Talk:The Rangers Football Club Ltd/Archive 4

The Rangers FC
This should be the name of the Newco Rangers wikipedia page now as they are called The Rangers FC everywhere, on the SFL, SFA, SPL, BBC etc websites and in League tables and on TV. They must have Registered to use "The Rangers FC" to differentiate between themselves and "Rangers FC" who still have SPL membership.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * no denying that is what ther called, but by your own argument a month ago it was called The Rangers Football Club PLC so i dnt see how ther ename has changed, but we are moving towards creating one article that refernece to say it is new club but also refernee to say it is the same club-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No Original Rangers were called The Rangers Football Club PLC but were registered in the SPL as Rangers FC, which is a trading name now owned by Sevco Scotland, however Sevco Scotland can't use that name as its still being used by The Originals in the SPL, so they have registered The Rangers FC, next season they will probably use "Rangers FC" as The Originals will be dead and no longer able to use it. However they might always need to use The Rangers FC as for all I know once a Club uses a name they are then known as that forever.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * you jsut repeated wha ti said :s, but we ar emoving to one article because the media says new club and same club we cant use this article as if it was jsuta new club we cant meantin anytihng about the old one-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks liek the BBC have had a change of Heart superbhoy and changed them from The Rangers FC to simply Rangers: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/scottish-third-division/table  looks like your latest 'evidence' is now mute. Ricky072 (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you mean "moot"? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, thanks for your most useful contribution to these pages thus far. Ricky072 (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The trading name will be Rangers FC, hence the 'oldco' changing to Rangers 2012. Sparhelda 17:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Report here states "Historic win for The Rangers FC". Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It can be called historic anyway, considering Rangers have never played anywhere other than the top flight until now. Sparhelda 03:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Fairly uncontroversial edit request
References to the club "crest" are wrong as a crest refers to something on top of a helmet rather than the colloquial and wholly inaccurate use as an alternative for arms or coat of arms. This is common in a number of football club articles but generally I can just edit it myself unlike here. I suggest changing any mention of the club crest to club badge as it is more common in a football context than arms or coat of arms but, unlike crest, is not inaccurate. Cheers. Keresaspa (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Support nothing to do with the dispute more to do with wording which affect all football article put the eidt request in-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge it with the already existing Rangers FC article
The The Scottish Football League (IRN-BRU Thrid Division) recognize the new Rangers team as the old. It has it dated to be created 1873 and having won 54 national championship. So it is NOT a new club.

Source :

http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/clubs/third/

http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers-fc/

David-golota (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That was discussed just a couple of days ago and there was no consensus for the change you propose. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 August 2012
Could references to club crest be changed to club badge due to the term crest being inappropriate (as outlined on the talk page). Thank you. Keresaspa (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Keresaspa (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This was also mentioned yesterday at, and I agree, so Yes check.svg Done, see . -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Keresaspa (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

DELETE THIS PAGE IMIDIATELLY!
Aradioham (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is about the new Rangers that was launched after the previous incarnation entered the liquidation process in June this year. Two recent deletion requests failed, as did a merge request. Unless a consensus is established that the sandbox version at the Rangers FC article is a basis for having a single article, it is likely that this seperate article will remain. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No this article is about a new company that owns rangers however it has been misleadingly formatted as an article about a football club. This needs to be changed, but there is certainly no excuse for the foul language from Aradioham. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to resolve this matter i suggest you take part in the discussion and not simply use foul language. The present situation is very problematic but at least the main rangers article is no longer incorrectly saying it is a former club as was once locked in place with no consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I may have only edited the article 9 times (to your 2, Britishwatcher) but there is no doubt that this article is about the new Rangers that will be competing in Division 3 next season. An editor called Ricky072 engaged in some edit warring to change it to say company and the article was then frozen with his edit in place. That will be rectified as soon as protection is lifted. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need for this article to exist and hopefully that will eventually be realised. Sparhelda 13:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you must be at the wrong page.. Rangers Football club article is here. This is about something called "newco rangers" (which is short for new company rangers, meaning its about the company not the club), i do not see "Newco Rangers " on the Div 3 listings of the Scottish Football League. That "other" rangers is there though including with its history.. funny that. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is becuase the page has been blocked for editing and is in urgent need for updating. Once protection is lifted the title needs to change to Rangers FC and the current Rangers FC needs to change to Rangers FC (1873) or Rangers FC (1872). Then all Rangers articles will link to the article about the current club. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Or this article will get merged with the other one, since there is only one football club here. Sparhelda 14:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to merge the article so unless that changes, it won't happen. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delusions. Wikipedia is meant to be free of bias. Time, truth and facts will eventually be organised and show it accordingly - With two articles. I wonder why everyone who continues to say that there should only be one article seem to look past clear facts - They couldn't possibly be Rangers fans? Andevaesen (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This article was created without consensus. Oh and here come the bad faith accusations again.  Sparhelda 14:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Are the SFL Rangers fans then? . Sparhelda 14:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they just have a commercial interest in the new Rangers being seen as the same club. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is nothing other than your POV. Sparhelda 15:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We all have to judge if what sources say are reliable - thats why we tend to avoid primary sources and go for independent sources. My view is that the SFL is not a reliable source on this matter as they have a commercial interest. I much prefer the BBC on such matters as they are even more free from commercial pressures than are newspapers.
 * Anyway, the point is that we have reached a point where there are two sides in this dispute with each choosing to accept sources that agree with their POV. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Formal Medaiton
Ok i have now have confirmation i can submit this for formal mediation and not doing the request for comment.

I urge all involved to agree to this after i leave a message at your talk page then this dispute can hopefully get a conclusion one way or the other and decision/consensus agreed so all articles can be fixed and updated.

