Wikipedia

Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 36

< Talk:Rangers F.C.
Latest comment: 1 year ago by MadGuy7023 in topic Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2022
Archive 30 ← Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37

Further attempt at agenda-driven editing.

Latest comment: 9 years ago23 comments11 people in discussion

I see (yet another) attempt has been made to alter the opening paragraphs of this article to push an agenda aimed at presenting Rangers FC, post 2012, as a "new" football club. Lets make things clear - once again - that this article is based firmly on the distinction between Rangers FC has a football entity, the continuation of which has been recognised unambiguously by the football authorities, and the corporate entity known colloquially as 'oldco', currently in liquidation.

Therefore any attempt to blur the distinction between the two in order to pursue an agenda that, for whatever reason, wishes to subvert the official line on Rangers continuation is a waste of time and energy for all.

The liquidation of 'oldco' is not being hidden, indeed the longstanding version of the introduction references the event clearly with detail provided in subsequent sections. However, in the context of this article, that event is regarded as the liquidation of Oldco, the company formerly known as The Rangers Football Club PLC, not Rangers FC. I will be paying closer attention to the wording of certain paragraphs to ensure that the clear attempt to subvert this principle (established through consensus over a long period i might add) is not diluting the coherence of this important article.Gefetane (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The sheer audacity in suggesting anyone who says 'Rangers FC' is a new Club is quite startling. Let's be clear. The football authorities in Scotland do not under any circumstances make the law of the land in Scotland.

Football authorities had no rules in their rulebook that made any distinction between a so called 'Company' and 'Club'. This type of setup was only invented when the SPFL was created AFTER 'Rangers' suffered an compulsory insolvency event and only 'Assets & Business' were sold off. There was no 'Club' listed on the sale of 'Assets & Business' contrary to LNS assertion nor was any 'Club' listed anywhere as having been 'Transferred'. There is categorically no paper trace that confirms ANY of these claims. Certainly as far as the law of incorporation in Scotland is concerned there is no distinction.

With regards to the term 'Oldco'. This was in fact coined by American Truck Tycoon Bill Miller who famously proposed an 'Incubation' of the 'Good bits and bad bits'. This would ONLY have been achieved by satisfying creditors via agreed payment of oustanding debts by whatever means. This proposal was the ONLY way Rangers football Club est in 1872 and incorporated as a legal entity in March 1899 would have been able to remain operating as a continuation.

The key question is this. What exactly is the 'Club'. It is certainly not a 'Club' in a sense where it has a constitution whereby it's structure must contain a committee, treasurer and so forth. Now if the 'Company' operates as such by funding areas such as signing players, selling match tickets, owning and operating Ibrox & Auchenhowie training facility, paying players salaries, paying management salaries, appointing management, nurturing youth players to hopefully make it to play in the first team. Just a handful of examples of what role the 'Company' plays. But what exactly constitutes the 'Club'?

It is clear to all and sundry that this page has been hijacked by fans of 'Rangers' who simply could not accept that their 'Club' had gone bust owing £Millions. Initially the local media were telling the truth on it which is well documented but commercial necessity similar to that of the football authorities created a scenario whereby making it up on the hop became the order of the day. Hence Raith Rovers chairman Turnbull Hutton declaring that all other Scottish Clubs (Including his) were being lied to and bullied by the football authorities in order to facilitate something that was clearly NOT in the rulebook. KingSupper (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hijacked by Rangers fans, you clearly don't know the demographic of editors within the projects that look over this page do you. There are very few Rangers fans. Also what this comes down to is sources, and the sources back the view that its the same club, in addition how the football governing bodies deal with a football club, of which this article is about is also highly relevant. Your non evidence here is spurious at best.Blethering Scot 22:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
KingSupper is partially correct in what he/she says: legally, the current Rangers FC is a new football club. However, in a fudge, the Scottish Football Association did "transfer the membership" (whatever that means) of the old Rangers to the new Rangers, thus indicating that the SFA recognises the new club as a continuation of the old. The media and all third-party sources also recognise the current club as a continuation of the old club. Mooretwin (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Legally doesn't matter only what sources say as that's what an encyclopedia works on, also legally they are a new business not necessarily a new club they were kept seperate which is why there will always be debate. The debate re legality isn't something we should be getting involved in only sources. Also the governing body is as its states the governor of the rules regarding clubs in Scotland, if sources agree with them then we have to take that into consideration. All these points are met. Blethering Scot 14:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Legally doesn't matter? I'm not sure how that one works. Your comment "governing body is as its states the governor of the rules regarding clubs in Scotland" is quite indicative given that those rules you are referring to had no mechanism for distinguishing between a 'Club' and 'Company'. The 5 way agreement which has been kept secret and there are plenty of sources to prove that, was hastily drafted because of this. The idea also that because an SFA transfer of membership had taken place means it's the same Club is simply preposterous. Remember what the word transfer means. From one thing to another. In this case it was from one Club to another Club. The 'Club' is the 'Member' of the association hence it is called a 'Member Club'. Now had this 'Rangers' had been the same 'Club' why would it have required a transfer?

You point out "legally they are a new business not necessarily a new club they were kept seperate which is why there will always be debate". Where are any sources on here that proves on paper there was distinction between? Perhaps in 'Common Speech' as said by Lord Nimmo Smith (Who was instructed by the SPL to distinguish Rangers for the benefit of an inquiry) could be taken by some as a yardstick for same Club argument. But 'Common Speech' doesn't hold any substance when dealing in facts.

