Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rangers Football Club Ltd


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Keep. Clear consensus for either a keep as is, or a move to a new title, but not for deletion, redirecting or merging. Whether it eventually should be renamed or not can be discussed at the talk page of the article (preferably with a link to this discussion, so that the comments in this AfD are taken into account as well). Fram (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Rangers Football Club Ltd

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No notability independent from Rangers F.C.. We don't have articles about the parent company vehicles of other football clubs. It is possible that this corporate entity will set up a genuinely new football club, but we don't know that yet. I suggest that this be a redirect to Rangers F.C. until the picture becomes clearer. I suggest this page is moved to Liquidation of Rangers F.C., which would allow a more comprehensive article about the issues at hand. James Morrison (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to Liquidation of Rangers F.C. and rewrite accordingly. I would have started already, but am not willing to write whilst users are summarily redirecting/unredirecting articles, pushing 3RR to its limits in the process. —WFC— 15:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep under current title for now and expand as appropriate. If the attempt to get in to the SPL or some other league is successful, it would make sense to change the title to 'Rangers 2012' or something else suitable. If is it unsuccessful, it may be that 'Liquidation of Rangers FC' may be more appropriate. However, a redirect to Rangers FC of this article is totally inappropriate as it gives the impression that the club is continuing - the reality is that liquidation means the end of this club, perhaps to be reformed, but as a different entity. I suggest that, just like for Halifax Town AFC and FC Halifax Town, two articles would be required should a reforming of Rangers be successful. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to Liquidation of Rangers F.C., along the lines of Middlesbrough F.C. survival from liquidation. The company liquidation is an obvious candidate for spinning off from any relevant section of Rangers F.C. and deserves coherent coverage. Per nom, the company name has no notability outside the liquidation processs of Rangers F.C. Though by the time this AfD closes, matters will doubtless have changed. FWIW, and bearing in mind I don't know enough detail about either club/company/legalities to make a sensible comparison, Middlesbrough was liquidated, reformed as a newco, kept its Football League share, and has one WP article for pre- and post-liquidation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Middlesbrough were saved before the liquidation process was completed, by arranging a deal that was acceptable to both creditors and the League. The situation with Rangers is that an agreement with creditors has been rejected by HMRC and that complete liquidation is now inevitable. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, without access to relevant sources I couldn't comment. Whether we have one or two club articles in the future, though, the bit in between still needs its own article, as detailed coverage of the liquidation/reformation process would be undue weight in either. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 21:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 21:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 21:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 21:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Halifax Town example, were any assets / players transferred to the new organisation? I note also that they have differing crests and strips. "New Rangers" is expected to keep the same strip, crest, stadium, etc, so in that respect is probaly closer to the case of Fiorentina, although that club had a transitional period. Also worth noting is that while Rangers Football Club were founded in 1872, the business known as "The Rangers Football Club Plc" was not registered until sometime later (1899 I believe), and it is the Plc which is being liquidated - if there is to be a seperate article for each stage of the business side, surely then there would then have to be three articles? AlexGordovani (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 02:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * comment the problem is the soruces and amdinsitrators, liquidators, consurtium are all saying teh club isnt getting liqudiated only hte company tha towns it, but there was never a page on rangers fc plc it was part of the rangers fc article maybe that needs to be made but this article is about thew new company that owns the club Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

keeprewrite as it should be about the company that owns the club as the articles endltd and that the company the club is the rangers footballl club Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC) commentdnt merge to new article on liquidation although i agree a liquidation article is required this article was created to try make it liek the new club but in fact the fact they put LTD in means it is about the company so the article need cleaned up an rewrttien to reflect the company that owns the club, this page was also made against conesus in teh first place as it was decided until more details are known that to keep it on the rangers fc page and if anytihng it should merger there but everything here is on that page to Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LTD ARE A NEW CLUB GLASGOW RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC NO LONGER EXIST SO THE NEW CLUB DESERVES ITS OWN PAGE END OF STORY !!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.158.219 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * there no new club according to source it is just new company that own the old club, but the article can remain but it has to detail the copmpany not a club that doesnt exist, plc and ltd are the companies not club!!!! Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no debate whatsoever,Rangers FC 1873 are now defunct the newco are a completely different enterprise and therefore deserve their own page,all that took place was an asset sale,Rangers FC ceased to exist, this was not a takeover,its entirely different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.175.58 (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