I will no longer be doing the work, formal mediators will take over and try guide to consensus and if it fails the most likely outcome will be arbcom who will then decided the fate of the articles, if you do not want to risk your view not be heard i suggest you try comprise-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 09:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Ok you can all start agree on here Requests for mediation/Rangers F.C. but you should all get a message soon enough informing you-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move, merits of a merge being discussed elsewhere. Jenks24 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Newco Rangers → Rangers Newco – Although both names are equally good I believe Rangers Newco is a better name because when typed into search engines it is more natural. If someone wanted to find the article on the New Rangers on wiki but didn't know what it is called. They would be more likely to type in Rangers than Newco. Looking at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA I believe both articles would be similar in all aspects except for Naturalness. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC). Adam4267 (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I believe this article should be merged with Rangers F.C. or renamed to a general title that can cover the full details of the administration and liquidation of the old company and the formation of the new company with it buying the club and its assets. However i will agree with the proposal as it is better than the status quo title. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe too that this article should be merged with Rangers F.C. The club still exists no matter which company is behind it. Any change like that is part of the club's history and wikipedia articles concern the clubs not the companies that may change from time to time. - 2.84.25.106 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support until a conesensus is reache on whether there should be one or two articles yes this would be the bes t option for now unless it is establish it is new club and it new name-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose- Basic grammatical point: adjectives usually come before the associated noun - eg 'big' house, 'green' hill - and 'Newco' in the phrase 'Newco Rangers' serves as an adjective to the name 'Rangers'. As long as there is a redirect from 'Rangers newco' to this article, there is no problem getting readers to this article if this is what they are looking for. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 21:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related page moves. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 21:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - 'Newco Rangers' is the format used consistently by the media; BBC News, Sky Sports, Scottish papers etc to distinguish the new club from the previous Rangers. TerriersFan (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Rangers newco: Charles Green consortium ‘put £50m sale price’ on club (Scotsman), Rangers in crisis: SPL set to improve offer to SFL in last-gasp attempt to get Rangers newco into First Division (Telegraph), Rangers newco apply to join SFL after SPL rejection (BBC), Rangers newco vote: The SPL powerbrokers in their own words (STV). Adam4267 (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - we can all play the selective quote game; http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/scottish/newco-rangers-see-preseason-tour-cancelled-7913176.html; http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/bocanegra-unsure-gers-future-104603198.html; http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/article/165/7868302/spl-reject-newco-rangers and as many as u like. The fact remains the broadcast media use 'Newco Rangers'. TerriersFan (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment - I don't understand your point or why you say "selective" quote. Anyway as I said at the top of the thread (if you had bothered to read it) I think both names are good and equal on most measures. However, I think Rangers newco is a more natural name, particularly for people typing into a search engine. Adam4267 (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are the one who said the media consistently refer to it as Newco Rangers, then when someone challenges you on it showing numerous articles saying the other version ,you accuse them of being selective lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * the onus is on you as the proposer to make a clear case for the page move and u have failed. "better name because when typed into search engines it is more natural." is no sort of justification. Do u watch Sky sports; BBC News; ITV News etc they all use the existing format. TerriersFan (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And also the other format, depending on the structure of the sentence or personal preference of the writer. One of the articles I linked above was from the BBC, using Rangers newco. Another from STV. In any event I'm not trying to say either has precedence over the other, they are both roughly equal. My move rationale was based on the one naming criteria where I feel Rangers newco is better than Newco rangers - Naturalness. That is perfectly good justification. Adam4267 (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Newco Rangers is used on a far more regular basis by both local and national news outlets. Which word they are likely to type in to search is irrelevant as any name change period will begin with people searching predominantly for the old name.  Regarding the merge idea, that is nonsense, the original club is a separate entity that no longer exists, the new entity has bought it's assets and are starting afresh.  There are numerous examples of situations such as this where articles exist for both old and new entities (See the plethora of Formula 1 team pages for examples of similar situations). 14:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Both used widely but if you are searching far more likely to search Rangers predominantly in the search. Edinburgh  Wanderer  17:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "Newco Rangers" is by far the most used.--Z oupan 18:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What, so a year from now, Dad is going to ask his kids if they want to go the Newco game? It might be a term a few soccer geeks are using ... but it' completely fails WP:COMMONNAME. Nfitz (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. This appears to be the common name in use. However once the season starts and they begin play as Rangers FC it might become appropriate to shift this article to that page and move the old team out to a separate page with a date or historical modifier. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly this should be the same page as Rangers F.C.. I'm shocked that anyone would have done the vandalism that is clear here. I can only assume that it's a product of the racism that exists. Nfitz (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Zoupan: Far the most used. According to what criteria/evidence. Nfitz; ignoring the hyperbolic parts of your comment - in what way does it fail common name. Are you oblivious to both the media's reporting this issue and the 5-10 articles linked above using the terms Newco and Rangers to describe the club. Adam4267 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems pretty clear to me that, whether the new company is classed as separate or not, the major element (the football club) will remain as Rangers F.C. So, if we are to maintain two articles for the two "incarnations" of the football club, why can we not use the existing examples such as Maidstone United and Accrington Stanley, who are both football clubs that have been liquidated and reformed under the same name. Therefore, have "Old" Rangers as Rangers F.C. (1872) and "New" Rangers on the Rangers F.C. page Hammersfan (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - good idea; I'd support that. TerriersFan (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Newco" is not the Commonname of the club. It's the current popular name of the current situation but any attempt to call the club "Newco" is blatantly misleading. This is not a move issue. This is a merge and be internally consistent issue. Koncorde (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * newco refers to new company but people think that means new club before they think the company is the club that is what has to be estbalished is the company the club or is the company the onew that is holding coompany/parent company of the club Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 09:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - I agree with you there as it would be easier for people typing Rangers into a search engine so it can come up easilly from the name the club has been commonly known as Rangers (Z2A (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC))


 * Merge into Rangers F.C.. Clear precedents with the likes of ACF Fiorentina - the liquidation, formation of a newco and relegation to Serie C2 are all covered as part of the main club article. All reputable sources still describe the current Rangers football club as a continuation of the old club, with the same history. The examples of AFC Wimbledon and Airdrie United are different in that these were both new clubs that did not have the FA/SFA share transferred. Little Professor (talk)


 * Merge the Rangers related part into Rangers F.C., and then rename this article as Sevco 5088 or Sevco Scotland Ltd. Newco Rangers or Rangers Newco is irrelevant, they are made up names by the media and fans a like and have no place as a title to a page. A subsection in the Rangers F.C. showing alternative names should be used, linking to a page that is titled Sevco 5088 or Sevco Scotland Ltd that specifically talks about the new company. Whilst this is a contentious issue with Rangers and football fans, bias and opinion on the subject should not tarnish WP articles.Gruffmeister (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - please note, this is User:Gruffmeister's only contribution to wikipedia. He may be a WP:SOCK or WP:SPA. Adam4267 (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - No WP:SOCK or WP:SPA, just a new account as couldn't remember what my previous account was (email has also changed) (Gruffmeister (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC))
 * Merge Imagine if you will that you are an alien from outer space.  You look out of the porthole of your flying saucer as it flies over Glasgow and you see Ibrox Stadium, and lots of people walking around the streets wearing Rangers shirts.  You want to find out more about this, and naturally, you turn to Wikipedia to read about it.  The reason this team has so many fans, and so many green shirted people who hate it stems back to the history of the club from 1872.    A wikipedia article should cover all this, because it is relevant information.  Clearly the liquidation and newco situation is relevant information as well, so there should be a section covering it, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide all relevant information in one place, not to reflect just the legal situation. Jonbryce (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A requested move is not the place to suggest mergers. Vote for merging in this article's AfD, if you haven't already, or propose a merger. --BDD (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As that AfD was closed with the comment "Whether the article should be merged or split out is not a matter for AfD." then the AfD is also not the place to discuss merging. As merging these two articles is the only inevitable outcome (or restoring this article to discuss the company, rather than the team, like it used to), then might as well discuss the merger here. Nfitz (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge the Rangers related part into Rangers F.C. - same sporting club - the piffle about who owns them is secondary to the club/glory/history/players/fans. Note guardian RE-launched Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - new club, new page. The new club tried to buy the place of the old club and sought to have memberships of the SPL and SFA transferred with limited success. There is clearly a link between the two clubs since one was set up with the express purpose of replacing the old one but they are not the same thing. And Newco Rangers is what the new club seems to have been called, despite attempts to make other names (e.g. The Rangers) stick. In time, Newco Rangers might come to be known simply as Rangers (a bit like new pence came to be known as pence) but we are a long way from there right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Some questions for "new club" editors about other equivalent articles

