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers crisis 'explained' (BBC)
BBC Rangers went into administration owing up to £134m to unsecured creditors and will eventually be liquidated. As a result its registrations with the Scottish FA and Scottish Premier League were terminated. Charles Green led a consortium which bought Rangers' assets for £5.5m. The former Sheffield United chief executive is reforming Rangers as a new company. But the 'newco' did not get the required votes for re-admittance to the SPL. Instead the new Rangers could start life in Scottish Division One or Three. Adam4267 (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * a quick bullet point summary put together by a journalist. All of these details are being discussed far more in depth.  "new Rangers" refers to the saem club being operated under a 'new company' in the same manner as Leeds. Ricky072 (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That is exactly(legally) what happened Adam. See if your a Rangers fan and Rangers(2012) sold you a season ticket pretending to be Rangers(1872) you could actually take them to court and say you were faulsely led to believe that this was the Club that you went to follow last year. This could happen for example if Rangers won the Scottish Cup last season, and New Rangers said on it "come support the Scottish Cup holders". That would be lying to the customer. Although no Rangers fan ever would do that, they could have, unless which id guess Rangers(2012) would cover themselves in the terms and conditions of a ticket etc purchase. Some people (Rangers fans) wont accept that though.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ricky072, your POV is that "new Rangers" refers to the same club being operated by a new company, and you again compare the situation to Leeds United. Okay then, why is that when you search for the phrase 'Newco Rangers' or 'Rangers newco', the phrase is used right across mainstream media to refer, but if you search for the phrase 'Newco Leeds' Newco Leeds United' or 'Leeds United newco' or 'Leeds Newco'...nothing? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a very weak argument Fishie. Ricky made the effort to show sources backing his claims and he gets hit with this? BadSynergy (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I mean for instance I just searched newco leeds there and got this article Leeds'To many fans the newco being a separate legal entity makes it distinct from the current Rangers' history. However, this was not what happened to Leeds United, to take one example from England, when their assets were moved to a newco in 2007. As far as the Football League and Uefa are concerned, Leeds have an unbroken history.' BadSynergy (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fishiehelper, this is an official document produced by the Football League in relation to disciplinary procedures againts Leeds for forming a newco. It refers to Leeds as 'Leeds Newco' throughout the document.  http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/4b/ec/0,,10794~126027,00.pdf I hope that will be sufficient for you, regards. Ricky072 (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is some find seeing as we're constantly told Leeds differ from this situation. BadSynergy (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

With due respect Ricky072, a document from www.football-league.co.uk is hardly mainstream media! I accept that there are a few occasions where the phrase 'Newco Leeds' or 'Leeds newco' was used, but not in the mainstream media. Why is this if the cases are as similar as you wish to suggest? Can you find any mainstream media outlet using the phrase 'Newco Leeds', 'Newco Leeds United', 'Leeds newco' or Leeds United newco' (excluding blogs or comments sections)? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when did wikipedia only accept mainstream media as sources? BadSynergy (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I woudl argue that that document is a far greater piece of evidence than an article in a tabloid. I'm sure you will also appreciate that the media coverage of both situations has been very different.  There are some media outlets to use the term 'newco leeds' or 'leeds newco' such as The Herald.  How many media sources used the term does not change the facts however that both used 'NewCo's' to purchase the business and assets. Ricky072 (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The debate could be ended it wikipedia accepted the word of Charles Green from video evidence. When he says "For someone who's a Rangers fan, what he's suggesting is that rather than get a CVA through that retains all the History and Tradition. That we should vote against it and go down the Newco route, I mean, why would a true fan suggest that." - Thats Green himself telling people that a CVA saves the Club, a Newco/New Club is indeed what is says on the tin.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He simply states that a CVA retains history. He did not state that a Newco means no history.  By the same token Bill Miller is quoted as saying that 'History [goodwill] is included in the assets when transfered to a newco' (paraphrase).Ricky072 (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the statement by HMRC clearly stating that liquidation / CVA are diferent routes but both allow the club to be sold is far more important than what Green said in a video, the grossly offensive video you posted and should have probably been sanctioned for. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Club has not been sold though. If you read through the Report, the Club sold the Business and Assets. The mere fact its the Club telling you what it sold in its self tells you its still alive and still in Administration.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/18417312 1min 58seconds QUOTE "The company will be passed into Liquidation, but just to stress, that the club will have already been sold and moved out of the company by then". Ricky072 (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers Football Club was not liquidated therefore this page is inaccurate.
