Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Hun - sectarian?

i believe rangers are an awful awful club up the ira!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.34.135 (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hun is either a term for protestants or a term for Rangers fans it cannot be both. Adam4267 (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

- I would say that hun was orginally a term for Rangers fans but has now almost certainly transgressed to a disparaging term for all protestants. --Johnelwaq (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Johnelwaq -- just review Celtic fansites, epsecially Celtic Underground.

When/How did this happen? Adam4267 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Aberdeen fans call Rangers fans "Huns". Celtic fans do not describe Aberdeen fans as being "Huns". If you can find any evidence that Aberdeen and Rangers fans are in any way religiously different, I might accept the sectarian explanation. The truth is that it is an unpleasant tag which has stuck (because it fits). This is the real reason for claiming that it has religious overtones. Quite comically, most who claim that "Hun" is a sectarian slur will follow up with stories of how "Celtic were the original Huns". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Nairac (talk • contribs) 19:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not deny that Aberdeen fans call Rangers fans "huns", indeed, many if not all of the football fans in Scotland will refer to Rangers or Rangers fans as "huns" when attempting to belittle them. That is the way of Scottish football, many refer to Aberdeen fans as "sheepshaggers" or Inverness fans as "cheuchters" and so on. However, the term of "hun" is not only used along side Rangers but also protestant, so far as to say that there is a tripartite relationship exsisting between them; being a protestant means you will be a Rangers fan and so you are called a "hun" or being a Rangers fan, you are a hun and you will be a protestant. Johnelwaq (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Just throwing in my opinion, as a Celtic fan, in support of Wikipedia:NPOV. As with everything; it's all to do with context. I've called friends "Huns" or "Currant Buns" as a joke and it was taken as such, likewise I've been called a "Tim" or a "Tattie-muncher" as a joke and I took it as the joke it was ment to be; but I've also witnessed each of these terms being used with real hatred by both sides. I personally see that there is a distinction between a "Rangers Fan" and a "Hun" for example most of the Rangers support are there to support their team, only engage in friendly banter with Celtic fans many of whom are their friends and see the two "sides" as rivals not enemies and so, are "Rangers Fans"; "Huns" on the other hand, in my opinion, are people who hold real sectarian values, have a real blind hatred for the other side and would find it very difficult to associate themselves with someone who is a Celtic fan. I've seen people like this on both sides and, for me, it's all about treating people with respect who deserve respect (i.e. "Rangers Fans" in the definition I've described here). But I think the word "Hun" is used more with the support of Rangers in mind than the Protestant community. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Walter Smith Honours won - 2 spells should be combined, with years given

For consistency - eg with Jock Wallace, the trophies won in his two spells are combined in the same table, and Derek Johnstone's appearances and goals are combined in the 2 tables above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alancarnegie (talk • contribs) 13:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Rivalry with Aberdeen

Relations between the fans wasn't 'soured' by Neil Simpson's tackle on Ian Durrant in 1988, but by Rangers' Willie Johnstone's stamp on the head of Aberdeen's John McMaster on 3 September 1980 at Ibrox, which required McMaster to be given the 'kiss of life' on the field. Johnstone explained the act was intended for Willie Miller. "Unfortunately I got the wrong player".../.

The Simpson/Durrant incident only exacerbated the situation. EP1985 (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 95.172.75.71, 20 June 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Still states 53 titles in body of page

95.172.75.71 (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Done Monkeymanman (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The need to chill on the secterianism

20% of a very lengthy article on a football club is filled with three subsections on the topic of sectarianism, which is a topic that has its own - which is, btw, shorter.

This is nothing short of ridiculous.

The article would be better served if the bulk of the topic was actually covered in the Sectarianism in Glasgow article.

This article should of course have a short subsection about problems and attempts of solution. But it is an article of a football club, so the use of 7000+ words in three subsections about the topic is completely over the top. Thaum1el (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree completely. The problem with this section is always the fact it needs to totally mirror that on the Celtic article, lest sensitive fans of either team are deeply offended by the outrageous injustice of it all. So it grows and grows. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the pages need to mirror each other. The clubs have different problems and history. Maybe one or two sentences of an introduction but their pages should adress their own problems in a brief manner and other stuff should be on the currently underdeveloped Sectarianism in Glasgow or Old Firm. Adam4267 (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Squad table format

A discussion is being held here on the possibility of rolling out a new squad template. The new template, named {{football squad player2}}, differs from the standard squad layout in several ways:

It features a sort function
Comes in a single column format that can be understood by screen readers.
- Single column format ensures that low resolution browsers, including mobile devices, do not get part or all of the second column cut off.
- Single column format ensures less clutter, particularly at lower resolutions, for wide sections such as the Arsenal loan section.
It gives nationality its own column; at present flags are featured in a blank, untitled column
It complies with Wikipedia's guidance on flag usage.
It leaves enough space to add images of current players, an example of which can be seen at Watford F.C#Current squad.

It is proposed that the new template be added to some of Wikipedia's most high-profile club articles, which might include Rangers F.C.. To give your thoughts, please read and contribute to the discussion at WikiProject Football.

Regards, —WFC— 00:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sectarianism

The sectarian tit for tat and obvious bias needs to go. At the very most a brief paragraph linking to further wiki pages on the subject, biased agendas are crawling all over this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theiconicman (talk • contribs) 13:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the most wildly biased article I've read on Wikipedia regarding the section on sectarianism.

If citation is not given for "Even before Celtic's formation Rangers had ties to the Orange Order" then it should be treated as the biased misinformation it is contrary to everything I've learned elsewhere.

Is this a reliable source? http://books.google.com/books?id=CJxIbXQfE1IC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=rangers+1888+orange+order&source=bl&ots=cGNM2LmrO7&sig=FsoOj4wvwHAYAGjF8Y_3O8YbvFM&hl=en&ei=FKteTtvyBZC5hAfH_djZBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=rangers%201888%20orange%20order&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conor.hogan.2 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The link above is to a book with its own agenda, riddled with inaacuracies, hearsay evidence, poor definition of sectarian terms, biased contributors, and untruths. This section is nothing more than a mouthpiece for bigots and opposing fans to bad mouth opponents. It stands out as an example of exactly what is wrong with Wikipedia as a credible source of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.106.207 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Both this and the Celtic FC page should be locked from anonymous edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.224.132.177 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Manchester 2008

I cannot conceive how the only event in the entire history of the club that is deemed worthy of a mention in the lede paragraph is the number of people who made a fairly short journey. What an incredible insult to the victims of the Ibrox disaster, and what a blatant case of "I remember it, so it was important". Thoroughly disproportionate. Kevin McE (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it's not the only event mentioned in the lead, is it? However, you may have a point. This would probably be better mentioned further down the article where the match is discussed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree you may have a point, but like EO said it is not the only event mentioned in the lead. Perhaps you could apply your eagle eyes to This articles intro.Monkeymanman (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it probably is undue to include how many Rangers fans travelled to Manchester for the 2008 Uefa Cup final and how many had tickets in the lead. But if it's going to be included, it seems bizarre to exclude any mention of what the day was most notable for, the riot. Haldraper (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

yet another example of a bigot using wikipedia as a mouthpiece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.106.207 (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Glasgow Rangers"

I always thought the phrase "Glasgow Rangers" was somewhat of a misnomer, or at least a form of disambiguation from other clubs called Rangers, but here's an example of its use in a fairly official capacity. Is this just a really common colloquialism? --BDD (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Rangers cull

it seem gregg wlude was not made redunent he choose to leave and give the money he was owed to the club in the hope the club will survive once a link is available ill post here but ill update the page as i find out who is gone, as my ntoe said there is now suggestion all first team players will be gone at the very least the high earners--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

confirmation gregg wlyde has left http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17221172--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do you insist on removing the song titles?