 * I originally posted this in the official Rangers page, but I think its of relevance here, so here you go.
 * As an editor who is making efforts to merge this article with the Rangers FC, I am interested in canvassing the opinions of the "new company means a new club means a new article" editors regarding the other articles for oldco/newco teams such as Charlton, Leeds, Luton, Middlesbrough, Fiorentina, Napoli, which all exhibit a consistent precedent of one all-encompassing page per club.
 * A couple of premises first of all regarding the "new club, new article" users...
 * A couple of premises first of all regarding the "new club, new article" users...


 * Presumably, assuming WP:GOODFAITH the reasoning at the root of the "new company means a new club means a new article" is not restricted to "but only if the clubs called Rangers".
 * Also, presumably, there is a principle from which they are arguing, namely "new company means a new club means a new article" rather than just basing their position on turn of phrase, choice of language, employed within the interpretations of Scottish media journalists.
 * Therefore, they will also view the above articles as gross distortions, incorrectly implying a "same club" position, fundamentally misinforming users and requiring a new article for the "new club" to correct the imbalance...just like Rangers.
 * So, now for some questions.
 * So, now for some questions.


 * Do these "new company means a new club means a new article" editors believe these other articles are wrong?
 * If any "new company means a new club means a new article" editors have been working to correct the flawed layout of these other articles, what have been the responses from other editors to their line of reasoning?
 * If they have not been trying to correct what they believe to be a misinformative, false impression given by the existing, "all-encompassing" layout, why - as Wikipedians working to improve the encyclopedia - not?
 * As I said on the Rangers page, I admit I could have trawled through the talk pages, edit history of all of the above pages, but I thought it might be more efficient to get the information direct from the horses mouth so to speak. Thanks for your comments.Gefetane (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said on the Rangers page, I admit I could have trawled through the talk pages, edit history of all of the above pages, but I thought it might be more efficient to get the information direct from the horses mouth so to speak. Thanks for your comments.Gefetane (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the reply I posted on the page about the old Rangers:


 * Can I try to answer. The positions is not as simple as your seek to characterise it. It does not necessarily follow that 'new company meams new club'. To use Rangers as an example, it started life as a club and then became a limited company in 1899. That company then changed from a Ltd to a PLC, but that was just the club changing from a limited company to a public limited company - still the same club. What has happened now it that the club, that became a limited company, that became a public limited company, is going bust. It has now sold its assets on to a completely separate company who plans to use them to continue football, but even though they seek to call themselves the same name, play in the same colours and in the same stadium for the same fans, it is a new club being launched to replace the old one that is going bust. Therefore when a club merely changes its corporate identity it is still the same club, but when the assets of the club (not the club itself) are sold to a separate organisation, it is a fresh start.


 * Please note (and check carefully) that when a club is rescued from administration or even from the midst of the liquidation process by being bought by a new company (ie the club is bought and not just its assets), the club continues without a break - same club. This often happens with an agreed CVA to reduce the outstanding debts when the club is bought over. If a new company buys a club and then chooses to liquidate the clubs original corporate identity, this is just a change in the club's corporate identity - therefore no break, same club. This explains a number of cases where editors say 'oh but look, this company was liquidated so why no new article for that club?' Often it is because the club had been bought by a new company first and therefore could change the corporate identity of the club without causing a break.


 * Do you get it? Green did not buy the club for £5.5 million - he bought everything he could about and related to the club, but not technically the club itself. Therefore, there is a break and, technically, a new club to replace the former. Of course, Green and others have a commercial interest in persuading people that 'he bought the club' and 'Rangers is still Rangers' but the fact is that he didn't buy the club - he started a new one to replicate the old, with the assets etc he bought.


 * Finally, those of us who believe that there should be separate articles for the original Rangers and the new Rangers are trapped between two lines of attack: if we don't try to amend other football articles towards separate articles where appropriate, we are accused of just picking on Rangers: if we were to try to amend other football articles, we would be accused of just changing other articles to try to justify the same approach 'against' Rangers! No, we have to what is correct with regards to our treatment of Rangers on wikipedia. This is not about a club being rescued from liquidation by being bought by another company - this is about a club that could not be bought to rescue it from liquidation and therefore had its assets sold to another company which now wants to run those assets as a football club to replace the original club. We have to be honest about this material fact, and reflect this in how we deal with this on wikipedia. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