New club full stop. There has to be a new page, this is not a debate. Old club spent lots of money they didn't have on players for the team. The club is being liquidated and this page is about the new club. Only link to old club is they owner bought the assets of the old club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.216.194 (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * both ip contruibations back it up with sources as bbc and many other state the plc is getting liquidate dnot the club personal i disagreed but i cant put my POV in Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangers FC (1872) is being liquidated - that means the club is coming to an end. However the spirit of the club lives on in the fans who will rally round the replacement club planned by The Rangers Football Club Ltd. That the company plans to run a football club is not in doubt as it has already applied to the SFA and SPL. When the 'old' Rangers comes to an end, it makes sense to rename the Rangers F.C. article, 'Rangers F.C, (1872)' and when The Rangers Football Club Ltd succeeds in getting a license from the SFA, it makes sense to rename 'The Rangers Football Club Ltd' as either 'Rangers F.C' or 'Rangers F.C (2012)'. Those decisions can wait until later. However, what is clear that the club is being liquidated and a new club is being forged to replace it - Wikipedia has to reflect that. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * all the sources says is the plc is getting liquidated they state the club contunies, we cant go against what the sources state, personal i believe the club is dead and it is hte club getting liquidated but sources say different Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we need to look for reliable sources here. Clearly Charles Green wants the fans to believe that the club is continuing as it is in his business interests. However, Charles Green did not buy the club (ie the company that owns it) - he bought the assets. The club remains tied to the PLC that is being liquidated. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How about this example from STV news: "Clubs will have to vote on whether to admit a 'newco' Rangers after the Glasgow club began preparing for liquidation under the weight of enormous debts." Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can easily post other sources that confirm what you say and ones that say the oppioste to it and say the club survivoes and it contunie and it tis the plc that is dissovle nto the club, this is the major problem no one knows as escape orbit has said on teh rangers page lets jsut wait and see and ocne it is known we will make all neccessary changes to amek that article and this article if needed and other but not until it is known it is pure speculcation and pov, my perosnal view is the club is dead and is dissolved but that is my pov Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The page is for the New Club/Company. Andrew Rangers Football Club(that existed from 1872) is a company, this New Company is going to be a Football Club(it already is) it just hasnt got a League to play in yet thus doesn't have any playing or coaching staff because if it does not find a League then they would have nowhere to play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please Read information on the isutiiotn http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18452212 "Season ticket income looks vital if he's to avoid pitching the club back into administration. So Charles Green now has control of the assets, but faces hostility from his customers." if it is indeed a new club then you can tpitch the club back into administration, this wher ethe confusion lies sources are stating the club contunies and sources state teh club is disolved but no one knows just now, the article itself also makes it seem like the club is dissolved so it is contradiciting itself never mind other sources contradict it Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Rangers Football Club PLC is the current Rangers which has a page on Wikipedia called Rangers F.C. The Rangers Football Club Ltd will be the Future Rangers and is a different Club to The Rangers Football Club PLC. Thats is why they both need their own pages.

For anyone who still doesnt under stand this look at Celtic, Celtic are Celtic PLC http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC003487 you will see Celtic's directors etc named there. They are the directors of Celtic as a whole, Celtic PLC is Celtic which is Celtic Football Club. Celtic arent just a name, they are Celtic PLC just as Rangers as we all knew them are The Rangers Football Club PLC known as Rangers. There is no such thing as a Parent Company or Holding Company. The Company that owns Rangers is The Rangers FC Group Ltd it is them who will still live, Craig Whyte owns them, The Rangers Football Club PLC aka Rangers, Rangers FC, etc is what is dying.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * im goign to bang my head on a wall, yes celtic plc have directors because that is how PLC or LTD company work, but it is that a company it doesnt mean teh club is part of, look up what parent company means ie satander and satander uk, ok if and big if celtic ever end up in tis position you will be pushing for a new article? Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep See . The SPL are to vote on allowing "The Rangers" into the division, using "Club12" as a placeholder where "Rangers" used to be. As "Rangers" no longer exist (as such) and "The Rangers" are applying for a place in the SPL, then this article has to remain doktorb wordsdeeds 17:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If that is the case it needs moved to The Rangers F.C as that be the more appioate title Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes Andrewcrawford, Celtic would also have died and a New Club page would be required for the new Club. There is no such "Rangers Football Club" Rangers Football Club is a trading name of The Rangers Football Club PLC < that IS everything that is Rangers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a comment that is the title it was at until this edit . However the sources are all a little ambiguous as anyone without a pov can see. Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC(IA) hold an SPL Share. But D&P claim to have sold “the club” to another company owned by Charlie Green. The SPL Share that RFC(IA) hold cannot, as part of the sale of “the club”, be transferred to that other company.
 * Keep until the situation becomes clearer. SPL fixture list for the coming season is to have a Club 12 that could be either THE Rangers FC or Dundee FC. "Rangers FC" are to be liquidated within weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuser ie (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The SPL appear to have acknowledged that RFC(IA) are no longer operating as a football club by its declaration today, they are not to be included in the 2012/13 fixture list.

Under the SPL Article 6 “…if a Member shall cease to be the owner and operator of a Club then such Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share.” RFC(IA) (no longer the owner and operator of a club) have automatically lost their entitlement to a share.

