Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rangers F.C.

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 101.113.94.179 (talk) at 10:41, 24 July 2012 (→Propose banning Andrew Crawford from wiki editing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:41, 24 July 2012 by 101.113.94.179 (talk) (→Propose banning Andrew Crawford from wiki editing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rangers F.C. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Former good article nomineeRangers F.C. was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 28, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
January 20, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 25, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFootball: Scotland High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Scottish football task force (assessed as High-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconScotland High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Template:WikiProject Superleague Formula

Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Green buys assets

he actually tried to buy the football CLUB but the CLUB where liquidated and thus bought the assets of the liquidated CLUB instead http://www.itv.com/news/story/2012-06-12/rangers-fc-facing-liquidation/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18447530 Geez, it could be not more plainer..

Propose banning Andrew Crawford from wiki editing

The guy is quite clearly a fan of the former club Rangers FC and also of the Newco Sevco 5088, think[REDACTED] really needs to watch the stuff this guy is editing as its done out of a sense of what he wants to believe rather than what is fact, and that goes against the integrity of wikipedia. Rangers FC the club are no longer, their assets where sold to the Sevco consortium and Mr Green being the head of that consortium has formed a new football club, Its not rocket science.This is why I strongly question Mr Crawfords motives, how can[REDACTED] stay an honest reliable impartial encyclopedia with people want to make up rubbish to suit an agenda,pitiful stuff,sad really. what Mr Crawford want you to believe is if Camilla Parker Bowles adopted William and Harry, if she changed her name to Diana,if she brought all of Diana's assets moved into her house and took on all her former roles then she would infact BECOME Diana, thats it in a nutshell. Sorry Andrew Rangers FC are now consigned to the history books, they are no more, they dont exist, they had a proud history and that will live on in your heart and the heart of many fans, but it will absolutely NOT live on with the Sevco consortium,you have a football club you had a football club to be proud of, and in time youll have another football club to be proud of,but it is sheer ludicrous to suggest they are the same club.


"The newco club have been admitted

into the Third Division for the upcoming season and enter the League Cup at the first round stage for the first time since 1978."

"The newco club have been admitted into the Third Division for the upcoming season although they are still waiting to discover if they will be granted SFA membership to compete.
If membership is granted then the club will enter the League Cup at the first-round stage for the first time since 1978."

read what the sources are saying it the first time they have been in the first round since 1978 suggesting the club contunies--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

lol you beat me too it.. i was just about to post about something in the daily mail.. "Heres the latest article that clearly shows it is the same club despite saying "newco club".. "Rangers will face Irn-Bru Second Division side East Fife in the first round of the Scottish Communities League Cup. The newco club have been admitted into the Third Division for the upcoming season and enter the League Cup at the first-round stage for the first time since 1978. " How is this a dead club?" BritishWatcher (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
ill add that one too, but it shows upa major problem with news stories they seem to copy each other word for word so if one hasa biased view they all will so doesnt mean this is right it adds to teh complexity of this dispute we cant rely on these sources--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me why newco Rangers have to apply for membership of the SFA if they are not a new club? If they had not been liquidated this would not have happened. I guess the proof of the pudding will come when in future years official stats from the football authorities inform us how many titles and cups etc have been won by Rangers Football Club (newco). Clay More47 (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
because it is a different company which is having to apply to have the old company's membership of the SFA transferred over. If they do not get that then the justification for saying the club is dead would be stronger. and we wont have to wait years, we can wait weeks or days to see how the authorities treat rangers in terms of past titles. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) britishwatcher has summed it up wha ti was ogign to say, but there already talkign of strippign titles from the sevco compnay because htey own them now--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It won't take years. Taking over an old companys membership does not imply that it is the same club. It's simply that it is a new club that is taking over the old clubs membership. This is being done from a financial point of view as the SFA believe that the people that supported the old rangers will switch to the newco and the tv rights will follow on. As far as I'm aware Andrew the SFA are actually thinking of stripping the titles from the old club, not the newco, who also as far as I'm aware have no titles as yet to strip. Clay More47 (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
no it wont take years it will be decided by next week because newco needs the sfa membership to play but if the sfa transfer it there effectily saying it is the same club and by that according stripping the newco of the titles, Misplaced Pages is not about wha ti think or you think, you find this hard to believe but i believe that rangers fc are dead they no longer exist but as[REDACTED] the sources are saying the club is alive and i we have to go with source not speculation--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
So why does stripping certain titles from "the old club" relate to agreeing membership of the SFA for "the new club" and why is Charles green the person who has never owned the old company and "old club" in your mind.. involved??. Also did this club win trophies before the company was incorporated in 1899? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
ClayMore, this procedures of transferring membership happens quie often and is within the rules, it only becomes a rule breach when clubs are insolvent. For example if you owned 100% of a football club and wanted to do a corporate restrucuture for whatever reason. You could move all of the assets out of the old company, dissolve it, and shift everything to your new company. You would however need permission from the FA to move the membership from 1 entity to another, but they would sanction it without any issues provided everythign was above board. In the case of Rangers (aswell as leeds, and other clubs to have underwent a similar fate), it's not as straightforward, because the reason for the membership switch is due to the old company being insolvent, and usually the switch is granted but often comes with penalties.Ricky072 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Taking over an old companys membership does not imply that it is the same club. Seeing as SFA have told Green accept oldco's sanctions or make a brand new application for membership it's patently obvious it is being seen as the same club. The SFA are accepting the oldco's yearly accounts aswell can't do that when your a new club. BadSynergy (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that they are entering into the first round is evidence that the SFL are treating them as a new club. If they were a continuation, they would enter, under the rules of the competition, into the second round as one of the top seven clubs in the SPL & SFL in the preceding season that didn't qualify for European competition. Peterowan (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point - if Rangers were being treated as the same club that was in the SPL last season, this would not have happened. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
can i point out that is interuption you are correct they are being treated as a new club, "A NEW CLUB TO THE SFL" as such they cant go to the secodn round again this is all interuption it time fo rht erequest for ocmment to go live--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me, but this is not just about the SFL. If you re-read the rules "For the First Round the thirty lowest placed clubs of The Scottish Football League and The Scottish Premier League at the end of the preceding season..." - note: at the end of the preceding season. If the new Rangers were viewed as the same club as played in the SPL last season, they should not be playing in the First Round as, at the end of the preceding season, they were NOT one of 'the thirty lowest placed clubs of The Scottish Football League and The Scottish Premier League. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
ok lets take uefa not comparable but a example i will try to explain wiht, lets assumed rangers had got the cva, they where still banned from europe for that seaosn for not submit accoutn for 2011 so would that have made ita enw club? i hope the answer is no because it would be ban, lets jsut forgot about whether rangers are a enw club or not, the sfa rules have things similar that means regardless of you finishing position the season before insolvence events or rule breech would mean you dnt geta bye, ill admit i aint 100% up on why by i know that there something within the sfl/sfa rules that means regardless of whether it si anew club or relgated club there positiont he season befor eiwll not matter, do you know where dundee and dumfermline are entering the competiton ?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Totally irrelevant original research to reach a conclusion not present in the reference. Just like 99% of all discussion here in the last month. --Escape Orbit 16:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sevco Scotland Ltd accept registration embargo