Rangers Football Club was formed in 1872,27 years before it incorporated into a company in 1899. It won the League Championship in 1890 and 1898 and the Scottish Cup in 1894 and 1897,all before the club incorporated into the holding company in 1899,proving absolutely that the club wins the honours and the club is seperate from the company. For yet further proof of this we need go no further than the actual liquidaters themselves BDO. "It's important to understand that the appointment of liquidators will not mean the end of football at Ibrox - only the end of the company that ran the club," said Cohen(one of the joint liquidators). Yet further proof the club formed in 1872 still exists therefore to refer to it in past tense is totally wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.B.Cooper 1990 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The company formed in 1899 was not a holding company - a holding company owns other companies. The company formed in 1899 was the club being itself given a corporate identity. Your other points have been answered elsewhere so I won't repeat it all here yet again. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary iv'e read through majority of the articles and my points have absolutely not been answered elsewhere,i could post numerous links proving Club and Company are seperate from High Court Judges to the liquidators themselves,but Rangers Football Club formed in 1872 was not the company formed in 1899,it still exists,therefore hopefully this "joke" of an entry will soon revert back to it's previous and correct version. Looking at other Wiki pages of similar clubs such as Middlesborough or Luton i see no reference tothose clubs being made in the past tense and i see no reason for Rangers Football Club to be treated any differently. This page should be corrected hopefully after Friday and Rangers Football Club discover what league they are playing in it will be.D.B.Cooper 1990 (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No one says they were Liquidated, they are still in Administration and Liquidation is due and yes Rangers is the Company. Have you not noticed Rangers real name when created was The Rangers Football Club, when they became a Limited Company they legally had to change their name to have either Limited or Ltd in it, they chose Ltd and then became known as The Rangers Football Club Ltd, they are now The Rangers Football Club PLC(In Administration). Just for clarification too. Rangers Football Club is only a trademarked name, its not actually a Club, just a name used by The Rangers Football Club PLC the same as Celtic Football Club is a trademarked name of Celtic PLC--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi D.B.Cooper 1990, welcome to Wikipedia. It seems Rangers (1872)'s own supporters understood the situation and correctly equated liquidation with the death of their club, see here. Of course, most are now pretending otherwise! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * D.B.Cooper 1990, you think the edits that suggest Rangers Football Club is or has died are a "joke"? Perhaps if you read this you will see that those who suggest that Rangers Football Club has died or will be dead shortly are not just making it up! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is a joke yes, it is grossly inaccurate which has been explained on numerous occasions. Sadly you three are the main ones continuing to block the article being fixed no matter how many sources are provided showing that the club continues to exist and that a club and company are two separate things.  BritishWatcher (talk)
 * As i have asked a number of times.. Why did HMRC say that if the old company went into liquidation it in no way would prevent the sale of the club? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that one fulminating case of the WP:PLAGUE and two or three WP:SPAs from Rangers web forums have come along and produced reams of repetitive text with little if any relevant content. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see several people spending a lot of time giving detailed arguments with sources to show that the article is wrong. It is understandable, when i took a look at this article i was stunned at how grossly inaccurate it was. Then to find out the wording was imposed without consensus and those on here trying to justify it refuse to recognise clear sources showing the club and company are separate things. It is shocking. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What I find shocking is that some editors can not accept that Rangers Football Club itself became a company in 1899 - it was a single entity before it became a company and remained a single entity after it became a company. That single entity is now being liquidated = the death of the 'old Rangers'. There is no doubt that the assets and business interests were bought Green's consortium with the intention of continuing to run the business as a newco. However, this newco club is widely seen in the mainstream media as not merely a continuation of the old Rangers but a relaunched/reborn/reformed club, and reliable sources are there a plenty to illustrate that fact. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fishie, this is simply your theory, or interpration. Your essentially saying a club can never be broken away from the company, which in actual fact is common practice.  The biggest issue here is how Wikipedia documents football clubs.  If you had your way we would have different Wiki pages for every single company rather than the clubs. For example the Chartlon F.C page woudl have to be heavily edited to document it as a company until 1984.  We would then need to recreate a 2nd Wikipedia page for Charlton AFC Ltd (1984), and document it's history from 1984 onwards. This is essentially what you are campaigning for here.  IT's not just Rangers, your campaign extents beyond and applies to all clubs who have have been 'moved' to new companies. Ricky072 (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/top-football-stories/rangers-takeover-doncaster-reveals-newco-could-escape-spl-exit-1-2302872 Neil Doncaster “The football club will continue to be there [in the SPL]; it’s only the corporate entity that changes. The matter for debate is on which basis the club’s football share is transferred to that new entity,”. In terms of seeing any Rangers newco as the same as the old club, Doncaster is consistent. For any punishments arising from the SPL’s ongoing investigation into non-disclosure of payments to players at the Ibrox club between 1998 and 2010 would be imposed on a newco. “You would expect the football club to take with it responsibility for anything that emerged from that investigation,” Doncaster said.
