Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Edit request on 16 June 2012

Please change the "owner" field as Craig whyte is not the owner 82.25.167.30 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This source says that he is the majority shareholder. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This source confirms green as the new owner of the business and assets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.62.116 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't confuse two things - as Rangers is being liquidated, its assets (like Ibrox and Murray Park) have been sold off. The Green consortium has bought these assets but not the club itself which is being wound up. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Your argument from the requests for page protection

I seem to have got a bit of stabilising again by reverting changes not discussed but i cant do this all day Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think the indefinite semi-protection should be restored, which was removed by fully protecting the page for one day. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 11:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed teh indefinitely semi protection needs restored minimum but i think something in the liens of 1-6 months full protection is required once the situation is clearer and we know what going on ie the sources know then we can ask for full to go and semi to be backAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

1 - 6 months full protection? Completely over the top reaction to some short term instability which can be better handled by Admins warning the culprits - on all sides of the debate about the club. Leaky Caldron 11:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really it forces users to get a conesus on the talk page, just because it not what you wantAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And have you look at how many changes there has been since the full protection was lifted? it is content dispute, because no one really knows the answers and it is people POV all we can do for now is put what is known the current revision of the page is as accurate as we can have it until we know better and all edits should be discussed before changes which full protection givesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And you think warning users is the best way? that like saying you are ok to dispute but since i dnt agree you cant full protection stop this i really hope it is non football admin that makes the decision even if they dnt give full protection as then i can at least feel it is unbiased but a football admin could be biasedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not contributed to the article so do not accuse me of partiality in the dispute - I couldn't care less. You need to calm down and stop making it look like you are some sort of guardian for the content. Asking for full protection for up to 6 months is idiotic. I suggest you calm down a bit. Leaky Caldron 11:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

i never accused you of being impartial i said i hope it aint a football admin that decided because they might have POV or might not be neutral a admin who doest do anything with football can review it better. And you did comment at wikiproject football about the article so you are semi involved :(. I dnt think 6 months is necessary but a few weeks is, by using 6 months then it will cover the entire time until everything is clear and known just now it is up in the air, and no one knows whats going on and the sources cant agree with each other so people use one source that says one thing so people use that for there POV but another contradicts it so yes there is major problem so any changes need to be discuses on talk like the previous admin says the onyl way to do that is full protection. Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There you go. You can have the rest of your argument here. ʝunglejill 12:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi protection

I've restored the indef semi. I'm personally reluctant to fully protect the article because I don't think it is warranted (as yet!) but, of course, you're free to ask at RFPP.--regentspark (comment) 12:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

hopefully the smei should stop the ip edits but if they register and start doign it as a register auto confirmed user then full might be the only wayAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. So I was wrong. I've protected it for 10 days. In the meantime, please reach consensus on the talk page and then ask any admin to make the changes.--regentspark (comment) 15:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

thanks that is what i have been trying to get is users to come here and get a cones us but no one wants to there more interested in pushing a povAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Just above we are told that this article is protected and yet there is nothing on the article to tell you that this is so or why. Is that not what the little padlock sign is for? Britmax (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

it was there until teh admin changed it to full proctection but the bot hasnt came along and updated the pageAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Andrew. I'll watch out for it. Britmax (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless the bot has sysop rights it may not be able to. Ive asked RegentsPark if he could.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Club Crest

Propose that the crest should be removed on the page as it does not belong to the football club.It has been sold to Sevco5088 and therefore is not the crest of the soon to be wound up club.

As we all know the football Club and it's history has continued and the holding company has been liquidated. The Rangers FC page should look similar to that of Leeds Utd & Fiorentina who have been through a similar process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.51.52 (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

it is been discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rangers_FC_club_dead_or_notAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not in SPL

This article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9335076/Rangers-to-be-excluded-from-SPL-fixture-list.html

states that Rangers will not be included in the SPL. Perhaps the article should be updated to reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingowasher (talk • contribs) 09:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not included in the fixture lists. Instead, a placeholder name will be used. If the decision were "not included in the SPL" then the fixture list would simply state the replacement team. The issue isn't decided yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you seem to be missing the point - the fact that the fixtures list will be issued without including the name 'Rangers' makes clear that Rangers is no longer a team in the SPL. Whether or not a new team called Rangers will be allowed to join is yet to be decided. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

We wouldn't change anything until the fixtures come out. But if as expected they are ommitted from the fixture list, I would recommend using carefully selected language in the lead such as "competed in the SPL in the 2011–12 season", rather than explicitly stating that they are or are not in the SPL. —WFC— 12:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It makes it clear that there is uncertainty over whether they will be a team in the SPL. Nothing more. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Relevant quote from Charles Green on the Rangers website [1] - "Today we are out of the SPL. Today we are not in the SFA. These are problems that we have to deal with to get this football club back playing football here." Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but he is also attempting to transfer the memberships of the "old" Rangers to the newco. If he is successful in that application then there will have been no breakage in the Rangers membership of the SFA or SPL. Only if and when that application is rejected can you definitively say that Rangers FC are out of the SPL. James Morrison (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi James, on reflection I think I was wrong in my earlier statement though not for the reason you have suggested. Charles Green referring stating "today we are out of the SPL" could be referring to the new Rangers club he is forming to replace the one that is being liquidated. Anyway, as to your point about 'no breakage in the Rangers membership of the SFA or SPL', I have to tell you - as gently as I can - that if Charles Green is successful, it will be a new Rangers that takes the place of the Rangers formed in 1872. New club, fresh start, not burdened (or able to celebrate) the baggage/history of the previous club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18471197 this also suggest they could be back in the spl, first division or so on, no one knows until we know we cant do anything, as point out it is a placeholder so if rangers are back in they rangers and the toehr teams knwo when there playing, if it dunfermline they will know if it 2nd place 1st division tema they will know to, no one knows so to edit when even teh soruces do not knwo is stupid when we know we will change the page to reflectAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers are not on the SPL fixtures list http://www.scotprem.com/content/default.asp?page=home_Fixtures I therefore propose to remove the statement that Rangers definitely play in the SPL from the first line of the article. Instead it should read something like the final line of the introduction saying that Rangers are under consideration to play in the SPL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingowasher (talk • contribs) 10:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

i dnt object to that change remeber and cite the refernce so post the line you want changed here with the replaceme nt line and get a edit request submittedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to rename this article Rangers FC (1872)