Monkeymanman, do you actually understand Wikipedia:BRD? You are the person making a BOLD change by removing perfectly legitimate information that:

was in the article before I came to edit it [1]
is sourced [2]
and is probably of interest to others who don't give two hoots about football but would like to understand what's behind all the Catholic/Protestant shenanigans that fuel the Old Firm rivalry and are responsible for a lot of violence on match weekends

All I did was wikilink to the relevant WP articles so readers could discover why these songs are considered to be sectarian.
So I am going to revert your BOLD omission of information and you are required to discuss this matter and seek the consensus of other editors if you wish to remove the song titles The Sash and Follow Follow. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The source makes reference to the songs but does not explicitly say that they are "sectarian". I would argue that it would be more appropriate to state what is in the first line of the reference "captured on camera singing sectarian songs". In all respects even mentioning what Donald Findlay, an individual, did is hardly representative on the football club. Oh btw the "historical" version of the article made no reference to either song. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for meeting me halfway, I was intrigued to learn more about the nature of the songs themselves, this is not my battleground at all, if you pardon the expression, I don't give a monkey's ;-) It would be helpful if you could be more expansive in your replies, I said "historical" to mean the article as when I found it, I don't intend it to mean "when it was created back in the wee mists of time". Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The BBC article specifically begins; "The Faculty of Advocates is to investigate complaints against the leading Scottish lawyer Donald Findlay QC after he was captured on camera singing sectarian songs.". (My emphasis). It then later says; "Mr Findlay, 48, sang The Sash and Follow, Follow, at a party celebrating Rangers' treble win." Now, unless Findlay did a medley of sectarian songs that the BBC don't mention, and then finished with these two which aren't, I think it's fair to conclude that the "sectarian songs" and "The Sash and Follow, Follow" are one and the same.

I'm not too bothered either way, as which songs exactly is detail that the article doesn't desperately need, but let's not quibble over whether the BBC described them as sectarian. They did, and many reliable sources would agree. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well put and I totally agree but I didn't want a protracted discussion over this. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

General tidy

I propose a little bit of Spring cleaning on the page. Some editing of the history, especially the more recent history as it currently reads as a who's who of managers. Maybe add the Europe section in to the Records section as it is Rangers record in Europe? Creating a Commerical interests section which has the motor racing as a sub section, some prose on how Rangers had and is looking to increase revenue and enter other markets, see the recent opening of a office in London (now closed), the attempts to enter the India market, the partnership with China football clubs back in the 2000s, Anything else?

Any other minors changes that I will make to improve the appearance and use, I will post or list here. --Johnelwaq (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the title of your newly created section "Financial mismanagement" is out of place. If you want to mention the finances in greater detail there is already a section.Monkeymanman (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've also reverted this section title. The cites provided, written at the time, say nothing about "Financial mismanagement". They certainly report the fact that Rangers had large debts, but that's not the same thing. "Financial mismanagement" is a rather serious allegation, primarily a matter of opinion, and so would need a good solid cite actually saying this. And as Monkeymanman says, this would be far better handled in the "Ownership and finances" section, which can also be afforded the luxury of hindsight.

Otherwise, good work by Johnelwaq. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Financial citations

I think financial citations need to be more factual rather than to the sensationalist journalistic references which at times are either uniformed or wholly exaggerated and spun for impact rather than to be factual.

Please could you use the following official administrators Joint Administrators‟ Report and Statement of Proposals by Duff & Phelps as an authoritative citation:

http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/fe/a8/0,,5~174334,00.pdf

It should be noted that all BBC citations are suspect due to their long running disputes with Rangers FC and have had many complaints made against their lack of impartiality.

Calscot (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Which disputes and complaints would those be? --John (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Opening section

I think that the opening section needs a cull. It is an insult to Rangers FC that Wikipedia thinks that the most important fact about Rangers is that the stadium has a capacity of 51,082 and is located in south-west Glasgow. This information is a non sequitur and gives the impression of padding. Claiming that they have "more top-flight national championships than any other club in the world" is misleading as it doesn't enter a national championship but a regional one, so reduces the credibility of the other claims in the article -- the same goes for the claim for domestic trebles. Claiming to be the first British team to reach the European Cup final draws an immediate contrast to the previous claim to national championships, making the article appear grandiloquence. It is also very odd that the this seems to be more important than Rangers actually winning the cup a few years later. In short the opening seems rather boastful and just reduces the credibility of the article. I therefore think that a serious cull of these opening paragraphs to really focus on the achievements of the club will improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingowasher (talk • contribs) 20:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What "regional" championship??? I think perhaps you should read more background information. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The Scottish Premier League is based in Scotland which isn't a sovereign state, thus making it difficult to claim that it is a national championship. Wikipedia also states that Club Nacional de Football has won 123 domestic titles, more than the 54 won by Rangers, thus weakening this article's claim that Rangers have won the most championships in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingowasher (talk • contribs) 21:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Scotland is a independent member of FIFA, therefore by any definition that counts it has a national league. By your bizarre logic the English Premiership wouldn't count as national either, England not being a sovereign state.

Wikipedia can't be used as a source, and cannot be used for original research. If there are verifiable reliable cites that say Rangers have the most then that's good enough. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no citation on the Rangers statistic in the article right now, whereas the Club Nacional de Football article cites a reliable source -- perhaps the Rangers claim should be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingowasher (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I have tagged it as needing a cite. If none is forth-coming it should be removed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And that's it cited. There is maybe a discrepancy with what Club Nacional de Football says, or maybe the numbers are not comparable. Either way, we can't perform original research to sort it out ourselves. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the Club Nacional de Football article. It is cited to a blog, in Spanish, which doesn't appear to contain the figure 123. So it can be discounted at least once, for not being a reliable source, and possibly twice, for not actually saying what is claimed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The figure of 123 in the Club Nacional article appears to refer to the total honours the club has won (i.e. league title and all cups added together), their total number of national league wins only seems to be 43..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

THE DIFFERANCE BETWEEN THE RANGERS(of Green) AND RANGERS(of Whyte)

The Rangers are owned by Charles Green and Rangers are owned by Craig Whyte. This is why there has to be two seperate Wikipedia pages as there are two seperate entities. Rangers are in Liquidation, The Rangers are not. Further to this just to clear up all the Talk of Club/Company/Holding Company. This should explain things clearly enough for all to understand the differance between the 1872 Rangers and the 2012 Rangers.

Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872, it plodded along until 1899 when it was Incorporated as a Limited Company and became Rangers Football Club L.T.D(check the gates on Ibrox Stadium which have the Full Club name(as of when they were put up) or check any Rangers documents you will see Rangers reffered to as "Rangers Football Club P.L.C" ("The Club") it has since become a PLC hence why it is now called PLC at the end. This is what is in Liquidation and will be dissolved. Thre is no seperation between Club/Company they are one and the same, the Club became a Company and is a Company. The Holding Company of Rangers 1872 is Rangers FC Group Ltd which is owned solely by Craig Whyte hence why Craig Whyte is just said to be the owner. Rangers FC Group Ltd are not in Liquidation/Administration nothing. They will outlive Rangers Football Club and still exist when they are gone.

In Short: 1872 Rangers FC is Founded, 1899 Rangers FC become a Limited Company, 1995 Rangers FC become a PLC, 2012 Rangers FC go into Administration, 2012 Rangers FC go into Liquidation, 2012 Rangers FC are dissolved(cease to exist).

2012 The Rangers FC is Founded

At the moment both Clubs are shells, The Rangers only own Ibrox and Murray Park as far as we know and are owned by Charles Green, we also know their Chairman and that they were founded in 2012 - so we can say all that accuratly and update it as more and more is revealed ie. once they appoint a manager, register a player and stuff we can then add to it. On Rangers' page we can now say that Rangers have sold Murray Park and Ibrox Stadium as they have sold them to The Rangers, they are also still owned by Craig Whyte(or rather Rangers FC Group LTD but Craig Whyte own 100% of them so its basically Whyte. Whyte should remain owner of Rangers on the Rangers page. Once Rangers' Liquidation process is over and they are dissolved then we can update their status to Dissolved: 2012 and turn the page into a Historical rememberance of Rangers, obviously a lot will have to be removed as after they Dissolve they will obviously not have a manager, squad, owner or anything. But it can list their History, what they achieved and how they came to an end.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What you say is basically correct. However, The Rangers is not a football club it is the name of Green's company. I previously made that mistake as well. However, the new club will be considered a continuation of the old one so will be kept at this page. However, it will be said in this page that Rangers dissolved in 2012 and a new club came to be a continuation of them. Look at other clubs which did the same thing, AC Fiorentina, Leeds United A.F.C.. They still are at the same article as before. Adam4267 (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It will be though once they have Rangers SPL share, join a League and appoint playing and managerial staff. Fiorentina and Leeds are both from different Legal systmens Scottish law has nothing to do with either. Look at Gretna and Airdrie, other Dissolved(dead) Scottish teams. There is no continuation after Dissolution, Dissolution is death in legal terms. Rangers Football Club will be dissolved and from that there is no way back. That is why there is a New Club called The Rangers starting, as we see with them buying a Ground and Training Ground. A Football Club and a Company are the same thing mate, Rangers are a Club and Company. They will soon not be a Company and will used to have been a Club. The Rangers are a Company who will soon be a Club.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing is though, Gretna and Ardrie went about it in a different way to Rangers. Ardrie bought a different club (Clydebank) then changed the name and moved them to Ayr. Gretna went bust completely and a different club was formed with a similar name but playing somewhere else. Its nothing to do with Scots law. Rangers are (planning) on doing what Fioretina did. Of course that may be unsuccesful but we'll have to take it as it comes. Adam4267 (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers aren't planning to do anything mate, Rangers are being run by Administrators and Liquidators and business has ended with them. They are in Liquidation and soon to be dissolved when that process ends. The New Rangers are planning to sign players, appoint a manager and join a League, they have already bought a Stadium and Training facilites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers have said they will try and do it so the history transfers, there may of course be complications or they may have to change the name to get a licence. Eithier way we don't know so all we can and should do is state the facts. Once we know then we can easily shift across to a new article. All everyone who wanted to keep on the same page was a bit of patience until the whole story emerged. For now all we can say with any confidence is Green bought the assets and does not hold a licence for the SFA or the league shares he has requested them to be transferred to his continuation company of Rangers. After that we don't know.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You cannot transfer/buy History, Rangers FC>Rangers FC Ltd>Rangers FC PLC are the Club that has achieved it's achievements. Not a New Club born in 2012, have you not even thought about how a Club only born in 2012 could win a League title in 1990 never mind 1886 or whatever. It's not a continuation company either. If anything it is a Tribute act, like if someone bought the rights to Elton Johns whole collection and then went about performing as an impersonator when Elton dies. There is absolutley no differance between Rangers as a Club and Rangers as a Company both are the same entity and the entity is about to be dissolved. Any Tribute Act is indeed a Tribute Act.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Adminstration and Liquidation

In this section example everything that has happen since feburary and what we know about is potential goign to happen with the deifferent scenario and make it clear nothing is truly known for a few months make it clear that there is dispute abotu the history, where it says or goes, there adispute if the players willt ranfer or not etc, include everything and refernece it so tehre no dispute as i say can you write something up jsut now i dnt have the time i think the above section is the best way forwardAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. Maybe even a new article 2012 Rangers F.C. liquidation? To an outsider, the whole saga seems like a hugely complicated mess, so I came to the article looking for some clarity. What I found read like it had been written by a Rangers version of Comical Ali! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

its a bit earlier for a serperate article on it but it a good possibailty in the near future when they have been liquidated, but jsu tnow it properable pass notabilty but only just it be better to make this section them once it gets to big then split it outAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers financial problems? Its not just this, there's the EBT tax case as well. That has been going on for 20 years. Although will probably be irrelevant as the club won't have to pay it. Adam4267 (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Also financial problems have been ongoing for many years which is why I think it should have its own article. Between the early 2000s and 2008 Rangers were about £80m in debt most of the time. And they didn't sign anyone in 2008 (I think) due to not having any money. Of course it could be possible just to make a sub-page for the Ownership and finances section, like with the history section.Adam4267 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Rangers Finanical problems would be the most appropriate. My reasoning is that what has caused this didn't just happen this year. Yes they are only currently being liquidated becaus of Craig Whyte, however the previous owners mismanaged the company for years and as Adam said there is plenty to tell that has lead us directly here and the saga is likely to drag on. But as Clavdia says the article is laughable at the moment jut totally censored. I understand there was a wait and see but now it needs done. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually would simply Rangers F.C Administration and Liqudation without the 2012 not be a good idea. It would still need to include the background anyway. Seems like a logical search title to me. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC

Yeah seesm fine to me but i still think we shoudl wait until they get liquidated which should be within the next feew weeks we dnt need to wait for the completely liquidation only for the process to begin and we can have some good references, a summary of this article we will create should also be here, i suggest starting making the page ina user sandbox its goign to be highly contravasial so we need ot make sure it all accurate and meets wikipedias standards before getting it live so then we can get ti proctecrted if the worse comes to the worse.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

don't think that page will be controversial to be honest. It's what happens to the main page that will be. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

ok after what just broke we will need to wait until the liqudateors do starting the liqudation process as they might not be will try update when bbc does, but i dnt think the new article should be made until it startsAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Em sources already exist. They aren't trying to stop the club being liquidated just trying to stop Green buying remains. Stv is already live. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

[3] Bbc source confirms smith would go down newco route as well. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The whole process takes 8-10 because it takes time however it's already started so Liqudation is happening. In fact it's to late smiths bid because Green purchased the assetts from the liquidator this afternoon. The only way Smith will get it now is if they buy it off him. So if adam or anyone else wishes to start that article there is no reason not to. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A new page shouldnt be set up. Its the same assests as before, just under a different name. The club is just being "refounded" so as such should be updated on the current page. It takes the same structure as Fiorentina AFC as they done the EXACT same thing!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seery234 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

ive already said a new page shouldnt be made for the club and i explained why already it a different thing to gretna as oyu say it the same as fiorenta and leeds utd its all contained within the same page, i have saida a new article on the liquidation of ranger sis needed given the backrgound of what has happene dover 220 years and hwo they got into adminstration and why liqudiation has happened it not abotut the club page its about a serperate article on liquioidation is wha ti am propusingAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not really different as Gretna 2008 bought the clubs assists as well. The club will now have two boards one for the company and one for the new club because the old one i.e. the club and company were interlinked hence why no way out and needed liquidated. In the new set up one would go under and not the other which really kind of shows the club and company were the same thing. I keep telling you its not up to you or me or fans not sure if you are one it's up to what sources say and we will wait that outcome. However its apparent the name is going to cause a problem as its already being edit warred over.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok gotcha now. Sorry Andrew, must have misread it. Just so much info to take in today i quickly glanced over it. Sorry again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seery234 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

im not making decision, the sources at the moment are saying that the club is liquidated and hte company but other sources say it only the company tha tis liquidated and the two are serperate, we have to wait and see until it clarified and in the publis domain we cant make decision at the monme twe can only go on wha thte soruces are saying and since it is confliucting we cant make a rel choice but you have not commented on fiorentina or leeds utd who had the same doen they bought the assessts. oh gretna 2008 never bought the assesst the ground blongs to property developer last time i checked and the new company was like wimebldoen restarting the club in that case was liquidated and botoed out, the membership is still up in the air. so until we have a better idea ie it been made clear lets stick with this article, if it is reveale din teh coming months that it ias new and the original club is liquidated we will make a new one. ive no objections to the liqudation article as the history of that will over fill this pageAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I give up its impossible to speak to you because you don't follow talk page guidelines and to be honest aren't making a lot of sense, so this will be my last reply to you unless you do. And no sources are split i can show one from today that say club and one from yesterday that says company. Its pretty clear from the way they are setting up the new business were linked. The club holds the licence not the company. Anyway its impossible to follow and I'm not tidying up after you again. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

oh and if it was as simple as you say ;) explain how the newco can vote if they get basck into the spl if there mebership is gone and why a decision on where to suspend or terminsted the newco license because of the civil court ruling? if they dnt have a licene what license is there to terminate?§Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

They don't the Rangers Admins have a vote as they still hold the licence the club have nothing. Honestly either read sources or don't bother. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok i have just reviewed what you put for references and it does confirm what you are saying and i never disagreed with that just other soruces aint all saying the same but it also does state the company not hte club but yes the company is losing it membership but doesnt meantion anytihng about the club, if what you have put is removed if my page procttion request is decline ill revert it for now but the sitution is still pretty early and not totally clear just now you have my support because what you have put is correct with what the source oyu have put :)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The original source stated they didn't have a licence so really there was no need for the extra ones. However I've now spelt it out even clearer not that i should have needed to. Im not saying page protection will not be required at some stage but its mostly experienced editors who should be invited to discuss here first, however everything that other users were edit warring over have been sorted for now. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Racism

The section on Combating sectarianism states "Some Rangers fans racially abused former Celtic player Bobo Balde, and former Rangers player Mark Walters was racially abused by some Celtic, Hearts and Rangers fans." I don't doubt this is true (I recall it being reported) but this strikes me as the kind of statement that really, really needs to be backed up by a source. 82.37.25.44 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Full page procttion

I have request full pag eproctection as there goign to be edit wars content disputes etc, so if it is granted please discuss changes here and if there a conesus we can makea edit requestAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Administration and liquidation & Ownership and finances

Should these sections not be merged they duplicate each other very heavily and are relevant to each other. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is all part of rangers' history as well as Ownership and finance. I'd say change the name of the history section to, maybe; 2012 Restructure/Reconstitution. I don't know but something along those lines. Adam4267 (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be deleted but the Ownership part only goes back to David Murray which is where the admin and Liqudation should really begin if we are thinking about adding background. And to be honest the second paragraph of ownership is virtually the same as in the admin part. Edinburgh Wanderer 07:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

i have OT agree that i think the sections should be merged in some way but it needs to be part of the history section to, and as Adam said a restructuring section is required, again as Chris says below i think it to early to start making the changes like this until we know the fully picture, but i do think the article needs updating to be more accurate but the question is what is accurate no source really know themselves, the administrators and the liquidators are saying different things, the liquidator are saying the sale to Charles green might not be binding because the administrators should not have a fixed contract to sell teh asserts to one person in liquidation and not open up the process to other potential bidders in the liquidation so to try achieve more money , the story changes one second to the next, to be honest anything the administrators say i dnt believe any more they have a serve conflict of interest and have constitutively changed there answers to the same questions over the last 4months (note i have tried to indenting properly and spell checking but i cant guarantee i have done it how you like Edinburgh wanderer)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 June 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The recent edit is a result of Bigotry and not fact. Rangers FC (the club) is not yet dead! The hidtory will more than likely transfer to the new company including all previous honours just as happened with Leeds United and Middlesboro. Please delete last edits and block any edits until the facts are knowm. Andydbeattie (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You quite clearly don't know what the word 'Bigotry' means. Adam4267 (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. TOW talk 17:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This is being discussed above the problem is no one knows what the situation is the club from sources is suggest still exists but some sources say other, time will tellAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This was fixed in the process of rolling back the changes to tense in the lead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please use the talk page

I'm not keen to protect an article when "change is afoot" so I'm not going to protect it now. But, please use the talk page rather and try to get some consensus before you actually edit the article itself. --regentspark (comment) 19:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Note. I've protected the page for 24 hours. Please use the talk page to discuss your edits during this time. --regentspark (comment) 19:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 June 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Rangers Football Club P.L.C entered liquidation on 14 June 2012 following the rejection of a proposed CVA by HMRC.[71]. HMRC are to appoint the BDO Insolvency firm to reveal why the Company failed.[72] Following this the Company's assets, including the Club, Ibrox Stadium, Murray Park and The Albion were sold off to The Rangers Football Club owned by Charles Green. The existing company is expected to be dissolved in around 6 to 8 weeks.