From Former Rangers striker Billy Dodds on the demise of Rangers http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/ibrox-novelty-act-has-a-shelf-life.18211860 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/aberdeen/2012/07/16/aberdeen-starlet-peter-pawlett-we-can-fill-void-in-spl-after-rangers-demise-86908-23909043/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/16/rangers-lowest-league-victory-fans

Three impartial articles about the demise of Rangers,The ONLY people that are talking about the newco being the same are infact fans of the former Rangers and that of the newco (surprise surprise) Misplaced Pages should put all this resolution BS behind it, Sevco and fans of the former club Rangers FC need to put this behind them, grieve and then move on, their embarrassing themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.94.179 (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

'Subject to the completion of all legal documentation, we anticipate transfer of membership next week.' http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsID=10229&newsCategoryID=1 BadSynergy (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"once approved, will enable Rangers FC to take a considerable step towards participating in Irn Bru Division Three." Yet according to wikipedai "Rangers FC was a football club". This is getting embarassing for Misplaced Pages now. Ricky072 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it is now absolutely clear this is the same club, maybe we should work on what the introduction/article text will need to be changed to (obviously additional tweaks and will be needed once the confirmation happens next week), but we could get much of that prepared over the coming days,, so once the SFA confirm its been transferred, the article is fixed for sure right away. Rather than have to wait days longer after that happens. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree Watcher plus I'd support a separate article detailing the the whole saga rather than clog up the team page. BadSynergy (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think there's some selective reading on. If it's the same club as you all appear to be claiming, what "transfer of membership" is going on? That's not "transfer of ownership" by the way, it's the transfer of membership of the Scottish Football League from, wait for it, the old club to the new club. Simply because they have the same name doesn't make them the same club.... 2 lines of K303 18:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It was either accept sanctions for transfer or refuse and make a brand new application for membership. If your saying there is no difference between the two then why accept sanctions? And its membership with SFA not SFL. BadSynergy (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You missed my point. If it's the same club as people are claiming based on that (very much open to interpretation) press release, why would any transfer of membership need to take place? 2 lines of K303 19:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll repost info for you. In a statement, the governing body said: “Sevco Scotland Ltd bought Rangers Football Club PLC’s share in the SPL and membership of the Scottish FA as part of their acquisition of assets.

“Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements.” BadSynergy (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Still open to interpretation. "The new Rangers appear likely to be granted membership of the Scottish Football Association after accepting a 12-month transfer embargo, nice news report based on the information in the press release. 2 lines of K303 19:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
What part is open to interpretation? BadSynergy (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Exactly what the transfer of membership means in regard to whether it's the same club or not. The BBC doesn't tend to agree, what with their quote there and the further line of "The SFA had insisted that the new Rangers would have to accept sanctions imposed on the old club". 2 lines of K303 19:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the problem. The BBC takes this press release from the SFA and then introduce terms that have never been used in it. No where in the SFA statement do they mention a 'new club' or 'The Rangers FC', so the BBC are adding to the confusion, which is why we were waiting to see if the SFA would transfer the Rangers FC membership from the oldco to the newco, along with sanctions, otherwise a new club would need to apply for new membership, meaning the SFA see it as the same club. The FA did the same with Leeds Utd, but quicker. Regards S2mhunter (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
ok guys you should know by now that i am inartial in this, unfortnally the statement is not a enough to say 100% certain but its a start and will help with teh equest for comment, to be honest people are goign to come along and rubbish anything said because its not there pov that includes all of you and it is open to interuptions, so i think the request for comment will be need either way maybe only the sfl page will help if they say foudned 1872--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed that its not the final confirmation needed, but it is certainly heading in the right direction towards that. I do think that it would be worth discussions taking place now preparing for when that confirmation happens, so we know what we believe the introduction in particular should say when the time comes. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Telegraph seem to think it's far from clear what the situation is either, saying "A year on and Rangers are heading for liquidation, while the club that is looking to emerge from the debris remains unable to play football or sign players. What we do know is that the new Rangers - who are still to formally adopt the title until legal matters are completed later this month - will play in the Irn-Bru Third Division, if anywhere". 2 lines of K303 19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably right Andrew I was hoping governing bodies statements would help but obviously still not enough. Transfer of membership plus updated SFL information will hopefully be enough to sort this out. And the new title the Telegraph is referring to is to change Sevco Scotland Ltd to The Rangers Football Club Ltd. Rangers Football Club has not applied to the SFA for any name change as they do not need to. BadSynergy (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

More interpretation. My reading is that they can't even call themselves Rangers FC until the paperwork has gone through, and "the club that is looking to emerge from the debris" means a new club. The situation is far from clear. 2 lines of K303 19:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
edit teh sandbox then sandbox make the version assuming it is one club ready to go live but do nto puta request in, when we geta conesus or 100% confirmation i will do it as i hope most will not say i back one side over the other. one night in hackney that has been the problem all along that the press can have a bias, it has to be remember how senstive this issue is in scotland rival fans are laughign in there boots at the fall of a gaint and a gaint that has abused the game, where rangers fan are hurting because of people at the helm who have abused there power and brought there club to there knees, so the press isnt the best for soruces on this--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The press possibly can have a bias, but I'd suggest it's far less than Rangers fans have. 2 lines of K303 19:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
you misunderstand, lets take two jouranlists, one is celtic fan and the other is rangers fan, they will both have bias and will push there own pov, one will say new club one will say same club, does that make more sense its not a simple case here, primary sources will have to be used until the major one the sfl adds rangers to there site and put the foudning year this debate will go on--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
2 lines of K303, I stumbled upon this debate after checking on the Rangers L.F.C. article I made (usually women's teams are the first thing to go). I made the same points you did about using perhaps following policy and looking at mainstream sources. Since then I've been called, variously: stupid, biased, a liar, a Celtic fan, a drunk ... etc...etc... Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
i hope you aint refering to me i aint called you that but i do think you have your own pov and you ingore sources thatr contridict what you say but the same is for other on the other side of argument--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I just saw your 'constructive' posts of 14 July 2012 Clavdia chauchat but I think the reaction, though regrettable, could have been avoided. S2mhunter (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
So recently we have had the SPL chief exec saying they are the same club and the SFA clearly in the process of agreeing to the transfer of their old SFA membership number. Plus sanctions being imposed for past indiscretions, Its wholly wrong that wiki are treating them as separate now, hopefully we are on the right track to getting this sorted. In regards to the press thing i had the same debate with a journalist friend and it is actually fairly evident at times but you have to look at the evidence if the governing bodies treat them as the same club and the press report that then what should we do, its fairly logical and evident. Oh and for the record i don't support either of the old firm, just getting that in.E W 23:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