And as far as sources are concerned. When a large section of the media see benefits of putting a story out into the public domain that benefits their own commercial well-being, they tend to embellish things to suit. It's called media spin in the same way political parties have spin doctors. As I have said above. The media in Scotland done a complete u-turn on this story to suit their commercial activities. Where this story is concerned given the motives of the media being used as sources for this website. I am afraid this website isn't worth the server it is being held on. It simply cannot be taken serious as a source of factual information. KingSupper (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You clearly have a pov, so this discussion is a non starter. We go with sources, so yes I couldn't give two monkey shits whether there legally a new club, or as is backed up by sources a new business. Business and club are not the same thing. We go with sources not with people filled with pov. Im afraid you cant be taken seriously as someone interested in factual information if you think we shouldn't source the site using multiple independent reliable sources.Blethering Scot 20:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how what I have said is being described as a singular POV. All the sections of what I have wrote have merit. Now it seems to me that there is some confusion regarding what a 'Club' actually is. So without me indulging in a longer discussion just now. I ask that given what this page is suggesting in that a 'Club' continued beyond liquidation; I would respectfully ask can the definition and function of this 'Club' be established. One thing to ponder. The article states - "when an agreement could not be reached with its creditors. Its business and assets, including Rangers FC, were bought by a new company". For the record, there was no 'Rangers FC' nor 'Club' listed on purchase sheet as part of the sale to Sevco 5088 Ltd. I would be grateful for any response to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSupper (talk • contribs) 21:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Legally" the transfer was from 1 limited company to another. A "club" has no or little legal definition or standing. It's more like a brand, a logo, goodwill, a trademark, a copyright, all of which is listed "legally" as an asset, owned, purchased & transferred by the company. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
FFS, I can't believe it's back to this again. The legal position is reflected in what the sources are saying, because that's one of the reasons they are saying it. The FC is a business, meaning the bundle of assets (tangible and intangible) and goodwill (in the legal and accounting sense) making up a going concern. It was transferred as a going concern. This happens day in and day out in the business world. When a company purchases a business from another company noone talks about it being a "new business". It's just got a new owner, but it's the same concern or enterprise. DeCausa (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Taking part of the DeCausa's statement above - "It was transferred as a going concern". It is clear you have no idea regarding business. A 'Going Concern' is a company that has been deemed operational without the threat of liquidation. Rangers FC Ltd was not 'Transferred' in any shape or form as you are suggesting. An example of a 'Going Concern' being purchased is when Craig Whyte bought Rangers FC. The company at that time was sustainable and fully operational with no threat of liquidation. Liquidation then followed. What was then purchased was 'Business & Assets'. The unsigned poster above makes a point when he/she mentions "A "Club" has no or little legal definition or standing". That is absolute. A 'Club' in the proper sense does have constitutional, legal responsibilities. 'Rangers' as a 'Club' would have had such responsibilities pre March 1899. Once Rangers FC was incorporated, it's custodians became a board of directors and not a committee like a 'Club' is constitutionally structured. I am not sure if I have picked up wrong the suggestion that a company owning a array of assets including logo, trademark and copyright etc, that once lumped together represents a 'Club' entity? If that is the suggestion then it is clearly preposterous. A 'Club' in the sense of that has absolutely no definition whatsoever. Rangers FC that was formed in 1872 and incorporated in March 1899 and liquidated in 2012 no longer has a valid legal nor constitutional existence.KingSupper (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You have no clue what you are talking about. There are so many half-baked misconceptions in what you have written that it's hard to know where to start. But the short answer is it doesn't matter because this has long since been resolved via the sources and your personal ill informed WP:OR is irrelevant. "Transfer as a going concern" is not the same thing as the going concern test in acounting. It refers to the fact that a business is sold as a fully functioning enterprise: it's meaning and paramaters are well established by tax law. A related and overlaping concept is used in employment law under TUPE and TUPE applied to this transfer. I'm done with this half-baked nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are you suggesting that my input here is personal? "Half bake misconceptions"? Where do I even start with that crass accusation. Just one example shows why you are constantly chasing a tail when trying so hard to believe that RFC carried on as if everything was as normal - "It refers to the fact that a business is sold as a fully functioning enterprise". At the stage you are describing, what exactly was the 'Business'? Once the CVA proposal was rejected, ALL contracts were null and void. Has it never dawned on you why players such as Naismith and Whittaker simply walked away for nothing? It wasn't under a 'Bosman' or players being handed free transfers. They were free to go because their employer had ceased trading. When Wavetower bought RFC 1872 from Murray Holding's in 2011, it heralded a "fully functioning enterprise" being sold and bought for £1. Your suggestion that this is what happened post CVA in a liquidation firesale is tantamount to sheer fantasy. It is clear to all and sundry that it is you that has no concept of business and we all know in this case why that is. What is incredible is that all the points I have put on this page have merit yet you suggest they are 'Half-Baked'. You show me exactly where I have picked it up wrong in my suggestion that "Rangers FC est 1872 and Incorporated in March 1899 no longer have a Constitutional or Legal existence". KingSupper (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha. "we all know in this case why that is". Really? Well, one thing I don't know anything about is football. I'd rather drink bleach than have to watch a football match. However, I came to this page 2 years ago because, as a corporate lawyer, I was frustrated by the ill-informed assertions made at that time. At that point the sources hadn't got to grips with the legal position. Now reliable sources have caught up. You've now turned up aggressively promoting your own personal analysis. Well, you're not allowed to do that on Wikipedia - we go by what reliable secondary sources say only. But, what is worse, your personal analysis is based on nothing. Try and think through the similarites between what happened in 1899 and 2012 and you might start to get it. I'll give you a further clue. "Football club" has two meanings. As with Rangers pre 1899 and, presumably non-league football teams today, it is an unicorporated association run as a "club" in a legal sense. The second meaning is a type of business operated by a legal entity. In that sense, it is interchangeable with "fast food chain", "widget manufacturer", or "estate agents". DeCausa (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You are now suggesting that my "Personal analysis is based on nothing"? This page is based on the very same 'Reliable Sources' that pre CVA application had categorically confirmed that Rangers 140 year history and timeline would cease to continue should a CVA be rejected. So what exactly defines a 'Reliable Source' on this story? You may well be a corporate lawyer but it is abundantly clear that you know nothing regarding insolvency. I however do. You will know that Rangers very own lawyers informed an SPL commission that "Rangers ceased to be a Club as per the rules on 14th June 2012". This was in order to free the new Club from any punishment(s) that potentially could be handed down in the event that registration rules were breached. Do you see the section "As per the rules"? I agree with you in the definition of what the term 'Club' stands for. There really is no need to give 'clues' on the definition of it. Pre 1899 RFC were indeed an unincorporated association. But they were however constituted as a 'Club' operated by committee and a treasurer etc that does come with responsibilities. That constituted structure ceased to operate in 1899 and RFC Ltd was incorporated as a football Club now with legal personality and able to trade. This also freed the founders from personal liabilities the Club would amass. Your examples of a sense of interchangeable 'Type' of business is not equated to RFC. These examples are non specific. A fast food chain i.e. KFC operates thousands of outlets but they also franchise out some of them outlets to a franchisee who is contractually bound to buy the necessary products from KFC which in turn allows the franchisee to use the KFC brand. If KFC were to enter administration and seek a buyer, the buyer would make an offer for the business and also either take on creditors debt or seek a CVA. If a successful bid was accepted and creditors satisfied, the new buyers could continue on operating KFC. If KFC were to liquidate, all the outlets and remaining assets would be sold off and monies used to settle debts. KFC would cease to operate or exist. However McDonald's come along and buy up the outlets and operate McDonald's out of the outlets. But they would not put a KFC sign outside the outlets now would they? In specific terms where RFC are concerned. Had the St Mirren chairman bought the business and assets from the administrators of RFC Plc and moved St Mirren into Ibrox. Would that of meant St Mirren were Rangers? Where was it written or even possible that anyone who bought 'Business and Assets' were in fact buying RFC? One question that remains a poser in all of this. If the 'Club' was separate from the 'Company'. Why did Craig Whyte simply not offer to buy the 'Club'? Why would he accept £30M of debt with a tax case hanging over it that potentially could have turned debt towards £100M? Why not buy the 'Business and Assets' like Sevco 5088 Ltd did? Strange but very telling. KingSupper (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Tldr. DeCausa (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Too long to read a 519 word entry? I think we all know you did read it. We can all agree it puts the illogical 'Club is separate from the Company' idea in it's place. KingSupper (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh yet another person appears oblivious to how these articles are put together. During this whole saga yes sources were contradictory however for a prolonged period of time they now regard Rangers as the same club. We cannot add POV or opinions to pages. Also KingSupper, after reading through your posts I feel I must remind you of one of the main talkpage guidelines -
The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. If you have a reliable source that you think affects this pages content then please bring it up. If not there are plenty of forums for discussing this subject. BadSynergy (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It's quite simple, your posts here are so long because you are conducting original research. Wikipedia doesn't care what you've worked out about Rangers, and it doesn't care about your comparisons to KFC. It cares what reliable sources say. That's the final word, not negotiable. If you had reliable sources to support your argument, you could get a far further by simply posting a link to them. But you don't, hence the lengthy paragraphs above and why you'll get no-where with them. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
All the reliable sources which say the old club died (and there were plenty) have been taken out by you guys. The article will keep running into problems for as long as you try to peddle the new club's official fiction as fact! We need a much more balanced approach. New world record, Timmy (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Examples of these reliable sources? As I said above, all that is needed is to direct people towards them and we start getting somewhere. Until then... --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
What about this from today - "history - the timeline - is broken" "cyber lynch-mobs set after you if you dare to address the Rangers collapse". Aye, cyber lynch-mobs and their Wikipedia cousins: disingenuous POV warriors! 94.8.61.183 (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I beleive that the relevent football authorities have comfirmed that it is indeed a continuation of the Rangers Football Club formed in 1872 and that the match record and history is indeed intact. http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/12/The-Rangers-Football-Club-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_224406.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.208.157.200 (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Article Intro