May as well post my response in here as well!
 * Thanks for the response, spiritofstgeorge. A few points...
 * You hold that if the club becomes a company, the company = the club: it's one entity, break up its pieces (and sell them on independantly as assets for example) then the one entity is left behind. Your problem is that this necessarily entails that in any case of the club/company perishing due to unpaid (no CVA) debts, even if it was bought by 'newco' prior to its death and the assets are retained, it still died! Your position entails that the club is dead UNLESS you assume that the assets CAN be broken away and the club identity survives with them, but this clearly contradicts your base assumption regarding company=club. Therefore, the contradiction within your position renders it invalid.
 * Even if valid, this disintction only exempts from comparison those cases where a company, surviving through a CVA, has been bought by a new company, then subsequently wound up with assets being retained. However in the cases above, all of which have one all-encompassing article, this was not the case. CVAs were not ratified, the assets were transferred to the new company, not the debt-laden, CVA-rejected, doomed company itself. As such, your argument is no basis to undermine the comparison.
 * You seem to be saying that you havent bothered applying your principle of two pages per oldco/newco situation to any other situation but Rangers, the reason being that you are concerned about being perceived as attempting to shape precedent. However, if "new club" editors had acted PRIOR to the Rangers saga (presuming the "new company means a new club means a new article" princple didnt just pop into existence to serve the Rangers case) then any such allegation would be totally invalid.
 * I am still in the dark somewhat and hopefully at least one of the "new club" editors will be able to demonstrate applying their reasoning beyond the Rangers case, and we will be able to learn lessons from that example.Gefetane (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This again? Ok, the main difference is that there was never any coverage in reliable third party sources about "Newco Leeds" or "Newco Charlton" (for example). Also, I don't remember Leeds players leaving under freedom of contract, explicitly saying that the new club was not the same and had no history! Let's not forget there are plently of liquidated ex-clubs who relaunched at a lower level and have got two Wikipedia articles. Darlington F.C. etc. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you, those examples like Darlington are irrelevant red herrings because in those cases, Darlington/Gretna/Halifax/Chester etc, the application that was granted was for a "New Club", rather than a transfer of existing membership, as explained clearly in this source. I have described above why reliance on mainstream media interpretations (let alone what you "remember" about an event 5 years ago) is inferior to direct reference of the organisations involved (SFA, SFL, SPL, Rangers, HMRC, Duff & Phelps etc), the propensity of "coverage" not always indicating the true nature of events, no better example being what led to this entire saga enfolding in the first place.Gefetane (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Gefetane, think about it realistically, just for ONE second. "Transfer of membership". ie; From one entity to another. Andevaesen (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes Gefetane, are you really suggesting that this all comes down to whether Charles Green had applied for a new membership of the SFA rather than the transfer of an existing one? I have to say, I have absolutely no doubt that even if he had, Rangers fans would still insist "same stadium, same colours, same fans = same club" and we would still be having this dispute. If that is the crux of your argument, I'm afraid you are not seeing the bigger picture: this is a case of a club entering liquidation and a new company buying its assets to try to 'keep the spirit' alive. It should be treated as all other clubs who have gone through the same regardless of whether Green's consortium applied for a new SFA membership or the transfer of the existing one. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Lets be honest, the greater media coverage of this was always going to bring about more possibilities about how the journalists named things. Although i'm sure I remember Ken Bates himself used the term 'new Leeds' before. Sparhelda 16:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a new entity.. its transferring it from the old company to the new company. Nobody is denying its not a different company, its just the same club as the actions/comments of the SFL, SFA, new owners, Administrators and HMRC demonstrate. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Clubs can be bought and then clearly remain the same club under new owners. What you are trying to argue is that clubs can also be 'transferred' to new owners without the club being bought if the assets and business interests are bought - and yet remain the same club? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, because if the membership share is transferred to the newco, along with the "business, history and assets", (Duff & Phelps Statement) then the new company is recognised fully as a continuation of the club. It's happened with Charlton, Leeds, Luton, Middlesbrough, Fiorentina, Napoli, and you have consistently failed to undermine the applicability of these cases - and the one article model they embody on Wikipedia - to Rangers.
 * Throwing in the red herrings about Darlington/Halifax hasn't helped, and now there are signs that the "mainstream media" hacks you've been quoting are falling in behind the continuity of Rangers position: The sites of the Scottish Sun, the Daily Record, and STV Sport, all have Rangers history details matching up as one would expect if it was considered the same club. Perhaps a new approach is in order?Gefetane (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Throwing in the red herrings about Darlington/Halifax hasn't helped, and now there are signs that the "mainstream media" hacks you've been quoting are falling in behind the continuity of Rangers position: The sites of the Scottish Sun, the Daily Record, and STV Sport, all have Rangers history details matching up as one would expect if it was considered the same club. Perhaps a new approach is in order?Gefetane (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ironic that the evidence you post about membership being transferred is a clip in which Regan is directly asked if the new Rangers is the same club and he pointedly fails to answer. And that is supposed to be convincing proof? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He basically says everyone will always have their own opinions no matter what, as this whole discussion has shown. Sparhelda 18:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And that is supposed to be convincing proof that the SFA says it is the same club? Give us a break! Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Regan basically says he doesn't want any more death threats from psychotic POV pushers! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If what Regan says matters, how do you explain this comment by him in an actual press statement rather than just one of many interviews..
 * "“There were a number of complex and challenging issues involved but, primarily, the Scottish FA had to be satisfied that the new owners of Rangers would operate in the best interests of the club, its fans and Scottish football in general."
 * New owners of rangers? I thought this was a new club, not new owners. And he does not say new owners of rangers membership in the SFA, he clearly sees it as the same club. He simply was not going to be drawn into arguments over it in that interview so said people will always have their own opinions, but what matters to the SFA is the Membership transfer which is taking place. And that is about the club, its why they may seek to strip some titles away from this club, because it is the same one.. just in his words "new owners" BritishWatcher (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Death threats", this is becoming little more than a slanging match. Sparhelda 22:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll withdraw that because it may have sounded like I was accusing the Rangers lobbyists on here of involvement. That wasn't my intention and I'm sure it's not the case. The lobbying from you guys has taken on a largely benign aspect (sub-undergrad essays about Leeds United etc.) If you could only understand that Wikipedia is about sources, not WP:TRUTH, you might save yourselves the trouble! Anyway, apologies for any misunderstanding or offence caused. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But we are going by what the sources clearly show. What source can you provide that is more reliable and significant to counter the Scottish football league. ? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a primary source from an organisation with a economic interest in pretending this is the same club. They've probably had death threats as well! So, take your pick from any of the reliable third party sources already provided. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Claudia, Do you have any sources to suggest the SFL, and its website that cites Rangers history continuing through to the newco, is a dishonest representation driven by financial motivations, or fear of death threats? Was that contribution meant to be a joke? This brand of "funny man" nonsense should be clearly cited as an attempt at comedy, to avoid confusion.Gefetane (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Clavdia talks about there being a pro-Rangers agenda with users but it's very possible the other way round, some of the stuff about 'death threats' and 'stolen tax' sounds personal. Sparhelda 17:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As Wikipedians we should be using independent, secondary sources as the basis of our articles. That was my point. Again if Celtic or any other major club had been liquidated in similar circumstances I would be here having the exact same argument with meatpuppets and SPAs from Celtic web forums. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay then - lets discuss Charlton
Could any of those editors who keep quoting Charlton as being a precedent for Rangers please post some evidence that Charlton entered administration, the administrator couldn't sell the club with an agreed CVA so it entered the liquidation process, then the club's assets and business were sold to a new separate company, then the new company asked the FA to transfer Charlton's membership of the FA to it instead? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying the situation is necessarily identical, but it's an example of financial problems resulting in a liquidation and/or new company senario, yet it's the same club. Sparhelda 21:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a concession. Thanks. Can I assume editors will now stop claiming Charlton as a precedent for Rangers? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can take it however you please, POV and bad faith accusations are becoming common place in this discussion now. Sparhelda 22:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me guess Spiritofstgeorge, another quick google search unearths nothing about 'newco' Charlton, and you jump to the conclusion it never happened? Sorry to disappoint you, but its a demonstrably false conclusion, you've placed faith in google and been mistaken, exactly the mistake you made casting doubt on the Luton comparison. I've found no evidence that specifically states membership was transferred, but this is an obvious conclusion to draw from the fact that, despite the 'oldco' being liquidated, Charlton Athletic continued under a 'newco' and retained their identity and history, just like Rangers have done according to the Scottish Sun, the Daily Record, STV Sport, and no less than the League Governing Body themselves, the SFL.Gefetane (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We have eye-witness testimony from the bloke who liquidated the 'oldco': "I was appointed Joint Liquidator of Charlton Athletic in 1984..."
 * We have the company register listing for the 'newco', incorporated in 1984.
 * Was Charlton - the actual club - bought out of administration, or were only its assets bought by another company? If you can't even confirm the latter, you have no basis to suggest there is any comparision with the Rangers situation. Your 'obvious conclusion' would not even be necessary if the former as there is no requirement to transfer membership when clubs are bought. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As proved above, the 'oldco' wasn't bought and operated indefinitely by a parent company, it was liquidated. Unless you are implying that the current 'newco' Charlton don't have an FA membership, its reasonable to accept that a transfer from the deceased company had to take place, regardless of direct sources detailing the chronology, surviving from 1984, being sparsely available to the resources at hand. Your continued unsuccessful attempts to demonstrate that the cited precedents, of one-Wikipedia-page 'oldco'/liquidation/'newco' clubs, are invalid comparisons to the Rangers situation, are not only proving tiresome, but seem to discredit your position with every successive failure of research/reasoning. Please re-consider your approach, or your research methods, to save both of us time.Gefetane (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but couldn't find the proof you are referring to. The "I was appointed Joint Liquidator of Charlton Athletic in 1984..." link doesn't tell us what happened. (I want to know if the club or just its assets were sold.) The second link proves that a new company was set up but doesn't tell me if it bought the club or just its assets. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangers Football Club was bought, so say HMRC and Duff & Phelps anyway. Sparhelda 10:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide the link to where Duff & Phelps say "Rangers Football Club was bought" - I have never seen Duff & Phelps say that. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the report by Duff and Phelps -
 * 4. Progress of the Administration to Date