There is no debate. RFC(IA) are now no longer a football club, so have no right to a Share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.50.206 (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There exists scope for Rangers FC to be re-admitted to the SPL, subject to a vote by all 12 clubs which would require an 8-4 majority to succeed. That vote has not yet taken place, therefore the SPL have little option but to issue a fixture list with one club unspecified. AlexGordovani (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangers FC can mot be re-admitted to the SPL since it won't exist in 6 - 10 weeks. What might happen is that a new club, perhaps also known as 'Rangers' will be admitted as a replacement. Same name, same fans, same stadium, but not the same club! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this should stay for the meantime. We have a new club located in Scotland. Surely no harm in keeping it alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.50.206 (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a prime example of the petty nature of football fans in the west of Scotland, and it's entry does more to harm the reputation of all Scottish Football fans than it does to aid in it's original intention which is to try and further kick Rangers Football Club whilst they are down and undermine the process to move forward. I'll provide several points to back this up. As already noted wikipedia does not provide seperate pages for the corporate entities that own football clubs. The "club" and the "company" are two completely distinct things. This can be exampled by the fact that Rangers originated in 1872 (officially formed in 1873) but no corporate entity existed until 1899 when The Rangers Football Club Ltd was registered. Now by the logic of those who wish to keep this page that means that Rangers were not then founded until 1899, but this is clearly not accurate, the event in 1899 was merely the creation of a limited liability company which took over ownership of the "club" in place of the previous individual partners who owned the "club". The flotation of shares, which then again further altered the structure of the corporate entity by changing it from a private limited company (the Ltd suffix) to a public limited company (gaining the plc suffix), occured I believe sometime in the 20th century (forgive me for not having the precise year). This gave rise to the company as it was known, The Rangers Football Club plc. Now whilst this company remained solvent it was the owner of the club, which means that whoever owned the company The Rangers Football Club plc also owned The Rangers Football Club. When the company became insolvent and liquidation proceedings began the ownership of the "club" transferred to a new "company" by means of an asset sale. To address the matter of SFA or league membership, neither of these are required for a football club to exist, merely to play in an organised competitive structure. To illustrate, The Rangers Football Club was not a member of the SFA when they (the SFA) formed in 1873 and were not the member of a Scottish Football League until it was formed in 1890. The club despite this still existed before this so the logic that only Association or League membership confers the right of a football clubs existence is null and void. The name of the club; the club has always been called The Rangers Football Club. Indeed on the existing wikipedia page there is no mention of the corporate name The Rangers Football Club plc, as there is no mention of the corporate name of any football club on wikipedia, so it begs the question what makes Rangers different? I'll come back to that question. Now, a company registration does not confer ownership of a name. Only a trademark permits this. This trademark would be an asset which would have been transferred to the new corporate ownership along with the asset sale. Now, no football club, anywhere in the world, uses it's corporate identity as trading name or defacto name for the club, but this page alludes that this is the case for Rangers. So what makes Rangers different? Well what makes Rangers different is that it is part of the most extreme examples of football rivalries in existence. The where-with-alls of this rivalry are not for discussion here, but it's existence has created a culture, unfortunately, where there are those who will go to any end to essentially run them down. The existence of this page is an example of this. Now wikipedia is a fantastic thing to have in the world, but it only remains a good thing to have as long as it strives to maintain itself as accurate and fair and does not allow itself to be used as a tool in such petty squabbles. As I mentioned at the start the existence of the page does more to show us up as a small minded bunch of parochial and tribal thugs. Some of the comments that have been apparent on other online media serve to show that there are a great many number of us, again unfortunately, in that category. Some of the comments on this page, whilst not being offensive, allude to such a nature. Grand statements of the club being dead etc, no cohesive argument or proof to speak of mind, because in Scottish Footbal, and particularly in the case of the old firm, logic and proof are rarely asked for. The information contained on this page belongs on the Rangers F.C. page that already exists for all the reasons named above. The company named is new, yes, but the club is not new, it is merely under new corporate ownership. As I am not registered, some facts about me. I am from Glasgow. I am employed by HMRC. I deal exclusively with Corporation Tax matters, which means I have an in depth knowledge of insolvency procedures, CVA's, corporate identity and the transfer of assets between individuals, partnerships and companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.155.20 (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:TLDR. On the specific point of whether a club can continue without its controlling company, that is correct, but I would suggest that the SFA membership is criticial. Either the newco will adopt the Rangers FC membership of the SFA with all of the rights and responsibilities that entails (including the present investigations into its recent conduct), or it will apply for a new membership of the SFA. In the latter case it would be clear that this is a genuinely new club, rather than just a new corporate structure. We do not yet have enough facts to determine which will be the outcome relevant to Rangers. James Morrison (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Having read the comments above, I believe that a move to Liquidation of Rangers F.C. would be appropriate. That could be an extensive article looking back over the four months of administration and the causes of that, which would have undue weight if fully located within Rangers F.C. or even just the History of Rangers F.C. articles. There is insufficient information to determine whether the article in its present location has any merit. Only if it was established that this is a genuinely new club, as opposed to just a new corporate structure, would a separate club article be merited. James Morrison (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to Liquidation of Rangers F.C., as argued for convincingly by WFC, Struway2 and James Morrison. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