 * http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/why-rangers-fc-continues-even-in-newco-and-why-this-is-no-use-to-ceo-green/ "If Rangers FC is willing to pay the price for its misdeeds, then it gets to keep its history." So if the newco accepts any SFA sanctions with transfer of its membership, then that makes the identity of the club separate from the company. S2mhunter (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This club is still alive
The company soon will be liquidated, the club remain! TheLightBlue (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "SPL chairmen met at Hampden to vote on the new club's application to replace the old Rangers in the top flight." I'm sure the spirit of the old Rangers will live on in the new. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"As a result of this decision, the Sale and Purchase Agreement in place with the consortium led by Charles Green will take effect and Rangers Football Club will continue within a new company structure. (...) HMRC has taken the view that the public interest will be better served with the liquidation of The Rangers Football Club plc as a corporate entity. The Club will continue to operate as it has always done but within a new company structure" TheLightBlue (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * BBC News report speaks of 'the demise of Rangers' and 'under which circumstances Charles Green's Ibrox newco will take its place". Check the meaning of 'demise' in your dictionary - my one says 'death'. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, "demise of Rangers", not "demise of Rangers Football Club (founded: 1872)". "...newco will take its place" - "its"="The Rangers Football Club plc. (founded: 1899)" TheLightBlue (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers Football Club still exists therefore this page is grossly inaccurate.
I certainly don't think this is a subject that should be decided or judged on by Celtic fans for obvious reasons and i'm sure any independent observer will agree with that. But at the end of the day this being Wikipedia by it's very nature everyone knows not everything you read on it can be taken as fact. However getting back to the main discussion,club is most definately seperate from company and Rangers Football Club has most definately and will not be liquidated. Proof? So many examples..let's start with the administrators D&P.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/18417312

Paul Clark makes it perfectly clear that the Rangers Football Club has already been moved OUT of the old company and INTO the new company or "newco". There are more quotes from D&P. "The Club will continue to operate as it has always done but within a new company structure." - Paul Clark "However, we should make it clear that Rangers Football Club will continue within a new company structure and the Club survives and will continue playing football at Ibrox." - Paul Clark. But moving on why not look at Supreme High Court judge Lord Glennie in the recent litigation between Rangers and the SFA?

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html

Note the first sentences. "This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA"), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA and by the Judicial Panel Protocol which sets out the disciplinary rules relating to the conduct of members of the SFA and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to enforce such rules." Obviously Lord Glennie makes the distinction between the company and the club,"newco" is simply the company that now run the club,if not the above judicial review would be scrapped,and this as we know is not happening and Rangers Football Club will still have to decide whether to accept the imposed trasfer ban. Where else can we look? SPL maybe? Rangers are currently under investigation over the use of EBT'S and double contracts which could lead to more sanctions. SPL Chief Mr Doncaster said “You would expect the football club to take with it responsibility for anything that emerged from that investigation”. Note the use of the word club again. And what about the case of Hibernian FC? Hibs ceased to exist in 1897,ten years after winning the Scottish Cup and three years after winning Division Two yet these honours still remain on Hibernian's history even though the club wasn't reformed until one year later so obviously the SFA have set a precedent in clubs reforming and keeping their history intact. Anywhere else? How about BDO the liquidators themselves? "Malcolm Cohen and James Stephen from financial company BDO have been appointed as Joint Liquidators. "It's important to understand that the appointment of liquidators will not mean the end of football at Ibrox - only the end of the company that ran the club," said Cohen. Again,more proof if any was needed that the club remains. How about a National newspaper? http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/rangers/ Cheif Executive Charles Green,Chairman Malcolm Murray,Founded 1873..clearly they believe Rangers Football Club still exists. There are many such examples one can produce to prove unequivocally that Rangers Football Club remains and therefore the use of past tense on this page is undoubtedly a gross error..hopefully this will soon be rectified.D.B.Cooper 1990 (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To add to your first source, the interview with Paul Clark, QUOTE "The company will be passed into liquidation, but just to stress, the club will have already been sold and moved out of the company by then" Ricky072 (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not either a Rangers or Celtic fan, but my point is that Wikipedia - and every encylopedia - isn't the Companies House or any official football federation to treat clubs as companies. Its job is to provide information about the history of a club as a whole, since it has the same name, the same logo, the same fans, the same media, even if a dozen of companies have operated it throughout its history. This article isn't about "The Rangers FC Plc". It's about the Rangers Football Club, since it wasn't even a company. Every contributor should understand what the spirit, the role and the purpose of an encycopedia is. Rangers F.C. is a club no matter what some wikipedians say. 2.84.25.106 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The club, which dates back to 1872, will now be wound up