 * 4.1 The Club continued to trade under the control of the Joint Administrators up to the date of the sale of the business and assets of the Company to Sevco on 14 June 2012. During this period, the Club was able to complete all of its remaining SPL fixtures and achieved second place in the final SPL standings for the 2011/2012 season.


 * 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).


 * 4.3 Throughout this period, the Joint Administrators remained in regular dialogue with all major stakeholders, who were kept advised of the progress of the Administration, including the Club‟s Non-Playing Staff and Playing Staff, the Scottish Football Authorities and major business partners.


 * 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.


 * 4.5 The corporate entity which remains under the control of the Joint Administrators i.e. the Company, will be placed into CVL once all outstanding issues have been attended to. It is likely to be several weeks before this occurs.


 * They clearly sold the club to the new company. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Spiritofstgeorge, your line of questioning reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the oldco/newco liquidation scenario of an insolvent football club. Let me explain briefly.. Asking "was the club bought before being liquidated or after" is irrelevant, because providing a failure of CVA and subsequent liquidation can be shown to have occurred, this by definition proves only the assets were bought by newco. Sources probably don't state this fact because its obvious to those who understand the process. The oldco in administration can only be sold if a CVA is agreed to satisfy the creditors, and the administrators (whose job it is to serve the creditors). No CVA, no oldco sale.Gefetane (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A club is insolvent and enters administration. The admins seek to find a buyer for the club, who will offer the creditors a CVA.
 * If a newco's offer of a CVA is agreed, the old company is bought and operated under new ownership because the burden of debts have been released. In this scenario, e.g. Portsmouth a while back, the club exits administration with usually points penalties, but retains its football association membership share.
 * If a newco's CVA is not agreed, the old company's burden of debts remains intact, and the administrators' responsibility to the creditors is to liquidate and sell on the assets. For the new company to continue the football club, they must purchase the assets and reapply for membership, either a transfer (Leeds, Rangers, Middlesbrough, Charlton etc.) from the old company which allows for retention of name and history of the club in question, or "new club" membership (Darlington, Halifax, Chester etc.) which means a new name and a clean slate altogether.
 * Thanks you, Gefetane, So I assume that Sparhelda will now realise that Duff & Phelps would never say "Rangers Football Club was bought" as it wasn't since a CVA was not agreed. Instead of buying the club, the new company bought the club's assets to run as the club. Therefore this route provides for the reforming of the club in a new company rather than a simple continuation of the club that would have been the case had the club itself been bought. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read up.. i have posted where they said the club was sold to Sevco Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * " continues to operate the Club." not created a new football club with the name we gave them. etc BritishWatcher (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a semantic minefield here! Duff & Phelps could not sell 'the club' without an agreed CVA as the creditors would then be chasing the new club's owners for outstanding debts. So Duff & Phelps sell everything concerned with the club and its running to a new company and then, simultaneously, tell creditors they have just sold off the club's assets but tells Green that his company now "continues to operate the Club". Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "could not sell 'the club' without an agreed CVA as" Says WHO? What source do you have that is superior to Her Majesty's Customs and Revenue on this matter who clearly stated liquidation would not prevent the sale of the club. (Also you might need to remove your paragraph on the mediation page, ive removed mine as they just want the primary issue, all of which covers our posts). BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is back to the 'club being a company' disagreement. If a club changed into a company, the club is the company. You buy the club by buying the company. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It did not change into a company, the club simply became owned by the incorporated company. Can a company own a football club and a hotel in France? If it did own a hotel in france, would that class as part of the Football club, or is it merely part of the same company. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the Club's own history it "formally became a business company" in 1899. It didn't "enter into an arm's-length relationship" or "co-exist in an autonomous state of duality" with the new company. Part of the business and assets of the football club Green purported to 'buy' - with his shadowy £5.5m loan - was a car park. This could just as easily have been a hotel in France. He also thought he could buy (and the administrators thought they could sell) Rangers' players' registrations and the oldcos share in the SPL. We now know that this was pie in the sky - so let's not set too much store by what Sevco or Duff & Phelps may pronounce. Duff & Phelps are still under investigation themselves for having a conflict of interest and running a highly irregular administration. This is why it is crucial to follow Wikipedia policy regards the use of high quality third party sources. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your opinion on Duff & Phelps' work they are court appointed administrators and have not been proven to have done anything incorrect so far. Sparhelda 15:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which club by the way? as that is the website of what you guys think is the "new club". BritishWatcher (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Player pages
All players that have signed with Sevco should have their stats for Rangers F.C. end -2012, and a new club from 2012- for Newco Rangers.