James, I am the author of the above (long winded) response. This page has been created by someone who is trying to paint Rangers in a negative light, of that much you can be sure, and on that basis alone it should be deleted for a lack of neutrality. I agree all these events should be recorded on wikipedia but they should be recorded on the Rangers F.C page that has always existed and they should be neutral and factual. The problem we have right now is that there are too many people with an axe to grind who have not got the first idea of corporate law, business structure, asset sales (and what they actually are), history or even a decent grasp of logic. The "club" exists as it always had. I'll provide an example; if The Rangers Football Club plc remained solvent and a new owner decided they no longer wished to float shares on the stock exchange, they would need to restructure the corporate identity to The Rangers Football Club Ltd. Does this mean the club ended? No. So say the owner then decided that they no longer wished to operate as a limited company and instead wanted to operate as a partnership amongst the current shareholders, well in this instance The Rangers Football Club Ltd would be dissolved. Does this mean the club ended? No it means that the organisation restructured. The problem we have here is that the plc has been forced into this position and with that comes sanctions from footballing authorities. But the club still maintains it's same existence as before, it effectively only has a new owner. The most important thing here for me is the integrity of wikipedia, it should not be used as a tool for those who have an agenda to serve. I have considered registering here as I feel as an unidentified contributor it may mean people think that I myself am serving an agenda. And I am, my agenda is accuracy, that is all. I feel I may put my employment at risk if I do register and become more involved in these debates as HMRC take a dim view of their employees doing so, rest assured my knowledge and experience in these areas is vast. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.155.20 (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the proceed but personally believe the club died but that is my perosnal view but i have been pushing to remove or keep this article as a aritcle about the cooreprate identie Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with you. The point is that if we created an article with the full details of the administration (and soon to be liquidation) process and how Rangers came to be in this position, it would be totally out of proportion to the rest of Rangers history, or we would have a stupendously long article. That's why an article called Liquidation of Rangers F.C. would be more appropriate. If, however, at a later date it becomes clear that Charles Green (or whoever) opts to set up a new club, as Jim Ballantyne did with Airdrie United, then there would need to be a new club article. James Morrison (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, wikipedia is not a forum for you, or anyone else, to express your personal view. If you do believe the club "died", then I submit to you that you do not have a firm grasp of the processes involved in these matters. James, a separate article on the liquidation of The Rangers Football Club plc could be acceptable but I still think that this belongs in the main page as a major event in the clubs history. It could not be titled, however, the liquidation of Rangers F.C. as for all the reasons previously stated, that title would be erroneous. I nonetheless thank you for your responses and I am glad to see you agree the current page should not exist in the manner that it does. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.155.20 (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No you misunderstand, that is my personal belief as a support of the club that it is dead, but my response on wikipeida is supporting what oyu have said but my english is ppor and i havnt put that across right at times, im not saying this is forum, im trying to show im nuetral if i wasn ti would be pushing my POV and saying the club is dead on teh article but i am not because sources sqy otherwise and i have been fighting that on the page, look at the talk pages of rangers fc and my talk page Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If Rangers were perceived to have survived the liquidation process by whatever means, then the "Liquidation of Rangers F.C." article would most likely to be moved to "Rangers F.C. survival from liquidation", as per the precedent of Middlesbrough F.C. survival from liquidation in 1986. James Morrison (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The point made by the anonymous contributor above is actually wrong as this is not a company choosing to restructure - a company is going bankrupt and its assets have been bought over by a different company. Yes, the new company want to run a club of the same name, for the same fans, from the same stadium, but it is a different entity -ie a different club. Indeed, think of what is going to happen when the SPL decide which club should be 'club 12' - Rangers FC gets a vote on whether Green's new Rangers should get in. Rangers FC can only get a vote if it is still a member club of the SPL and it is voting on its replacement club - therefore, not the same club! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * no rangers fc plc holds the spl license hence why it has to vote, if it was liqdauted already it wouldnt have a vote. the problem lies with peopel think the plc and the club are all in one Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * SPL rules state that only a club can hold a licence. If Rangers FC was no long a club, it would have its licence revoked. It therefore remains a club - it just doesn't have a stadium, team etc as these were sold off to a different company. This company - The Rangers Football Club Ltd - is now applying to get into the SPL. It is a club without a league! Therefore there are two separate clubs: Rangers FC, which is a club in the SPL but off to be replaced because it is being liquidated, and Green's club that he hopes the SPL will let in. And one club will get to vote on the fate of the other. Two separate clubs. When Rangers FC is finally liquidated, that particular club dies. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry fishiehelper but you clearly have no understanding of corporate structure, insolvency or corporate identity. The whole point I was making is that whether it is a forced event or a voluntary one, restructure of a corporate vehicle does not change or end the subsidiaries that the company owned. The club would only have ended if there was no-one to take up the mantle and purchase the assets to continue it. In that event the assets would have been sold off individually to offer recompense to the creditors. What has happened is that the plc, by virtue of the limited liability it infers has in fact saved the club and allowed it to be transferred to a new corporation, partnership or individual. This is what Ltd and plc's exist for. I'll provide another example, John Smith opens a shop and calls it Smiths Shop, after a few months he registers as Smiths Shop Ltd. A few months later, the company is insolvent and liquidation is about to proceed, his next door neighbour John Jones steps in and buys all the assets of the shop under his existing corporate name Jones Holdings Ltd and then, rightfully, continues to trade the shop as Smiths Shop. Now being held under the corporate structure Jones Holdings Ltd doesn't change the right to the trading name nor does it change the fact that the shop existed there before and still does in it's present state. If Mr Jones hadn't intervened then the assets of Smiths Shop Ltd would have individually been auctioned off to pay back creditors and the business doors would have closed. The doors at Rangers remain very much open for business and the name above the door is still, and always has been, The Rangers Football Club. What we have here is an argument created by the detractors of Rangers which contain petty and inaccurate semantics. The example