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

2 years have now passed since the insolvency/newco-ing in Summer 2012 and the article should be adapted so as not to give undue emphasis on events from that long ago. Am I talking about removing any reference to liquidation/administration from the intro? No, not yet. Those elements have been retained.
However I did condense the current content that - for the opening introduction to an article for a sports team - was far over-burdened with terms like "insolvent", "administration", "liquidation", "creditors", "business", "assets" etc.
I have also re-ordered the introductory paragraphs to the more logical and standard sequence of general facts of significance regarding the club being stated before a short summary of recent history.Gefetane (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the insolvency of 2012 will dilute with time, although a big story and talking point in 2012. 77.97.35.2 (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
There was no original consensus for the introduction. The edit made by Gefetane trimmed excess detail. In theory it could be shortened further. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the introduction would be improved if most of the details of the events of 2012 were removed as they are already covered in the article itself. The key point that needs to remain is that Rangers was a founder member of the league and remained in the top division continuosly until the company entering liquidation in 2012 which saw the club ejected from the SPL to have to start in the fourth tier the following season. Regards Fishiehelper5 (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It's no surprise to see fishiehelper continually disrupt the article given his sustained anti-Rangers bias, There is a growing consensus among neutral editors that the storm of 2012 is being diluted with time but ofcourse in true point scoring fashion it's imperative of you to push the whole "the club was liquidated" agenda right in the opening sentence if you possibly can.Ricky072 (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with the changes made, other than two minor details. The grammar should be "Rangers were the first club.." not "Rangers was the first club..". And the introduction should be a maximum of three paragraphs, as we discussed in length on the archives of this talk page. Cheers, VanguardScot 15:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Despite what Ricky believes, I've no problem with the events of 2012 being diluted with time - indeed I tried to do that before being reverted. I also don't think the mention of liquidation should be in the first paragraph - but it should be linked in as explanation for the fact that Rangers record of being in the top league continuously from the league's creation came to an abrupt end in 2012. Regards Fishiehelper5 (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

