Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 35

Liquidation
Rangers FC where liquidated, there is no getting away from that FACT, A football club, once incorporated, is indistinguishable in Scots law from its corporate identity. Club=Company. New company, therefore new club - there is no escaping the fact.Rangers FC where liquidated, thats why the new club are in division 3. Its weird the lengths people will go to even telling lies,damned lies in order to perpetuate an unbelievable myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.28.193 (talk) 5 September 2013

( IP editors' comments re-posted/moved here by 220  of  Borg 09:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC) )
 * If you want to preach about 'Scot's Law' then the least you can do is learn the difference between 'where' and 'were', it might give you some credibility. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Its funny that before Rangers actually went into Administration that the News was actually saying the "CLub" could continue by doing exactly what Rangers did do..Funny that.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/277010-what-happens-when-a-football-club-goes-into-administration/ http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/277115-what-happens-when-a-club-in-administration-sets-up-a-phoenix-company/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.146.132 (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The legal view of the this new club/old club debate
"UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations"

"A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions" Thats just a snippet from a legal document on the UEFA Club licencing rules,which as you could see(even if you where Mr Magoo or Stevie Wonder) clearly states what a football club is in terms of status, thus ending all debate as to the status the Rangers FC 2012-, again I know its sad, and I know it probably hurts, but this is a legal document,Its not even up to interpretation, it is that clear. Scottish law in regards to a business claiming the history of another makes the very same conclusion, all in all. This Rangers FC are a new club, categorically and therefore the page should be edited forthwith to comply with the standard wikipedia sets and not based on Rangers fans with an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.44.168 (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of what the UEFA Regulation say, and how it may apply to this article, is classic original research. Wikipedia does not contain the original research of Wikipedia editors.  If you don't understand the problem with what you are doing, then please and read the policy and understand what an encyclopaedia is.    Please also cease to cast aspersions on other editors.  You have no idea what club they may, or may not, align themselves with, or whether it forms any kind of "agenda".  It is not helpful and childish.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I will say these editors ARE Rangers fans because its obvious that anyone who has read the rules will know Rangers where liquidated,again YOU Rangers fans are trying to pick holes in a legal document from UEFA which clearly states what a club is.Rangers where liquidated and those assets sold on,there was no change of the structure because that club was LIQUIDATED.you dont just restructure after liquidation because your dead. Your literally trying to flog off a dead horse.I get no enjoyment whatsoever of making you people sorry 'peepil' from continually spouting lies,its just sad that your willing to stoop to such a pathetic level in order to perpetuate a myth when theres a legal statement from the head of the organisation of the government body.. its ludicrious,ridiculous and if it wasnt so pitiful it'd be funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.201.136 (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This article reflects what the relevant authorities say. That's what encyclopaedia's do.  They do not go examining rules that may, or may not, be relevant and making up their own interpretation that may, or may not, be correct.  If you have an issue with what these authorities and reliable sources (the SPL and ECA, among others) have said I suggest you take it up with them.  Complaining about it here is what's "flogging off a dead horse".  Until you can produce a source that has UEFA saying "Rangers are a new club" you have precisely nothing, except your own original research.  Your zeal for the truth (cos' that why you're here, I can't think of any other reason for you being so insistent on the issue) is a misguided waste of everyone's time, rehashing tired arguments that have already been discussed. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I see we are just picking out what we want to see from the "UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regs". I believe that was just part 1 of the "Definition of licence applicant". Here it is in full:

''1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions which either: a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter: registered member); or b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football company). 2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.''

Now i beleve Rangers did make an alteration to their company structure in the way of a new company running the club, hence due to fair play rules cannot be obtain a license for 3 full seasons. Nowhere does it state or imply that any club that changes their company become a new Football Club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.146.132 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what anyone thinks what the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regs says, whether it supports the argument of Rangers being a new, or an old club. It's still original research.  So it's pointless even discussing it.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Incredible as it may seem the follow followers are still making it up as they go along,it beggars belief. anyway heres yet more proof that Rangers FC where liquidated. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45/contents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.52.159 (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please indicate where this link you're using mentions Rangers, or discusses its basis of a club, or its length of history. I've tried to explain a number of times what constitutes original research.  Are you unclear about any of it?  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Holding Company you say ?
Rangers holding company at the time of liquidation was Wavetower Limited, renamed to The Rangers FC Group Limited. This is not what you bought shares in.

You bought shares in The Rangers Football Club PLC, which is being liquidated.

So just to be sure here, are you saying you bought shares in a holding company, either Murray International Holdings, or Wavetower Limited, instead of The Rangers Football Club PLC? Truth - you can't handle the truth. The continued deletion of my investigations yet again go against wikipedia's good faith policy when I have more than provided evidence which proves beyond all reasonable doubt that football club is dead, wavetower was not liquidated, it was Rangers.

http://www.the-playmaker.com/viewimage.forum?u=http%3A%2F%2Fgyazo.com%2F681228fd1b53b8d396d10d3d423436fa.png%3F1352153452 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.54.61 (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "my investigations" = original research. Are you listening to a single word anyone is saying to you? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I KNOW its not a fan site,its YOU guys who have a vested interest in pepetrating the myth of Rangers,you know it. Its lies,if it was a true encylopedia it would FACTUALLY state what Rangers FC wgere.Its Rangers supporters AND people pretending not to be Rangers supports.Its an illness,pure and simple and it does not matter jot if its originL research or not,its factual,its honest and its true.Rangers FC do not exist anymore.


 * Mr Orbit, Your using yet more smoke and mirrors, your own club legend Walter Smith,your director of communications James Traynor,your former captain Terry Butcher have ALL describe the described the current club who play at Ibrox as a new club,also the judges comments where not the issue he was asked to rule on,if he did he would have concluded it is a new football club,there is not the slightest doubt about that..and be honest with yourself,you know it aswell,you do- I understand why your saying what your saying but its wrong,its factually inaccurate ,complete balony.Its a hard thing to accept but sometimes people need to face upto the overwhelming evidence,not just look for the smallest loophole then insist a lie is a truth.its not right.
 * I have no idea what you are on about. Rangers is not "my own club" and none of these people are mine.  You have failed to grasp something fundamental; this is not a fansite, this is an encyclopedia. As a responsible editor of Wikipedia I try to ensure that its content accurately reflects authoritative and reliable source, not the original research of fans, of any persuasion. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This Rangers 'same club' from a legal perspective
First of all, Im not about having a personal issue with fans of Rangers(old and new) Its about transparency,my aim has always been about the integrity of wikipedia,I view these issues from a non biased pov. I have carefully studied all the available evidence and have weighed up what has been said,and the Rangers FC of today most certainly ARE a new footballing club, Im sorry to say that and was hoping there would be some crumb for those supporters to grasp but there is not and here is why. state in Article 12 of their UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations:

1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions which either: a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter: registered member); or b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football company). 2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision. I accept legally that the club was liquidated but what is a club ? its the fans and the spirit of Rangers, the very essence of the club will never die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.64.47.169 (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The UEFA Club License is actually issued by the SFA, although they must follow UEFA’s regulations in awarding it. The UEFA License is required in order to play in the top flight of any European league set up.