Seems to me that the whole integrity of wikipedia is up for question when the FACTS are misconstrued by not impartiality but from obvious Rangers supporters opinions.If the creators of wikipedia knew about the fabrication of the TRUTH they would most certainly expel the liars who have licence to create and edit pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.175.58 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

everything is by the sources, the problem is the soruces are contradiciting so no one knows, we will all know over the next few months, oh as rangers supporter i do not believe the enwco means the club contunies i beleive the club i supported for years is DEAD but if i go with my view i will be using POV which i cant do, sources is what wikipedia is about the aritcle is more a less correct, over the next few motnhs we will know for sure and the page iwll be updated and made rightAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion among editors about whether this article is about the Rangers formed in 1872 or about the replacement club that Charles Green is hoping to get into the SPL in time for next season. When I checked the article this morning several changes had been made in the info box suggesting that Rangers FC was formed in 2012 etc. I suggest that it may prevent confusion if we change the title of this article to 'Rangers F.C. (1872)'. Any objections? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

there is no need it is quite clear but user are wantign to say look the clud doesnt exist anymore, until it is clear the article must be discussed firstAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind either way, but just thought it might save confusion and unnecessary edits being made. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I really dnt think ti will stop the eidts being made as people called for The Rangers Football Club and the article is there so there is destincion just people are messing witht eh page givinmg POVAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that with the exception of complete page protection, little is going to save confusion and unnecessary edits being made. Fact is that there is confusion and uncertainty around the entire subject, but that isn't stopping a number of editors (some of whom have a clear POV to push) jumping all over the article to implement their preferred take on events, most of which have yet to be fully played out. Perhaps they should give some pause for thought; once the dust has settled and the facts are clear, other editors in due course will implement the most suitable solution based on mature consideration and consensus. And all the frenzied nonsense that has gone one in the last few days will be lost. It would save everyone a lot of time and grief it people would realise this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Excately and that is the point i have been sayign the whole time, my pov is teh club is dead but that is all it is pov and i was a rangers supporter i will not be following htis new team one because it isnt the club i followed all my life second i dnt trust green and his consturium i might follow if walter gets charge but it will be a new club in my eyes but at the monet sources suggest it will be the same club jsut new company that owns itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrewcrawford, every professional club is registered as a company as it has to trade, take income pay costs etc and the individuals involved want to protect themselves from being personally liable if the club runs at a loss. This view, therefore, that the club and the company are two different things is quite bizarre - they are two sides of the same coin. When the company folds, the club is folding! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

i am using bold to clarify, i agree tootally my club is dead ther ebeing liquidated as i fear from feburary but that is my POV i cant put that on, the source state otehrwise mostly because green is trying to get fans to follow the new club but the sources say different this is hte problem the sitution will be clearer by teh start of the season then we can fix the article and make it past tense if that what sources sayAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

read this, 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 itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - when liquidation has happened to 'smaller' clubs we have immediately started a new page. Rangers should be no different. This is a new club that has assumed a similar name and is no different to F.C. Halifax Town and all the rest. I agree, Wikipedia's integrity is at stake. TerriersFan (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Only the plc is getting liquidated not the club, i suggest you do some reaidng into it, sp license is serperateAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, you keep repeating that the company and the club are different - they are not! The club was registered as a company (as are all professional clubs) and now the company, which is the club, is going bankrupt. If you are not convinced, let me prove to you that Green's club - the one he wants to get into the SPL is a different club from Rangers FC: Think of what is going to happen when the SPL decide which club should be 'club 12' in the SPL. Rangers FC will get a vote on whether Green's new Rangers should get in because Rangers FC remains a member club of the SPL. Yet it is voting on its replacement club - therefore, not the same club! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"i suggest you do some reaidng into it" - actually I have read fully into it. The SPL licence is irrelevant. If they accept a new club that is fine but irrelevant. The former Rangers has gone; we need a new article for the new 'Rangers'. TerriersFan (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

i mean read into corpations, it is more revelent than you think im goign to repeat what i keep saying as a rangers supporter i believe the club is dead as you all say but wikipedia is abotu sources and sources say the club and plc are serperat so until sources say the club is liquated and not jsu the plc we cant change the article as then it POV or speculationAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources do say that the club is being liquidated. For example, [2] "The club will now be liquidated and its assets sold to a new company which will aim to continue with football at Ibrox." Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

one sources does mean it true read this, 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 cant pitch the club back into administration, this where the confusion lies sources are stating the club contunies and sources state the club is dissolved but no one knows just now, the article itself also makes it seem like the club is dissolved so it is contradicting itself never mind other sources contradict itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

History Remains with the club

The history will remain with the club as stated by administrator Paul Clark of Duff and Phelps despite a newco http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/18417312#asset

So it should be on the same wikepedia as the original Rangers FC with the name changed and all the history intact. Just like the Fiorentina article http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/ACF_Fiorentina

The history will still be there according to UEFA also just as Fiorentina.

