User talk:Andrewcrawford/Archive 4

Yu-Gi-Oh! GX
I assume you are talking about List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media article. One thing that I noticed was the "Aired UK before america confirmed by UK Viewers" and others references like it are not very good. The lead paragraph needs more work. Looking at the Featured list criteria and articles that are already featured lists is a great way to to see where improvements need to be made in the article you are working on. Hope this helps. (Duane543 (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC))
 * Unfortnally there is no way to source the infromation as al other sites use the america airdates, i thought that would be the best way to say how the informaiton was provided. Thanks for the other information. As for the lead in i was goign ot do that last.

Replaceable fair use Image:Yu-gi-oh!_gx_season1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Yu-gi-oh!_gx_season1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Content


 * News items and announcements
 * Contest


 * Featured editor: Teeninvestor
 * Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers


 * Want ads
 * Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

The Anime and Manga Newsletter #1
Number 1, September 10, 2010 The Anime and Manga Newsletter This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Anime and Manga. The Anime and Manga Newsletter aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global Anime and Manga News. If you wish to receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on theMailing List. This newsletter covers all Anime and Manga events of August 2010

Anime and Manga News : Older news
 * August 9, 2010 - A fact from Black Rock Shooter appears on the main page.
 * August 6, 2010 - Final Fantasy VII Advent Children undergoes a peer review.
 * August 5, 2010 - A fact from List of Baccano! characters appears on the main page.
 * August 4, 2010 - List of Digimon video games is promoted to featured list status.
 * August 2, 2010 - Wandering Son is a.

Requested articles Articles that have been requested to be created can be found at Anime and Manga and Seiyū.

Articles that have been requested to be merged can be found at WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force and Category:Anime and manga articles to be merged.

Articles that have requests for images can be found at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of anime and manga

Anime Premiered in August
 * MonHun Nikki Girigiri Airū-mura Airū Kiki Ippatsu - 2010-08-05

Anime Premiering in September
 * Battle Spirits: Brave - 2010-09-12
 * Pocket Monsters: Best Wishes! - 2010-09-23
 * MM! - 2010-09-26

Lists Requiring Help These are lists that were demoted from featured list status and need improvement to become FL quality again.
 * List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, see discussion
 * List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes, seediscussion
 * List of Planetes episodes, see discussion
 * List of RahXephon media, see discussion

Articles Requiring Help


 * .hack//Sign, see discussion
 * Believers: Undersourced and contains original research
 * The Big O, see discussion
 * Bleach (manga), see discussion
 * Boogiepop series, see discussion
 * Death Note, see discussion
 * Fate/stay night, see discussion: MoS violations, excessive plot, undersourced, excessive non-free images, missing pertinent info, need for copyedit
 * Fist of the North Star, see discussion
 * Elfen Lied, see discussion: Heavily under-sourced with original research, lacking neutrality, excessive plot, missing basic information, need for copyedit
 * Giant Robo (OVA), see discussion
 * Golden Boy (manga), see discussion
 * Higurashi no Naku Koro ni, see discussion
 * Jump Square, see discussion: Under-sourced, MoS violations, needs general copyedit.
 * Loituma Girl, see discussion: Inadequate lead, under-sourced, need of general copyedit.
 * Kirby (character), see discussion
 * Planetes, see discussion: doesn't follow style, too much unsourced.
 * Sailor Jupiter, Sailor Mars & Sailor Mercury, see discussion (all 3 are under the same discussion)
 * Sailor Venus, see discussion: Needs copyediting and condensing prose.
 * Suzuka (manga), see discussion
 * X (manga), see discussion
 * Yoshitaka Amano, see discussion: Insufficient referencing, prose problems, insufficient lead, MoS violations

Candidate Articles Requiring Help

These are well written articles that need improvement to become FA quality.
 * Cowboy Bebop, see discussion
 * InuYasha, see discussion
 * Lupin III, see discussion
 * Naruto, see discussion
 * Strawberry Panic!, see discussion
 * Twin Spica, see discussion

Featured articles The following articles reached featured article (FA) status and should be used as references for work on other articles in order to bring them up to FA level.
 * Madlax
 * School Rumble
 * Shojo Beat
 * Tokyo Mew Mew