Now, when The Rangers Football Club eventually gains promotion to SPFL Premier Division, or whatever they choose to call it, they will need to meet the criteria for a UEFA Club License.

The Scottish Football Association, as the awarding body, must ensure that The Rangers Football Club meets the criteria before granting the license.

The SFA has already accepted that Rangers cannot be awarded a UEFA Club License at this point in time, on the grounds that it has not been a member of the Scottish Football Association for the requisite three consecutive years, although they are happy for the “three years of audited accounts” myth to be widely quoted as the reason for Rangers’ “ban” from European action.

When the time comes for the SFA to award The Rangers FC that UEFA Club License, they must award it to the legal entity fully responsible for the football team playing out of Ibrox.

They cannot award a UEFA Club License to the collection of assets that allegedly constitutes the football club founded in 1872 currently playing out of Ibrox.

Such a club is not a legal entity, and as such, cannot be a member of the Scottish Football Association, nor can it have a contractual relationship with a member.

If and when “Rangers FC” gains a UEFA Club License on gaining promotion to SPFL Premier Division, it will be awarded, by the SFA, to The Rangers Football Club Limited.

The SFA will thereby recognise The Rangers Football Club Limited as “the club,” playing out of Ibrox. A club founded in May 2012.

The Scottish Football Association cannot escape this reality.

It can fudge the issue. It can procrastinate.

But it cannot avoid forever the necessity to declare Rangers FC a new club.

The Scottish Football Association cannot award Rangers FC a UEFA Club License at some point in the future, yet allow them to claim 140+ years of history.

They should grasp the nettle and make that declaration now – Rangers is a new club. The SFA has in fact never stated that Rangers (1872) continues. Through a mixture of cowardice, pragmatism and reluctance, the SFA has officially stated precisely nothing publicly with regards to the new club/same club issue.

What the SFA has done, through inaction, is allow the same club myth to grow.

UEFA likewise, have stated nothing publicly with regards to the new club/same club issue. An indication of how UEFA are likely to regard the club currently playing at Ibrox is their treatment of Derry City.

Derry City entered liquidation in 2009, and a new club was formed from the ashes. In 2012, the new Derry City qualified for the Europa League, but was refused a place by UEFA, on the grounds that they had not been members of the FAI for three consecutive years.

This year, Derry City have again qualified for the preliminary rounds of the Europa League, but have not been credited with the coefficient points of the old club, despite their still appearing on the coefficient table. Nowhere in the asset purchase is “Rangers FC” or “the club” listed as amongst the assets sold to Sevco Scotland, or Sevco 5088.

Duff & Phelps sold Ibrox Stadium, Murray Park, the lease on the Albion carpark and Rangers’ trademarks to Sevco Scotland.

Sevco Scotland did not purchase as single share in The Rangers Football Club plc, the entity formed in 1872 and incorporated in 1899.

If “Rangers FC” is a separate entity from The Rangers Football Club Ltd, it can exist only in the ethereal realm of the collective Rangers consciousness.

Sevco Scotland’s “Rangers FC,” can never qualify for a UEFA license for the following reasons related to Article 12 of the FFP regulations:

1)	It is not a legal entity responsible for the running of a football team 2)	As it is not a legal entity, it is not, and can never be, a member of a national association. 3)	As it is not a legal entity, it does not have, and never can have, a contractual relationship with a member of a national association

The legal entity responsible for the running of a football team out of Ibrox Stadium is The Rangers Football Club Ltd (formerly Sevco Scotland).

The member of the Scottish Football Association currently operating out of Ibrox Stadium is The Rangers Football Club Ltd (formerly Sevco Scotland), formed in 2012.

The member of the Scottish Football Association currently operating out of Ibrox Stadium has, and can have, no contractual relationship with the ethereal “Rangers Football Club” its fans claim to support because lacking legal form, it cannot enter into a contractual relationship.

In two years’ time, The Rangers Football Club Ltd will meet the criteria for a UEFA Club License. UEFA will not be able to “recognise” it as a club formed in 1872, because the legal entity that is the football club playing out of Ibrox was formed only in 2012.

I’m sure we can all agree that there are no problems with The Rangers Football Club Ltd positioning itself as the successor club of the 140 year old club that slipped into liquidation in 2012.

There can be no possible objections to their fans taking whatever pleasure they can from the numerous titles and cups won by the old club.

What we cannot accept though, is a one year old club claiming titles and trophies won in the Victorian era as their own.

What must be remembered though is that The Rangers Football Club Ltd is not the real villain of this piece.