Please sort this problem out as soon as — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.221.87 (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As soon as what? Britmax (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

and when have anything those admins said true? at the moment it is in dispute if the history does carry on as sources say inthing and another some say both in one statementAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

owner and dual contracts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18496571 they have applied that rangers might have breeahc rules on dual contracts came someone write up something im crap at it and we can get it added to the article ,this confirms green is the owner and wyhte no longer is its near the bottomAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've submitted a formal complaint to the BBC about that article - it wrongly implies that Green's consortium bought Rangers from Craig Whyte which we all know is rubbish. Green's consortium only bought the assets of Rangers, leaving Craig Whyte as majority shareholder of Rangers FC - a club with no assets but massive debts, and about to be liquidated. To be clear, Charles Green is chief executive of the Rangers Football Club Ltd that now owns Ibrox but is not a member of any league. Craig Whyte is owner of Rangers FC, the club that is being liquidated but retains a vote in the SPL until the liquidation is complete. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

i very much doubt bbc would knowigly publish something false, but there reporter will be tlakign to the peopel behind the scenese if ther etelling them that it the same club ow can we argue with that? are we expects ?? to complain about a reference ie bbc by complaining to them because it goes against what you think isnt rightAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

quoting from the rangers football club afd

"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)" i doubt a judge would approve of a tupe being used if it wasnt the same entity Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming all 'smoke and mirrors'. The BBC article spoke about "the club's new chief executive Charles Green" but Charles Green is not chief Executive of Rangers FC but of Rangers Football Club Ltd - a different organisation. What they should have said was "the new club's chief executive Charles Green". All it takes is a sloppy journalist to put the words in the wrong order and people start thinking Rangers is not being liquidated! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah right well in that case i see why you have challenged it, but do you see the problem i am saying there is that sources state one thing an state the otehr so how can we make the article correct we cant use our own POV or OPinions or SPeculations we have to put wha tthe soruces say what we can do is says something like Rangers FC is owned by craif whyte and cite the source but it is also said that charles greens bought craig whytes sahre cite the source and the ownership of the PLC is under clear because of this, that way the article is correct but we aint puttinga POV or saying what we want to we using the sources to say both version ins the articls would you agree that is more reasonable and once the soruces start saying the same tihng we update the article accordily?Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The only solution is not to rely on single sources as they may be examples of sloppy journalism. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

yes but if we rely on more than one then we have to meantion both sides of the arguement we cant only meantion one side, even if it referenced it doesnt matter if another source says something else wikipedia has to say both and explain what is goign onAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Whyte is the owner of The Rangers Football Club plc, a company which will soon be liquidated. Charles Green and his consortium are the owners of The Rangers Football Club Ltd, a company which now oversees the running of Rangers Football Club. I'm afraid there are too many people trying to push their own POV on this one, I assume to give 'ra Rangers one last good kick, but there is no coherent argument to show that a distinction can't be drawn between company and club. Over on the other page many good points were raised on this and a comment I see has been copied and pasted from that discussion to here which contains a citation to European Case Law which all but confirms that the economic identity of a business is separate and distinct from whichever company that may oversee it's operation, and that economic identity is transferable from one company to another and it's rights for such are protected by law such as it satisfies the conditions of that law. But despite this there still seems to be too many of you ignoring these cited facts in favour of your own opinion. I implore you to find a citation that is of equal weight that counters this fact and present it for consideration. Not a comment mind from a red top or the beeb, but an example of corporate law that shows irrefutably that the dissolution of The Rangers Football Club plc means the end of the separate and distinct economic entity that is Rangers Football Club, and that this entity is not entitled by law to transfer ownership, intact, to a new company. If I wasn't such a noob I would make an attempt to have someone in authority of wikipedia review these points and review the conduct and supposed neutrality of some of the contributors on this topic. Perhaps someone more experienced can point me in the direction of the complaints thread when contributors ignore citation to suit their own personal POV. Scottishfilmguy17 (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That the reaosn th page is full proctected because tehre is POV pushing, my POV although i am not pushing it on the article is the clbu is dead as a supporter of the dead club i wont support ther new one as that hwo i see it, but i have cite many times that the sources say the club contunies but it not taken and as you say kick in teh teeth, but there is sources that say it is dead but none i have seen are of a law nature but if you need guideence i can point you in the ight direction, i have stop taking this to dispute resolution for now but i suspect eventalyl it will be needed. Please do not think i am pushing my pov asi say in my view my club is dead but as wikipedian i write aritcles as per sources and they say differentAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, trust me the club is not dead. Not from a legal viewpoint and not from a footballing viewpoint. I've followed your posts, and I believe you mean well but I'm coming from a fairly technical legal background and I'm not sure you fully understand what is actually happening at Rangers as it appears that many, many other users on both sides of the argument also don't seem understand what is happening. I mean no offence to you or anyone else when I say this, it is not that I think you or any of the other users are stupid, you just do not have the training and knowledge that I do by virtue of my employment for almost the past ten years. I tried, before I registered, to put these points across in a layperson manner much in the style that I was originally taught but predictably those that don't want to accept this just detracted from it. Seeing as citation and sources seem to be the most important thing to wikipedia, I then sourced the most important piece of case law that exists in these circumstances, I even went to the extra trouble of finding a version that was in plain English, free of as much legal jargon as possible to provide to the discussion, but alas it is ignored by those who know it doesn't suit their argument to pay attention to such facts. I am now thoroughly in wikipedia and I have a tarnished view of something I previously thought to be a fantastic and useful resource. Indeed if the detractors were to spend half an hour on wikipedias own pages regarding corporate law, insolvency, pre packed administrations, the information is all there to confirm that the club and it's history is safe, and protected by law, in it's transfer from one company to another, but again this doesn't fit with the POV that people wish to peddle so I fear that would be useless too. As a noob, I feel lost in this quagmire, as such I have attempted to seek help to help me escalate these matters as this situation and the behaviour of many of the users on such a world renowned website is simply unacceptable. I wish you well Andrew and thank you for at least offering help to me. Regards Scottishfilmguy17 (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that analysis of European Law, and interpretation of how it may apply to Ranger's current situation, constitutes original research, something specifically not permitted on Wikipedia. Unless you have a good cite that mentions this European Law and states that it applies to this particular case, then you have nothing that can be used on this article. This is the problem with 90% of the discussion on-going here; very high on personal analysis and speculation of future events, very low on hard known facts from authoritative sources. Consequently I'd say most of what's been discussed is a pointless waste of time. People should save their time and efforts for when facts are known, decisions have been made and good sources are available. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Share transfers worth a read

Its only a blog so not a reliable source in any way but its worth a read. [3] It also raises a good point in that the SPL haven't made it clear whether they see it as a continuing entity or a new club so how can we. Nothing is clear cut in Rangers case especially with sources but this does explain the rules re share transfers.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers are no more and WILL NOT keep their history.