reducing intro to three paragraphs

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can I suggest that the lone sentence at the end of the intro {"Rangers have a long-standing rivalry with Celtic, the two Glasgow clubs being collectively known as the Old Firm since the late 19th century") be moved to the end of the first paragraph? That seems a logical place to have it. The second paragraph can then describe the honours won, and the third paragraph can describe Rangers being a founder club of the league and having been in the top division continuously from the league's creation until the liquidation of the company in 2012 led to the club having to start season 2012/13 in the fourth tier. Regards Fishiehelper5 (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a logical progression to me Ricky072 (talk)
It doesn't seem right that a rivalry with another team be included in the very first couple of sentences of the Article. In addition to that point, the version I've put on applies the principles of
→ Condensing excessive detail regarding events of 2012.
→ Retention of reference to liquidation of the PLC, ejection from the SPL, new ownership etc, as still important.
→ Ordering the intro to standard of opening sentences, significant facts, brief summary of recent events. Gefetane (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Rangers' first match - under the name Glasgow Argyle F.C. ???

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article currently states "Rangers' first match, in May that year, was a goalless friendly draw with Callander on Glasgow Green under the name Glasgow Argyle F.C."

Is that correct? I can't find any reference to support that claim and I think one is necessary. 86.153.13.155 (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The club was reformed in 2012 - should be mentioned in the infobox

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A quote about Rangers in the Herald today {http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/rangers-we-wont-sell-or-lease-ibroxbut-what-about-murray-park.1406488804}:

"That comes after it announced losses of nearly £70million for the first 18 months after the club was reformed after its liquidation crisis in the summer of 2012."

Surely this article should include "Reformed 2012" under "Founded 1872" in the infobox just as for other clubs which were reformed after a liquidation? 109.153.19.28 (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It would just toss fuel on the fire and you've only given one example of Rangers being referred to in such a manner.Correctron (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


'Refomed' is being used in a casual manner here. It is a Herald article, not a legal document. So this has no bearing on the legal status of the continuing entity. You fail to mention that the reformation in the Skysports website refers to the "oldco" - tis is what changed, the company. Why?

Re the above - another mention in the media today that mentions about Rangers being reformed in the summer of 2012:
"That move came after it was revealed the club had spent almost £70m working its way through the lowest two tiers of Scottish football in the 18 months since it was reformed following liquidation of the oldco in the summer of 2012." {http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/9408680} 109.154.205.65 (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Club name

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Bizarre to have to even address this point, but for some reason there's been some confusion over the club name. Officially, it is "Rangers F.C.", as seen in the latest Scottish FA Handbook, in the Club Directory section. Yes, the legal entity is called "The Rangers Football Club Ltd", but that is not the information required for that particular part of the info box. Gefetane (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Rangers F.C. is not the full name of the club - that is described on the club's website as 'The Rangers Football Club". The source for that claim is here Rangers International Football Club PLC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritofstgeorge (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
That source also claims "The Rangers International Football Club PLC is a football club..." A football club valled Rangers International? Get serious. Clearly nonsense, whoever was responsible for it. Gefetane (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"Reformed" & "Relaunched"

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This is not August 2012, there is no longer any ambiguity in the official position of Rangers FC - it continued, albeit operated by a new company. Contentious, ambiguous words like "reformed" and "relaunched" - used to imply some break in continuity - are unnecessary POV-pushing. There is no need for gestures towards editors seeking to push a "new club" agenda now official reliable sources, from presiding authorities the SFA and SPL, are so clear. The key facts remain in the intro, The Rangers FC PLC was placed into liquidation, but likewise the football entity continued. Gefetane (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I find this page simply uncredible. This page has clearly been hijacked by fans of RFC for the nonsensical scenario that a non constituted Club survived a liquidation event. The law is clear on it no matter what commercially conflicted national football authorities say on it. Rangers Football Club was ran by a board of directors trading as a legal entity. Nothing can get away from that fact. It was not a franchise. However a franchise framework is the only way to describe the idea that a 'Company ran the Club'. No 'Club' was listed on the purchase sheet of Business and Assets of Rangers FC Plc. It is only the presence of the undoubted Rangers brand that survived liquidation in terms of the 'Club'. Other Clubs in Scotland namely Hearts and Dunfermline were successful in managing to legally settle their debts in order for continuity. Rangers Football Club were not so successful so what is the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.57.223 (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Calm down. I support Celtic and accept the fact that Rangers still exists. Can't you just move on with your life. Everyone acknowledges their existence except angry supporters of other teams. Correctron (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As we can see by the recent edits by the person with no Wiki login, there is still an agenda and people are vandalizing the page. The authorities are clear, I jave provided references, and can provide more. This page needs to be locked to prevent vandalism; I am getting frustrated with the continual weasel edits. Perhaps it is the above "uncredibe" poster spewing more nonsensical garbage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrox1872 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I would have to agree, I suppose. This is really sad. Correctron (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Established 2012 as rangers fc went into administration and new ltd company formed trading under false company tardemarks is illegal. The new rangers fc established 2012 with zero awards or history pre 2012. this page is offensive and misleading

90.204.13.198 (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for any "offence caused"77.97.35.2 (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok now we are starting to move towards a FA article

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Ok now that we are getting the article to FA status never mind GA status, i think we should create a to do list

I also say instead of going through a GAC we go straight to FAC.