Featured lists
 * List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes
 * List of Ah! My Goddess episodes (season 1)
 * List of Asu no Yoichi! episodes
 * List of Black Lagoon episodes
 * List of Baccano! episodes
 * List of Bleach chapters
 * List of Bleach episodes
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 1)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 2)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 3)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 4)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 5)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 6)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 7)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 8)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 9)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 10)
 * List of Blue Drop: Tenshitachi no Gikyoku episodes
 * List of Claymore chapters
 * List of Claymore episodes
 * List of D.Gray-man chapters
 * List of D.Gray-man episodes
 * List of Devil May Cry episodes
 * List of Digimon video games
 * List of Fate/stay night episodes
 * List of FLCL episodes
 * List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters
 * List of Gantz chapters
 * List of Gunslinger Girl episodes
 * List of Hitohira episodes
 * List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl episodes
 * List of Kaze no Stigma episodes
 * List of Kingdom Hearts media
 * List of Last Exile episodes
 * List of Lupin III Part II episodes
 * List of Marmalade Boy chapters
 * List of Myself ; Yourself episodes
 * List of Naruto chapters (Part I)
 * List of Naruto chapters (Part II)
 * List of Naruto characters
 * List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1–2)
 * List of Naruto episodes (seasons 3–4)
 * List of Naruto manga volumes
 * List of Night Wizard episodes
 * List of Oh My Goddess! episodes
 * List of One Piece episodes (season 5)
 * List of One Piece video games
 * List of Popotan episodes
 * List of Popotan soundtracks
 * List of Rental Magica episodes
 * List of Soul Eater chapters
 * List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters
 * List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters
 * List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes
 * List of Trinity Blood episodes
 * List of True Tears episodes
 * List of Tsukihime, Lunar Legend episodes
 * List of Vampire Knight episodes
 * List of Yotsuba&! chapters
 * List of Yozakura Quartet episodes
 * List of YuYu Hakusho episodes
 * List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1)
 * List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 2)
 * List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 3)
 * List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 4)

Rangers F.C.
This was not at all appropriate. Firstly, it's gossip. Secondly, it's gossip that isn't even sourced. Thirdly, whether you are dyslexic or not, that is not an excuse to submit material without even a basic spell check (indeed, it's to be hoped that you would be more cautious about that than average). You've been editing here for four years now, so I'd hope you were aware of these basic matters. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, Regarding a new page being set up about the newco, the same formatting that was used for Fiorentina should be used. They went into liquidation also(Italian equivalent) and formed a newco and this was just update on the founded section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seery234 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your wrong there mate. Rangers Football Club is a Company. If you go back and look at the Newspapers the day after Rangers were Incorporated in 1899 you will see them detailing how Rangers are now a Company. At the time there would have been celebration by Rangers fans that they were now a Company, you are now trying to deny Rangers are a Company. You do not make any sence. You cannot seperate Rangers as a Club and a Company, to do so is makebelieve. --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers are a Company mate. I dont know why people think they are not, all professional Football Clubs are Companies. The Official name of Rangers(the whole thing) is Rangers Football Club P.L.C just like the Official name of Celtic is The Celtic Football Club P.L.C. If one of these things ceases to exist then they do. What you have tried to say is that Rangers are a non-entity ie. They don't exist, they only exist in the mind. But we know that to be false as they are an entity they are a Company, Club is only part of the name, the Club is the Company and the Company is the Club. It's Rangers Football Club, Rangers, Rangers FC, Rangers PLC, Rangers FC PLC, call it what you will that is in Liquidation. That is what held the assets that made up Rangers but that in its-self IS Rangers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Hi Andrewcrawford. You are correct that protection is needed as all sorts of edits are being done, often for questionable motives. I merely tried to restore changes to what had been the stable (and correct) version. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The Rangers Football Club Ltd is the New Club
This new Company is the Club. They will just play under the trading name of "The Rangers" like The Rangers Football Club Plc play under the name of "Rangers". That page is a Club page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I know what your saying. But see if you look at the page of the New Rangers, called Sevco 5588 I think it lists Green, Murray and Samuel as the three people will directors roles. Coincidentally they are the only 3 mentioned in sources as being part of the New Rangers. So we know for certain that they are different as the Current Rangers are still listed as The Rangers Football Club PLC and Craig Whyte still owns them and is still a director there. They are in Administration/Liquidation and have now sold various assets to Green's "Sevco" aka "The Rangers Football Club Ltd" we can only go by that name as thats what he says they will be called however they will almost certainly have to change to something else.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Celtic FC/Celtic/Celtic Football Club is Officially Celtic PLC Rangers FC/Rangers/Rangers Football Club is Officially The Rangers Football Club PLC The unofficial Trade names they go bye such as Celtic and Rangers are just what they are more or less nicknames--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The Club are the PLC though. Look here.... http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC003487 That IS Celtic Football Club, Celtic's Official name is Celtic PLC, you will see Dermott Desmond etc are Directors of Celtic PLC. Celtic Football Club doesnt actually exist its only a name trademarked/copyrighted by Celtic PLC and used as a Trade name. Just like Rangers FC is probably trademarked/copyrighted by The Rangers Football Club PLC. On Rangers Club documents you will see "The Rangers Football Club PLC("The Club")" used as the Official name. Technically Celtic's wikipedia main page should be Celtic PLC and direct to Celtic FC, Rangers' should be The Rangers Football Club PLC and direct to Rangers FC. The New Rangers page would be called The Rangers Football Club Ltd and direct to The Rangers FC--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Rangers FC club dead or not". Thank you. -- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Time Team
Yes, by all means please check on the sourcing for the Time Team specials. Since the first thing one sees on the List of Time Team episodes page is an admonishment about the lack of references, getting good sources is important. However—keeping in mind that reliably sourced information is the cornerstone of Wikipedia—I would respectfully suggest that if Channel 4 says a show is a special, then its opinion must carry more weight than a source not affiliated with the programme, regardless of our own opinions. Gaiole (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