states "Sevco Scotland, which now owns Rangers' assets after the old club headed for liquidation, needs SFA membership. ... The SPL, which rejected the new club's application to stay in the top flight ..." The key points are "the old club headed for liquidation" and "the new club's application". Crystal clear that they are different clubs. TerriersFan (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Imagine if a spiv in a grey suit stood outside Ibrox and claimed the moon was made of cheese. Imagine said spiv had previously "bought" Rangers FC's assets with an exorbitant loan from shadowy backers. Imagine he therefore used the club's website to propound his lunar fringe theory. The few guys trying to change this article against consensus would instead be swarming around the Moon. There would be tiresome, irrelevant, long-winded waffle about other things that turned out to be made of cheese. There would be an insistence that their "evidence" trump WP:RS. There would be unedifying attempts to bully other editors. But ultimately it would fail, they'd get bored and scuttle off back to Rangers Media or Follow Follow. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Terriersfan, a 'club' cannot be liquidated. A resteraunt chain cannot be liquidated. It may be worded in such a way, but only a company can ever be liquidated. A football club is made up of assets that are placed into the ownership of a company. Those assets can be moved from 1 company to another at any time. If Roman Abromovich wanted to restrcuture chelsea, if he wanted to, he could move all the assets out the current company into another 1, and dissolve the old one. Does that make it a new club? Ofcourse not, this has been goign on since the 80's when football clubs started floating on the stock market. Can we please drop this utterly bizarre opinion that a club/company are as 1 and cannot ever be undone? It's nonsensical. I keep asking the question and never get a reply, but if a club/company are as 1 then is Charlton 1984 a different club from the original Chartlon? Is Middlesborough 1986 a different club the original Middlesborough? Is Leeds 2007 a different club from the original Leeds? Please, enough POV and starting posting facts. Ricky072 (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"a 'club' cannot be liquidated" - not even if the club is a company? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
ricky i have to disagree a club can be liquidated look at third lanark, gretna and aidrieeons they have all been liquidated and new clbus repalkced in aidrie and gretna case. rangers cases is unknown i cant even say for sure whether they have bene or not now, my personall view was they had been but now i cant be sure i still wouldnt support them whilst green in charge dnt liek his motives but i really cant say for sure if the club is lqiudiated or not if i could it be easy to tie this dispute up but it is not clear cut i am hopign the sfl will be adding rangers to there list soon and give afounding year if it says 1872/1873 then it is the same club ther eno doubt, if it says 2012 it isa new club and hopefully this dispute will end or at very least we can havea conesus out with a few editors who will nto accept either way and then head for full proctection indefintely--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the latest interim report from the administrators of the old company will help to clarify matters. That's right: as things stand nothing at all has been liquidated, not even the old company - it is still in administration. The administrators' interim report, which was issued on 10 July 2012, states such things as, "The responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club" and "The history and spirit of the Club have been preserved by the sale which completed on 14 June 2012 and it is now the responsibility of the new owners to secure its future". http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/a2/b6/0,,5~177826,00.pdf Clearly, the club is still going under the new company. BBO (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ofcourse you cannot liquidate a club. Like i said, it's like liquidating a chain of resteraunts. Go check on companies house, you will find literally hudnreds of thousands of COMPANIES in liqudiation. A resteraunt chain operates inside a company. The company can be liquidated. You can't liquidated a resteraunt though. Andrew in the case of Gretna, they sold the ground off to property developers. Other assets such as the club name & badge were not sold. They are owned by a now dissolved company and can't ever be used again. It's like demolishing a house. Whatever is inside it can be moved out of it, or it can remain inside the house. Ricky072 (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

FIFA laws regard 'Newco Rangers' as a new club

What is quite clear in all of this is that the world governing body (FIFA) regards 'Newco Rangers' as a new football club. Hence 'Newco Rangers' cannot compete in European competition for the first three years of their existance. FIFA and UEFA rules require that any club wishing to participate in FIFA or UEFA competitions must be in existance for three years in order to obtain the relevant UEFA licence. The test of the 'three years in existance' rule is wether or not a club can provide three years of accounts and as 'Newco Rangers' cannot provide these they are in fact a new club. This is why 'Newco Rangers' did not inherit the UEFA Chamions League qualification place that Rangers won through finishing second in the SPL in the 2011-12 season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.33.233 (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

go read the rulesa bit more you will find the company has to have 3 season worth of finaces hence why when last season audiot wher enot submit they where ban from europe for one year even if they have got a cva. its to do with teh company accoutn not the clubAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
In that case, the SFL & SFA see Rangers as the same club. They also have rules that "new clubs" must start at the very bottom of the football pyramid. If Rangers were a 'new club' entirely, they would not be admitted straight into the SFL division 3. But they are not a new club, they are just like Leeds & Charlton. Operating under a new company. Ricky072 (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
If and when we get hundreds of sources for Newco Charlton and Newco Leeds I'm sure Misplaced Pages articles will spring up for them too. 20:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers founded 1873 according to the scottish football league

http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers/--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet Rangers has been placed in the first round of the Scottish Communities League Cup which would not happen if it was regarded as the Rangers who has finished the previous season second in the SPL. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
its not as simple as that, so now the scottish football league have said 1873 are you goign to discount this to???--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm wondering why they would place the club in the first round of the cup when that action contradicts the belief that the club was formed in 1873. If even the SFL is giving mixed messages, we really have problems! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It strikes me that Fifa and Uefa should be regarded as the ultimate authority in this issue and they certainly seem to be treating the Newco Rangers as a new club. --Tim D Enchantah (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
where have they said that???? source--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer the info sourced from the governing body, the SFA, however they have been silent. The next best source is the SFL, and as they have specified the foundation date as 1873, that is the one we have to accept. For those who reject this assertion I would request (1)Why they reject the SFL as a reliable source (2) Who they would accept as a reliable source. I would like the argument to focus on the reliability of the source, not the reliability of the assertion. 92.40.162.188 (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What the SFL put on their website is important, although i think this relates to a previous season rather than the upcoming one. What we need to see is what founding date they put on the list of teams in the third division. We will only have a few days to wait. To be honest its pointless any more going round and round in circles till we get confirmation from the SFA. 20:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a link on the page to this year's results where it says "There are currently no results for season 2012/2013." This would seem to suggest that the Rangers page is (relatively) up to date, and relates to this season rather than the previous one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.215.177 (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Still the same club