This page should be open to editing as Rangers are now non-existant. The old Rangers will keep their history, but this Newco will not inherit the previous Rangers FC's history. Further more the use of the club crest on the main page is also in need of adjusting, the clubs crests,logo's and badges where sold to the new sevco5088 which then became "The Rangers" but we wont get FACTS get in the way of heartstrings huh, well done Gers fans,your only lying to yourselves and someone will step in for you and fix this page properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.185.104 (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you source all this reliably? Britmax (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Shows how much you know mate, most rangers fans think there club is dead and the history is gone so it quite the oppisate, the pag eis full proctected to prevent people liek yourself pushing a POV without relaible source so forcing a discussion here, untila relaible source comes about that proves beyonda doubt the club history is dead the artile will nto be changed as source say the hsitory contunies because only the plc is liqudated and the club is owned by the plc but since it now techincally sold it history transfer as well even teh spl are treating the new rangers as the old rangers or else they would drop there dual contracts there planning on applying the sanctions agians tthe new rangers if it was new club they wouldnt be able to and they wouldnt need to submit account for this year either, as previous rangers support until my club died in my opinion i see hte history gone but as wikipedian i have to follow by wikipeida rule and use source soruce say it is very much aliveAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. Do you have reliable sources to support your view that "the club is owned by the plc". Is it not the case that the club WAS the plc, meaning that when the plc is liquidated, the club is liquidated? Rangers history will never die - it will stay as Rangers' history. However, the new Rangers will be starting its own history. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

sources have been present before but sources that contradict what you think you either will makea complainent to the source themself or just play it down and present other sources that says different, i repeat yet again it is not clear what way it is, no one knows people report wha thtey get told, the ones whoa re in teh know are saying the history stays witht eh club and the club is serperate to teh plc, i personally dnt believe it but hey that my pov. also no one has shown me acompany house comapny for every club in scotland i did some reasearch and not all them have one so again saying the club and plc aint one, but im not goign to go intoa arguement with you about it you believe teh club and plc are the same i beleive they are teh same but the current sources msotly say there serperate so go complain to them liek you have already doneAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"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. The club and the company are separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadSynergy (talk • contribs) 11:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for edit - website link in infobox

Since all the assets of Rangers FC have been bought by Sevco 5088/The Rangers Football Club Ltd, the Rangers FC website has now also come under the ownership of Sevco 5088/The Rangers Football Club Ltd. It is therefore inaccurate for the website link to remain in the infobox. Can I request that someone with permission deletes it? Thanks Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, why? The site still works, why does it make a difference to us who runs it? Britmax (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not "who runs it" that is the issue as much the misleading impression that may be given by the link to this website being here. Rangers Football Club plc sold its website to a different company and no longer owns a website, so keeping it here can only serve to confuse any reader struggling to get their head round the difference between the Rangers Football Club plc that is in liquidation and the proposed Rangers Football Club ltd (currently Sevco 5088) that has Charles Green as chied executive. Charles Green's company owns this website, so it should only appear on the page about that company. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Still don't see a problem unless the website content becomes deliberately deceptive or unacceptably partisan. Britmax (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact the link to the website is in the infobox is, in itself, deceptive. The website belongs to a different company/football club called Sevco 5088 (soon to be Rangers Football Club ltd) but having it here gives the impression that Rangers FC is the same company as Sevco 5088/ Rangers Football Club Ltd. Unless someone can explain why the link to this website should be here when it is now the website of a different company, it should be removed. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

can you a sources that says beyond a doubt that the new ltd company isnt taking over the old club, the problem it is deceptive because no one knows if we can get defintive proof we can remove it, but it aint clear you keep saying the plc is club and ltd is a new club why isnt spl sfa seeing as such there planning in punishing this so called new club for a nother club actions if you can explain and proove it aint then there a case to be arguedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I just don't think it matters who runs the site if it keeps doing the job. Britmax (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

ok lets take this example a company a owns the website www.a.com, then the comapny sells the site to company r, wikipeia says the website is company a even though company a has nothing to do with company r, if it can be proven that the club and the company are one and that the new company is starting a new club with nothing t do ith the old club apart form a simialr name then it has to be removed form this pageAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrewcrawford. I'm not suggesting that the new club has nothing to do with the old club apart form a similar name - indeed the opposite. It is clear that the new company is designed to be a 'newco' Rangers - a successor club to the one about to be liquidated. It is therefore important that readers are not confused about which club is the old Rangers and which one is the newco. Since the website, along with all assets were sold to the newco, the website link should appear on that page only. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok once the AFD for the new article is concluded and the decision on what to do with the page is decided then if it remains the way it is we will remove from here, but AFD could mean it deleted, moved to a new page, or redirect here or kept there is various potential for itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your recent attempt to remove the website link from the page about the company that actually owns and runs it. I thought you were arguing that the website link should appear on both pages until the AFD for the new article. However, your move seems trun counter to the case you have just been arguing here. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In what way do you think that whipping the link off this article and hiding it on the article about the owning company is going to "help the reader"? Do you honestly think any reader is going to be bamboozled by the fact that the Ranger FC article links to the same Rangers website that it did last month? At present Rangers.co.uk remains the best primary source for all matters relating to the content of this page.