The real villain is the Scottish Football Association, which feeds and nurtures the same club myth with its public silence and private misinformation to anyone who asks if The Rangers Football Club Ltd as the owners of a football club founded in 1872. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.52.221 (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia relies on sources for a pages content, not original research. In this whole section there is not one source, it reads more like a blog post. BadSynergy (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be because it is. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is this about 'Rangers' from a legal perspective and not about any other club, or simply, a legal perspective on all football clubs & subsequent insolvency events and ownership? I hear alto of Celtic fans peddle this line that "once incorporated....".  It seems to imply that a club becomes incorporate and it's a bond that cannot be undone.  Yet their own club is run by a companny incorporated in 1994.  Nearly half the clubs in the English professional ranks are now run by different companies than the ones that originally ran them.  Some have liquidated like Charlton, Leeds etc...  Some maybe have just restructured. Coventry City 'liquidated' days before this current season kicked off yet nobody has barely even batted an eye-lid.  If you want to make the case, that if the company that owns/runs a club liquidates and sells everything off to a 'newco' constitutes a brand new club then feel free to do so, in broader terms - not just with Rangers.  Perhaps start with Charlton or Middlesborough, they did it in the 80's and i suppose you feel they have been committing fraud for nigh on 30 years?  Maybe you should go back much further to the early 1900's/late 180's and look at Hearts FC and Hibernian FC?  You could go to Europe, Napoli.  Fiorentina.  Or are you here, discussing 'legal perspectives' only for Rangers, because you have an agenda?  Either way, enjoy fighting your losing battle. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Im not fighting a losing battle because I have the truth and integrity on my side,the Rangers fans who're editing this page are liars,simple as that. The really sad thing about the whole situation is that they know inside theyre a new club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.53.204 (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tell it to the judge. ... or has he already made a definitive legal ruling? My bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.35.2 (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet more proof Rangers died
I accept the spirit lives on in the new football club, but here are what the media made of it all. If it's the same club, corrections are needed from almost every media outlet in the land. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/19/kevin-mackenna-rangers-scottish-football?INTCMP=SRCH http://www.login.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/football/the-thin-blue-line.16812532 http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4168947/Nearby-a-Gers-hero-was-spinning-in-his-grave.html http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-in-crisis-scots-millionaire-brian-1118430 http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/299754-dunfermline-have-problems-with-new-rangers-spl-entry/ http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/league-warning-for-new-blues.16947729 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/9178433/Rangers-manager-Ally-McCoist-adamant-club-wont-die-despite-revelations-new-owners-will-look-to-start-afresh.html http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,11095_7647561,00.html http://www.skysports.com/trackcycling/article/0,29329,11095_7648664,00.html http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/jim-traynor-column-rangers-must-1119155 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-in-crisis-blue-knights-consortium-1120560 http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/317632/Brian-Kennedy-and-Blue-Knights-say-only-they-can-save-Rangers http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/98034-rangers-administrators-cannot-give-100-guarantee-over-liquidation/ http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/article4343450.ece http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4347649/Rangers-are-leading-our-game-down-the-road-to-ANARCHY.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jun/12/rangers-deeply-disappointed-hmrc-move?INTCMP=SRCH Thats just some, there are many many many more.
 * These same media outlets now claim it is the same club so wiki has to reflect what they say. BadSynergy (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is well accepted that a lot of the reporting around this time was speculative, conflicting and no-one knew exactly what the outcome was going to be. So I don't know what your point is. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Again tabloids for the proof the club died. Why is it they can only supply tabloid links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.146.132 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see also the correction in the following (non-tabloid) article.

http://www.business7.co.uk/business-news/scottish-business-news/2013/02/13/former-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-most-searched-for-uk-company-director-in-2012-106408-23958796/#.UkQKIw7N-VF.twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangerhead (talk • contribs) 11:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry, but this is still a tabloid story. It is part of the same company who own The Daily Record and Sunday Mail. Its not from a source that has a say in football or the law. Its a news site..Or a Tabloid Business News site if you wish. Its also from February when the papers were still trying the "Newco" angle to get sales...Again as it was mentioned by BadSynergy, most if not all of them have changed their opinion to say its the same club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.146.132 (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Argyle
A discussion was started here re this. There so far have been no reliable sources presented to back the claim up. Rangers do not list any other name for the club in the official history nor do any of the book sources i can find. In addition as stated at previous discussion site the Scottish Historical football archive which is an extensive database lists no such club the only one it does have was formed in 1876 and in 1877 became Carradale, this states linked to club Rangers, not is Rangers. Again though this is several years too late to be same club. So as it stands we don't have reliable sources and even if we get a couple it contradicts the official history and the history in reliable books such as the Scottish Football encyclopaedia and Rangers books. There simply at this time is not enough to back claim and even with a couple it will need discussed as if sources contradict we need to have consensus as to which is more reliable to be used in an encyclopaedia. Blethering  Scot  23:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The History of Rangers an Asset ?
Heres what Charles Green's consortium bought.

Assets	Price Goodwill	£1 SPL Share	£1 SFA Membership	£1 Leasehold Interests	£1 Player Contracts & Registrations	£2,749,990 Stock	£1 Plant & Machinery	£1,250,000

Nowhere is Rangers FC listed as an asset. Nowhere is the history of Rangers FC listed as an asset. Yet, a thesis has been postulated that a company’s history can be sold as a separate item in a company asset sale.

Slam and DUNK! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.52.159 (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is a statement from the Report from Duff & Phelps on the sale of Rangers FC:

"Receipts and Payments 4.6 A summarised receipts and payments account for the period of this report is shown at Appendix 2. This shows an estate balance of £6,300,287 as at 29 June 2012, including an amount of £5,500,000 received from Sevco in relation to its acquisition of the business, history and assets of the Company (see Section 5 for additional details in relation to the sale process)."

Im not an expert, but i am sure that says history in that...I also believe it says that the club is being run by a different company:

"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."

Im afraid that is a fail Dunk...0 Points! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.146.132 (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Rangers are playing in the Scottish league and they have their history because no-one else has a use for it. Now please go and do something more productive with your time. There are many articles here that would benefit from your determination and misdirected persistence. Britmax (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Duff and Phelps never sold Rangers because Rangers where liquidated, they sold off the assets which Ive already mentioned above.Rangers dont exist anymore except in the minds of people who refuse to see the truth,Wavetower was the holding company of Rangers, the actual football club was liquidated, lights out, dead as a dodo - GONE into the annuls of history.I have proven this without a shread of doubt.