Another source to suggest that Rangers are still the same football club. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2177471/Rangers-talks-SPL-future.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Not to mention the threats to take trophies from them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talk • contribs) 22:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's the same club. We've got several precedents on this in Misplaced Pages. If Newport County A.F.C. has a single page, then I can't imagine why anyone would ever be so biased to suggest that Rangers F.C. has two pages ... unless they want to argue that the Newport A.F.C. page should be split. Nfitz (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the sources presented by both sides are from media outlet which have been pretty inconsistent in their assessment, to say the least. We really ought to be looking at more official sources. This statement from HMRC seems to suggest that they regard Rangers as the same club simply operating under a new company. Another statement posted on Rangers' website confirms this. ★ Bald Zebra ★  08:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Uefa seem to be treating the Newco as a new club, hence the three year waiting period imposed on new clubs playing in Europe being upheld, and Fifa seem to be treating the Newco as a new club, hence the players' right to not transfer contracts to the Newco being upheld. Of course this is just how things seem, a statement from either body would certainly be helpful. --Tim D Enchantah (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
give yoru source tim d, secondly the three year ban is because hte new company doe snot have 3 year of audit accoutn go read uefa rules, and they have not said player dnt have the right ot transfer they have only said they have gave them international clearance to play temproarily untila sfa abritiion determines what if any compsation is requiredAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly the same club yes, as soon as the SFA confirm that rangers will be playing in Div 3 next season, this article needs correcting. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

we still need it to be conesensus in teh favour of changing it which ther eaint which is pretty clear form teh afd, im more swinging to it the same club that being on both sides esicpally after finding the sfl page but we need a consensus to change it which is nera impossible we need the request for ocmmentAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
We should not have to wait a month for the RFC to be completed though. Once the SFA have made their decision, we need to move to implementation on this article. We can thn decide what happens with the other article, there being several options, from deletion with merger to this article, to a change to simply the company name which would be about the company rather than club, or changing that one into the liquidation/administration type article detailing this whole mess. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
WE CANT WITHOUT A CONSENSUS and the afd was closed with no consensus, if we do the changes even though i agree that it mroe justified now without a consensus it can lead toa ban for us, i have not seen one coutner argument to teh sfl website saying founded 1873 because it basically ends this debate but doesnt geta consensus, ok you know wha till try see if we can get it withoput the request for comment if we cant achvie it within a week the request for comment will be needed, or the request for comment could last months not a month it depend sif we need ot extend it or not, what is the rush why does it matter if the articl eis wrong fora while eventally it will be right and hopefully if we have a consensus then teh admins can lock the page and amke sure the consesnus page is the one liveAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
i reaslly dnt get why it seems oyur against me when i am starting to turn for the side for it the same club even tohugh i sitll personal dnt believe it, i am trying to make sure this is done right so it gets locked in teh right way the newco article gets renamed to liqudiatiion of rangers fc plc etc i just dnt get the rushAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Associate membership of SFL means 'Newco Rangers' are a new club

The fact that 'Newco Rangers' were invited to the SFL as an associate member is further evidence they are a new club as if they were a continuation of the old club they would have been granted full membership. Associate membership is only granted to entirely new clubs. Hence a club admitted via relegation from the SPL will be admitted as a full member. If the SFL regarded 'Newco Rangers' as a continuation of Rangers F.C they would have been required to grant full membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.226.147 (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers were not in the SFL before and they were not relegated from the SPL for coming bottom of the table which is the only way club would get full membership. All other clubs starting out in the SFL have to start as associate members, it does not mean it is an entirely different football club. Indeed a football club can go from being a full member to an associate member if they are at the bottom of a league too long. It does not have any impact on if its a football club, its merely about voting rights. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)i suggest you read up about it, it doesnt mean new club, it meanas new club to the sfl, if there where relgated to div1 they get full memebrship but since they have been botoed out the spl then they get assiocaote and that partialyl because they have no audit accounts, so i assume peterhead and annan are new club because thy got assiocate membership when they join the sfl???, it seems the new club camp ar enow graspign to anything that they can use to say its a new club, the fact remains teh sfl say they where founded 1873 that holds more waitAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Worthless original research and speculation of what might have happened, but didn't. --Escape Orbit 12:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This consititues 'original research'. The SFL rules are clear if you download, or even bothered to read this page, because this matter has already been discussed. When a club enters the SFL then ormal procedure is to enter at Division 3 lelve, with an 'association membership', and won't be granted full membership status for 4 years. The ONLY exception to this rule is when teams get relegated from the SPL at the end of the season, in which case they are instantly granted a full membership & a place in division 1. Rangers were not relegated, so they don't qualify for the exception. If Hearts resigned their place in the SPL and made applicaton to the SFL, they too would be given association membership in division 3. If Hibs were kicked out of the SPL for breaking the rules, they would have to apply for association membership in division 3. This doesn't mean they are 'new clubs' and lose all their history.