'Current squad' subsection should be deleted
Could you have a look at that subsection on the Rangers F.C. Talk page. Will come up with a edit request if you agree. Would prefer your input though. It's a suggestion for not removing the squad but adding notes. If that's the way we are going then it's the best way but i wanted to see your thoughts. Edinburgh  Wanderer  16:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Edinburgh   Wanderer  16:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Is Rangers now defunct?
Thanks for the note, Andrew. It seems I'm in a minority with my viewpoint then! I reckoned that, because Rangers are not coming back (in that form) then 'defunct' was fair enough. Others will know about it than me though, so I'm happy to leave it to them. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers page in shambles
Constant flow of new editors making changes without consensus and other editors being very select with sources (cherry picking so to say). I undid some of the vandalism but more keep popping up. Any ideas on what to do? BadSynergy (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Now corrected - sorry!
Hi Andrewcrawford - my humble apologies! I've now corrected the post and put an edit note explaining my error. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Answering my question
Andrewcrawford,

So, have I got your argument correct: when Green's consortium bought the assets of Rangers, it also bought Rangers FC but Rangers FC's membership of the SFA was removed from Rangers FC when Green's consortium bought the club. Therefore, Green's consortium now has to get SFA membership?

If that is your argument, it would mean that Rangers FC is currently not a member of the SFA - is that what you are suggesting?

Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So you are suggesting that only companies can hold membership of the SFA? (You did say "the oldco holds the sfa membership of the club", didn't you?) If that is the case, how was Rangers FC a member of the SFA before 1899 when it only became a company in 1899?
 * Do you not see that this argument is clearly wrong as Rangers FC became the member of the SFA and then in 1899 Rangers FC changed into a company, and now that same entity that was Rangers FC and then became Rangers FC PLC is being liquidated - club/company same entity, liquidated. That is why Sevco needs to get membership for hios new club because the old one will be dissolved shortly once liquidation is completed. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The SFA website gives lots of useful information, such as [“In light of confirmation that Rangers Football Club have appointed administrators, I would like to express my deep regret that a Scottish institution should find themselves in the kind of parlous state that has necessitated today’s course of action."|http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2550&newsCategoryID=36&newsID=9316] You will notice that it does not say that Rangers Football Club PLC have appointed administrators. Similarly, ["The Scottish FA has noted the Rangers FC statement to the stock exchange regarding the club's owner Craig Whyte.|http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2550&newsCategoryID=36&newsID=8998] notice that it speaks about the club's owner Craig whye - but he owned the PLC didn't he? My point is that the club and the company are the same entity. Unfortunately, I doubt I can ever persuade you whatever evidence is produced - hence it is difficult to see how this dispute on Wikipedia can be resolved. I still don't see any reason why Rangers FC should be treated any differently from what happened to Halifax Town A.F.C. and F.C. Halifax Town. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply - I doubt doubt your good intentions to try to improve articles. One thing however: Leeds and Middlesbrough were not liquidated - they were saved from liquidation at the last minute. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It was not premature at all - as soon as the CVA was rejected and liquidation was inevitable, Rangers' assets were sold meaning that a 'rescue' of the oldco was now impossible. In the case of Leeds and Middlesbrough, the assets were not sold and a last minute buyer came in, did a deal/got a CVA and the club was not liquidated. Rangers are going the same way as Halifax Town A.F.C. and should be treated exactly the same way as Halifax Town A.F.C was on wikipedia. The fact that Rangers has more supporters should not be a factor. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No you have never said that having more supports should make a difference - that was just me expressing my fear. Like you, I was wikipedia to be able to treat each article fairly and properly, but I fear that the number of Rangers supporters - some of whom will be editors - may mean that they may get their way, even though that may distort the truth in a way that will undermine wikipedia - and none of us want that. And with that, it's time for bed! Bye! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A fundamental point is that, as things stand, nothing has been liquidated - not the company, not the club, nothing. This can be checked at Companies House: The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. (incorporated in 1899) is in administration, not liquidation. Here is the specific link: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/99da7e368a7af5154a71b9b08ae39c35/compdetails - and here is the link to search the Companies House database in case that specific link expires: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/617731e19a364eeae3203c11f9a2a99c/wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo Edit: I see there are problems with Companies House links expiring. Try this (click "Search Company Information"): http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/toolsToHelp/WCInfo.shtml Also, Lord Glennie (Principal Commercial Judge at the Court of Session, the highest Court in Scotland) has confirmed that Rangers are the same club as before. In his Court of Session ruling on the transfer embargo he described the old company as one that "presently operates" the football club (link: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html). Now, a few months on. the football club is operated by a new company ("newco"). Similarly, Malcolm Cohen of insolvency practitioners BDO who are liquidating the old company has said: “It’s important to understand that the appointment of liquidators will not mean the end of football at Ibrox – only the end of the company that ran the club” (link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18426943). "The company that ran the club". Again, a new company now runs the club. Company and club are clearly being referred to as two separate entities. BBO (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The Rangers Football Club
It will be a Club, if it gets the share off of Rangers. Rangers Holding Company is not in Liquidation it is Rangers Football Club P.L.C which is Football Club. The holding Company of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C is Rangers FC Group Ltd - they are not in Liquidation, they are fine and they are owned completely by Craig Whyte and in turn own is it 86% of Rangers Football Club's shares?

Just clearing things up for you, in short:

Rangers are Rangers Football Club P.L.C they used to be known as Ltd(check their Club gates which say Ltd on them) that is the Club which for example Rangers Fans have shares in. The Holding Company is Craig Whyte owned Rangers FC Group Ltd.

Rangers Football Club was formed in 1872, it was Incorporated as a Company in 1899 - Rangers Football Club Ltd, it has since become Rangers Football Club Plc and is currently in Liquidation. There is no seperation of the Club as a Club and the Club as a Company, the Club is a Company.


 * Hi Andrew, I notice you started a discussion under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrewcrawford/mydraft. I've been involved in the discussions under the other Talk pages and, following a bit of source research, see that the Club/Company discussion can go on forever, as even self-contained articles are not consistent. So I am wonder if your 'mydraft' page is asking the right questions. Should we not simply ask rather - How should Wikipedia present the football team called Rangers; one (present tense) or many pages (mixed tenses)? Given that the Club/Company criteria is going round and round, the only other criteria is precedence. I know this question has already been argued but I feel it is the Wikpedia one to resolve this conundrum! S2mhunter (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Andrew, can you please add another source (if it is not there already ;o). http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/top-football-stories/rangers-takeover-doncaster-reveals-newco-could-escape-spl-exit-1-2302872 Neil Doncaster “The football club will continue to be there [in the SPL]; it’s only the corporate entity that changes. The matter for debate is on which basis the club’s football share is transferred to that new entity,”. In terms of seeing any Rangers newco as the same as the old club, Doncaster is consistent. For any punishments arising from the SPL’s ongoing investigation into non-disclosure of payments to players at the Ibrox club between 1998 and 2010 would be imposed on a newco. “You would expect the football club to take with it responsibility for anything that emerged from that investigation,” Doncaster said. ta S2mhunter (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Andrew, can you please add another source (again, if it is not there already ;o). http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/why-rangers-fc-continues-even-in-newco-and-why-this-is-no-use-to-ceo-green/ "If Rangers FC is willing to pay the price for its misdeeds, then it gets to keep its history." So if the newco accepts any SFA sanctions with transfer of its membership, then that makes the identity of the club separate from the company. S2mhunter (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Administrators report
I posted a link to their report on Rangers talk page however are you still collecting sources for someone else to judge what needs done? After I posted it certain editors started applying their POV of what the report means. It seems that no matter what anyone posts it will be refuted. Hows the request coming along? BadSynergy (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

newco rangers
although it shouldnt be there ther eis no conesnese to move it back to one article it is at request for comment so when that comes out later this week reply to it, if you do a bold thing liek that again i will have to leavea warnign even though i agree it should be one article-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC) There's clear consensus in the Rangers Talk page ... not sure why you'd suggest otherwise.