There is plenty to be confused about, and hair-splitting and pointless edits such as this won't help the reader one bit. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

i removed it as a way to try lessening confussion as if it aint on both article it less confussing i said if the afd is to keep the article in it current form we will remove from here but we can easily add it back to the enw article i am trying to make it less confussing to not have it on two articlesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 07:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, Andrewcrawford, you are creating confusion by suggesting that 'Rangers' somehow belongs to two separate companies at the same time. If you read the website, you will see that the articles make clear that Charles Green is the chief executive - that is, of the company (Sevco 5088) that bought Ibrox and other Rangers' assets, including the website. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

and as been pointed out before at the moment everyone including the liqudaters are saying rangers are serperate to the company ie the club and ocmpany are serperate and the club is assest in essence so teh new company has took over rangers fc if you havea problem with that then contact every news agency and the liquadter etc telling them they are wrong i thinko you find they wont be bothered if oyu dnt believe them since cor;partion work in another level nither you or me understandsAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter in the slightest who owns the website. It remains the de-facto primary website about Rangers the football club, which is the subject of this Wikipedia article. Removing it would do nothing in assisting the reader. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Escape Orbit. 'Rangers the football club' has entered liquidation and its assets, including the website, have been sold to a different company that plans to run a new Rangers. The website is now about the new club - for example, one of the articles describes Charles Green as the chief executive, so it is not describing the old Rangers. It therefore makes sense for the website link to this new Rangers club to be in the correct article and not in the article about Rangers FC which is being liquidated. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It remains the de-facto primary website about Rangers the football club, which is the subject of this Wikipedia article. Removing it would do nothing in assisting the reader. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that page - now I see what you mean. That website does indeed contain information that expands on details in this article. However, my concern remains that for the casual reader who clicks on the link, they are likely to come across current news which is about Charles Green's Rangers rather than Rangers FC. Perhaps a compromise would be to remove the website link from the infobox and instead place the website at the foot of the article under 'external links' - this would allow a comment to be added explaining that the website contained information about both Rangers FC as well as the newco that bought Rangers' assets including the website. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Desirable to remove "current" template

The {{current}} template is intended for those rare and momentous occasions in which hundreds of different editors are participating in editing an article in one day, as its guidelines recommend. The {{current}} template's appearance on this article was not in alignment with the template's guidelines before editing was halted on the article, and certainly is not appropriate now that all editing has been halted on the article.

I would appreciate comment from other editors signifying agreement to remove the template, in order to have an admin remove the template under the "editprotected" request process.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the 'current' template should be removed. The Rangers FC story is almost over - it is goin to be liquidated,its assets have been sold, and all that remains is for the club to be wound up. Nearly all the 'current' developments are now about the new Rangers which is trying to get in to the SPL, and failing that will seek to join the SFL. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, the event remains current until the club has been liquidated or whatever else happens to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingowasher (talk • contribs) 15:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that the only matter to be added will be when it is finally liquidated. However, since the club now has no assets (having sold them) and debts of over £100m, no other outcome is even remotely possible. I'm not convinced that this one outstanding matter justifies 'current'. Anyway, since things are not being updated on this page, having 'current' seems pointless. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• I also re-iterate that the template guideline indicates that the template is intended for those highly unusual instances (and as a warning to editors, not to readers) when many many editors are attempting to edit an article. No edits have occurred on the article for more than a week at this point, and thus is is appropriate to remove it.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Insolvency practitioners Q&A

I'm still new to wikipedia but thought I would bring to notice that insolvency practioners MLM Solutions held an online Q&A on Rangers' situation. Here's the link http://mlm-solutions.blogspot.co.uk/p/live-event-page.html

The reason I bring it up is one question in particular caught my eye.

Q. After the liquidation/death of Rangers FC PLC and the creation of a brand new legal entity, when can/does the new company become a new club?

A. As of yesterday, the new company operates the club. Of course, it does not yet have membership of either the SPL or SFL, which is an essential rquirement for any professional football club.

Also to note that BDO, who are the liquidators of the old company, have also stated "CVA proposals have been rejected, so the next step for the Company will be to exit administration and enter liquidation. Once BDO is formally appointed, the joint liquidators will be seeking to protect any remaining assets, maximise recoveries for the benefit of creditors, and investigate the reasons behind the failure of the company.

The joint administrators intend to complete a transfer of the business and assets to a new company in the coming days, putting the future of the club on more secure footing. Once this is done, BDO will determine what can be recovered from the remains of the existing company."

There is a clear definition being made out that the company and the club are two separate entities. --BadSynergy (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is in the interests of the newco to create a fiction that the club is separate from the oldco and that there is a continuity, simply because this offers the best prospects for transferring customers, sponsors, reputation, staff, etc. It also increases the chance of the vacant slot in the SPL being granted to the newco. It is a fiction, though, because otherwise the history of overspending (i.e. the debts) would come across too. The club was the compay and it was in debt. It can't pick and choose what bits should continue and what should not, however much those connected with the club argue that they can and however much the customers of the oldco would like it to be so. The fact that the club and the company are indivisible could be demonstrated by what would have happened if Green had not come along with his newco. Rangers the club would not have continued to exist independently of Rangers FC plc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Leeds United, Charlton Athletic and Middlesborough have all set the UK precedent for liquidation of a holding company of a football club. Their holding company become a NewCo in the same way as Rangers and they are regarded as the same club. You can find the Oldco from Leeds united online, and it's current status is in Liquidation, meanwhile the NewCo, Incorporated in 2007, continues to own and run the current Leeds United, which is not a phoenix club, but the original club. Despite the fact that there are many who want to destroy the history of Rangers and revel in their demise, they shouldn't be treated any differently to other the aforementioned clubs just because they have more people who dislike them.92.0.106.29 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find that Middlesbrough was 'saved' despite liquidation, and saved its history, because the new company took on all the debts of the old company - 'Rangers' are trying to do something different:keeping the history without keeping the historical debt. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

STV did a live Q&A aswell and similar questions being answered the same. Guest : What happens to the trophies won as Rangers FC, do they get transferred to the Newco? Tuesday June 12, 2012 3:13

STV Andy: If the SPL approve a transfer of share to admit a New Rangers then yes, the league titles would transfer over. The same applies to other trophies if the SFA membership is approved.

However, it is worth bearing in mind that the investigation into dual contracts is still ongoing and the SPL have said that stripping titles is a possible sanction.

TheGreenMachine : STV Andy, I think you have that wrong...Once liquidated Rangers 1873 History ends...no transfer of honours....the newco is a newclub...and will have its own history.

Tuesday June 12, 2012 3:20

STV Grant: TheGreenMachine, with respect, you are wrong. The viewpoint of the SPL is that all SPL history of Rangers would move to the new company. That is also similar for the Scottish FA, provided New Rangers were given the current club's membership.