You have not proven anything...All you are saying is YOUR word. You mention that the only people that believe Rangers FC still exist are the ones who refuse to see the truth...Yet The SFA, SFL, SPL, ECA, Reps of the Law and of course documents supplied to the courts from the Administrators stating the Sale of the FOOTBALL CLUB its self. People on here have provided links to back up their cause for it being the same club from reputable sources, yet people like yourself provide links to the tabloids who will print anything to get them to buy their papers, even BBC Scotland who were told they were WRONG by their own BBC Trust. Its not the ones who think its the same club who are in denial...Its the ones that dont believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.146.132 (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * But the Sevco consortium did not buy Rangers as a "going concern", otherwise they would have had to take on the old club's debts! Yesterday a prominent member of the SFA board likened Sevco to Rory Bremner impersonating Tony Blair. A load of players refused to transfer from Rangers to Sevco, Sevco took legal action for breach of contract... and lost. If they are the same club why didn't they get Rangers' seeding in the domestic Cups? Why can't they play in Europe? Another thing which differentiates this from other football liquidations was the distinct break in the timeline: last summer we had one 'club' with a licence but no players or stadium, and another 'club' with the stadium, (some of the) players but no licence. During this time the new club had to cancel friendlies and stuff because the other (same?) club held the licence. After being bullied and threatened with thousands of semi-literate poison pen letters, BBC Scotland actually made it very succinct; the 1872 club was incorporated (ie. became a company), it was never unincorporated, therefore in Scots law when it was liquidated the old club ceased too. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He told 3000 supporters gathered in the Kerrydale Suite at Parkhead: “Rory Bremner can pretend to be Tony Blair.” Lawwell later insisted he was only joking, adding: “I was just injecting a wee bit of humour into proceedings.” BadSynergy (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Owner
Surely the owner of a club is the immediate owner rather than the ultimate owner. What is listed in the infobox is not the immediate owner - that is The Rangers Football Club ltd - nor is it the ultimate owner as that would be the major shareholders. Is there any advantage in listing the company that owns the company that owns Rangers? 109.154.196.201 (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The PLC is the owner of the club, the Ltd company is the company in which the club operates through. Vanguard  Scot  19:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the sort of misunderstanding I'm trying to prevent. The Ltd company was the entity that bought Rangers in June 2012 when it was known as Sevco Scotland so it became the owner at that point. The PLC was then set up as a holding company to own the Ltd company. Therefore, the immediate owner is the Ltd company and not the PLC which owns the Ltd company. 86.183.185.148 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should leave it as unknown or TBC, since Sevco 5088 still have a claim over the assets? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are numerous sources which detail that Sevco 5088 has no claim over Rangers' assets. BadSynergy (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that the immediate owner should be recorded - The Rangers Football Club Ltd (formally Sevco Scotland Ltd). 86.183.185.148 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Rangers Football Club Ltd is the name of the company that owns the club so it should be the name used. The fact that this company is in turn owned by another is not the point. Regards Fishiehelper5 (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion. Absolutely correct that The Rangers Football Club Ltd is the owner of the club - that's what should be reported in the infobox. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact since no-one has commented for 5 days until me, I assume this point has now been accepted, so I'll make the change. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that. Is there any specific need for references in the infobox though, as per WP:References in infoboxes? It is mentioned numerous times in the text and referenced there too (reference 91 for example) Vanguard  Scot  20:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Ally McCoist and insolvency
I tried to update this subheading this morning but was reverted on grounds that the heading had been agreed on talk page. Well I've looked for it and the discussion was not recent - in fact it maybe happened before Rangers Football Club PLC was formally liquidated? My point is that what happened in 2012 was more than insolvency as it resulted in the company being liquidated - a terrible time for Ally and everyone else. That should be reflected in the subheading so 'Ally McCoist and liquidation' would be more accurate. However, the story didn't end with liquidation as the club relaunched in the 3rd division, so I changed the title to 'Ally McCoist, liquidation and relaunch'...but was reverted. Can I propose that that subheading would be more up to date/accurate and more positive than 'Ally McCoist and insolvency'. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You were involved in the discussion. Have a look at your own talk page and you will see you were warned about going against the consensus and changing it a year ago. Ally McCoist and insolvency covers it unless we can gain consensus to change it (I tried in the past and failed to get consensus for a change). It covers on the pitch matters (Ally McCoist) and off the pitch matters (insolvency) in a clear and concise manner. Vanguard  Scot  20:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'd actually forgotten about that! I haven't been editing for a while but got some holidays so decided to do a bit again. As I understand it, the process of liquidation was only completed after that discussion, so has been overtaken by event. I suggest we need to re-open it because facts have changed. Lots of companies become insolvent but some of those are saved and some are liquidated. Time this is updated to make clear that this was not just an insolvency event - it was a liquidation event. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The liquidation procedure will actually take years, that was AndrewCrawrfords point at the time, and it has nothing to do with the club, the club was bought by a new company 6 months before the liquidation procedures started. The title shouldn't be overcomplicated. "Ally McCoist and insolvency" covers the section fine IMO without being too controversial. Rather than something like Ally McCoist, administration, liquidation of the old company, transfer to new company, and relaunch in the third division. It's overkill. cheers, Vanguard  Scot  22:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Leave it as it is. As has been seen many times before when editing this article; no matter what you put, there will be someone who jumps in and say "I don't agree with that", which invariably causes edit-warring on this page talking about "Sevco" and the Celtic F.C. page talking about "Pacific Shelf" or whatever. To get a consensus on the Rangers situation at all, especially one that's even slightly negative towards Rangers, is remarkable to be honest lol --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Vanguard Scot, Sevco did not buy the club – to do so they would have had to take it on as a "going concern" including all its debts. Like when Craig Whyte bought it for £1 in 2011. Sevco supposedly bought the club's "business and assets", but only after liquidation was confirmed. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there is a current wikipedia editor consensus that says so. That consensus was gained before I joined wikipedia and is backed up by numerous sources including from SPL, SFL, SPFL, SFA, UEFA, and ECA. I don't want to cover old discussions again so please see this talk pages archives for more details. Also liquidation procedures were not started until the new company had bought the 'business and assets, including Rangers F.C.". Check your facts. Cheers, Vanguard  Scot  11:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sevco did purchase the club as a going concern. The standard for this is not whether or not debts are included in the purchase.  Feel free to research insolvency events in football long before Rangers. 77.97.35.2 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