Please add things to the list to be done

  • Finish conversion to cite  Done
  • Finish improvement of cite references, archive where it can be done  Done
  • Fix all cite references parameter to include the right information and add other where appiorate  Done
  • Check ever reference is using the right cite ie cite web should be cite news  Done
  • Get reference for stuff that is citation needed or remove it  Done
  • Add a hall of fame section, which would include the Rangers greatest starting 11, hall of fame in scottish fa for rangers players  Done
  • Condense the history section down a little  Done
  • Check all images use alt text  Done
  • Check the page is confirm to html5 standards  Done
  • Add more wiki links to other article where appropriate  Done
  • Expand and convert external links to cite  Done
  • Expand team manager section to have a brief information on past manager about 4 or 5 sentences long  Done
  • Expand notable players section to have a brief information on notable players throughout history about 4 or 5 sentences long  Done
  • Expand international payer section with details on international payers about 4 or 5 sentences long  Done
  • Expand youth section with information on the youths about 4 or 5 sentences long  Done
  • Make sure all wiki links are relevant if not remove them  Done
  • Move stuff in the see also section to appropriate parts of the main article and expand with any other appropriate see also articles  Done
  • Create a wiki book Rangers F.C just like Book:Manchester United F.C. and Book:Manchester City F.C.  Done
  • Add other templates like {{commons}} to give more information in the external links section  Done
  • Remove unnecessary white space  Done
  • Remove red links  Done
  • Once records section has been fully expanded with all records that can be sourced, trim it down after the records that are not so important for this page are moved to the records and statistics page with the sources so starting the work of improving that page to  Done
  • Add some links to fansites and news sites  Done not sure if the fan sites should be removed....  Done
  • Fix the prose of the articles including spelling and grammar mistakes
  • Reduce the records section down and move records less important with there references to records article  Done


  • Check reference to make sure reference parameters are using the right information
  • Check the sources confirm what is said in the part the reference is used
  • Make sure everything that is in each section is referenced , if not try find one or remove it
  • Check for more than one use of the same reference condense using /> referencing tag (exception bbc history of rangers fc to long to use as single reference)
  • Check the article for weasel words
  • Check for use of peacock terms

To be done after the above is done

  • Run AWB and WPcleaner and DAB cleaner, nDash script, reflinks script or from website, autoed, date script, possible other thing to make sure the page is up to strach
  • Delink over linkage of duplicate wiki links
  • Get the page copy edited
  • Make sure the page is using British English
  • Peer Review

Whenever a job on the list above has been done please mark it done using {{done}} template so other know the work has been done or checked. once the work is done we can then do a peer review

anything else add it aboveAndrewcrawford (talk - -:contrib) 22:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Dab Solver has been run several times and as this is on my watchlist I see it every day. Reflinks doesn't pick up any issue although I can see a few that need manually fixed. If you want to go straight to FA I suggest asking for it to be copy edited by an experienced copy editor and ask for a last peer review. FA will be hard and your better getting it right. Personally I would go for ga as that's hard enough and work up. Blethering Scot 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Having just looked at other FA class articles i think this needs a bit more work. There are sections with no text purely a link. Other Fa class articles all have some form of text if not the full list, arsenal managers section for instance has explanatory text but a link for the full list. We need to address the team managers section in particular and come up with a better way of handling the links to other squads and past notable players. I would also suggest that List of Rangers seasons is added as an extra link as part of the History section and removed from see also. With regards to see also remember that links are also in navbox at the bottom of the article so we dont need a lot of them. I would suggest only non Rangers articles such as football in scotland and old firm is left. Duplication isn't necessary.Blethering Scot 00:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
yeah i thought about peer review after i went to bed, i guess wether we go to FAor GA first will depend o the peer review, yeah those section bug me but i had to remove theinfomation that was ther ebecause black kite said it was a problemAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 06:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The prose quality would have to be improved a great deal. I keep finding the most basic errors of grammar, and far too much of it is written in the passive voice. --John (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
i know hence why guild of copyeditors would probally fix that, but ill add it to the listAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If we went on the polish wikipedia this page would be good enough already for GA as it almost identical copy of this one witht eh same references etc. But i dnt propose submit this until all teh above is done which i should start work on tomorrow. although the italian wikipedia one need fixed we have got enough references and consensus from here to show ther ento dissovled that doesnt help the case here when other wikipedia ie different languages say different things.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Due to work commitments i will get work done soon but it will take me longer to do feel free to do any of the above also changing do not archive until 2015Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.204.149 (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

86.132.196.208 (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Danny Wilson will be given the number 3 shirt

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. –Davey2010Talk 02:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Rob Kiernan Nationality

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

For the second time, I have changed the flag next to Rob Kiernan's name in the first team players section to Republic of Ireland. He has represented them at U21 level which makes him ineligable to represent any other national side, despite him being born in England. Added to talk page as the flag was changed to English without explanation. There is suitable citation on Kiernan's own wiki page regarding his nationality which can be used on this page if necessary, but a citation after the image of a flag will look untidy so I'd really rather not. Mrspy (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Also; per the squad template; "This is usually the country of the player's birth; however, if a player has dual nationality then use the country that he represents in international football." Clearly in the context of his football career, the nation he plays for is what's most relevant. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Current crest

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The current crest shown in the official website (http://www.rangers.co.uk/club/history/crest). The change of the logo was based on the opinion of a wikipedian. Please don't use your opinion to change the logo. Use official sources. --IM-yb (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Changed as per the official website update today. Original change wasn't opinion. This was coming. Fair enough Wikipedia is reactive rather than proactive. FXT 14:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This site (rangersinternationalfootballclub.com) has the old logo of the club. What is happening with the team owners and the logo? Who knows? --IM-yb (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Founded 2012 161.12.7.4 (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please supply a reliably sourced cite that says this. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you need an edit request as some of the information on this page is ignoring legal issues. The Club that incorporated as a limited company in 1899 is not the same entity that currently trades under 'Rangers FC'. Due to a failed CVA, a court appointed winding up order was issued to cease trading. Nowhere on this page explains the legal reality that the 'Club' trading at Ibrox since 1899 was no longer allowed to trade any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minervatec (talk • contribs) 17:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is the club formerly known as Glasgow Rangers FC not got its new founding date as it's only 4 years old ?...