So if the vote goes newco's way the history stays then? 2.218.240.160 (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Page Needs Updated

They now have no players or manager, stadium, training ground, badge, website and technically unless they've had permission from Sevco Scotland shouldnt be allowed to use the name Rangers FC or Rangers Football Club as they(Sevco Scoland) now own the copyright. The page should be corrected and updated soon, before it ends up well behind whats happening. Should be moved to the page The Rangers Football Club PLC and corrections made for example the Clubs name is The Rangers Football Club PLC and it used the name Rangers FC until it sold the copyright. Start updating how all the Staffs contracts were sold during the asset sale, update their Stadium and Training to Former Stadium etc --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Superbhoy1888. I agree the page needs updating but the question is one of how. In the case of Halifax Town A.F.C., all that was required was to change the article into a past tense throughout, but keep details such as the club badge, detail of stadium etc. I see no reason why we could not do that here: "Rangers FC was a football club" rather than "is" and then still keep details of their crest, stadium they used to pay in etc. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I suggest that we first remove the statement in the first line that they play in the SPL.

'Current squad' subsection should be deleted

It is clear that Rangers FC now has no players as all players' contracts were transferred to the 'newco' Rangers when Green's consortium bought Rangers' assets. As Charles Green stated "The transfer of contracts has already happened and the club's clear legal advice is that players' purported objection is ineffective." Even if his legal advice is wrong and players do not have to transfer to the new club, this would not affect the basic point that no players remain on the books of Rangers FC. This article should be updated to reflect this. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, we could just cull the entire section, but possibly copy a list of the players over to the newco page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingowasher (talk • contribs) 15:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually no. If we keep this article as the old club which is still debatable then the squad and everything should stay, we simply add a sentence in the section saying this was the squad at the time of Liqudation. That is the established preecident. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Not quite as simple as that. All the contracts were transferred (barring objections) on 14th June, prior to liquidators being appointed. Therefore 'at the time of liquidation' no squad will exist. Most other articles of clubs that were liquidated would have a section on 'notable players' - would that not be sufficient? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I do think we should follow the precident but we will need to think of the wording. Gretna used the title Gretnas last squad, I'm still not entirely convinced we should be treating as a seperate entity but if we are (looks likely) then we should do it properly. Let's not forget they did own the ground and players before they entered the Liqudation process. All we need to do is use past tense and explanatory text. It's the same with the SPL it should say who last played or who played in the SPL not removed all together. There is a lot of pov on both sides that can be avoided with more neutral wording and explanatory text. What we need to do is start working on a draft proposal and put forward. I fear that once the protection is lifted it will be re protected immediately because in terms of avoiding an edit war we are no further forward. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The Gretna article lists the squad at the time of the last league game and not at the point the club entered administration. That could easily be done here: the squad at the time of the last Rangers match of the season, rather than at the time the assets were sold. Unfortunately, that good idea may have to wait until some administrator decides to do it as none of us can edit the article. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea, why not put in an edit request?--Dingowasher (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree make teh squad list as per the last game they played, then regardless of what happens with the article ie it continues with new rangers or is then to describe the old rangers, that part of the page would be correct, , but it must be referenced well and noted the squad is of the last match rangers fc playedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Records

Main article: Rangers F.C. records

Club

Record home attendance

118,567 vs Celtic, January 1939

Record victory

13–0 vs Possilpark, Scottish Cup, 6 October 1877

Record league victory

10–0 vs Hibernian, 24 December 1898

Record defeat

2–10 vs Airdrieonians, 6 February 1886

Record league defeat

0–6 vs Dumbarton, 4 May 1892

Record appearances

John Greig, 755, 1960–1978

Record league appearances

Sandy Archibald, 513, 1917–1934

Record Scottish Cup appearances

Alec Smith, 74

Record Scottish League Cup appearances

John Greig, 121

Record European competition appearances

Barry Ferguson, 82

Record goalscorer

Ally McCoist, 355 goals, 1983–1998

Most goals in one season

Jim Forrest, 57 goals, 1964–65

Most league goals in one season

Sam English, 44 goals, 1931–32

Most league goals

Ally McCoist, 251 goals

Most Scottish Cup goals

Jimmy Fleming, 44 goals

Most League Cup goals

Ally McCoist, 54 goals

Most European goals

Ally McCoist, 21 goals

Shutout record

Chris Woods, 1196 minutes, 1986–87 (British record)

Most capped player

Frank de Boer, 112 caps for The Netherlands

Highest transfer fee received

Alan Hutton, £9m, Tottenham Hotspur, 2008

Highest transfer fee paid

Tore André Flo, £12m, Chelsea, 2000

Individual

All players are from Scotland unless otherwise stated.

Top goalscorers

Rank	Name	Career	Apps	Goals	Average
1	Ally McCoist	1983–1998	581	355	0.61
2	Bob McPhail	1927–1940	408	261	0.64
3	Jimmy Smith	1930–1946	259	249	0.96
4	Jimmy Fleming	1925–1934	268	223	0.83
5	Derek Johnstone	1970–1982 1985–1986	546	210	0.38
6	Ralph Brand	1954–1965	317	206	0.65
7	Willie Reid	1909–1920	230	195	0.84
8	Willie Thornton	1936–1954	308	194	0.63
9	RC Hamilton	1897–1908	209	184	0.88
10	Andy Cunningham	1914–1929	389	182	0.47

there seems to be bias on this and it does nto meet with no one can agree if the club si the company, as sources still conflictAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You will always find sources that say that 'Rangers the club' is continuing as before as some will refuse to accept otherwise, and some have a vested interest in promoting that myth, but the truth is the truth and has to be the basis for what is written in Wikipedia. For information, two comment you may find interesting: Quote from Steven Whittaker ""We owe no loyalty to the new club. There is no history there for us." Quote from Steven Naismith "My loyalty is with Rangers, not with Sevco [Green's company name], who I don't know anything about."[4] Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

yes and that is my arguiement the sources are conflicitng, yes teh truth ius the truth, but wikipeida isnt abotu opinion or pov it about wha thte sources say that why i said we best put both tha tsome source say the club is alive with history and source sayign the club is dead, i have said aloong my opnion is it is deeadAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