If you all don't mind me saying so, I did not start this discussion to discuss whether Sevco bought the club or just the assets - that matter is irrelevant to what I'm suggesting. My point is that Ally McCoist has had to face much more than an insolvency event - he has had to face a liquidation! He deserves credit and recognition for what he has done which is much more than a manager surviving a period of administration, for example. I therefore suggest that the subheading should be something like "Ally McCoist and liquidation" which shows more fully what Ally faced, than does Ally McCoist and insolvency". Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Slight pedantic point...but "SPL, SFL, SPFL, SFA" are mostly the same sources, now "SPFL". But yes, while neutrality of sources could be argued for longer than this rock has been spinning through space, and a NPOV on this subject is almost impossible to have if you've even a causal interest in Scottish football; a consensus has been reached. Stick with it till we have cause to open discussion again. --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Spiritofstgeorge, liquidation is an insolvency event. So was the administration.  If you don't like the term 'insolvency' which seems to encapture the events to me, then a term such as 'financial collapse' or something similar to Leeds United's section "financial implosion" would be relevant.  In the case of Leeds that is the descriptive term used to capture the money worries and subsequent administration, liquidation & newco process.77.97.35.2 (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with 'Ally McCoist and financial collapse' if that was agreed as it gets across that this was not just an insolvency event, like administration, but was the ultimate insolvency event - one that led to liquidation. However, I'd still prefer that we used accurate language like 'liquidation' rather than a phrase like 'financial collapse' which is more open to argument at the margins as to 'what constitutes a financial collapse?' Why people wish to cling to a general phrase like 'insolvency' which cover a variety of situations is beyond me. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Because 'administration' & 'liquidation' are both insolvency events. There are others, such as dissolution, etc.... so by entitling "Ally McCoist & liquidation" is specific to only liquidation and not the 'administration', which was significantly more eventful and headline grabbing than the liquidation, considering the events that ensued during the admin process.  So you could go with "Ally McCoist, Administration, Liquidation & Newco", but it gets a bit lengthy.... which begs the question, why not just stick with "Ally McCoist & insolvency", when insolvency encaptures the events of admin, liquidation and newco?  77.97.35.2 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what was "headline grabbing" to an encyclopaedia, only the truth. The "fact" that Whyte was a squillionaire was "headline grabbing"...If I were to pick one of the two insolvency events to put in the headline, the more severe "Liquidation" would do it. But the current title fits well enough.--Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Opening consensus
It seems barely a few weeks can go by without another independent authority recognising the distinction between the old company currently in liquidation and the football club, Rangers FC, that has - they accept - continued in existence under new company ownership. Therefore it seems baffling that certain editors seek to alter a paragraph established for almost a year, accepted as a compromise of sorts (referencing company liquidation but also that "Rangers FC" continues) during a period prior to much of the current "same football club" evidence even being available.  I gathered the consensus view was that, regardless of the wealth of independent evidence suggesting Rangers FC was being recognised as continuing in a sporting sense, that the fact of the liquidation of the old company should also be retained as important context. The paragraph I have restored does this, in concise form, using clear language (not referencing obscure, outdated company names like Sevco Scotland), befitting the fact there is much detail about this saga later in the article as well as there also being a dedicated "ownership of Rangers" article. I would urge editors to appreciate the difficulty in took in establishing a consensus on this matter, and take into account the overwhelming independent evidence that would make any attempt to re-open this discussion a futile, self-defeating exercise for those of the "new football club" view. Gefetane (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, changes to controversial parts of the article should be discussed on the talk page to gain concensus. Vanguard  Scot  20:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. I didn't see that the changes that had been made by Spirit changed anything much and certainly didn't unpick any of the consensus. Infact all it did was give extra detail. But so be it. Cheers Fishiehelper5 (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Structure
I made an edit when passing - hadn't realised that there was such dispute over this. Can I suggest that discussion of 2012 liquidation is moved to paragraph 3, with the discussion of Rangers history as paragraph 2? Imagine a reader who doesn't know about Rangers or possibly Scottish football - which info is the most important? Crucially, the history of Rangers also contextualises why the liquidation was such a big deal - it simply makes more sense.Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I seen your edit and thought it was fine, it makes more sense as it gives a more chronological introduction of what the article contains. The edit being discussed above by Gefetane sneakily took away some important information and justified it as a rewording. Cheers, Vanguard  Scot  13:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree. The consensus version was better as the end of the first paragraph - that Rangers had been in the top flight continuously until the end of the 2011/12 season - is explained immediately in the second paragraph. That is the logical order for the introduction. Following that, the reason why this is such a big deal is explained by the club's world beating record of trophies. Splitting the end of season 2011/12 from the explanation of the key event of that season is completely illogical. I trust, on reflection, you will agree. Cheers Fishiehelper5 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well if there was a previous consensus (Can you please point me to it so I can have a read), then I believe it is time for change, based on Super Nintendo Chalmers suggestion. Having a read of WP:MOS/Lead Section, it says that the introduction should establish the reason for a topics noteworthiness. The fact that Rangers Football Club has been in existence for 141 years and has won numerous trophies/cups/leagues is more noteworthy than the liquidation of the old company that operated the club, and the clubs transfer to a new company. Although I agree both paragraphs are noteworthy and deserve to be mentioned in the Lead Section, the third paragraph on Rangers F.C.'s history should come before the paragraph about the 2012 financial collapse. It also helps the lead section conform the major events detailed in the article in a chronological manner. As Super Nintendo Chalmers says, if Rangers F.C. were not a noteworthy football team, then the fact that the old company that operated the club was liquidated would not be noteworthy at all, and there would have been significantly less coverage of it. Cheers, Vanguard  Scot  20:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm in full agreement with Vanguard Scot. As time passes, the entire insolvency of 2012 will become more and more confined to history, to the point where it may not even be relevant in the opening introduction at all.  Let's take Leeds for example, it doesn't mention anything about the company that owned the clubs financial collapse and/or liquidation in the opening paragraph.  In the cases of Fiorentina & Napoli, it mentions only briefly.  It is clear to me that the 141 years history and achievements of club certainly come higher in the pecking order than the financial, legal & insolvency issues experienced by the club over a 6 month period. I move to support the proposed change 77.97.35.2 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vanguard, Super Nintendo Chalmers and IP above. In all fairness this section was hastily added to the introduction when all hell broke loose over the administration of the club and it should probably be reduced and merged to another paragraph to satisfy the wikipedia guidance for introductions (i.e three paragraphs only).  Monkeymanman (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What a surprise - Rangers supporters are already attempting to rewrite this article to gradually erase the fact that one of the most significant events in the club's history happened in 2012. Bottom line is that after an unbroken history in the top division, Rangers FC had to start again in the fourth tier of scottish football due to the company going into liquidation. That is so significant it has to be a key part of the introduction whatever Rangers supporters would like. That said, I expect it will be edited out within a year because Rangers editors hate it so much. When that happens, it will reduce wikipedia to little more than a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.70.80 (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do stop being paranoid, its hardly a rewrite of the article. The proposal is to rearrange the lead section into chronological order, to make it easier for the reader to understand the noteworthiness of the article. Vanguard  Scot  12:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the comments above: "this section was hastily added to the introduction when all hell broke loose over the administration of the club and it should probably be reduced"; and "to the point where it may not even be relevant in the opening introduction at all". These editors are at least being honest of their desired direction of travel. It is not paranoia on my part to point that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.70.80 (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Monkeymanmans comment was based on the wikipedia policy of only having 3 paragraphs (see WP:MOS). The other IP editor is welcome to suggest removing the section entirely in the future, but I can't see him gaining any consensus to do so IMO. It would be helpful if you signed your comments on talk pages with four of these: ~ at the end of your comment, Vanguard  Scot  12:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If the issue is having three paragraphs in the introduction, the logical thing would be to merge the last paragraph which is just a single sentence into the preceding paragraph with a few linking words to say something like, "Throughout this time, Rangers have a long-standing rivalry with Celtic, the two Glasgow clubs being collectively known as the Old Firm since the late 19th century." 86.155.70.80 (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How about,

''Rangers Football Club is a Scottish football club based in Glasgow which plays in Scottish League One – the third tier of the Scottish Professional Football League. The club was founded in 1872 and their home ground is Ibrox Stadium in the south-west of the city.''