IT IS NOT THE SAME CLUB

Salty1984 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That just creates loads more articles to be under dispute, this needs resolved before any such actions are decided. Sparhelda 03:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no-one with an argument or legal precedent good enough to settle this conclusively. Surely the only logical thing to do is merge the two articles and represent both sides of the argument in the one merged page listing both the original founding year and the new founding year in the club section noting the reason and controversy surrounding it since there is such disagreement on this discussion board, across Scottish football and the media. It would be good to also detail the argument between Rangers fans and everyone elese in the main article, this argument will never be settled Rangers fans will stick to sayings its the same club and other fans will continue to refer to it as Sevco FC as a result. (Sandild (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)).
 * An attempt was made to try to write a merged article in the Sandbox and it became clear that it was not going to work as there was no genuine consensus about what that article would be trying to say. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The football authorities see it as the same club, what a bunch of fans and certain wikipedia editors think is irrelevant and should not be given undue weight to things like the Scottish Football League. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The title of this page "The Rangers FC" is now no longer in use in the media. As a compromise to both sides to save us going in circles, I think the proposal of Sandild is the way to go, presenting both sides of the arguement in a section on the same page of Rangers FC, so Wikipedia is not making a decision eith way, leaving it up to the reader. The only chnage I would say is putting 'Relaunched 2012' as this has been reported in the media whereas 'Refounded' has never been used. S2mhunter (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The new title is extremely problematic, even if someone favours the two article approach clearly this is not the title that is appropriate. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Article title
The current title had no consensus and should not have been changed to "The Rangers FC" Even if you favour two articles that title is inaccurate anyway. I propose that we turn this article into one about the recent situation for the club. A title like Administration and liquidation of Rangers F.C. PLC or something along those lines. Do the majority support such a change? The alternative is for this to strictly become about the company but there would be so little data available for such an article. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. How/why was this article title changed??  The article should be deleted and/or replaced by one that describes the Admin and Liquidation process of the old company.Monkeymanman (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, this article's title should be changed to the Admin and Liquidation process of the old company so that it can be hyperlinked to/from the Rangers FC article. Almost there... S2mhunter (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure when or why the article name was changed, but I agree with it. The facts support it. Simple. As always. Andevaesen (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fairly silly having a title so close to the other article title, and misleading It's not actually about the administration/liquidation of the old company: it is about Green's company, its financing, corporate history etc A better and more informative title would therefore be one taken for a re-direct: The Rangers Football Club Ltd. DeCausa (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah - it's just been moved back to Newco. Although better, I still think the best title is the proper name of the company. DeCausa (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved it back to the Newco Rangers as the new title was clearly not supported by most people and lacked consensus, along with just being plain wrong too. Whilst i would prefer the article to be about administration/liquidation, i would support the title being changed to the company name like you suggest. If we can get agreement for that it would be fully in line with the article content and a big improvement. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well yes - need to decide what a "second article" should be about. If starting with a blank sheet, the notable topic is the whole debacle of the HMRC debt and court case, the administration, the sale to Green and the re-launch etc, and that would provide a useful article for general readers (God forbid we should remember why we're here in the first place). Possibly something like Rangers F.C. insolvency and re-launch (2012) or Rangers F.C. insolvency and ownership controversy (2012). My earlier post was just going on the current content - which suggests to me The Rangers Football Club Ltd. DeCausa (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok with The Rangers Football Club Ltd. S2mhunter (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, i think looking at this article now it seems to work quite well as an article strictly about the company (my primary concern was too much football stuff would be put into it causing repetition and confusion, but seems reasonable for now). So might be the least controversial and complicated to keep it on this sort of path but with the name change to reflect the company title  The Rangers Football Club Ltd. The History of Rangers F.C. article could have a more in depth section covering the administration/liquidation issues, along with the details provided in this company article and on the club article it would be enough information for everyone whilst clearly reflecting the fact the club has been relaunched. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed this needs to be resolved. Otherwise there will forever be attempts to turn this article into a POV fork (as it started) of Rangers F.C..   I think it depends on whether you believe that "The Rangers Football Club Ltd" will retain separate notability after this whole affair becomes old news.  I suspect not, other than in dry corporate details that can be listed in Rangers F.C..  So perhaps something like Rangers F.C. insolvency controversy would be better.  (Although use of "controversy" rings a bit POVy to me.) Fallout from these events are likely to rumble on for a few more years yet, and not just within Rangers, but across Scottish football.  So there is plenty that could yet be added to such a notable subject. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-naming the page "The Rangers Football Club Ltd." is a model used in the case of Leeds_United_Football_Club_Limited. A "Rangers: Survival from liquidation" article would follow the precedent of Middlesbrough.Gefetane (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Renaming the page The Rangers Football Club LTD is the way forward. It is coherent with the article 'The administration and liquidation of the rangers football club plc' page. And it is the official name of the company. "commonly refered to as Newco Rangers" can be added in the opening section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.143.30 (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Temporary redirect
If no one has any objection i am proposing to put a redirect to the rangers fc article until after the mediation of this is done, if there objection we wont do it, but we are confusing readers with two articles on rangers regardless of whether there is two clubs or not, i am asking both sides the new club camp and the same club camp to agree to this temporary if after mediation it decided to go two article we can revert all changes on this page and the rangers fc page and focus on making old rangers and new rangers instead of one rangers article but can we let the mediation sort this out, and the main parties int eh dispute hopefully will be notify soon Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt oppose a redirect but i do not think its necessary, provided this stays strictly about the company then it does allow a focus on the administration and liquidation issues and is a good compromise. But if others are ok with a redirect good. If not, a page rename to The Rangers Football Club Ltd mentioned above would work well. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * something needs to change as th title suggests two clubs and the article as currently is does suggest a enw club too, moving it to the that page would be the end result probally if one article but for now until the dispute is settle i think it better as redirect then there no confusing for readers as the article woudl require a major rewrite to be about the company itself and it might not entirely be notable anyway so could be nominated for afd i just think for the temporary propuse both teh new club and same club camps should just agree a temporary truce until mediaiton finishs-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC);
 * I don't think that is possible or at least it would be highly controversial prior to final resolution. Doesn't it amount to deleting this article without AfD? Would have thought a better temporary solution is a page rename to The Rangers Football Club Ltd. DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * it is possible it happens on wikipedia all the time, ther eplenty redirecting to this, but it cant happen unless both sides agree to it, it doesnt mean deletign the page you can redirect the page even with all teh content still there-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact is every reference to Rangers as a football club on wikipedia, or a search for "Rangers" or "Rangers FC" on google etc, leads to Rangers FC. On that basis, I would be sceptical about the extent of any "confusion" regarding the existence of this article prior to its deletion/merging/renaming etc. It seems only people searching specifically for "newco Rangers" are likely to stumble upon this, and that term appears to becoming outdated in the mainstream media.Gefetane (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC);
 * I dont understand: if you type in Newco Rangers where would it take you? If it takes you to the FC page you can only do that by deleting this content & replacing with redirect. DeCausa (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should go for moving the page to The Rangers Football Club Ltd for now, we could also put in the hatnote something like "This article is about the company, for the club see Rangers F.C." to avoid confusion. Most people would end up at the main rangers article anyway, but those who do come to this one would quickly see the correct article link. deleting the contents of this page and turning it into a redirect would likely be too controversial so the compromise of having two articles one for company one for club seems reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's the simplest, easiest to implement and least controversial solution that adequately clarifies things prior to the final resolution of the whole issue. DeCausa (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The move to The Rangers Football Club Ltd will require an admin to do it as the page already exists. If nobody objects to this article title being changed to that i will request a technical move tomorrow evening and see if it is accepted. So plenty of times for objections if people oppose what appears to be the developing consensus on how to handle these articles. If there are objections we can discuss it further, and if the technical move is rejected we will need a full formal RM. Important to note that Administration and Liquidation of Rangers F.C. PLC now has a new article, so renaming this to that sort of title will no longer be an option. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added a brief hatnote simply saying this is about the company that owns rangers, for the club see etc. Hope that is ok, although im not fussed on the wording, just think it is useful for their to be a clear note at the top mentioning the other article to avoid confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If there no objections to the move we could do ti without a admin, click the link above, it says redirect from bla bla click it again it will allow us to remove the redirect and copy everything here to there and then just place the redirect on this page back to that page, once that is done we need to start finishing a lot of redirects and fixing pages i foudn that had problems due to the dispute Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Renaming the page The Rangers Football Club LTD is the way forward. It is coherent with the article 'The administration and liquidation of the rangers football club plc' page. And it is the official name of the company. "commonly refered to as Newco Rangers" can be added in the opening section.
 * Agree to the name change. Makes sense. Monkeymanman (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