Admins really need to take ownership of this debate now, it's going round in circles. Ricky072 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Telegraph article confirms 'Newco Rangers' are a new club

Telegraph report uses SFL and SFA rules to show 'Newco Rangers' are a new club.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9418724/Rangers-in-crisis-Sevco-have-until-Friday-to-gain-SFA-membership-and-play-football-next-season.html

That simply says its a new club to the SFL, which it is because its been in the SPL but has been kicked out. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain what this bit means " Similarly, newco Rangers have not been penalised by beginning life in the Third Division: indeed, no other completely new club would have been allowed to enter the bottom tier."? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Your summary of the article is incorrect. The article does not advance any argument about whether it is a new club or not, that is your interpretation of what you infer from it. --Escape Orbit 12:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The only thing it confirms is what I said earlier - the way this whole mess is being reported in the media is inconsistent. ★ Bald Zebra ★  13:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly it means 'new SFL clubs', a condition of a new club in the SFL is that they must then recieve SFA membership. For example, when annan Athletic successfully applied to the SFL, they were a 'new club' (to the SFL) and had to then get an SFA membership. but going by your interpretation of this article, their history woudl have reset from 1942, and as of 2008 they would be come a 'new club'. Ricky072 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is Misplaced Pages precedent being violated?

There are many examples on wikipedia, a few being Charlton, Leeds, Luton, Middlesbrough, Livingston, Fiorentina, Napoli, of liquidation/'newco' scenarios in football of a similar kind, if not identical to Rangers, and all have one page per club.

These examples represent a clear precedent as a model of best working - one page per football club that has undergone a liquidation/newco situation.

Why is this particular club being treated as an exception to the precedent?Gefetane (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)#

Sadly a small number of editors are refusing to allow the article to be corrected from its current inaccurate version which was imposed without consensus and has been locked in place for weeks. Hopefully once there is confirmation from the SFA we should be able to clear this up, but it may take some time to get this fixed if some of those editors continue to want to prevent it being fixed. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
None of the teams in the examples used were actually liquidated however and all managed to exit insolvency through various mechanisms. Examples on[REDACTED] for teams which have actually been liquidated i.e. Airdrieonians F.C., Aldershot F.C., Gretna F.C., Maidstone United F.C. (1897) etc. all have separate entries for the 'Oldco' and 'Newco' incarnations. Strikes me that precedent is being followed, not violated. --Tim D Enchantah (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
ok airdrieonians and gretna there not anything like rangers sitution thos eclubs where liqudiated i agree ocmpletely, but ther enot liek teh rangers sitution because neither of the new clubs to come about from those liqudiations bought assessts of any form from the oldco so they are new clubs with no relation to the old one apart form similar name, i will review the other two later before givinga repsonse as i dnt know there situtions to say if there liek rangers, also there is no such thing as precenedent[REDACTED] relies on sources sources say teh club is not liquidated and the club is liquidated the quesiton is what do we as wikpedians do about it, sorry about spelling my chrome highlighter is playing up--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Tim instead of repeating ourselves over and over again actually read up on what happened with those clubs to save us correcting you. Honestly this talk page goes round in circles. BadSynergy (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
aldershot never bought any assest so is not comparable20:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib)
maidstone is slight comparable but not completely as they never done a assest purchase but did some how get the youth squad but i cant find out how--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Tim's point is entirely incorrect. All of the clubs mentioned above are new companies that bought the assets from the insolvent old company that was liquidated. I can provide dates and links that describe the liquidation events for each club, although this information is widely available. The point remains, the changes made to this page are an unjustified violation of Misplaced Pages precedent.Gefetane (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Another article

Just seen this one too .. ""I have recently had several confidential meetings with a gentleman representing the shareholders of Sevco, with regards to my interest in purchasing a majority shareholding in Rangers Football Club," he said." why would this guy be talking with Sevco about buying Rangers Football club, i thought Rangers FC was a different and dead club? Has he been speaking to the wrong people? Also.. "The SPL is pressing for more sanctions to be handed out to the new Rangers before they are allowed to play in Division Three this season. Rangers are being investigated for alleged undisclosed payments to players between 2001 and 2010. The club are seeking membership of the Scottish Football Association in order to play in the forthcoming season." Note that they use the term "new Rangers" yet go on to say that they are being investigated for actions between 2001 and 2010, That was all before this current company which has applied for membership existed which is mentioned in the 3rd sentence so im slightly confused? Is the BBC switching between new club, old club, new club in those 3 sentences, or perhaps its just all about the same club, known as rangers? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This confusion is caused by the fact that the old club and the new club are using the same name, with the new club claiming to be the same club as the old club as it owns the assets and business interests of the old club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The facts show that football clubs post-liquidation can re-emerge, through the transfer of assets to a new company, with a continuity of club identity. Misplaced Pages considers Leeds, Charlton, Luton, Middlesborough, Fiorentina, Napoli as having a continuity of club identity sufficient to justify one Misplaced Pages page per club. What reasonable basis do you have for this entrenched desire to exempt Rangers from this precedent, and pretend that Rangers F.C. no longer exist, when the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests they do?Gefetane (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets get a consensus from the new evidence

Ok i am proposing a simple vote, no discussion i am sorry but i will remove discussion to another section

Going on this source, the sfl website for rangers team "Founded:1873"

it says founded 1873, they are recognising them as the same club. This vote is not about personal opinion just whether you agree or disagree.


If you disagree please give a brief reason why with a reference

Please respond to each question with the highlight response, before answering read the sources above and make a decision based on the sources and not your emotions, Please do not disregard sources that might not meet your POV be neutral and make the decision based on what the sources say.