I have provided above is from one of my old training manuals on insolvency practices. This is how I make my living remember. Andrew, I apologise if I misunderstood your statement. I meant no offence. Regards.86.129.155.20 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry fishiehelper but you are trying to pass off SFA statutes as corporate or business law and they are neither. I am not disputing that at the moment, due to SFA and SPL rules that Rangers does not have current Association or League membership, that is irrefutable fact, the point that I am making is that this is not a new "club", it is a new owner for the club. The point that Rangers maintain a vote on the SPL at the current time is an irrelevant coincidence of timing. The SPL rules do not allow for the vote to be removed until liquidation has begun and it will not formally commence until after this vote takes place. The share, as it is being called, in the SPL is owned by the plc and is, to my understanding, non transferable which is why it couldn't be part of the asset sale. But share or membership in an organisation does not infer existence. The club has transferred in it's whole form to a new corporate owner. It's identity and existence is not held by the SFA or SPL. Again these are inaccurate semantics. 86.129.155.20 (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid are are refusing to see the reality of this situation. Rangers FC is a legal entity. If that whole legal entity had been bought over by the Charles Green consortium, the club would continue to exist as the legal entity would continue to exist. However, that did not happen. Charles Green has bought the assets of the legal entity, Rangers FC, but not the legal entity itself as he did not want to take responsibility for the debts. The legal entity, Rangers FC, therefore still remains, though nothing more than a debt-ridden shell. When the legal entity, Rangers FC, is finally liquidated, the club, formed in 1872 will be at an end. Of course, Rangers fans will have a new club to follow, but it will be a different legal entity. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - arguably could be renamed Rangers F.C. (2012) or similar but clearly notable. The situation is no different from F.C. Halifax Town being formed after the liquidation of the owners of Halifax Town A.F.C.. TerriersFan (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely different from Halifax Town A.F.C. - in that example the club was formally wound up. There was no asset transfer and when the new club was formed it was then required to use a new name and new branding. As I stated before, Rangers have been transferred in their whole form to a new corporate owner. It's the same as the first time a company was formed for them essentially in 1899. Regards. 86.129.155.20 (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong - the slightly different name and branding was a requirement of the FA. If the SFA do not require this for the new Rangers club that doesn't affect the situation. The new Halifax Town play at the same stadium as the old, took over assets from the old etc. This company have taken over assets from the old fine; and if fans consider this to be a continuation of the old fine; but on Wikipedia we take a more objective view. TerriersFan (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If they took over the assets they would have the rights to any trademark on names and branding and would be entitled to continue using them, despite what the FA wanted or did not want. Halifax were liquidated before assets were sold (there was no asset transfer), Rangers have transferred assets before liquidation. Therein lies the difference, so it is you, my friend, who is wrong in your assertion. 86.129.155.20 (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 86.129.155.20 Doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Rangers have not been transferred to a new "corporate owner" the assets have. There is no such thing as a corporate structure and a club that stands alone. Rangers were formed as The Rangers Football Club(Their Official name), they became a Limited company in 1899 and changed their Official name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd(Look on the gates of Ibrox to see the full name) and in 1995 they became a PLC thus their Official name is now The Rangers Football Club Plc, look on the last document Rangers released. "Rangers Football Club" is just an informal trading name of The Rangers Football Club Plc, just as "Celtic Football Club" is the informal trading name of Celtic Plc.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Superbhoy1888, seriously? There is no better illustration of my point than your username. That combined with your obvious lack of understanding in these matters, evidenced by your response, where you repeat what I say but just transfer hyperbole to the negative, will serve as reason enough to disregard you from herein. Terriersfan, the existence of this page is the very definition of lack of objectivity. Again fishiehelper, and I sincerely mean no offence, you lack the knowledge and expertise in business and corporate affairs, structuring, law (your use of the legal entity phrase shows this up) etc and I don't have the time to offer lessons via this media and I don't think a continued back and forth from us is going to help on the matter. I am very much aware of the reality of the situation and that is what I wish to be portrayed on wikipedia, the reality. I refer to all previous points, none of which anybody has as yet been able to refute. I have yet to meet someone from within the "business" or "legal" worlds who does not accept the validity of the points I have raised here. I suspect this is for good reason and is also for good reason that the layperson is interpreting the facts as the choose to suit their agenda. I will not be contributing further on this debate as I have said all that needs to be said, and as I know the facts that I have raised cannot be quashed. I have enjoyed taking part however, I hope that the true nature of these events will be accurately and neutrally reflected on wikipedia soon as I do believe it is an invaluable resource in our modern world and as previously stated should not be a public tool for those with an axe to grind. Regards and take care all. 86.129.155.20 (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are hilarious mate, if you want your head taken out the sand I have a shovel here you can use. Can you please provide the proof that Rangers Football Club exist please, it should only take 10 seconds. I can do it if you can't!--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 5 minutes is long enough, clearly you cannot prove the existance of "Rangers Football Club" and why cant you? because Rangers Football Club is >>>>http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC004276 and it is being Liquidated. You know it, I know it and everyone else knows it. If you do not accept that THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB P.L.C. is Rangers, then they have lovely nice big in depth sets of accounts for years and years you can look back on, search the full shebang and point out where in those accounts, the "club" named Rangers is listed as an asset owned by this "corporate structure" I assure you you'd be wasting your time. This is what I call Game, Set and the Match.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * can you show the company ltd part for Airdrieonians F.C. as you said all clubs are companies are are limited so can you show this i cant find one Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Rangers F.C. or a new article about the liquidation. Although the new entity has a slightly different name and different legal constitution, for the moment there's no evidence that it's different to the old Rangers FC in practical terms - if it keeps the same stadium, fans, its records are viewed as a continuation of Rangers' old records, etc.  If in time the new club proves to be clearly distinct from the old one, it may merit a new article, but at the moment there's no sign of that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