This is clearly racism by Celitc supporters. If you agree with me that it should be one page, you shouldn't be supporting such bizzare edits. Nfitz (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * there is not a clear consensus it 50/50 on both sides, does nto matter if there celtic supporter they haveright to edit wikipedia if you feel it wrong make a complaint on the administrator noticeboard-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And where is this alleged discussion your trying to point me too? The discussion looks 100% in favour on the Talk page. If the edits aren't in good faith, they have no right to edit. There's clearly a biased agenda at work here. Nfitz (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

See Administrators' noticeboard Nfitz (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

SFA on Rangers membership
Hey Andrew finally got something from SFA regarding Rangers.

How can “Rangers” gain league/SFA membership when they cannot produce requisite three years of accounts? The SFA answer: ” the…policy relates to applications for a new membership. In this case, Rangers Newco will be applying for the transfer of an existing membership held with the Oldco. Rangers Oldco submitted the necessary financial information for 2009 and 2010. It did not submit for the year 2011, which resulted in the Judicial Panel sanctioning the club a total of £160,000 for various breaches of its Articles of Association, and also imposing a transfer embargo which has been subsequently set aside after the Court of Session ruling by Lord Glennie.” That is – transferring old to new is not the same as a new club pitching up and wanting in. . Hopefully it will all be sorted soon. BadSynergy (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Case For Rangers F.C to Remain Within the Same Wikipedia Article
Summary: On the 14th of June, 'The Rangers Football Club Plc', a company formed in 1899 entered liquidation proceedings. Liquidation is the process of selling of the assets of an insolvent business to recoup as much funds as possible to raise funds for the companies creditors. Charles Green led a consortium which purchased the 'history, business & assets' (as sources show) from 'The Rangers Football Club Plc' as a means to continue 'Rangers F.C' within a new company (NewCo).

So what is the debate? Well, this process has thrown up some questions. Is it the same club, or an entirely new club? Does this club retain it's history? Does a club operate within a company, or are they as 1? And should the club have a seperate Wikipedia page to be represented as a new club, or do we recognise it within the 1 Wikipedia page as teh same club but simply under new ownership?

1. What Do the Sources Say? Many journalistic sources have taken the viewpoint from both sides, the 'Talk' pages on the articles are littered with thm from each side of the arguement. The tabloid newspapers have often described the 'new company' as a "new club". Some ex-Rangers players even described it as so. However, many others have reffered to them as the same club, including Neil doncaster (SPL chairman), and even HMRC (whos decision to reject a CVA caused the liquidation). The 'new company' has often been refered to 'Rangers F.C' (the club name) within official documents from the SFA & SFL. Although it could be argued that the sources in favour of the "new club" arguement have only ever been journalistic view points and therefore documents from official governing bodies should take precedent, it is still a gray-area in regards to how the situation is being represented within the media. Therefore we need to evaluate further evidence.

2. Is 'A Club' a seperate thing from the company, or are they 1 and the same? 1 arguement being put forward by the "new club" camp, is that a club IS a company. That they are 1 and the same. It's a reasonable arguement as many official documents and sources purposefully define them as so, by stating the company name, and placing in brackets (the club). But perhaps this is simply to clarify to the readers that when they speak of 'the club' they are talking about the company. So what is 'a club' exactly? Well the FA in England produced this document on club structures: http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/The%20FA%20Club%20Structures.pdf says "The FA does not have any rules or requirements that specify that a club must be structured in one legal form or another." The term 'Club' is actually a pretty lose term, infact 2 people getting together to form any kind of association coudl call themselves a 'club'. Most professional football teams however are formed as companies. On page17 of the same document cited above, it details the process of turning a club into a corporate entity. After creating & registering a company, you then proceed to transfer the assets which make up the club, into the new company. If we move on to page20, it then outlines the rules regarding the transfer of membership from 1 legal entity to another. In other words, there is nothing to stop owners of a football club transferring all the assets out of 1 corporate entity to another, (if approved by the regulatory bodies). So, from that we can guage that a 'football club' is made up of certain assets (normally player contracts, a stadium, intellectual property), and these assets can be moved into a company during it's initial creation, and it can also be moved out of 1 company, and into another. So even if you take the viewpoint that club/company are 1 of the same, there is no evidence to suggest they cannot ever be broken apart, (otherwise a simple corproate restructure would be impossible without creating an entirely new club).