This will remain live for 1 week unless there is a overwhelming consensus

PLEASE DO NOT CANVAS VOTES THIS APPLIES TO BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT IF CANVASSING IS REPEAT I WILL MAKE THIS ATTEMPT AT A CONSENSUS INVALID

Question

Do reliable sources indicate that the Rangers club playing in SFL Division 3 next season is the same club as the club playing last season in the SPL?


Please respond with agree or disagree, please bold your response using '''answer''', with short summary and source or sources enclosing links with , please sign your response, for general discussion see below

Please respond below here:

  • Agree The football club that has existed since 1872/3 is the same club that will play in the third division next season. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (UK tax authority), specifically stated that liquidation of the old company (which controlled the club between 1899 and June 2012) would not prevent the sale of the club. A sale which has taken place, with Sevco Scotland operating under the trading name The Rangers Football Club now in full control of the club, which is the reason this new company is facing sanctions because of the actions of the club under the old company. The SFL, SFA, the club,the media, the fans, and HMRC all see this as the same football club as numerous sources show, it is just a different company. The club existed for decades before the old company which is entering liquidation was formed and it continues to exist today. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree Going by the governing bodies alone I agree with them that it is the the same club. Not to mention Lord Glennie, HMRC, BDO and Duff & Phelps whose comments I'm sure we all know by now. BadSynergy (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree but reliable sources also indicate that the Ranger club playing in SFL Division 3 next season is not the same club as the club playing last season in the SPL. So this question does not help establish a consensus for a way forward. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree The implementing of sanctions based on indiscretions of the 'oldco' by the SFA and football debts being considered i'd say is the key evidence that Rangers exist as the original club. If we're talking about a totally new club they should be completely free of any sanctions and liabilities. Sparhelda 15:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree The governing body says its the same club, it is treating the misdeeds of the 'oldco' as being the responsibility of the 'newco' and insisting that Rangers FC accept the punishments handed down. The SFL website states the founding date as 1873. HMRC, Lord Glennie, etc. hold that this is the same club. Digitalantichrist (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • AgreeThis is nothing new. Leed United, Luton, Bournemouth (to only name a few) have all been down the route of Liquidation/Newco before. Many teams now operate under 'new companies' which purchased the assets of the old company, which was liquidated, and continued on as the same club. Why should Rangers Misplaced Pages article break precedent? The only clear reason so far is that this is an emotive subject and many editors will naturally carry an anti-rangers bias. For a more thorough evaluation of the points raised please see The Case For Rangers to Remain in 1 Misplaced Pages Article. Ricky072 (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree Per Ricky072. The point is the football club is an asset/brand owned by a company. Ownership of the asset/brand can be transferred from one company to another. This article is about the asset/brand, not the company that owns the asset/brand. DeCausa (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree. I've been of the opinion all along that Rangers were one club until we were told otherwise, and the way sanctions were decided would confirm the approach taken. Now that there is talk of stripping titles, reliable sources are now widely reflecting that we are talking about two businesses but one club. —WFC— 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree - the fact that they are playing in a lower division isn't proof that they are a different team. Swindon Town were relegated for financial irregularities, Juventus, Fiorentina and others were relegated for their part in the match fixing scandal, etc. Also, official sources such as HMRC and the club themselves regard the club as a continuation but operating under a new structure. I don't wish to assume bad faith, but it seems to me that there has been some anti-Rangers sentiment (not to mention a spot of Schadenfruede) involved in this sorry business. ★ Bald Zebra ★  08:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussions/arguments

Adding question to try get a consensus that is clear and plain

Note for clarification- Quote from above: "For a consensus to be reached there has to be 75% or more for either response." - that is not how it works on wikipedia. This is not a vote and consensus isn't achieving a certain percentage of support for one view over another. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Except in RFA's and high profile RFC's you mean where there is level's of consensus that needs reached. For instance in and RFA generally above 80% you pass, if you are below 70% you fail. Im just pointing out that the statement that is not how it works on[REDACTED] isn't entirely correct in some places that is exactly how it works. Just a general comment. B S 15:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
To avoid controversy i think it may be best if the sentence about %s needed is removed. we can judge if there is reasonable consensus in the coming days, rather than an arbitrary figure that some will dispute and might distract from the primary debate. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Flawed "Question"

The "question" is flawed. "Rangers F.C. exist as the original club and not a new club" is not a question, it is a statement to which editors are being asked to agree/disagree with. No-one cares what editors personally agree with. The Question should be; "Do reliable sources indicate that the Ranger club playing in SFL Division 3 next season is the same club as the club playing last season in the SPL?" The current statement suggests that it is seeking the editor's personal opinion, or the results of the editor's personal research and analysis, which is totally irrelevant. My wording, or similar, removes any ambiguity or wriggle room for any argument. --Escape Orbit 15:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

agreed and updated please all editor who have reply amend yoru response on the updated questionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Surely 'the Ranger club' should at least be changed to 'the Rangers club' as this is how the club is known. I'd suggest for clarity a re-wording to include 'the club called Rangers'. Gefetane (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I've fixed this. That was just my typo, nothing meant by it. --Escape Orbit 16:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Still a flawed question that proves nothing

This question does not take us any further forward as I would expect every editor to 'agree' that reliable sources indicate that the Ranger club playing in SFL Division 3 next season is the same club as the club playing last season in the SPL. (I have had to agree with that question, though I disagreed with the previous question.)