This should replace the following text because of factual inaccuracies in the text below:

The Club entered liquidation on 14 June 2012 following the rejection of a proposed CVA by HMRC.[71]. HMRC are to appoint the BDO Insolvency firm to reveal why the Club failed.[72] 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.

Nookiebear (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please discuss all changes before using {{editprotected}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is about the club, not the company

I have reverted the lead and info box back to the name of Rangers Football Club. This article is not about the company that owns the club, it is about the club and should lead by what it is commonly called. So the change in the lead to "The Rangers Football Club" is not necessary. If you have a look through all other football club articles you'll see that the club is not referred to by its holding company name. Take Liverpool F.C. for instance; it is not "Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The club has changed its name though. Its a new club with a new name so you were wrong to revert. Adam4267 (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The cite provided says the new company will be called "The Rangers Football Club". It says nothing about the club itself. The company name can be anything that takes the owner's fancy. The club itself can be new, but it will still be commonly called "Rangers Football Club". As I noted above, it is not common practice to refer to the club by the holding company name, although naturally in many cases they are one and the same. You are not about to see fixtures listed as "The Rangers" vs Celtic (or vs East Stirling, as the case may be). --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. However, at present moment there is no Rangers Football Club. There is a company which owns the different parts which were previously used to make up RFC. I'm pretty certain under SFA rules they would have to take a nominally different name to the previous club. However, you are correct in saying the article is about the club, which at the present moment is defunct. So what so we do? Adam4267 (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Most sources don't distinguish the two at present. The club is not currently active so we should take the name of The Rangers which is their current trading name. To me it is eithier that or we list as defunct. It's already being edit warred over so which is the lesser of the two evils. Also they will have to make an alteration to the name and this is the likely change. Also the reason they have now setup a company and a club board is because they were one and the same before which is why the club fell under the new way the club or company would fall but not the other. Edinburgh Wanderer 07:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Points taken. But look at the way Wikipedia documents Gretna; there are two seperate articles for Gretna F.C. and Gretna 2008 since they are different clubs. This is NOT a simple name change that Rangers are going through as they are not keeping their company number, they are completly dissolving the old club and setting up an entirely new one with a similar name. Saying that "the article is about the club not the company" doesn't hold any water, because the club IS the company and the company IS the club. A new article should be started for the Newco. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a degree of difference in the Gretna case in that Gretna were wound up entirely. There was no transfer of assets and the "new" Gretna makes no claim to being a continuation. It may well end up that we have a new article here, but that's yet to be determined. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm extremely puzzled as to why people who do not even appear to be reading sources, let alone providing them, are editing this article. The "oldco" traded under the name "The Rangers Football Club plc". The "newco" will trade under "The Rangers Football Club Ltd". So the initial definite article is not new.

Furthermore, the "oldco" hasn't been wound up yet, and it's very far from clear exactly what will happen regarding the "newco" yet. It is therefore wholly inappropriate to go treating this like an article on the "newco", which at present may own the club's assets but isn't "the club" as far as any governing body is concerned. I've reverted these changes pending something in the way of an actual resolution to this, which isn't likely to happen for a while yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly how the hell is them not having a licence speculative. They don't the Admins have it not the club. Also Craig Whytes shares have been purchased by Charles Green so he isn't the owner. There were sources in the article to that effect which means once again we have a censored article. Good job there Chris Edinburgh Wanderer 09:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't actually know what you're talking about. This is somewhat problematic when you're editing the article. You really shouldn't do that when you don't know what you're talking about. The Rangers Football Club plc, which is what Whyte still owns, is what is still represented (by Duff and Phelps, the administrators) in the SPL. Green did not buy his "shares": he bought the club's assets, which means Ibrox, Murray Park, the team bus, the statue of John Greig and so on. Right now, The Rangers Football Club Ltd (the company formerly known as Sevco) is, ironically enough, not a football club: it is indeed correct that it does not have a license, but seeing as it isn't the subject of this article it is irrelevant. So the (reliably sourced) owner of the club should be restored to the infobox. Does anyone who knows what he is talking about disagree with these facts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris first of all you should not be treating people the way you do. I've told you before that I would complain about you for this very reason And I will this time because I've had enough. You know fine well what is acceptable and you are making every encounter between us personal. I would post this on your talk page but as you are being like this I won't. However this time is enough go ahead and complain about me too but you have more to loose than me so I actually don't give a toss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinburgh Wanderer Mobile (talk • contribs) 10:06, 15 June 2012

In regards to this whole club company debate. The 2 are seperate as stated by the joint liquidators. They mention that its not the end of the club, but just the end of the company that ran the club. Therefor no new article and just an update on what has transpired over the past few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seery234 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that starting a new article at this time is counterproductive as there is no guarantee that the "newco" will ever actually be a football club. Right now it is still entirely possible that there will be no club associated with Rangers playing in Scotland next season. I've no idea what "joint liquidators" is meant to mean, as The Rangers Football Club Ltd is not going to be liquidated AFAICT. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree entirely. There situation with Rangers, the football club, (the subject of this article) is still very fluid and uncertain. Editors jumping in with changing of names and leagues, based on speculative interpretations of the company situation, is not helping in keeping a stable and accurate article. Talk of new articles etc is not warranted at all at present based on hard facts from sound sources. There is no shortage in speculation in the media, Wikipedia should not be joining in. Wait until the dust has settled. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Im fairly certain most people have agreed that no new article is needed for now. However it's pretty clear at the moment they don't have a league to play in. So being accurate was to say they are applying to rejoin the Spl which was what it said before. That was clearly sourced. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as the season hasn't started yet, and there will undoubtedly be a change of some sort to this scenario in the weeks to come, it would be a disservice to our readers to go boldly announcing where and when the article's subject will be playing next season. Until that point, all indications are that they are still part of the SPL (they're going to be on Monday's fixture lists for starters) and the article should continue to maintain this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Its a diservice to say they are going to when we don't know that they are, sources indicate that they do not hold the membership So listing no league is more appropriate. Also we know have two articles The Rangers Football Club.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Whyte does not own the oldco, Charles green owns Rangers FC establish 1872 ie the club, the oldco establish 1899 still has the sfa and spl license not the club ie the oldco in the hands of the administrators, the new co now owns the asserts (there is a dispute as to whether they own the players due to the fact TUPE is getting quoted differently) the newco owns The Rangers FC LTD and green has a ~10% stake in the newco, the situation keeps changing every hour the sources change what there saying people say this and that, for example green named Ian Hunt as a partner but 1 hour later he said he is partner for the walter smith bid. just now no one really knows what is going on and time will tell, the article needs to be updated as it is incorrect in many ways, but the problem is how the hell do we do that when the sources dnt have a clue themselves, we can speculate nor can we say something we aint sure about, the best we can do is reference to the conflict sources for things we are disputing and show that we cant really say so give readers the ability to read both source and make there own judgementAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That's false. The Rangers Football Club plc (aka "oldco", est. 1899) is in administration. The owner is Craig Whyte. Green owns the "newco", aka The Rangers Football Club Limited. If Charles Green owned the "oldco" he could simply take them out of administration. The whole point of the "newco" is that Charles Green does not want to own the "oldco" as he would therefore be liable for its debts. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well thats what everyone wanted until someone changed it creating an almighty edit war.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as their records haven't been expunged from the SPL, and they'll be on Monday's fixture lists, that's a dramatic leap of interpretation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is the interpretation they don't hold a SFA licence or the right to play in the SPL. That is no interpretation that is Fact. The sources you removed to push this pov clearly stated that. The SFA list are subject to Rangers getting that licence whether they do or don't is irrelevant. The fact is they don't have it now which is all that needs said, if we say they play in the SPL then we are denying the fact that legally they cant unless the spl board and then the SFA give them the licence.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can point at a reliable secondary source which states that the "oldco" has had its license revoked, directly and not by interpretation, by all means go ahead and do so. At that point the relevant minor edits can be made to the infobox to reflect that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