POV Fork
Unfortunately this article is in danger of becoming a POV Fork, in that some editors are attempting to make it look like an article about a football club, when the actual football club article is over here. Wikipedia doesn't do multiple articles on the same subject just because consensus can't be reached among editors on what it should contain or say. We really need to either clarify that this article is about the owning company (and I still have my doubts on the lasting notability of that as a separate article), or the relevant content should be merged with Rangers F.C.. A POV Fork is not going to last long before being deleted. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading up on POV Forks I see what you mean. There is a name change being proposed that could help clarify it is about the owning company, much like Leeds_United_Football_Club_Limited. BadSynergy (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is currently a dispute about whether there should be one article about Rangers football club to cover the period prior to entering liquidation and also the period since relaunch, or whether there should be a separate article about each. It appears that some editors are trying to force the matter by changing the Rangers FC article to cover the whole period from 1872 until now, and force the article created for the new club to become an article about the company instead. I notice that the Rangers FC article does not even have the pretence of a compromise article about it - for example, no mention of reformed in 2012 in the infobox. The is not how stable articles are created on wikipedia. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Stable (and good) articles are created by them having good, solid references. Those intent on creating this POV Fork have been conspicuously unable to produce any that support their position, without indulging in original research or synthesis   Wikipedia is clear on rejecting both of these. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * whoever removed it i dnt know, but i have restored it, relaunched should and will remain there-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really have any interest in football (& certainly have no pro/anti Rangers POV) but to me it seems reasonable & logical to have one article about the club & football (yawn) and another about the owners & business (quite interesting), & that seems to be what's developing out of what was clearly originally an anti-Rangers POV fork. So I disagree with the prcemise of this thread ("Unfortunately this article is in danger of becoming a POV Fork") - it's going in thce other direction. DeCausa (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

that because i have tried to make the article per what seems to be consensus that this page is about the company-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that 'relaunched' should be in the info box Andrew. Leeds United and Middlesbrough who set the precedent dont have relaunched in the info box. I think the relevant information is contained in the section of the article titled 'Administration, liquidation and relaunched club' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainturnerisgod (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * the club has been relaunched regardless if you like it, stop saying there precedent, there is none, predecent only helps forma article it doesnt mean it happens, considering the new club camp want this article it a resonable comprise then there no doubting saying the club was relauinched/reformed-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see someone is continuing his POV Fork despite the summary of the article saying "This article is about the the company who runs Rangers Football Club" and so not "this article is helping explain the phrase 'newco Rangers'" as stated in their Edit History. Also, the poll above tends toward calling the article by the newco's official name i.e. "The Rangers Football Club Ltd". My concern is that term newco Rangers is less and less used in the media and therefore, though it should certianly be mentioned in the article, it should not be it's title or opening phrase. We are also mixing the terms "reformed" and "relaunched" both of which have been used in the media, however I cannot find a source that says simply "formed", so this term should certianly not be used. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense to have an article explaining the term 'newco Rangers' and why the media choose to use it. Such an article is not a POV fork and would indeed be explaining about the new company. So why such an objection to an informative article of this nature? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If Charles Green had decided to call the new company "newco Rangers" then I would agree with you but as he settled on "The Rangers FC Ltd" so this should be the title of the article in order to 'future proof' it for new researchers, though as I say, newco Rangers needs to be mentioned in its content. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The factor that makes this company different from any other company is the fact that it was referred to as newco Rangers, and why. Any future researcher can easily be redirected to this article should they wish to search for 'The Rangers FC Ltd'. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagee then as the enduring name should take preference over the transient one (Leed Utd was referred as a newco but Wikipedia settled on its company name). It also conflicts with the article's own summary objective i.e. "This article is about the company who runs Rangers Football Club" - newco Rangers do not run Rangers FC! Regards S2mhunter (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "Newco Rangers" per se. This was a shorthand/slang phrase used to refer to the registered company now called The Rangers Football Club Ltd. It arose to meet the requirement for differentiating between 'oldco' and 'newco' whilst transactions regarding, and between the two, were relevant. Now the oldco is heading for liquidation, and the newco is the fully fledged operator of Rangers Football Club, the need for distinction - and the phrase itself - it withering away to nothing. "The Rangers Football Club Ltd" is the correct, relevant, non-time specific term of reference and therefore that is what this aritcle should be called.Gefetane (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article should be that of the proper company name. Two reasons for this that you'd think would be obvious;
 * Firstly, no one will be referring to "Newco" Rangers within a couple of years.  There will only be the one company, so it will be practically an obsolete distinction.  Wikipedia should not be thinking short-term.
 * Secondly, it's the proper name of the company. The name by which the company has chosen to be known.  Certainly, have a redirect on "Newco Rangers".  But this is an encyclopaedia, not a directory of nicknames. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

League application & Inconsistent search
Though I believe the League application section under History correctly states correctly that "The company formally applied to acquire the SPL share of Rangers F.C..." I believe the same is not clear from the following paragraph regarding the application for SFA membership. I think it's worth stressing that Rangers FC acquired the transfer of Rangers FC membership, along with its associated penalties, because currently it is a bit vague and so could read that Rangers applied for a new membership. So something like "The company also acquired the transfer of Rangers FC's SFA membership, with its associated penalties, on 29 June 2012..." Any thoughts? On another point, when you type "The Rangers FC in the Wikipedia search you are directed to the 'Newco Rangers' article but if you type " The Rangers F.C." you are directed to the 'Rangers F.C.' article! Should both not take you to 'Rangers F.C.'? Regards S2mhunter (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * nothing can be done about the searchs might be able to fix once the aritcles moes. i would even go down the lines of saying acquired the rangers fc plc sfa membership it was transfer ratger than rangers fc. i am sure one recent source says that that the company owns the licenese and they ran the club so the new company had to get permission to transfer it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad faith
Rightly or wrongly I decided to remove bad faith accusations from an IP in the proposal for moving the page, that kind of thing will just drag the whole discussion down again. Sparhelda 00:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move to The Rangers Football Club Ltd