3. Precedents. Ofcourse, this is nothing new, it would be naive to believe Rangers F.C were the first club to suffer such fate. So what precedents can we draw upon? All of the following clubs have either been "liquidated" or "dissolved" and now function under new companies (NewCo's); Leeds United AFC Luton Town Charlton Athletic Middlesborough FC AFC Bournemouth Rotherham United

There are also examples of Clubs within Wikipedia which document clubs on different pages, such as;FC Halifax & Chester FC. So what's different? Well these are 2 examples of what is often described as 'Phoenix clubs'. When the old clubs were wound-up, fans groups got together and created these new clubs. The greatest fundamental difference is they did not acquire 'the business & assets' from the old clubs in liquidation. Therefore they have no legal link what-so-ever to the old clubs. They cannot lay claim to any of the intellectual property, use the same 'club name' or use the same cub badge/crest. In theory these clusb could have been created while the old clubs still in existence. So which sets precedent for Rangers F.C? Well since the NewCo purchased "the history, business & assets " of the old company, it is NOT a 'phoenix club'.

There is 1 other issue regarding the sale of assets. Within the sale of the assets was membership to the SFA. Even though it was sold, it still must be sanctioned by the governing body, and we await that decision.

4. History & Goodwill Another arguement made by the 'new club' camp is that the history ends with the old company, and the 'new club' is starting a fresh. Well as we can see from the above precedents, this certainly isn;t the case of Leeds United AFC or Charlton Athletic, who lay claim to their respective histories even though they present companies operating them were formed in 2007 & 1984 respectively. A more robust piece of evidence however is this Interim Creditors Report produced by Rangers Administrators Duff&Phelps, which details the transaction of assets from the OldCo to NewCo.

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

"4.4 Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club."

So within this document the administratos clearly state the new company has purchased "the history" aswell as the assets. It also goes on to state that "the club" is no under ownership & operation of "Sevco" (the new company).

If we move onto appendix 2, the document then details the transaction with exactly what was sold and to what value. It is here we can see the transaction of "goodwill".

what is 'Goodwill'? Goodwill is an intangible assets, which aims to encapture the value of a brand, inclusive of history. If i were to purchase 'Fanta' the soft drink from it's owners 'The coca-Cola Company' this would allow me to continue to trade as if nothing changed (same name, label, intellectual property) lay claim to the soft dirnks history, and ultimatly keep the same customers & same market share. Without the goodwill, i'd still have the manufacturing rights & recipe, but i'd need to come up with a new name, and be percieved by as a new product, thus likely to lose many customers & the current market share of Fanta. Even though "Goodwill" may be a concept hard to grasp, it has been common practice in business for a long time and applies here, with clear record of it's transaction.

5. Conclusion with the above evidence provided, it's difficult to see how a case for 'new club' to be substantiated. The above evidence has dealt with the 3 main arguements heard from otherside of the debate, which thus far have been;
 * Sources in the media describe it as a 'new club'. All of these sourcesare simply a journalistic point-of-view, and each one is contradicted by another source which states it's the same club.  Where is the evidence beyond the wording of a news article?
 * Club & company are as one and cannot be broken. We have disproven that with a document from the FA and with the fact, such an opinion would mean even a simple corporate restructure would be impossible without forming an entirely 'new club'.
 * They are the same as Chester or Halifax. We have ruled these clubs as precedents as they did not acquire the business & assets as a going concern from the insolvent company (oldco), but instead are 'phoenix clubs'.
 * You cannot buy history, there is no such thing as goodwill. you cannot simply state goodwill does not exist because you dont fully understand it.  I have provided evidence in the form of a formal administrative document which states the history was sold & goodwill was purchased.

The wikipedia article Rngers FC was changed to reflect the club in the past tense, as if no longer in existence, and a new article set-up to describe a new club (in the same manner as the above named Chester or Halifax). such change was done WITHOUT concensus. In order to make such a drastic & hotly disputed change without concensus, the onus is surely on those who believe we are dealing with a 'new club' to prove as a matter-of-fact, and beyond all doubt, that this is a new club. So far there has been very thin evidence, if any at all to lead us to believe undoubtebly we are dealign with an entirely new club, and this arguement seems to be based almost entirely on point-of-view. Ricky072 (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)