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why has this not been rectified on Wikipedia... Johnb86 (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

See FAQ section above Krankenshaft (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused by this sentence

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"When the new company failed to secure the club's previous place in the Scottish Premier League"

Why did 'the club' lose its place in the SPL?

The old company owned a membership share in the SPL (which was a limited company, owned by its member clubs). There was provision in the rules for a share to be transferred from one company to another (e.g. in the case of club(s) being promoted and relegated). The new Rangers company applied to the SPL for permission to transfer the share from the old company to the new company, but this was rejected by a 10-1 vote of the clubs. This meant that the new Rangers company had to seek a place in the Scottish Football League (lower divisions). [1][2] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Return to SPL

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Rangers "... were promoted three times in four years to return to the top flight". Is this technically true, yet? I know they are guaranteed promotion, barring something really unexpected. But surely they have not yet actually been promoted back to SPL? Newburyjohn (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, because the season doesn't finish until late May / early June, but the language used is okay. Rangers have won promotion three times in the four years, and it says "return to the top flight" (present tense) rather than "have returned" (past tense). The bigger problem with the article is that it mentions recent events in the lead but doesn't say anything in the body beyond the appointment of Mark Warburton last year. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Refounded date

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

The year of Rangers' being refounded (2012) should be included on the page as is seen on the Parma FC page. Stonedsailor (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What about Fiorentina? Promdeanglais (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The insolvency event is detailed on the page. Krankenshaft (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is wrong in a number of respects. The root cause of this is the maintenance of the fiction that Rangers somehow survived insolvency and that the business was sold as a going concern whilst in administration. This is not the case. The assets were sold whilst Rangers FC was in liquidation. They were sold to a new club called Sevco - which subsequently changed its name to The Rangers Football Club. All this was acknowledged by Charles Green, the founder of Sevco, in court. Wikipedia should be a source of fact. There should be no place for partisan comment or promoting a fiction simply because it comforts the fans of the subject of an article.220.236.136.138 (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

    • "sold to a new club"... this statement is wrong in a number of respects... Obsessed Celtic fans. --Johnelwaq (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Anyone contemplating changing the current version should read the debates on the talk page(s!) before doing so. Ensure you have a six pack of McEwan's and a free evening. Britmax (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"There should be no place for partisan comment or promoting a fiction simply because it comforts the fans of the subject of an article" Can anyone else smell the irony in that statement? Krankenshaft (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yup. Britmax (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

This whole Wikipedia page is contradicted by the recently published letter from UEFA that confirms that the current club called Rangers is not the same as the club called Rangers that went into liquidation in 2012. Can I suggest that the page either represent the facts or be deleted? 49.194.155.167 (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You can suggest whatever you wish but do read through the tedious arguments on this issue before you do. Britmax (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I am familiar with the arguments. But the suggestion that old Rangers somehow survived liquidation and continues is risible. The new club was formed as Sevco and changed its name to Rangers. This is documented fact - look at the news coverage of the time and look at the letter from UEFA on Resolution 12. This page is being used to carry a fairy story just because it is pleasing to Rangers fans. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Please can people step back a little, look at this objectively, and edit the page to carry only factually correct material. 49.194.155.167 (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
If you are familiar with the arguments then you'll know that Wikipedia goes on credible sources, not opinions. News coverage is not a credible source of info, as the same news outlets that claimed it's a new club in 2012 can also be found claiming it's not. And a letter from UEFA about res 12 is not a reliable source of info on the historical status of Rangers either, as the letter wasn't addressing that issue. Provide a letter from UEFA specifically addressing Rangers historical status in UEFA competitions and you'll have something. Until then, the official Rangers profile on the official UEFA website is all Wikipedia cares about.Krankenshaft (talk) 02.52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Intangible assets

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Anyone who thinks that the club's history cannot be bought should probably read Goodwill (accounting). Britmax (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

It says that they were founded in 1872, This is not correct as Rangers Fc were re founded 2012 CelticFc1888 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The reliable source would be the fact that Rangers Football Club 1872 were liquidated in 2012. Therefore that club is now assigned to the history books. The new club, Rangers International Football Club are masquerading in their place. Claiming trophies won by the old club as their own. Fraud?? Ryb748s (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read the talk page archives to see what you are letting yourself in for here. Really. Britmax (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Please also read this it explains what is meant by a reliable source. Saying "it's a fact" is not a reliable source. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
There are in fact reliable sources that the match record of Rangers FC continued unbroken post liquidation event. They're called the official SPFL and UEFA websites. Change those and you'll change this wiki page. Krankenshaft (talk) 17.32, 14 April 2017 (UTC —Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The description is incorrect.

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The third paragraph in the description makes it plainly obvious that the second paragraph is not true. How can a new club be the most successful in Scottish football history? Sevco (the proper name for this club) have won 4 trophies altogether. A Third Division trophy, a League One trophy, the Scottish Championship trophy and a Petrofac Training Cup trophy. They have not won 54 league titles as is being suggested as the club is only just over 5 years old. Y2Kev5 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You need to read the talk pages and archives. Extensively. Britmax (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I just checked the SPFL website and can't find a club called 'Sevco'. Are they Highland league perhaps? Krankenshaft (talk) 22.08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Rangers

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Going by the description of what a "Phoenix Club" is then Rangers must be surely ? The oldco Rangers club where liquidated, end of - no argument The assets where sold to a newco -again - no argument The newco began life at the bottom of Scottish football - no argument All players of the oldco could leave or opt to continue with newco.. You cannot get away from the definition of what is a new club and what is not simply because they where a massive instituation, I fully understand and sympathise with Rangers fans, I get its very very difficult for them to accept, but the legal aspect has been clearly lost now I expect smoke n mirrors and arguments to sway away from the truth, but any person who looks objectively at the situation from a non biased pov knows Rangers are a Pheonix club, theres no doubt about it whatsoever, unless your blind to the facts.