:Chris stop this behaviour now. You know that everyone on this page wanted too keep one page. Today you have abused that by deliberately forcing a change through against consensus. We were treating them as one and the same which you knew fine well. So now this club will need to be declared defunct. nobody wanted to that but now we do. I really do hope you are ashamed of yourself but knowing you, i know you aren't. What a mess, an admin should a know not to cause an edit war and b know that consensus on wiki is key.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris your edits to the new page aren't that helpful either. This is a mess neither article means anything to the other. And saying they cant use that crest, how do you know that, they bought the assets so they may well be able to use that crest name your source.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, isn't this a fuss and bother. I can only repeat what I've said above. The situation is highly volatile. The situation is abnormal. It is therefore no surprise than the usual football guidelines and formats within Wikipedia cannot accurately hope to reflect accurately where things stand. I don't think anyone even knows for sure how things stand. There's a lot of argument going on that is pretty much differing analysis with different conclusions, and a lot of it WP:OR. Please, could everyone clam down, take a step back, and wait for something concrete to emerge. Attempting to keep an encyclopaedia up to date in such a changeable situation, where just about no-one knows for sure what's happening and what will happen, is a futile exercise. It can be updated when things are known for certain and reliable sources are reporting facts instead of speculation and guesses. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

you have basically summed up what i have been trying to say, thats why i asked for full page protection but as of yet no admin has responded which is quite annoying even to decline it would be better than nothing :(Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The Club is a Company. All the Confusion comes from the Trading name(which is nothing in a legal sense) is just used as Rangers or Rangers FC or Rangers Football Club, the actual Clubs name is The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. In easier terms im a human with my own identity(as Rangers are a Club/Company) however I can be known by many names, real name, nickname, blah blah but I only have 1 officialy(The Rangers Football Club P.L.C). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Owner of the club in infobox poll to form consensus.

Chris changed the Infobox to owner Craig Whyte. I disagree with this so the best thing would be to take a poll. Chris has made it clear why above however I believe this to be very misleading and makes it look like we are in fact censoring the page.

Please add your name to supports the options, those that have been in the infobox recently before this change.

Craig Whyte

Green Consortium

For reasons laid out below. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Charles Green

In administration.

This all depends on are we talking about the club, the oldco the newco, before we can clarify it we need to know what is the article about to me it is about the club and as such as the transfer of shares from whtye to green happened yesterday then green owns the club itself but at the same time he says he only owns about 10% of the club and it is the consortium that owns the club through the newoc, which then suggest the newco owns the club, so it is very hard at this time to tell.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Firstly, this isn't a vote. Secondly, I gave a specific reason and rationale for maintaining the current owner of the club in the infobox as opposed to a "newco" which simply happens to own the stadium and various assets, while the counterargument is that, what, "we are in fact censoring the page"? Censoring what, exactly? If and when Green's consortium actually gets itself admitted into a footballing body, there's something to discuss as regards what exactly constitutes "Rangers Football Club". Until that point, it's just a company that owns some assets. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No it's the simplest way of gaining consensus something you aren't used to I know. . The article is about the club as far as im concerned and my view is it is green that should be listed eithier as consortium or as owner. Given its ten percent i think it should be Green consortium which was actualy listed for some time before people decided to edit war. So I'm with Andrew to some degree. Andrew do you think Craig Whyte should be listed then we can work from there. . Also it's imperative this page is protected we can't agree so until we can it should be. Dosent matter what version is chosen to protect at however as they are all as bad as each other exempt probably the one chris decide to dismantle despite it being many editors who edited to that version. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to be listening to what I'm saying. "The club" is the thing which has Rangers' SPL registration and seat in the meetings. Craig Whyte still owns this. Green owns the stadium and training facilities, but that does not equate to owning the club. I don't have a clue what "Given its ten percent" means. As for consensus and what it is and isn't, I rather think that I've got the community's trust on that one. Unless someone is actually willing to substantiate why Green should be listed as the owner of an entity that he doesn't own, the previous wording (which has the benefit of being both accurate and reliably sourced, even though some guy on the Internet apparently disagrees with it for reasons not yet expressed in lucid English) will be restored. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris, the "oldco" is currently a company which owns a footballing licence, and has £5.5 million in its bank account which will be used to pay off creditors (or just Duff and Phelps). The "newco" currently owns the stadium, training ground and possibly the players. It is widely known that the "oldco" will be wound up and that the "newco" will attempt to become a news Rangers FC. So although you are 'technically' correct in saying that this article is about Rangers FC (the "oldco"), which is not quite dead yet - going forward the new Rangers, owned by Green, will be the only football team under that and this article is now about them. Adam4267 (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you meant "may be" by "will" and "may in future be" by "is now". There are no guarantees at all that the "newco" will be given a place in the SPL (or the SFL, or indeed any other league for that matter). It is flatly false to suggest that this entity actually constitutes "Rangers" at this time. This actually became less clear in the last 24 hours following the announcement of a rival consortium, who in all honesty have as much right to call themselves "Rangers" as anyone else (and if they can't buy the "oldco" assets from Green may very well apply to do so with the SPL). As you can see, this is all speculation, which is why unlike many others I am not edit warring to include it in the article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Is our self-appointed arbiter of how consensus and collaborative editing work around here really edit warring over this? Not a sign of a particularly strong position. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Lets be fair Chris no one Listens to you because you are the worst admin around because you snipe at everyone. Coming you you with a problem would be like going to a mad house. Sources clearly stated in that article was that the admins will vote because they hold that licence. You didnt read andrews post and I am agreeing with what he wrote but I don't see you having a go at him just me, that's where the ten percent comes from. This is all because you have a personal vendetta against me because I once happened to disagree with you over your precious accessibility and high ideas. You know take ever opertunity to have a go at me and you know it. There is no way that Craig Whyte should be listed. If you want it then until we have any change in consensus given it was listed for sometime then it should remain as Green. Unless you want to protect the page on that version which would be something you probably would do because of your issue with me. But that would be abusing your powers and higher powers wouldn't like that. Not that Jimbo ever thought he would have an admin who has a personal vendeta and decides to turn every Convo into a vendetta. You started the edit war. Escape orbit had no consensus for the change neither did you. Seems to me that you are in a minority regards to your Views. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Flat out lie chris you know many editors accepted the green version and choose to start the edit war by removing plenty of verifiable sourced material that backed up the points. You started this messEdinburgh Wanderer 13:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