We should set up a user draft subpage to work on cant really do it here on the talk page. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That is dangerously close to using a fake article as a content fork. I think we should remember that we are not a news service and leave the information as it is with a reminder that we are not a news service, until the meeting on the fourth of July, when things will become clearer. Anyone who thinks that there is an incontinent need to report the news instantly does not understand that wikipedia is not an instant news service but an encyclopedia. Britmax (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No we are not a news service and neither we should be but given we have two articles that are inaccurate and not neutral which defeats your point then we have to do something, A userspace draft is not inappropriate or a fake article. It is something that we can use to work towards a neutral consensus rather than doing nothing and then starting an edit war the minute the page is unprotected.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

We certainly need to do something and I don't really see how waiting until July 4th will make a difference. Whether or not Green's application to the SPL is successful, some editors will refuse to accept, for example, that the players' contracts were transferred from Rangers FC on June 14th, and will revert changes to the article that seek to make this clear. The newco article does not appear to have edit warring at present, despite not having any level of protection, so this is the article we need to find a solution for. Your suggestion may work. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it might be a solution in this less than ideal world. I still think the problems I pointed out need an eye kept open but you're right, people will want things done and this is a way of doing it. Britmax (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC Dispute

Just a notice to anyone who wish to discuss the dispute including ip users the page is at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rangers_FC_club_dead_or_not the discussion in how to take this page further--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The above dispute has now been settled with the decision to keep a separate article about Green's newco Rangers. Perhaps those with the power will now begin to update the Rangers FC page? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

that just means the cones us was to keep the article not that is fact, there is dispute and until a conesus can be agreed the page cant be editedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a newspaper

Can I remind everyone here that we are an encyclopedia not a news service. If we need to wait until the meeting on the fourth of July or the situation clarifies in some other way there's no rush. Leave the "tabloid instant 24-hours-so-we've-got-to-fill-the-space-with-shite" to those who do that sort of thing. Britmax (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

well said :0, but i do think we should udpate somethings where is conflict in teh soruces showing that wikipedia isnt taking sides it reports it as it isAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Amen. Changing the article to accommodate speculation, mis-information, mis-understandings, guesses, wishes and opinions is a waste of time. It'll only get erased in a couple of weeks with facts. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

As six clubs have public ally stated they will vote against there is no longer any guesswork here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackerjack (talk • contribs) 10:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

that only clarify they are unliekly be in the spl, but untilt he vote it is not 100% confirmed people are being to quick lets let it all settle and when we kno change the article ive already put requests inAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Player contracts

Seperate, but related to the above, is the matter of the players' contracts. The owner of the new club/company/whatever apparently thinks that all players must automatically transfer over. This opinion seems to have been trashed by the players' union, among others. Should the squad section say that all players are free agents, potentially at least? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Their employment is covered by TUPE. As such, any who do not wish to transfer to the "newco" do not wish to do, and will be treated as if their contracts had naturally ended (in essence becoming free agents). So far as I can tell, there have been no reliable sources indicating that employee contracts have been transferred yet, nor that any player has officially moved to the "newco". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

And I don't think we'll get all the answers until we know what league Rangers will be in next season. If they end up in Scottish Football League Third Division, which is likely, they won't be able to afford to keep the players on the same contract, and no player in their right mind would want to drop down three divisions anyway. Digifiend (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

2 have said they will trasnfer there cointracts we will know tomorrow which player intend to tranfer if they dnt turn up to training there leavingAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):There using TUPE to transfer them but TUPE as you say doesn't mean they will, green says they are in breach of contract if they dnt the pfa says there not, fifa are still to clarify, the law says that a employee must be offer the same contract and condition that where with the old company when transferring to the new company but it also says they can decided they do not want to transfer and become unemployed, so until the player come and say we cant list them free agents but at the same time we cant say they have moved to the new come maybe something explaining the situation i just said with a source added to the squad section would be best.in addition to what chris has said fifa and the sfa have still to comment fully on how it affect football player as they seem to be treated differently but teh pfa says TUPE is a law and cant be treated differentlyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the situation is still up in the air and there is a lot more doo-doo to come down the pipe. But I still think it would be worth adding the current info to the article. There is reliable sources saying the owner expects to transfer them, and other reliable sources saying he has no chance (both parties citing TUPE). Our article at the moment says nothing about all this. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

put what you want to add here with in-line citations if no one objects then put a edit request inAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, what about:

When Rangers entered administration in February 2012, their players accepted pay cuts of up to 75% to allow the club to continue to trade. After lengthy negotiations the players agreed on condition that they could leave for substantially reduced transfer fees. When a CVA was rejected in June 2012, prospective asset–purchaser Charles Green said that players who had contracts with the company in liquidation must transfer their contracts to his new company. It was suggested by Green that, under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE), any player who did not wish to do so would be in breach of contract. This interpretation of the law was rejected by the Professional Footballers' Association Scotland (SPFA) who argued that the playing staff could decide whether to transfer their contracts to the new company. If not, they effectively became free agents from the point that their original employer was liquidated. SPFA chief exectutive Fraser Wishart, who had been a Rangers player under David Murray's administration, described the players as unsure of their future and "increasingly unhappy at having to operate in an information vacuum".

Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty Neutral and NO POV put a edit request in make sure to quote the bit you want changed with the above oyu want to replace it. You have my vote for this changeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

please amend Administration and Liquidation

"On 14 February 2012 Rangers entered administration over non-payment of £9 million in PAYE and VAT taxes to HM Revenue and Customs.[67][68] On entering administration the team was deducted 10 points by the SPL, effectively ending its 2012 championship challenge.[67] Rangers have not submitted accounts for 2011 and were not granted a licence to play in European football in season 2012–2013.[69][70] HM Revenue and Customs voted against a Company Voluntary Arrangement.[71] The Club entered liquidation on 14 June 2012 following the rejection of a proposed CVA by HMRC.[72]. HMRC are to appoint the BDO Insolvency firm to reveal why the Club failed.[73] Following this the Club's assets were sold off to The Rangers Football Club owned by Charles Green. The Club was projected to be dissolved in around 6 to 8 weeks."