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was '''The article will be moved after the redirect has been deleted. There is a consensus to move it; the only objection, about the PoV fork, was addressed.'''. Ymblanter (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Newco Rangers → The Rangers Football Club Ltd –

Please move to The Rangers Football Club Ltd as the page already exists no one can move it them-self. There appears to be a consensus for this to the the title of the article.-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Makes sense for the article on the company to be at the company name rather than the "newco rangers" title which will quickly become non existent in media sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per BW. It also better reflects the opening text of the lead. DeCausa (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - As stated makes more sense this way. BadSynergy (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - As stated above. I also believe the article should be trimmed to reflect the fact that its directly about the company and not the club. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Certainly the best way forward. Sparhelda 19:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely a better heading that makes more sense to a reader with little subject knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainturnerisgod (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - support although i would support a deletion of this article, it's entirely redundant now we have a page entitled 'the administration and liquidation of Rangers FC'. Ricky072 (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I would have to agree with Ricky that the page is now redundant, Changing the name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd and only having the page containing company information would be the way to go, with any other information on the club page or the admin/liquidation of the plc page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.227.217 (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this article was created about the new club/reformed club that was established in 2012 when the original club entered liquidation. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was created to as a POV Fork. It's not that any more, & the title now needs to reflect that. (BTW, a club can't enter liquidation, only a company can do that.) DeCausa (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - that's the name of the company that this article is about. I can't comprehend how it was ever anything else. Nfitz (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Makes it consistent with the opening sentence too. S2mhunter (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - If this page is not to be a POVFORK this article needs to refer to the company, not the football club. The company's name is not "Newco Rangers", this is a slang/shorthand nickname and should not be the page's title.Gefetane (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit warring
I strongly suggest that all parties stop edit warring immediately and move to the talk page of the article to discuss their problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Buying History
If Rangers FC sold their history to the Sevco 5088 it would also involve the debt accrued by that club,it is therefore ludicrious to suggest that 'History' is a sellable asset, the only way that could have happened is if a CVA had been approved or the Rangers FC where taken over and all debts paid, they where not and therefore liquidated and the history of the club now in the history books, belonging to Rangers FC not Sevco in anyway shape or form, its an unheard of concept, you cannot buy history without buying the business whole,not just assets of the business, Wikipedia integrity is being tainted big time by these lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.184.158 (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Charles Green did not buy the history of Rangers FC (1872/2012) this history stays with the old club that will be liquidated, the new club that Charles Green set up bought assets, the stadium and training ground, the new club or new company are different from the old club/old company. http://www.scotzine.com/2012/06/rangers-football-club-consigned-to-history-the-titles-will-not-transfer-over/ HMRC will now appoint joint liquidators from BDO to wind up the 140-year-old football club. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18441178 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.237.141 (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of company nicknames/shorthand within opening sentence
Why is it necessary to include nicknames/shorthand names, used in the media to describe The RFC Ltd, within the opening sentence?
 * It looks untidy and doesn't read well. There's a reason why most articles don't begin with such things as "Manchester United, also known as Man Utd, also known as United, also known as Man U..." etc.
 * "newco Rangers" and "Rangers newco" are so similar, why differentiate between them?
 * The company that runs Rangers is referred to, in short, as Rangers (surprise surprise). Why does something so obvious need to be pointed out, at the expense of readability, in the opening sentence?Gefetane (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose is to inform the readers. If a new company was set up to buy the assets of Manchester United and was therefore referred to as newco Manchester United, new Manchester United etc, that would also be important information. 'Man U', however, is not significant for any reason whereas 'new Rangers' is. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The content doesn't say "new Rangers", is says "Rangers". In reference to the analogy, if the new Manchester United company was referred to as "Manchester United", you think this would be 'important information' that informs readers of something useful? I disagree. Gefetane (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Should the end of the Formation section “The assets were then transferred to a company called Sevco Scotland Ltd[16] which changed its name to 'The Rangers Football Club' at the end of July, 2012.” not say “…'The Rangers Football Club Limited'…”? Also, under Ownership and finances, should “On 14 June 2012, Charles Green issued a statement on the Rangers.co.uk website stating that he had completed the purchase of Rangers F.C. Plc assets…” not say “…The Rangers F.C. Plc…”? S2mhunter (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Charles Green did not purchase “…The Rangers F.C. Plc…” - his consortium bought the assets of that company. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting otherwise, merely to refer consistently to the correct company names throughout the artice as per Company House, that's all i.e. newco 'The Rangers Football Club Limited' oldco 'The Rangers Football Club Plc'.
 * Also, I would suggest removing "the football club" from the opening sentence of the Formation section "The company was formed on 29 May 2012 as a means for Charles Green to acquire the assets from the football club The Rangers F.C. Plc" as the "The Rangers F.C. Plc" is the company. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 09:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * i have renamed all fc to football club as per naming consisitency for the article to meet b class, im not sure what this debate is excately about but i am goign to try guess from wha ti have read correct me if i am wrong, not sure who but someone is suggesting it is worded that sevco bought the plc??? if so that wrong it was only the assets, or is someone suggesting that references of oldco and new co be changed to rangers fc plc and rangers fc ltd??? Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew, only the latter, consistently refer to newco as 'The Rangers Football Club Limited' and the oldco 'The Rangers Football Club Plc' throughout. Also, I would suggest removing "the football club" from the opening sentence of the Formation section "The company was formed on 29 May 2012 as a means for Charles Green to acquire the assets from the football club The Rangers Football Club Plc" as the 'The Rangers Football Club Plc' is the company. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * the opening text will be tricky i know what yoru saying it can give peope teh worng impression that this is football club, MOS states the lead should open witht eh article name which is the rangers football club ltd ill havea think about hwo to try improve it, the other bit i dnt see a problem with ill look at it later} Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Andrew, what are your thoughts on the original point of this section, that the content "and Rangers newco,[4][5] as well as just Rangers,[6]" is useless and inappropriate for the opening sentence. Why does "Rangers newco" need to be distinguished from "newco Rangers"? What's the difference? Why is the fact 'The RFC Ltd' is shortened to "Rangers" a noteworthy piece of information that merits cluttering up the opening sentence? Gefetane (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

only newco rangers should be meantioned as that was and still is the main one used to describe the new company. the other bits are more appiorate in the main section of the article, teh lead should only summarise the article not really go in great detail about the article itself which that does it undue weight only the rangers football club ltd commonly refer to newco rangers, isa company set up to repalce bla bla the rest moves to the main article somewher enot sure where-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)