ENOUGH!! This is turning into the most childish thing I've ever seen. The next person to make a personal comment will be swiftly reported to WP:ANI. Yes we have disagreements on Wikipedia but most editors are capable of working together and having discussions in a moderately mature manner. And neither of you are blameless. If you cannot work together then don't come into contact with each other. Adam4267 (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If its possible to move back to the content then I would like to say to you Chris. You are correct in saying that the oldco are the club. But they don't own for example, the stadium - you didn't remove that from the infobox. Either we have two articles, one for the olco and one for the newco. Something which most people don't think we should do. Or we have this article cover the "entity" that is Rangers, that includes Green who owns the assets and is trying to set up a new club. Adam4267 (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's gone too far Adam as you are aware every discussion I am involved in he comes after me. That is why this will go further and be dealt with. I react back but that is the point of it in the first place. He ignored your comment and Andrews and honed in on me. People can't have it both ways they are eithier separate or we accept them as the same which would mean Greens consortium own the club. You could argue a case for saying in administration but Whyte is inaccurate and the source was before the green purchase of the assetts occurred so isn't valid. I can assure you this will be dealt with. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Also it should be noted that there is a request for page protection been made by andrew I initially disagreed but following the fact we all disagree the page should be fully protected. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for being blunt again EW, but you've been threatening to report me for whatever heinous crimes I've committed against my mop for about six months now and yet I've seen you do nothing about it. You edit war or otherwise disrupt the project, I tell you off for it, you yell about how terrible an admin I am and how you're going to report me... and then nothing. Would it be too much to ask you to put up or shut on on that front? Additionally, pages are not protected simply because there is a dispute. Page protection is only required to prevent edit warring, and even then there are alternatives (for instance, where only one party is edit warring, the usual solution is to block that party). By all means continue to bang that drum. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No you won't be for given for anything. The only reason an RFC was not started was because an Arb and admin I actually have some respect for advised me it would be best to try and stay away from you and see if started up again. Since you are unable to do that and deliberately follow me to discussions with venom turning a debate which was going fine against one editor. That is no longer the case and an RFC is now appropriate per talk I've had. . You can start one of you wish as well on me I really don't care, what I do care about is the bullying culture that you as an admin are giving out. How many people are going to disagree with you before you actually listen. Consensus mean anything to you or does causing an edit war against main consensus to push a pov mean more. Help us out here how many people do want. Oh and I've told you before block me but you better have good reason because you started the edit war I have not broken 3RR and many other editors including yourself have edit warred Edinburgh Wanderer 14:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Adam, if you think the "newco" should have an article then by all means start one, with an {{infobox company}} at the top. What we absolutely should not be doing is conflating two entirely separate entities based on what various tabloid newspapers suggest may happen. As regards Ibrox, unless there is evidence to the contrary that the football club does not play at Ibrox (for instance, that its new owners have locked them out of it) then it would be harmful to our readers to suggest that this was no longer the case. Discussions around here are supposed to be based on evidence, rather than mere rhetoric or (in the worst case) head counts and misguided assertions of "consensus" based on such. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris how many people have to have an opposite view to yours before you actually listen to then. You started an edit war by changing it from a Version that people had worked toward before you came in. That has pushed your pov. You knew there was a page here but you chosse to ignore it. Just like you are ignoring everything anyone else says to you. The sources were already in the article. You argued above that we should keep as one article now you say split it. Absolute mess you have caused here. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers own website is suggesting Green now owns them [4]. For example, Malcolm Murray is honoured to be Rangers' new chairman [5]. As is the BBC; New Rangers chairman Malcolm Murray. As I said its clear that Green's company are considered by reliable sources to be Rangers. BBC; Rangers chief executive Charles Green - Green, whose consortium completed the purchase of the Glasgow club on Thursday,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam4267 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 June 2012‎

You understand that "the club assets" includes things like "the domain name", right? Updating the website still doesn't give Green the right to field a team in the SPL. And I'd rather suggest that the article on McCoist simplified the matter of the club purchase because it wasn't the point of the story rather than anything else, although of course much of the problem here has been the atrocious level of journalism exhibited by pretty much every part of the media. That tends to be why we're cautious when sources contradict one another. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sky Sports The decision means the troubled club will now be liquidated. As I said Green's group owns the parts required to make Rangers FC (maybe not the players). The old club is in the process of liquidation. Green's newco is in the process of applying to the authorities to become the new Rangers. We could have this article just be about the old club, and ignore what Green's doing. But then you'd have to remove the stadium, players etc from the article because the club don't own that. The most sensible thing seems to be to have this aricle be about the "entity" that is considered to be Rangers. Adam4267 (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Until chris reverted there was firm consensus that for now we didn't want to create a new page and continue as the old. Now do we keep that and continue as the same entity which until we know more or create a new club article. I'm with the first and create a new one later if it becomes appropriate. We do not know if the new entity will even get of the ground. Eithier way the article as it is is very misleading the way that Adam and others had it was far more explanatory and clear. Now it's a mess. So we eithier treat this one as defunct and create a new one or Make this one clearer. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