To illustrate the facts from the earlier comments about the club being distinct from the company and this is merely transfer of ownership, please see the following http://www.oldsquare.co.uk/pdf_articles/3100105.pdf specifically the section that states; ISSUE ONE: THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER TUPE APPLY 2. It is now clearly established that, in order to decide whether TUPE apply to a particular transaction, it is necessary to ask two questions: 2.1 does the function which is being transferred constitute an economic entity? 2.2 will that entity retain its identity after the transfer? As TUPE has already been established to apply in the case of Rangers then they must have satisfied the courts already that they are the same economic entity as before and they have therefore retained their economic identity. This page is innacurate and in poor taste. Please amend accordingly or factually represent these events in the existing page. 212.137.36.231 (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "As TUPE has already been established to apply"...when, and by whom was this established? "Rangers then they must have satisfied the courts..." When was this issue decided in a court? If so, which one? "this is merely transfer of ownership..." Yes, without doubt there has been a transfer of the ownership of the assets of Rangers FC. The debts have been left with Rangers FC, awaiting final liquidation of the club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

References 10, 11, and 12 on the current page you seem to hold so dear all reference that the players and employees are eligible to transfer under TUPE. TUPE can only proceed under the regulations as they have been outlined by 212.137.36.231. Satisfaction of the courts may be a bit misleading, but I think the point that is trying to be made is that these rights would hold up in court therefore if TUPE applies it means the economic identity, in this case Rangers and all it's history, has been preserved in the transfer of corporations. This is quite clearly a good citation of European case law and as citations lend more weight on wikipedia than personal opinion it should not be ignored or merely dismissed because it doesn't suit your argument. If you think it's wrong I suggest you find a citation that holds as much weight, based on precedent and facts instead of rhetoric and opinion and present it to be considered. Scottishfilmguy17 (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * you best posting this on the rangers fc talk page and add new section for it as it more better suited for that apge than this Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Andrewcrawford http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC003814 THE AIRDRIEONIANS FOOTBALL AND ATHLETIC COMPANY LIMITED Airdrieonians was called, now liquidated.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks that means you could have a source that verifies that a company is a club, in spirit of fairness i am goign to find the details on all 42 clubs in teh spl and sfl and the clubs who have been liqdauted so as to help back up your arguement :) Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep - first let me honest with you: I haven't read through all of this discussion. But I have read through two discussions about this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, and I was thinking "why not keep the article about Rangers F.C. as it is, and create new articles about newco and oldco" as natural spinoff articles, but this article should be about the newco not a new club. Rangers F.C. is still Rangers F.C. even though the company that owned the club is bankrupt and hence moving it to Liquidation of Rangers F.C. might be a little premature, as the club isn't really liquidized yet. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Rangers F.C is The Rangers Football Club PLC though, there is no "asset" named Rangers or Rangers FC or Rangers Football Club that belonged to The Rangers Football Club PLC. They are the Club, what they owned was assets like players, cars, buses, vans, property, stadia, gym equipment, copyrights and trademarks. All of that has now been sold to a New Club currently called Sevco 5088 Limited, who will obviously change their name to something with Rangers in it for example FC Rangers and they'll probably become a PLC so FC Rangers PLC, they already own the copyrights to names like Rangers FC and Rangers Football Club as those names will be copyrighted assets that Green's consortium bought for Sevco 5088(The Rangers Football Club Ltd). I don't know why people cannot understand that clubs are companies and companies are clubs. The clubs are not assets of the companies unless they have a holding company such as Rangers have the Rangers FC Group Ltd which is owned by Whyte, we don't yet know the name of the consortium who own the new club but it will most likely be called something like Rangers Investment Group Ltd and a few people like Green, Morgan and Celona I think the guys name is will own shares in that.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ok lets take a new angle lets say a new club called club t starts and is granted a license and plays in a league ok... do you follow that, if so then the fa says hey club e commited a offence and breached our rules we are punishing you the club t for there action even though you have not anything to do wuith them apart from you name is like them... would that be fair?
 * I agree it isn't fair to punish newco Rangers for what the old club did. I suspect that the SPL are suggesting this possibililty to give chairmen a way to vote to let newco Rangers start in the top league. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * what i mean is under spl and sfa guidelines a club cant be punished for osmething they have not done, if it a new club then they can nto be punished but the spl and sfa are goign to apply the charges to this apparent nuew club so they see it as the same club etc, until this sitution is clear we really dnt know i suspect july 4th might be a starting point and certainly by end of august Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * if it truly a new club they wont face sanctions for rangers footballl club plc as you put it because they hsve nothing to do with them but they will face sanctions so the sfa and spl see them as the same club so explain that ine tio me then i might back you on the club is the company if you give a good reason why a club who appentely in your eyes is new should be punish for some other club Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The New Club won't face the sanctions of the old club, I dont know why you think they will. If titles are stripped they will be stripped from Rangers, the New Club have no titles to strip, any fines etc that belonged to Rangers are now defunct as is any money owed to them or owed by them.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * spl have said they will look to punish the newco rangers with sanctions for breachign dual contracts, although it not confirmed what excately they have breeched and what sanctions so if it a new club they wouldnt face sanctions and the case agains tthe old rangers owuld be dropped apart from title strippign which i agree should be done, but sanctiosn agains thte club for breechign wouldnt need to be persude if it new club, this is why there is conflicitng information the authorisate say one thing and other say another no one knows once the new season begins i think we will all be a lot clearer in what going on Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So they say, but if you want to know why they are waiting until after the New Club's vote on the 4th of July. It is because if they kick Rangers out the SPL, Rangers would no longer have an SPL membership to transfer to Sevco, thus Sevco wouldnt even get the chance to go to the SPL and could only apply for the SFL. Waiting until after that vote, at least gives the New Club the chance to get into the SPL. If Sevco did get into the SPL, then the SPL would then come out and say "Rangers FC have been stripped of 4 League titles and 2 League Cups, but since Rangers are now no longer members we are powerless to take any further action"(fines, Demotion, transfer embargo, etc) Sevco would remain in the SPL in this case - and that is what the SPL want, Sevco"New Rangers" in the SPL. Why else do you think they have posponed and postponed and postponed, everyone has known Rangers have used EBT's for 3 years or so now, yet the SPL waited until the last hour to investigate wether they broke the rules, they are now waiting and waiting to see if Rangers and Sevco can work their way round there being a New Rangers in the SPL before they do anything.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * im well aware and i agree completely but if they sanction the newco if they get into the spl then the spl are effectily saying the newco isnt a new club and tha tis my point Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Move and redirect as per WFC's initial suggestion. GiantSnowman 21:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to Administration and Liquidation of Rangers F.C. plc with a complete rewrite detailing simply why/by whom/outcome of the administration process and the subsequent fallout surrounding the liquidation of the plc. Monkeymanman (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to Administration and Liquidation of Rangers F.C. plc there is still conflicting statements emerging differing from the page creators. Such as BDO's statement that the club will continue just that the old company is being liquidated - "It's important to understand that the appointment of liquidators will not mean the end of football at Ibrox - only the end of the company that ran the club," said Cohen. --BadSynergy (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - there is definitely a need to have a separate article for the 'new' Rangers if such a team is admitted into the SPL or SFL. This article seems a good start to that and as things become clearer it can be changed or renamed as required. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There seems to widespread acceptance that Charles Green's Rangers is a new club (except from editors on Wikipedia!) It may be a successor club, but the old Rangers is about to die and a new Rangers is emerging in its place. For the record, even Walter Smith admitted that the other day "We wish the new Rangers Football Club every good fortune." This view is supported in the media. The Mirror had a heading "Rangers finished: Liquidation next – and 'new club' likely to be voted out of SPL" Also, The Mail had "Former Rangers boss Smith casts doubt on rival Green after abandoning bid to buy new club