''In domestic football Rangers have won more league titles and trebles than any other club in the world, winning the league title 54 times, the Scottish Cup 33 times and the Scottish League Cup 27 times, and achieving the treble of all three in the same season seven times. They also won the Third Division title in 2013. In European football, Rangers were the first British club to reach a UEFA tournament final. They won the European Cup Winners' Cup in 1972 after being runner up twice in 1961 and 1967. A third runners up finish in Europe came in the 2008 UEFA Cup. Rangers have a long-standing rivalry with Celtic, the two Glasgow clubs being collectively known as the Old Firm since the late 19th century.''

''In 2012, The Rangers Football Club Plc became insolvent and entered administration, resulting in liquidation when an agreement could not be reached with its creditors. Its business and assets, including Rangers FC, were bought by a new company, to which the club's Scottish Football Association membership was transferred.''Monkeymanman (talk)
 * sounds fine, other than I would add the sentence "They also won the Third Division title in 2013" to the final paragraph, as it fits in more with the events in that paragraph, and makes the introduction more chronilogical. Vanguard  Scot  13:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm afraid the proposed introduction is far poorer than the current version. For example, it misses out the fact that Rangers was a founder member of the Scottish League and continued in the top division right up to the end of the 2011/12 season. We should keep the current version unless there is a suggestion that is clearly an improvement, which this is not. Cheers Fishiehelper5 (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry fishie, I assumed all the info had been kept and just rearranged into 3 paragraphs (need to pay closer attention lol). Yeah, I don't support removing any of the information, just restructuring it so that it is more chronological and into three paragraphs instead of 4. Cheers, Vanguard  Scot  15:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

How about this instead then - exactly same info in different order:

''Rangers Football Club is a Scottish football club based in Glasgow which plays in Scottish League One – the third tier of the Scottish Professional Football League. Their home ground is Ibrox Stadium in the south-west of the city. In domestic football Rangers have won more league titles and trebles than any other club in the world, winning the league title 54 times, the Scottish Cup 33 times and the Scottish League Cup 27 times, and achieving the treble of all three in the same season seven times. They also won the Third Division title in 2013. In European football, Rangers were the first British club to reach a UEFA tournament final. They won the European Cup Winners' Cup in 1972 after being runner up twice in 1961 and 1967. A third runners up finish in Europe came in the 2008 UEFA Cup.''

''Founded in 1872, Rangers were one of the ten founder members of the original Scottish Football League, remaining in Scotland's top division until the end of the 2011–12 season. However in 2012, The Rangers Football Club Plc became insolvent and entered administration, resulting in liquidation when an agreement could not be reached with its creditors. Its business and assets, including Rangers FC, were bought by a new company, to which the club's Scottish Football Association membership was transferred in time to enable Rangers to relaunch in the Scottish Football League's Third Division at the start of season 2012–13.''

Rangers have a long-standing rivalry with Celtic, the two Glasgow clubs being collectively known as the Old Firm since the late 19th century.

Cheers Fishiehelper5 (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I still prefer the current version but the one I've just posted may be preferred by other editors. By the way, I would drop the reference to winning thew third division in 2013. Cheers Fishiehelper5 (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the intro could be trimmed to summarise the topic better.Monkeymanman (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

''Rangers Football Club is a Scottish football club based in Glasgow which plays in Scottish League One – the third tier of the Scottish Professional Football League. Their home ground is Ibrox Stadium in the south-west of the city.''

''In domestic football Rangers have won more league titles and trebles than any other club in the world, winning the league title 54 times, the Scottish Cup 33 times and the Scottish League Cup 27 times, and achieving the treble of all three in the same season seven times. They also won the Third Division title in 2013. In European football, Rangers were the first British club to reach a UEFA tournament final. They won the European Cup Winners' Cup in 1972 after being runner up twice in 1961 and 1967. A third runners up finish in Europe came in the 2008 UEFA Cup. Rangers have a long-standing rivalry with Celtic, the two Glasgow clubs being collectively known as the Old Firm since the late 19th century.''

''Founded in 1872, Rangers were one of the ten founder members of the original Scottish Football League, remaining in Scotland's top division until the end of the 2011–12 season. However in 2012, The Rangers Football Club Plc became insolvent and entered administration, resulting in liquidation. Its business and assets, including Rangers FC, were bought by a new company, to which the club's Scottish Football Association membership was transferred. Rangers relaunched in the Scottish Football League's Third Division at the start of season 2012–13.''


 * Sticking more to the consensus version:
 * Rangers Football Club is a Scottish football club based in Glasgow which plays in Scottish League One – the third tier of the Scottish Professional Football League. Their home ground is Ibrox Stadium in the south-west of the city.


 * In domestic football Rangers have won more league titles and trebles than any other club in the world, winning the league title 54 times, the Scottish Cup 33 times and the Scottish League Cup 27 times, and achieving the treble of all three in the same season seven times. They also won the Third Division title in 2013. In European football, Rangers were the first British club to reach a UEFA tournament final. They won the European Cup Winners' Cup in 1972 after being runner up twice in 1961 and 1967. A third runners up finish in Europe came in the 2008 UEFA Cup. Rangers have a long-standing rivalry with Celtic, the two Glasgow clubs being collectively known as the Old Firm since the late 19th century.