I find it very disturbing from a wiki integrity pov that fans of Rsngers seem to be able to edit and proclaim fiction as fact, when its certainly not the case, its like a case of continual denial, well that doesnt wash Im afraid, its wrong, its pitiful and sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.47.70.250 (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You too need to read the talk pages and archives. Extensively. Britmax (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 150 external links on Rangers F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Rangers FC should now be Sevco or The rangers international football club ltd Lolpop1231235676 (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. If you are asking for this page to be moved to either of those titles please follow the instructions at WP:RM. Thanks, —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rangers F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Additions please

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,

I would love to see the following added;

- In the 'Doubles and Trebles section'

The double acheived in 15-16 season.

- In the main biography of the club

Rangers being ranked 24th in the top 200 clubs on the 20th century on the IFFHS ranking. Please find link to this here;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFFHS_Top_200_European_clubs_of_the_20th_century

- Ally Mccoist was European Golden boot winner 2 years consecutively, link is below

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Golden_Shoe Jeddybear84 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Update history

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

History section needs updating to include Graeme Murty's sacking, my suggestion would be

"Murty's second spell in charge ended prematurely on May 1st when he has sacked as manager following a 5-0 defeat to Celtic resulted in their old firm rivals winning the league title. Murty's assistants, and former Rangers players, Jimmy Nicholl and Jonatan Johansson took charge/will take charge of the 3 remaining matches of the season"[1]

I've paraphrased and added this to the history section Seanstrain3001 (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/scores-fixtures/2018-04

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Rangers were formed in 2012, they are a new club. Please change this. Mdaly87 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Britmax, you're up... :) CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Eh? 'old on a minute: number 17, right? Ok...ah, here we are. (Ahem) "Please read the talk page and archives to see what you are getting into here, before repeating this request." Britmax (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Was that ok?

Beautiful CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Record league percentage win 100% 1898–99[199][n 3]

Note that Rangers are the only team that has achieved this is not true. Ferencvárosi TC (22) in 1931-32, HSV (11) in 1927-28, Dresdener (23) in 1942-43 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.123.61 (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2015 CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Nunc pro tunc

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would this be what happened in Scottish law when Rangers went through a period of change after administration? I do not know Scottish law in this respect so did not add the phrase, if it was so then this is a good example to add to that Nunc pro tunc article and possibly here too. I don't want an edit war about it, but someone might know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.23.158 (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC) CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The name

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the references and notes, the term "Glasgow Rangers" appears ten times, but not once in the article itself. Glasgow Rangers is the name many – if not most – people know the club as, so I think some acknowledgment is the least the article could do. Better than that would be a sentence discussing the issue. Nick Barnett (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I was going to list why those refs aren't really relevant (it's actually only 6 times as 4 are from the same book, which has an edition for sale on amazon without the word Glasgow in the title, while an other is a blog about the Helensburgh and a few don't really relate directly to sporting activities so might have been an inaccurate attempt by the author to give the full name for formality) but you're right that the club sometimes called that even though it isn't the official name (a few of the traditional songs use the term, albeit possibly only because 4 syllables fit the tune better than 2), so I'll add a sentence to the lead and see what happens. Crowsus (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC) CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Foundation date

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I have looked through the archives and every point about adding 2012 as a second foundation date is being brutally shut down under "it's the same club get over it" versus "Sevco is not Rangers" which is not really a sensible argumentation in either case.

The precedent with for example Newport County A.F.C.; no-one disputes the 1989 club is the exact same as it's previous incarnation, however it would be silly to just ignore a club's collapse in it's foundation date. Nearly all Italian clubs have gone through this, ACR Messina about 7-8 times now, no-one argues about that, Etar Veliko Tarnovo has 3 articles for the same club due to reformations. If we want to use the "it's not Scotland" argument, then how come Airdrieonians F.C. and Airdrieonians F.C. (1878) are separate articles, when they went through a similar thing?

- Because Airdrie was wound up. No one purchased its assets.

Even the most ardent Rangers fan cannot dispute the fact the club was liquidated. At the same time the most ardent Celtic supporter cannot dispute that Rangers after 2012 are a continuation of the original. There are numerous sources on here already confirming the liquidation and "re-launch / re-formation / re-structure" (exact wording can be debated too if contentious).

I propose a 2nd founding date on the club page, as per consensus on all the other clubs. If that is too ambiguous then a note as with Milton Keynes Dons F.C.'s foundation date can be added. But not having anything is just against the precedent and ignoring a large historical fact.