To

"When Rangers entered administration in February 2012, their players accepted pay cuts of up to 75% to allow the club to continue to trade. After lengthy negotiations the players agreed on condition that they could leave for substantially reduced transfer fees. When a CVA was rejected in June 2012, prospective asset–purchaser Charles Green said that players who had contracts with the company in liquidation must transfer their contracts to his new company. It was suggested by Green that, under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE), any player who did not wish to do so would be in breach of contract. This interpretation of the law was rejected by the Professional Footballers' Association Scotland (SPFA) who argued that the playing staff could decide whether to transfer their contracts to the new company. If not, they effectively became free agents from the point that their original employer was liquidated.SPFA chief exectutive Fraser Wishart, who had been a Rangers player under David Murray's administration, described the players as unsure of their future and "increasingly unhappy at having to operate in an information vacuum"."

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Potential legal issue

I think that, pending agreement on how best to move this page forward, it would be wise to address a possible legal issue with the current wording. The company which has bought Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park - Sevco 5088 Ltd - has been legally barred from changing its name to "The Rangers Football Club Ltd", at least until the conclusion of liquidation of the present club (The Rangers Football Club PLC). Therefore to knowingly continue to refer to Sevco 5088 Ltd by the debarred name "The Rangers Football Club Ltd" could potentially be unlawful.

It is likely the disputes surrounding this page will drag on for months to come, and I feel it would be unwise to leave this factual issue outstanding, since it is also a legal issue. The issue is particularly sensitive as it has been announced today that criminal charges are to be brought regarding the acquisition.

I would therefore counsel that the phrase "the club's assets, including Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park, were bought by The Rangers Football Club Ltd - a consortium led by Charles Green" be changed as a matter of urgency to "the club's assets, including Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park, were bought by Sevco 5088 Ltd - a consortium led by Charles Green" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.43.151 (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

ill put the edit request in just now i never realised this was still thereAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please amend the lead "the club's assets, including Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park, were bought by The Rangers Football Club Ltd - a consortium led by Charles Green" to "the club's assets, including Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park, were bought by Sevco 5088 Ltd - a consortium led by Charles Green"

as per above this is a legal issue (not necessary for wikipedia) but for the company itself and should not be portrayed as such on wikipedia that the company name is The Rangers Football Club Ltd

I suspect that this would have come directly from the news articles at the time of the purchase, where they quoted Charles Green as stating this was the name of the new company. I would say it's not a legal issue for wikipedia, any more than it is for the BBC who also have not changed the original article. But the reason for changing it is that we now know that Green's original statement was reflecting his wishes - that the Sevco 5088 Ltd name would be immediately changed to The Rangers Football Club Ltd - rather than the actual position. Average Earthman (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

As part of a revert the change was removed however i have put it back as obviously is more accurate at this time.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

the bbc did issue a new press release later on saying the company is called servo 5088 and that a name dispute is in progress it is soruced on the The Rangers Football Club Ltd articleAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

SPL admission unlikely

It appears unlikely they will get SPL admission - six clubs have said they will oppose this, and Rangers need an 8-4 majority [5]. Should the page be updated to reflect this, or are we waiting for the official 4 July vote? Average Earthman (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No need to update this page on this aspect: Rangers FC is being liquidated - what is happening is that a new club is being formed to continue the spirit of Rangers (according to the website "The Spirit lives on") and it is this club that is likely to be refused admission to the SPL. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC

And you are in charge of the article? no decision has been reached ie no cones us on what this article will be about ie is the club really are getting liquidated you keep saying yes because that is your POV once disputer resolution concludes and the AFD and things are clearer and we know excately what is going on then yes we can say that. but in response to the original person yes we should update but only once it is voted on they could change there minds unlikely and i hope they dnt i dnt think the newco should get back inAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am no more in charge of this article than you, and less in charge than those who are able to alter it. However, as this is a talk page where editors give their opinions about the best way forward, I am merely doing that. By the way, let me be clear about what are my opinions and what are facts: Fact - Rangers FC is being liquidated: Fact - Green's consortium is putting together a newco Rangers which he hopes will get into a league and thereby continue football at Ibrox; Opinion - wikipedia should deal with situations like this by having separate articles for the old, liquidated club, and for the newco that seeks to carry forward the 'spirit' of the previous club (as has been done in other cases, like Halifax Town.) By the way, you "think the newco should get back in" - it is a newco...it hasn't been in before! I take it you mean 'you think the newco should get in'? Reagrds Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

no i mean i think the newco regardless if it a new club to con tuning of the old club should not get back into the spl it should go to the lowest league and work back up, and if that lowest league then becomes a feeder league for division 3 then it should be there just now i say div3 since it the lowest. i dnt own the article but i object to POV pushing, as will be seen on the disputer board soon once i finish the post i am making with sources for both side of the argument, it is not fact it is opinion no one know yet for sure that is your interruption of the sources, fact about newco rangers is sort of right it a newco company whether it is newco club is to be seen yetAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this may be veering away from what I was trying to make as the original point - whether you view the newco as a separate company or a continuation of the original, it appears it definitely won't be playing in the SPL next year. So the line "who play in the Scottish Premier League" is going to be incorrect, and arguably is already. The question is whether to change it now (e.g. who played in the Scottish Premier League from 1998 to 2012" or wait until it is officially announced that they are not "Club 12" in the schedule. Average Earthman (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

until it is confirmed we should leave it but you could put a sentance saying 6 clubs have publically opposed with a source and say it is unlikely they will get back inAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't do predictions. The lead does not need running commentary on what may happen in meetings that aren't for another week. This is not a news article and we should not encourage readers (or editors, who should known better by now) to treat it as one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)