The problem is that reliable sources also indicate that the Ranger club playing in SFL Division 3 next season is not the same club as the club playing last season in the SPL.

Therefore, even if you achieve 100% answering 'agree' to the question posed, it does not help establish a consensus to change anything. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

firstly i dnt think everyone will agree ther eis some who will disagree, but now on to thte more improtant part. i jsut post this on escape orbit page "not sure if you have seen but i updated with your question, fishiehelper suggest is it still a bit ambiguousness and might not a achieve a consensus can you check what been said and see if you might be able to further make the question better my english skills are crap so i cant, i really want to get a questions that neutral, not ambiguousness and open to potential dispute in the future i just want a consensus either for or against and to close this argument down and to then implemented the consensus regardless which way it is--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)" i am willing to change the question to get the question that suits best to try achive a consensus if possible i dnt want it open to challegne in the future i want this to be clear and consis which i cant do any suggestionss--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
If there is to be another rewording, do a new question below. As far as im concerned the above question is clear enough. If everyone agrees that there are reliable sources saying the rangers club that was in the SPL will be in Div 3, then that is an important development. After that is established if there was another question it could be, Now it is accepted that reliable sources say this is the same club, should the article be corrected to stop referring to rangers FC as a dead club? (Something that has never had consensus and was imposed on the article before it was locked in place for weeks). BritishWatcher (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, I am delighted to agree with Fishiehelper2, there is no consensus to change anything. Which is why the article should remain pretty much as it was before all the attempts to make everything past-tense and creation of a newco article. I'd say it is too soon to make any definite decision on this until things settle down, however I do believe that sources currently tend towards treating Rangers past and present as the same club, regardless of the change of the company running it. (See my above poll response). This is, again, good reason for no change. --Escape Orbit 16:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A more apposite question might be: do reliable sources support the existence of the Newco Rangers article? Albeit this has been conclusively answered at two AfDs. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer would be no, because the sources that mention Newco Rangers are in fact talking about Rangers that is at this article. Why dont you answer the question above? And there was no consensus at the AFD. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
depending on the numbers i think we could maybe say if thata consensus on editing this article out of past tense can be justified but to what extent we have to agree on but the newco rangers article and fully make it one article will ahve to waut fora while until thing settle down as escape says
What we do with the other article can be dependent on how this article is handled. I beleive that based on the above consensus that everyone accepts reliable sources exist showing this the same club, a draft version should be worked on, with us waiting for the official confirmation from the SFA before seeking to put it onto the article, we can then make minor alterations to that, or if the SFA do not agree to rangers membership then clearly we are back to square one and this current version would have to be kept whilst we discuss how to proceed. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Result

This is only saying the total number of response and the amount for each reply this does not necessarily make a consensus

Agree Disagree Total Agree Percentage Disagree Percentage
11 0 11 Agree 100% Disagree 0%

One vote currently for agree is only because of the question and how it is worded but would be disagree if the wording was is it the same club and not a new club.

When will the nonsense of these past-tense edits be corrected?

It is now thoroughly clear this[REDACTED] page, that implies Rangers FC longer exists, is not just in error with regards historical precedent of other equivalent football club/liquidation scenarios, but also in direct contradiction with the relevant sporting governing bodies, who continue to discuss licence agreement with direct reference to the past history of the very club that is under review, a discussion referenced continuously through the media discourse(Scotsman article).

The fact is that football clubs that undergo oldco/liquidation/newco processes still exist with a continuity of club identity AND retain one[REDACTED] page per club. The only evidence in support of these changes is the language employed by a minority of media individuals, terms like 'new club' or 'old club'. However these sources have no bearing on the very clear historical precedent that has been set by numerous clubs like Leeds, Charlton, Middlesbrough, Fiorentina, Napoli] etc, all of which have one[REDACTED] page, despite being new companies whose old companies were liquidated, and are not considered different clubs.

It is evidently an outrageous position that the team currently playing in Rangers tops, training and playing at Rangers training ground, that will play at Rangers stadium, and will merchandise under the name Rangers, is somehow not Rangers, but a totally new club, who just happen to be called Rangers(Rangers 5-1 Albion Rovers. Match played July 22nd 2012.). Yet this is the position exhibited on wikipedia, the world's first and foremost wiki encyclopedia, all because of the opinion of one or two editors seemingly motivated by nothing other than their personal prejudice against a rival football team . May this disgraceful situation be rectified before any more damage is done to the credibility of this website.Gefetane (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is an absolute disgrace, and it highlights why articles should never be simply locked on the current version. they should be reverted to the most stable version before being locked to allow for discussions. Once the SFA decision comes on rangers membership approval, this article needs to be corrected. It is a shame that this grossly inaccurate article has been in place almost a month BritishWatcher (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Admins have the power to revert articles whenever the necessity arises. The fact that the past tense still stands on this article is in violation of every rule regarding dispute resolution and shows how flawed[REDACTED] really is.Monkeymanman (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Rangers F.C. Add topic