New article The Rangers Football Club.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A start at least, if titled based on a misconception already rebutted above. I'll move it shortly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that's wholly inappropriate. I addressed the point regarding the stadium in the above discussion: the club may no longer own it, but we cannot simply extrapolate from that that they will no longer play there (assuming, and again this is a big assumption, that there even is a "Rangers" next season). Everything goes up in flux with every club during the summer. The usual procedure is simply to leave things as they are until they have definitively changed. That isn't the case here. If and when the "newco" is actually a football club, we can discuss updating things. Until then, doing so would lend credibility to information which is at best disputed and at worst factually false. And that's why Whyte is going back in the infobox. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Then this club has to be declared defunct, the players removed and stadium removed. You have started one big mess to push a pov. And no Whyte is only in infobox if we deem this club dead otherwise as adam, andrew and me have pointed out it should be green. Where is your consensus here. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Whyte does not own the oldco, Charles green owns Rangers FC establish 1872 ie the club, the oldco establish 1899 still has the sfa and spl license not the club ie the oldco in the hands of the administrators, the new co now owns the asserts (there is a dispute as to whether they own the players due to the fact TUPE is getting quoted differently) the newco owns The Rangers FC LTD and green has a ~10% stake in the newco, the situation keeps changing every hour the sources change what there saying people say this and that, for example green named Ian Hunt as a partner but 1 hour later he said he is partner for the walter smith bid. just now no one really knows what is going on and time will tell, the article needs to be updated as it is incorrect in many ways, but the problem is how the hell do we do that when the sources dnt have a clue themselves, we can speculate nor can we say something we aint sure about, the best we can do is reference to the conflict sources for things we are disputing and show that we cant really say so give readers the ability to read both source and make there own judgementAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thats what we had all agreed to do. And the edit warring stopped when the version we put in place happened. Because all that work was removed we now have that edit war again and neither article makes sense. Really this has made things ten times worse.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You edited the article so that it was factually false, based on a complete misreading of the entire situation regarding ownership, and then edit warred when editors explained why you were wrong. That certainly has made things worse. With any luck someone on the project can come up with a simple solution to that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Chris thanks for making the threats at WP:Footy also shows that you massively went against consensus on this and are now making threats. Going after adam isn't on either on his talk page. You clearly know that we had worked on a consensus for several days and then went against it to push a pov.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Why create a new page? I must say the admins for wiki don't know what the hell they are doing tbh. If you had any sense and look at all the facts that's been presented to us you will see that its the same case as Leeds, and fiorentina. The asset sale included the "club" all that was left behind was the company that controlled that. Look at how the other articles are written. If comes to a point where the New owners has to over a club for rangers to be in the league then that's a new football club with the bought over clubs history, but if they get into the leagues on their own application then its the same rangers different corporate structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.62.116 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The parts of EW's comments which refer specifically to Rangers are spot on here. The status quo is that we should only have one article for the club, as the newco is currently considered a footballing continuation of the oldco. There is admittedly an article specifically about the new business, but that is at AfD and looks likely to be morphed into a more general article, such as Liquidation of Rangers F.C. We should work along the lines of the continuation of one club unless we decide that there should be two articles, and Green owns the newco. I'm not sure how much more clear-cut it could be. —WFC— 20:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This article should be about the entity that is considered to be Rangers. Rather than about the companies that own them. As has been confirmed by several reliable sources Green owns "Rangers", whatever they may be. Therefoe he should be the owner and his "newco" should be considered the representitive entity of the club. That's how the article was a few days ago and I think what has gone on since has screwed it up as it is now a mixture of both companies with neither being represented properly. Adam4267 (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The opening paragraph still needs a little work, but its getting there. The oldco`s official name was "The Rangers Football Club P.L.C". I dont think that when talking about the club in the article it should be refered to as the rangers football club ltd, think rangers would be ok etc. Just use the official corporate name when talking about the ownership of the club etc. Glad to see that progress is finally been made though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seery234 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like the section heading for "Liquidation" removed and the content of that section be placed in the "Administration" section. The "Administration" section then should renamed "Administration, liquidation and new corporation". Kingjeff (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This one got in before the lock by an editor who has been strongly pushing for the "refocus this entire article around Rangers' demise" angle. I'd leave it at "administration and liquidation", though, seeing as it's not certain whether the new corporation will actually be "Rangers" or not come the start of the season. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, merged as "Administration and liquidation", capital A small l. Kept as two separate paragraphs. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can I Please Edit The Rangers Wiki Page So It Can Be Updated Please 81.103.29.245 (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC) The integrity of Wikipedia is now questionable,in wikipedia's own definition of Liquidation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidation it clearly states the END of a company, Rangers Football Club 1873 where a football club, an asset sale does not mean the club has been taken over it means the club does not exist anymore and therefore wikipedia's editors need to think with their heads and not their hearts and the use of the page should now have Rangers FC 1873 in the past tence and a new page dedicated to The Rangers FC 2012. If the club where taken over,or got a CVA approval I would understand but they didnt the club does not exist anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.156.194 (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done; getting the companies' respective names wrong is generally a good indiaction of not having sufficient grasp of the facts to warrant an edit request. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Potential Dispute Resolution

Ok there is to many editors including myself to heavily involved in this project i think maybe we would be best to look at dispute resolution and get other editors with no involvement and hopefully no football knowledge of this subject who can review what we are saying, if everyone agrees can we gather a list of what we disputer and sources so we can take this to official dispute resolution? this is only a suggest im not going to do it without other consentAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Before anyone asks i am trying to take myself out as i am to personal involved but the article might not be correct and i like a outsider input Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It may come to that and if you feel that best i will totally support that. However its a minority against the main consensus so it really shouldn't be necessary but if no one is willing to listen to others which even with outside input isn't the case then i would go ahead but give it 24 hours and see if it calms down a bit. Which version is more neutral and factually informative i think the original was but does not always come down to that.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Now the page is protected can we please try and come to a conclusion on where the consensus is once again and take it from there. If we have a consensus then we of course should go with that, but given the shouting we need to take stock and see where we are. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Summarise the problems ie what sections and what is wrong with it, then others can comment on it provide sources to what it should be and if you can all agree then put it live tomorrow and then revert changes unless it been discussed here first, im not going to comment but if no solution is found i will use the informational from here to put it to dispute resolution if the other parties involved do not objectAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Im not going to make any further comments than the ones i have here and at WP:Footy already, its clear where the problems lie to a fair few of us mainly accuracy and the fact that the way it is leaves it wide open to speculative editing we need something that covers the bases so that people understand. Also i wouldn't bother trying to be impartial now purely because your already involved. You could still ask for outside comment in dispute res. The best version was the one that we all worked on together including you adam and others. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

i know it to late to be impartial but i want to not be involved now at least that way i am trying to show i am trying to stand back and stay i am to involvedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we are all a bit like that, i don't want to be involved in this any more than you do. Ive made the point and I'm not going to be accused of not being the one to back off even when the whole situation is wrong. So unless we all talk it through then there isn't any point.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No Longer Required page full protected so needs edit request to change so forcing agreement on the tlak pageAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

We should learn from Halifax Town AFC and FC Halifax Town articles

This article needs to be written to reflect the reality that 2012 marks the end of an era and the beginning of a new one. The way this was done when Halifax Town went bankrupt is probably what is required here. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The rangers case is not the same. Halifax town afc were fully wound up and the new club was formed without any links to the new one bar the old directors as the ones that set it up. No assests were transfered across and so the old club lost all connections. Rangers FC has been transfered to the newco therefore it is the same football club and should be same article. E.g. fiorentina, Leeds utd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.62.116 (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a completely new club. Their football share has been revoked and taken back by the SFA/SPL. The new club now has to apply for that available share, putting in an application for it, in fact i'm sure many other highland league sides will be applying for that share. It is a new club. The club has been liquidated. Nothing has been transferred. The assets have just been bought with the intention to play at the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.57.11 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

read teh soruces, they state they are the same club but new tro tranfer teh license form teh oldco to the enwco, if you have problem contact the source and tell them that there wrongAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Every professional football club is also a company to limit the liability of the individuals involved should it lose money. When the company goes bust, the club is bust - they are one and the same. Green has bought the assets of Rangers - he didn't by the club as it is still owned by the shareholders, though it is now worthless having no assets and millions of liabilities. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:20, 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) 16:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)