The Rangers FC article is about the old Rangers, and this article about the proposed new one, assuming a league can be found for the new club for next season. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Further source (STV) describing the new Rangers as a new club: "Rangers’ stadium and training ground are now owned by the company but permission is required from both the SPL and Scottish FA for the new club to participate in football in Scotland."


 * fishiehelper ive never denied there sources that state it as as new club, but ny source that says it the same club you have refut because it doesnt suit what you want, wikipeida isnt about taking sides we report wha tthe sources say, the problem here is the sources say both so it a very hard siution to deal with Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keepfor now - there may eventually be parallels with the Fiorentina liquidation, but as this is a current event, subject to continual edition, there is a requirement at this time for separate pages on the oldco and newco, in order to deal with the July 4th SPL admission vote, and/or any subsequent SFL vote. If there were no issues concerning the status of Rangers 1872, the SPL vote would be unnecessary. Culloty82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The new club are actually called Sevco Scotland http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC425159 what people previously thought was the club Sevco 5088 is actually just the company who own the club much like Craig Whytes Rangers FC Group Ltd own Rangers Football Club PLC.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No the new company is called Sevco. That's where your argument falls down the club is very much called Rangers F.C. for now. There certainly are a fair bunch of pov pushers on both sides. It's highly unlikely the main page will ever get unprotected because no one can agree. Start mediation from outside editors only way this is going somewhere.  Edinburgh   Wanderer  11:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * i am in process of doing that, i think to have objective conclusion and consensus all involved have to take a seat back and only make there arguements and let someone neutral make a decision Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wanderer, the New Club are called Sevco Scotland, their address is Ibrox Stadium. Their informal or trade name is The Rangers Football Club or RFC or Rangers FC or Rangers Football Club as they now own the copyrights of those names(meaning only them and people they allow permission to can use those names or else they could sue them) and can name themself it if they wish. Watch and I bet Sevco Scotland will re-name their official name something more "old Rangers" like such as Glasgow Rangers FC or Rangers FC Sports Club or something Rangersish like that. The new company is the new club, I dont know how you dont understand that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No that is wrong that is the name of the company. And yes they will rename from Sevco as a Sevco title is a holding name that are preregistered in advance for multiple companies to then use they have to register a new name with companies house in due course which they already have made clear. Your letting your Celtic head cloud your judgement your arguments are constantly changing and as has been shown above by andrew there are counter statements to your sources. As you will have seen Rangers will be set up with two board of directors one for the company and one for the club that was fully laid out as part of the liquidation process so in the form of the new business no the company and club will not be the same. This has been done so that one isn't liable for the other. So no Sevco and the club will not be the same. Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the following quotes will be of interest then: from Steven Whittaker "We owe no loyalty to the new club. There is no history there for us." From Steven Naismith "My loyalty is with Rangers, not with Sevco [Green's company name], who I don't know anything about."
 * No they don't because it does not in anyway back your claim that Sevco and any new club are the same. They have been set up so they aren't. That would back up a claim that the old club and company were the same but again the source states they haven't been told anything so they don't actually know that either. They know as much fact as we do as they have not been told anything, and what do we know nothing for certain nothing. You could then quote Ally Mcoist who says “The formation of a new company is not the issue. The players would be playing for the same club – Rangers – in front of the same fans." In summary for every source that says club and company are the same others don't.  Edinburgh   Wanderer  19:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Move and redirect as per WFC's initial suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.77.53 (talk)