Hopefully this can be debated properly preferably by editors who do not support neither Celtic or Rangers because the two camps will always have opposing non-neutral views. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You can't compare Italian football clubs to English language football club. The Italian football task force had completely dead and not many people update those clubs. For Rangers, on fans POV (or may be other), they think the club is continuous and not related to the legal person, but in Italy article they do admitted the club was re-founded on secondary source. Matthew hk (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
False. The PLC was liquidated. You can't liquidate assets or the 'undertaking' which is the club to be owned and operated (Lord Nimmo Smith. Morover, this position was affirmed by UEFA, SFA, SPFL, ECA, etc.
Paragraph 46 of the LNS report:
“It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule I1 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club. Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated. While it no doubt depends on the individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least compromise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.“In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold."
In its interim report into Rangers Football Club plc’s administration dated 10 July 2012, Duff & Phelps stated at paragraph 4.4:
“Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club.”At paragraph 10.9 of the same report, it stated:“The history and the spirit of the Club have been preserved by the sale which was completed on 14 June 2012 and it is now the responsibility of the new owners to secure its future.”
Duff & Phelps released a further statement on 17 October 2012 to announce that RFC 2012 plc was being placed into liquidation. It said:
“Should the application be approved, then Malcolm Cohen and James Bernard Stephen of BDO will be appointed liquidators of RFC 2012 plc, and will undertake the process of liquidation of the ‘oldco’ company and the continued recovery of funds for creditors. This will not affect the current operations of The Rangers Football Club in any way as it is a completely separate entity.”
All of primary source evidence is unequivocal on this point. See the following for more: https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/apr_may.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user 20:34, 15 September 2019/Nathanrobert86

What happened with Airdrie was expressly NOT similar. Airdrie (1878) went bust, defunct, out of business. The owners bought another club (Clydebank) and entered the league with Clydebank. All they did was change the name and relocate. CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

As a side note, the current Rangers was called "Sevco Scotland " and not to be confused with other namesake "SevCo", short for service company apparently. The two legal persons of the Rangers football club went through full legal process to transfer assets, rather than just founded as namesake and claiming as successor, which is very common in Italy. The foundation date of new legal person was also not observed in Portsmouth F.C.'s wiki article. Matthew hk (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Darlington F.C. is the best relevant example. Like Rangers, the original club was placed in administration and was 'saved' from liquidation by the assets being bought from the administrators by a new company that had been set up for that purpose. The new company then continued the original club in a new corporate identity. Rangers today is the same club, reformed in a new corporate identity in 2012 - this should be stated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birtig (talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Portsmouth had the same CVA process and they did not list it. You have to beat other user for consistency among UK clubs and the flood of fans POV in some venue of village pump and RFC. Matthew hk (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC) CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Founded

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The original football club was founded in March 1872.

The current football club was founded in May 2012 after the administration and subsequent liquidation of the original club.

Mr Charles Green purchased the assets of the original Rangers for £5 million pounds and immediately claimed that he also "purchased their history and trophies". The truth always rises (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change the very first line "Rangers Football Club is a Scottish professional football club based in the Govan district of Glasgow, which plays in the Scottish Premiership. Although not its official name, it is often referred to as Glasgow Rangers.[2] "

The full name of this club is "The Rangers Football Club Ltd." So please add that "The" to the beginning for accuracy.

This is important as after the original company was liquidated the new company was prevented by UK trading law from using the exact same name as the defunct company. TEDisaWANQ (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to mention the legal name of the holding company, none of our other football club articles do and we generally just follow WP:COMMONNAME. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Club Badge

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rangers have updated the club badge, could someone do the necessary and update infobox badge please? CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Updating Rangers FC wikipedia.

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In reference to the protection of this page I would like to question who holds edit on the page as some of the information is questionable ie. Al Ahly being the most successful is dubious. I would also like to comment on Rangers history strip wise and the change of company structure in 2012. Football stadium wise, Rangers has the second largest capacity. Referring back to Al Ahly, Rangers on league and national cup wins are the most successful club in the world. RFC54 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. - Seasider53 (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

founded -2012 Name - The Rangers 84.69.180.29 (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 2012 is maybe when The Rangers Football Club PLC took ownership but it's not when the club was founded. Volteer1 (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Club end date 2012 Became new club sevco scotland ltd rangers 2012 86.11.189.199 (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Rangers FC is a different company/team to Secco or Rangers FC, therein this is their First premier title win, not 55th. 92.30.120.178 (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You haven't provided a reliable source to support your view. In any case, most if not all such sources support the position that it is a continuation, and therefore that is also the editing position of this site. Crowsus (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Not second

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The article states that rangers is the second most successful club in the world behi d Al ahly but in fact theyre third behind linfield who have wayyyyh more than rangers Ghen91 (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you know a source that says this? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Are they in any way equivalent? Britmax (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please update this page - Rangers FC liquidated in 2012 and was formed as a new club in 2012-13 season and began in the 3rd dev of Scottish football because of this

the have no history or accomplishments before 2012 91.75.122.129 (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Not the same club

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The old club went into liquidation in 2012 and was bought by SEVCO. The current one was founded as The Rangers. The Optimistic One (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit the article then. But use a link that works, unlike that one. - Seasider53 (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's 2 sources that indicate that they're not the same club: http://rsssf.com/miscellaneous/kamprec.html#tnc https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2021/02/15/the-lie-of-55/ ACCH (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Rangers football club ceased trading in 2012 as owing hmrc an outstanding debt not 1872 as stated 78.16.114.88 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
~~

Rangers won 1 title after there enter to liquidation

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Rangers FC went into liquidation in February 14 2012 therefore a new club was created named Sevco Ltd

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
AlanCee (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
2.24.68.251 (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Rangers were re formed in 2012 and have 1 league title. The old club were liquidated and shouldn't be seen as the same club.

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
92.40.195.38 (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Celtic are a Swedish club in Italy La Liga The have 6Premier League titles. They are also managed by John Terry,there club captain is Pele

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. SpinningCeres 22:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Rangers are the most successful team if you include war years Doctorsorders123 (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My request is to state that the rangers fc were knowingly established in 2012 Mitch1311 (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 💜  melecie  talk - 06:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change founding year to 2012 ! Bonecrusher1976 (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Jackigof (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC) i would like to add to this brilliant page that rangers are the best team on the planet
  Not done: "This is the best team, etc..." does not belong in Wikipedia. MadGuy7023 (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rangers_F.C./Archive_36&oldid=1176957668"