 * Founded in 1872, Rangers were one of the ten founder members of the original Scottish Football League, remaining in Scotland's top division until the end of the 2011–12 season. However in 2012, The Rangers Football Club Plc became insolvent and entered administration, resulting in liquidation. Its business and assets, including Rangers FC, were bought by a new company, to which the club's Scottish Football Association membership was transferred in time for Rangers to relaunch in the Scottish Football League's Third Division at the start of season 2012–13.
 * Cheers Fishiehelper5 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you point out where this consensus was reached? Monkeymanman (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I dn't believe concensus was ever reached on the term "relaunched" which was disputed. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Check back on talk archives - Archive 25 - you will find the discussion there. Cheers Fishiehelper5 (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That relates to the term relaunched being used. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely - or are you suggesting that the text should be changed from to relaunch to to be relaunched? I've got no objections to that if that is what you are unhappy about. Cheers Fishiehelper5 (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe this discussion was about relocating the paragraph to the third of the four currently in the introduction. We went a bit off topic afterwords.  There is no consensus for this paragraph's inclusion in the introduction.  It was a victim of WP:Recentism.  The introduction should establish the reason for a topics noteworthiness.Monkeymanman (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I misinterpreted your comment. Cheers Fishiehelper5 (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ownership and Finances section
A question: who owned Rangers up to the time it was incorporated in 1899? Nothing is mentioned in this section about the time from 1872 until 1899. Regards Fishiehelper5 (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You could make a guess and say either of the founders; but I'm not sure there was ever really "ownership" of football teams back then, with it being more of a hobby than a professional sport. Who owns Dumbarton Harp or Drumchapel Amateurs? know what I mean? I think "ownership" of anything from that time would be difficult to prove, as there would be little real documentation.--Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The same people who owned it afterwards, of course, because it was the same club! According to Bill Murray in 'The Old Firm' (2000) "That final year in the old century saw another major change in the Rangers Football Club, when it indicated its faith in the future by becoming a limited liability company. Now the days of open squabbling among committees was over, to be succeeded by boardroom intrigue behind closed doors." (p.11) Their 1888 AGM was apparently "the most cantankerous ever in the history of the club." Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt that "honour" would fall onto their 1888 AGM anymore lol but did anybody actually "own" a football club back then? The writer of this book notes that prior to becoming a limited company, they sorted problems through "open squabbling among committees", which might suggest there was no real solid ownership structure. --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No doubt it was owned by some small-time spivs: adept at rifling the pockets of an extremely gullible supporter base! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Consolidate opening paragraphs;
Lets gain concensus to bring this article within the recommended 3 paragraphs in regard to the intro; the logical step in achieving this seems to be to consolidate paragraph 2 into paragraph 4;

''Rangers Football Club is a Scottish football club based in Glasgow which plays in Scottish League One – the third tier of the Scottish Professional Football League. Their home ground is Ibrox Stadium in the south-west of the city. Founded in 1872, Rangers were one of the ten founder members of the original Scottish Football League, remaining in Scotland's top division until the end of the 2011–12 season.[1]''

''In domestic football Rangers have won more league titles and trebles than any other club in the world, winning the league title 54 times, the Scottish Cup 33 times and the Scottish League Cup 27 times, and achieving the treble of all three in the same season seven times. They also won the Third Division title in 2013. In European football, Rangers were the first British club to reach a UEFA tournament final. They won the European Cup Winners' Cup in 1972 after being runner up twice in 1961 and 1967. A third runners up finish in Europe came in the 2008 UEFA Cup.''

''In 2012, The Rangers Football Club Plc became insolvent and entered administration, resulting in liquidation when an agreement could not be reached with its creditors. Its business and assets, including Rangers FC, were bought by a new company, to which the club's Scottish Football Association membership was transferred in time to enable Rangers to relaunch in the Scottish Football League's Third Division at the start of season 2012–13.[2][3][4][5] Rangers have a long-standing rivalry with Celtic, the two Glasgow clubs being collectively known as the Old Firm since the late 19th century.'' 77.97.35.2 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a reasonable consensus in the above discussion to merge it into three paragraphs, as you proposed. Even User:Fishiehelper5 agreed. As long as none of the current information is removed. Cheers Vanguard  Scot  21:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On the phrase "Scottish Football Association membership was transferred in time to enable Rangers to relaunch in the Scottish Football League's Third Division at the start of season 2012–13.", the link for reference 2 (link to Lord Nimmo Smith report) now diverts to the new SPFL homepage, so that needs updating. Plus none of the other references seem to be sources to support the article. The wording seems fine to me, you just need robust sources to back them up given the potential for conflict on this subject. --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a quick point: There's no reason to remove any link to the SPL Commission Report just because the link is dead, that applies to other references as well. A link to the new page where the report is, or a link to an archived version of the webpage can be added at a later date (I can do stuff like that for the whole article's dead link references when I find some free time). Cheers, Vanguard  Scot  19:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean. If the plan is to re-write the first paragraphs of this article, then it's a good chance to update/reassess the references used to back up claims that can attract some controversy among some. Not delete them altogether because they're dead (although I'd be happy to see tabloids and opinion pieces removed. Not good enough as references imo) --Connelly90&#91;AlbaGuBràth&#93; (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct chairman should be in infobox
Hello. I just noticed that there is a mistake in the information box at the side of the page. It correctly identifies the owner of the club as The Rangers Football Club Ltd, but then incorrectly states that the chairman is David Somers. But David Somers is chairman of The Rangers International Football Club PLC - the holding company that own The Rangers Football Club Ltd. The chairman of the Rangers Football Club Ltd is Sandy Easdale as is actually recorded in the article. Can I suggest that someone should edit this mistake?
 * Well spotted. Maybe extra info needs to be added rather than just replacing information. I'll see to it. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2014
I request that this page is edited to show the true history of rangers fc. The current club was formed in 2012 after the liquidation of the previous rangers fc who were formed in 1873 following investigations by HMRC and other creditors. The current club began life as Sevco 5088 on which an article can be found on Wikipedia. This in turn means that the whole page on rangers fc is wrong other than the entries from 2012. Thanks.