 * Keep until situation more clear - The situation is evolving daily, and it is premature to discuss major changes like AfD or renames.  Wait a month or two, then see what has settled out.  If the new club keeps the Rangers name, and plays in the same stadium, then this article can be deleted (or converted into a "liquidation" subarticle).  If the club changes names, it should get a new article, independent of the old Rangers article.  But having an AfD now, while the news updates are being issued daily, is not a productive use of editor's time. --Noleander (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Having two articles is not helpful at a time when nobody actually know the situation. The new article is full of pov and very little hard fact, this is because no one knows the actual facts because they have not all been disclosed and sources disagree for every source that states Rangers will be a new club there is equal sources for now that states the opposite. So what is helpful here, the answer is nothing general public should not be exposed to an article that is actually pretty poor and not neutral in anyway. Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Chanigng my vote Redirect to Rangers F.C. or Rename to Rangers (2012) or Move to Liquidation or Rangers F.C. changign ym vote because keepign the article does nto seem right now Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Question - If it is not a new club then why are several players claiming to be free agents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.201.10 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They are exercising their rights under employment law. Irrelevant to the issue at hand. James Morrison (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * because tupe says they do not need to transfer there employment form one company to another, but it could be a new club regardless that is irreverent if it is a new club or the same club the tupe regards to the company's which at the moment is disputed whether it is the club or not Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 23:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

GAME, SET AND MATCH Here is the conclusive proof by Rangers, SFA and UEFA that Rangers are dying, the pictures are of the important bits, the websites are the sources of the pictures:-


 * Established
 * http://www.plus-sx.com/companies/plusCompanyDetail.html?securityId=10824
 * http://i47.tinypic.com/1feomo.jpg


 * Rangers Football Club PLC aka the Club
 * http://www.plus-sx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/RangersPublicCensureFeb2012.pdf;jsessionid=9EA142C7247E4F79D12253203EE173C8
 * http://www.plus-sx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/RangersFCDisciplinaryNoticeFeb2012.pdf;jsessionid=9EA142C7247E4F79D12253203EE173C8
 * http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495830
 * http://i46.tinypic.com/33b35fr.jpg
 * http://i48.tinypic.com/ja9swl.jpg
 * http://i47.tinypic.com/xpbscj.jpg


 * Full Member
 * http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/09%20Articles.pdf
 * http://i50.tinypic.com/1enw34.jpg
 * http://i45.tinypic.com/2vd6738.jpg


 * Legal Entity
 * http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartThree-UEFAClubLicensing/03%20The%20Club%20as%20Licence%20Applicant%20and%20Licence%20%282%29.pdf
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28business%29
 * http://i47.tinypic.com/21jt8o8.jpg


 * Company and Club
 * http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/fe/a8/0,,5~174334,00.pdf
 * http://i49.tinypic.com/2eujzq1.jpg
 * http://i45.tinypic.com/2wf0nzt.jpg

Failing that, I point you to Richard Gough, Andy Goram, Alex Rae, Steven Naismith, Steven Whittaker and Walter Smith who have all called them "the new club". Failing that I quote none other than owner and chairman of Sevco Scotland talking about Dave King "For someone who's a Rangers fan, what he's suggesting is that, rather than get a CVA through that retains all history and tradition that we should vote against it and go down the newco route. I mean why would a true fan suggest that?".. Green himself even suggesting that the newco route retains no history and tradition and that would only be because its a brand spanking new club. --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You've clearly spent some time doing your research, Superbhoy1888. Your zeal in attempting to clarify the quagmire that is Rangers' affairs is commendable.  It's just a pity that Wikipedia is not the place for it.  The situation will become clear once reliable sources make it clear.  In the meantime I'm sure there are plenty of fan forums where your synthesis, analysis and interpretation would be welcomed and much discussed. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Aren't the Stock Exchange, Rangers, SFA and UEFA reliable sources? SFA state a member is a club, also state that if a member(club) goes into liquidation etc, Rangers state the Club became a company in 1899, Rangers themselves state that The Rangers Football Club PLC is "Rangers FC", UEFA states Clubs have to be a Legal Entity(company) to get a license, reason for that is non professional clubs cannot recieve or pay money as it'd be illegal and obviously UEFA need to pay clubs money to travel and play in European Football, a Legal Entity is a Company, Rangers refer to Rangers being founded in 1872 and incorporated(becoming a legal entity) in 1899. The Stock exchange say Rangers Football Club PLC were founded in 1873(they obviously havent updated since Rangers decided they were founded in 1872 a couple of years back). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * | The Rangers Football Club PLC (In Administration) ("the company" and "the club") - says it all. Thanks superbhoy 1888. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Says nothing to me; this was a pre-newco statement that related to the situation before liquidation was inevitable. TerriersFan (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It makes clear that "the company" and "the club" are the same entity - pre or post liquidation is irrelevant. Therefore, the end of this company is also the end of this particular club. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.