Quote from BBC news report, 11th July 2012: "The club, which dates back to 1872, will now be wound up by liquidators BDO after a thorough investigation into its financial affairs over the past few years." Of course the club only became a company in 1899 so this article is definitely meaning to identify the club, rather than the company, as being about to be wound up. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Its factually inaccurate, it is a company that is being wound up, a company that no longer owns rangers football club. This article is contradicted by the numerous other sources provided above and is more about the wording of the sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should put the debate on hold until after the SFA make a desicion on what to do with Rangers' membership following the vote of the SFL. Here's hoping it makes things clearer. S2mhunter (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I only posted that source because I knew it would provide evidence of why this will have to go all the way to a high level dispute resolution, followed by full protection for the affected articles thereafter: editors (on both sides) will merely dismiss as 'inaccurate' sources that disagree with their own POV. I would like to think it possible that something said by the SFA or SFL could help decide this dispute, but I think it unlikely. For example, if the SFA were to say something unequivocal like "we are transferring Rangers' membership of the SFA to the newco club because it is the same original club in a different corporate structure", I would accept that and agree that a single article on wikipedia was appropriate. However, if the SFA were to say something like 'it had agreed to transfer Rangers' SFA membership to Sevco Scotland and welcomed the new Rangers club into membership', would others accept that the reference to 'new Rangers club' meant it was not being regarded as 'the same original club' and accept that two separate articles on wikipedia were appropriate? Looking forward to your replies... Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * there no harm to the debate as each side will provide more and more sources which helps the request for comment i am doing have more for user not involved to read over and make there own decision on, hopefully the should be ready soon i wont do it until after monday or tuesday when hopefully the sfl decision will be done, spl promotion decision and sfa decision on share transfer, then we will have the most recent sources to and hopefully statements from sfl and sfa and spl which should hold water. Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * i agree i really hope that sfa,spl,sfl will just say if it is anew club there admitting or the same old club it will make this dispute easy to resolve and no ambudigite but i fear the same as you fisherhelper it will go to the highest level on wikipedia and full protection indefinitely for all effected articles-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * if they same admit the new rangers club i dnt think it will be clear enough at that to sy beyonda doubt, they need to say it as we are admit a new club called rangers but with no attachment to the old rangers to be beyonda doubt Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that things will hopefully become a lot clearer tomorrow, so it might be best if we wait and see the developments. Although we will have to look carefully at the wording. I do not agree that if person says "the new rangers will" in a statement it means that this is no longer the same club, it would have to be far more unequivocal than that specifically stating it is a different football club to the old one, and if that did happen then the resolution of how to handle the articles will still be in doubt and take a lot of time to resolve, as many would argue that the new active club is the "primary topic". But i would hope the footballing authorities are clear and the media are clear so we do not have mixed messages one way or the other. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well at least we all now agree tomorrow is best time to start making judgement and hopefully it will all be clearer for us all to know one way or another and i hope then dnt postpone the vote like reports are suggestign and potential postponign the start of tge season Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers is dissolved, Edit request
I request that it would be helpful near the founded collum to say Dissolved 2012 as the club dissolved into a different club (Z2A (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC))
 * Strong Oppose even if we assume that the club is getting liqduaited, the liquidation process has not started so there not dissolved yet check companies house-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Rangers has only entered the liquidation process - - not finalised yet so such a change would be premature. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * incredibly innaccurate "The Rangers Football Club Plc" may never be dissolved, it's perfectly legal that the company can remain in a dormant state of 'in liquidation'. The liquidation process may take several years aswell.  It took the liquidators of Leeds United's OldCo 5 years just to settle who was owed money, and how much:  http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/yorkshire/news/321645-liquidators-agree-leeds-united-creditor-claims.html?news_section=253059 Ricky072 (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Portsmouth
Just wondering what both sides think of Portsmouth situation and what is happening, they have got a cva agreed but it getting done via a newco route so just wondering thoughts on it, not make comparison just know that comparison are getting done so thought i get responses on this one http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18578555-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * fisherhelper response to other similar ones seems to have answered it sanctions -- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrewcrawford, you just beat me to posting. This is what I had tried to say before 'edit conflict' stopped me!
 * A Football League statement read: “The Board of The Football League has agreed to make an offer of membership to the eventual purchaser of Portsmouth Football Club. The offer is subject to the successful bidder accepting a number of conditions that seek to ensure the sporting integrity of league football and the financial viability of the club going forward." Two thoughts: it is an agreed CVA as part of a new company buying the club - no suggestion that they are just trying to buy the assets without an agreed CVA. Secondly, even with the club being purchased with an agreed CVA in place, 'sporting integrety' requires sanctions on the new owner. Interesting. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * a CVA newco is not a problem if achieved. A CVA being agreed means the OldCo comes out of administraion (so the OldCo goes from being "status: in administration" to "status: active"), then there is no issue between new owners transferring the club to a newco, and the FA will sanction the move of the 'league share' aswell without an issue, and no furtehr sanctions will occur. It's a common misconception that this is what happened at Leeds, most people are under the impression that eventually a CVA was agreed, but it wasn't. Ricky072 (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)