Tee67 (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Automatic decline, there are plenty discussion on this page showing the community consensus. As long as the SPFL & SFA consider them to be the same club, thats not likely to change and the article already provided extensive history on this as does the administration article. Blethering  Scot  20:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Richest Football Clubs?
I've removed "Richest Football Clubs" from the "See Also" section. The last time Rangers appeared on this list was 5 years ago, and I think you'll have a hard time arguing they are in the same financial position now. -- Connelly90 09:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would even attempt to argue they are now. However that page provides the richest club lists going back to 2007, as they were on the list then the link to it is still more than valid. Blethering  Scot  17:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think they should include lists so far back on that page either, and it seems like they added a "historic data" section back in 2009, but it was reverted for some reason. 2007 2009 sounds like it was just "a couple years ago" still, and I'm guilty myself of thinking that from time-to-time, but that was  7  5 years ago! it's definitely no longer relevant in my opinion. -- Connelly90 09:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been on here in the recent past (Pretty sure it was you that was trying to remove it/get it removed, but I don't have time to go through the archives to prove that). Whoever it was, was told to leave it as it was perfectly valid and as Rangers are mentioned in the article it is a valid 'see also' page. Vanguard  Scot  18:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Turns out it was me who brought this forward back last summer, I thought that discussion was regarding the Celtic F.C. article tbh, so apologies for bringing it up again so soon on the same article. But a consensus was far from reached. The only "discussion" involved me and you stating our opinions on its relevance, and an IP telling me my "opinion didn't matter". These articles (i.e. Rangers F.C. and Celtic F.C. and all related articles) are plagued with POV issues caused by people trying to promote their chosen side, and I think this is clearly one of them.
 * Regardless of whether "The Big Two" (or anyone else for that matter) appear on the article for Richest Football Clubs, they are no longer on the actual current list, and are no longer one of the richest football clubs; therefore, I argue that it's not relevant to the current state of ANY football club to consider their financial position in 2007 2009 —much less a club who has changed so dramatically as this one—and doesn't improve the article to include "Richest Football Clubs" when they are clearly no longer included. This is a POV issue stemming from an editor wanting to promote their club. -- Connelly90 09:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is nothing of the sort and is a perfectly reasonable see also page, as both clubs are involved in the page. There are two experienced editors here saying leave it and one saying get rid, if you want to take it further go to WP:Football to try to get some more input here from other experienced editors. Until then it stays as you have not given a good enough reason to remove it and you do not have a consensus to do so. Cheers, Vanguard  Scot  10:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I also just noticed your most recent edit, that seems like a good compromise. Vanguard  Scot  10:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Incase anybody want's to throw their two cents, I've added this issue over at Talk:WikiProject Football. -- Connelly90 13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to link to the previous discussion here and at WP:Footy, seen as both of you seem to have seen it can you do the honours. Blethering  Scot  18:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. Previous discussion is here -- Connelly90 10:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mmmm. Not really enough to say it came to any sort of real conclusion or that could be called a consensus. I can see both points of view to be honest, I've not got a pov on it as not a Rangers or a Celtic fan. I don't see the see also as indicating bias however its is notable to be mentioned that at one point they were on the list. I've not got time to look through full article can anyone say if it does do so somewhere.  Blethering   Scot  13:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's without a doubt notable that they were once one of the richest football clubs in the world, and that this should definitely be mentioned somewhere in the article. However, I also think that including this link in the "See Also" section (even with the qualifier I've added) doesn't really do this properly. The "Ownership and Finances" section is where this should go instead, and seeing as that section could do with a little less emphasis on the Liquidation/Administration process—to give a more general picture of their ownership history—This issue could be incorporated into that. Especially since the list is actually "most valuable" football clubs, not "richest", it needs a bit more explanation than can be given in the See Also section. -- Connelly90 14:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Im not the right person to do that, but my feelings are that someone should in a neutral way then remove it from see also where it will no longer be necessary. Blethering  Scot  17:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect information on the page
This entire page is written on the basis of The Rangers FC being the same entity as Glasgow Rangers FC which was dissolved. If this page is to talk about the team that currently is in the second division, there should not be mention of league or cup titles. Please see AFC Wimbledon for a comparable football club page which lists the history of the club linked to the old Wimbledon FC, but does not try to claim their titles.

This page, being as completely factually incorrect as it is, is acting as a political page by suggesting that the two Rangers clubs are one and the same. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be for, it is supposed to be a factual resource.

Please remove this page immediately and have it edited. Otherwise, Wikipedia can no longer claim to make any attempt to provide factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.20.31.38 (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See http://spfl.co.uk/clubs/rangers/ . Cheers, Vanguard  Scot  19:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually think Charlton Athletic & Middlesbrough are a better comparison for what happened with Rangers. They both created new companies and took over the running of the club. Rangers are not the first to do this and certainly wont be the last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.144.200 (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been debated, many many many times, and the best consensus that could be reached is detailed in the FAQs above etc. This article, and articles like it, are inevitably going to fall victim to one bias or another, but so long as things are suitably referenced I have no issue with this article. -- Connelly90 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The above "complaint" is totally off the mark; as various football authorities have ruled, it is the same club founded in 1872. For reasons only he/she is aware of, the individual above is conflating a holding company with a club, which was defined in the Lord Nimmo Smith ruling as a discernible set of assets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanrobert (talk • contribs) 06:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how exactly were 'Rangers FC' bought as part of assets and business? If Sevco 5088 Ltd had purchased the club they would have bought it lock stock and barrel so why was it broken down into segments? This wasn't the case when Craig Whyte bought RFC from David Murray for £1. When your talking about financial transactions etc this is where the law becomes relevant. LNS opinion does not matter a jot as his opinion was not done under any law but merely an opinion that was within guidelines set out by the SPL and was for the benefit of establishing whether payments and side letters amounted to breaking registration rules to which they were found guilty. LNS was not asked to establish whether Rangers FC as a club still existed. And as for all the UEFA stuff etc. It seems UEFA's rules are telling us they do not see them as the same club as they are ineligible to play in UEFA club competitions as they have not been a member of their respective association for 3 years. Read 'No special status' within this article http://news.stv.tv/west-central/239433-rangers-ebt-tax-case-hmrc-appeal-to-be-heard-in-public-judge-rules/ This is how the law recognises a club in Scotland and no matter what national football authorities say or not say, one thing is certain. They cannot overrule the law of the land in Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSupper (talk • contribs) 01:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2014
The status of the club isn't controversial. It is only controversial to those who don't like the club, or those who are uninformed. To say that the status of the club has been interpreted differently is to ignore the Lord Nimmo Smith Ruling, UEFA, the SFA and ECA. In law, there is no controversy; the club assets were sold to a new PLC, like in the case of Leeds, Middlesborough or Fieorentia. No one calls these "new clubs". This section was obviously written by someone who isn't acquainted with the facts - Ewan Murray article from 2012 has no objective status. I have many sources.

Nathanrobert (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, LNS opinion was not a ruling. Not sure where you have got that information. I have described above exactly what LNS role in the registration inquiry was. Clubs you deem as examples are not in Scotland. RFC 1872 dissolution bears identical comparison to Airdrie and Gretna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSupper (talk • contribs) 01:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No it does not. Gretna did not use a newco vehicle to purchase the assets and they did not transfer the clubs FA membership to a newco.  There was no continuity.  RFC is identical to Leeds Utd in 2007. 77.97.35.2 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Think there has been some crossed wires on your part with what I have said regarding Gretna FC. When using Gretna FC as an example above, it was to compare their demise to that of Rangers FC which was identical in a large part of the process. The only difference between the twq is that Gretna FC were formally liquidated via a voluntary liquidation whereas Rangers FC were forced by law into a compulsory liquidation. Which is also different to Leeds Utd who were liquidated via a voluntary liquidation like Gretna FC. I have not got any idea why you are talking about Gretna and 'Newcos'. My examples were of Clubs in Scotland were concerned. Liquidation law varies from country to country. KingSupper (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Typo in introduction
In domestic football, Rangers has won more league titles and trebles than any... 77.97.35.2 (talk)


 * Not necessarily a typo. It's British-English VS American-English.Correctron (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)