Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 70

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. 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 65

←

Archive 68

→

Mario Balotelli

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a ongoing serious situation with the Mario Balotelli article. There is a fellow editor by name of User:Tobby72 who I have been watching with its edits on the Mario Balotelli article. This editor is seriously bad faith editing on the Mario Balotelli article and has been confronted for this by me and a fellow editor named User:BarretB, but the User:Tobby72 has ignored these confrontations and continues to include "un-football related", "serious allegations", "negative", "football career damaging" and "un-neutral" tabloid news agency information on the Mario Balotelli "Good article". Please fellow WikiProject:Football editors please see discussion and confrontation history between me and User:BarretB about User:Tobby72 edits to the Mario Balotelli "Good article" --> Talk:Mario Balotelli#Personality and reputation. MarkMysoe (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Finnish Map

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Some work is being undertaken by Rakuten06 to improve 1930 Mestaruussarja and further early Finnish championship seasons. I have added a map but it is historically incorrect and am struggling to insert the 1920-1940 version - http://de.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Datei:Finland_%281920-1940%29_location_map.svg&filetimestamp=20100216184500. Can anyone assist? Kind regards League Octopus (League Octopus 14:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

Fixed it. -Koppapa (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks Koppapa. League Octopus (League Octopus 15:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

Great Britain olympic squad – flags

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Just wondering what peoples's thoughts are on home nation flags with regards to the Great Britain olympic squad. Should the players have the flag icons of their FIFA sides (England or Wales) in the squad template or not? A discussion has started here. I'm leaning towards no, though mainly because of the consistency with other squad templates. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, no. – Kosm1 fent 05:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

On a related topic, should membership of the Great Britain Olympic squad be listed under National teams in the player's infobox? For most players they were but they have now been removed with the edit summary "cleanup". -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't see why not, but I think it should make clear that it's an Olympic squad rather than just have "Great Britain". Cheers, Big Dom 06:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

George Stewart

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

We have an article at George Stewart (footballer), which is fine, except there are four other players with articles (1920, 1927, 1932, 1947) and our first chap doesn't appear to have a DOB to properly disambiguate. Can anybody help? Giant Snowman 13:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Joyce has him listed as born Wishaw, 1883. He also gives his Manchester City league career as played 93, goals 11. The full citation is {{cite book |title=Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939 |last=Joyce |first=Michael |year=2004 |publisher=Tony Brown|location=Nottingham |isbn=1-8994-6867-6|page=250}}. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. the birth details are also shown in the "Current comments" section of the Hibs player database. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks. Giant Snowman 14:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Club season articles

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have a bunch of club season articles that I could use help on. To find them, just go to my user page. Kingjeff (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Euro bronze medals

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I can not understand the logic of article on the European national football teams. Why does the "UEFA European Championship record," the European Championship semi-finalists are marked bronze color, but in the section marked achievements simply as a semifinal, and profiles of players there are no notes on bronze awards. If the wiki does not know no match for third place does not mean the absence of a set of bronze medals. Two teams semifinal losers are awarded bronze medals. There is no match for the bronze - there are two bronze medalist. For example - Russia and Turkey were awarded real prizes in 2008, the magnificent ceremony was not, but the medals were awarded. I hope the problem will be fixed or will be made public the reasons for the position of the wiki on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddyBenoit (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's because many people don't know that the losing semi-finalists are given bronze medals. It's only the Women's Euros, UEFA under 21 and Euro 2012 competitions that have them as far as I know. TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Every Euro since 1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddyBenoit (talk • contribs) 21:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Does this Afghan National League even exist? I find no sources right now. -Koppapa (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's the exact same thing as the Kabul Premier League but those leagues don't seem to have been contested for a year or so now. Big Dom 13:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Found some info on facebook and youtube: Talk:Kabul_Premier_League#Useful_links. It seems the afghan premier league is only about to start this september. they are actually casting players by a tv show currently. :-) -Koppapa (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe is time for FC Wikipedia to win some titles? :) FkpCascais (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Naming customs tag

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

We need to address this situation for coherence purposes methinks. Several players have the tag reading "this is a Catalan name", others "this is a Spanish name", when ALL should have the latter.

I elaborate: the persons/sportspersons are Spanish right? So, their name should be Spanish, the tag is only there to show that, unlike Portuguese people, the first surname is from the FATHER and the second from the MOTHER.

For instance Raúl Tamudo: apparently, his fullname is RAÚL TAMUDO I MONTERO ("i" being a Catalan link between surnames, opposed to the Castilian "y"). That is not even important in his naming tag – as for instance User:PeeJay2K3 used as his M.O. for claiming Gerard Piqué had a Catalan name – because it would read "first name is Tamudo, second name is Montero".

We need some coherence as i was saying, because what's next? Are we going to say Mario Bermejo has a CANTABRIAN NAME, or Álvaro Domínguez Soto has a MADRILENIAN NAME, or Javi Martínez has a NAVARRESE NAME? Inputs please, thanks folks. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I think if a certain Autonomous Community has specific naming customs, as Catalonia does (detailed here) then those articles should have the appropriate template at the top, such as {{Catalan name}}. As far as I am aware, there is no such {{Cantabrian name}} or {{Navarrese name}} template, but there are similar ones for Basque and Galician names. These templates exist for a reason, let's use them. – Pee Jay 15:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a Spanish name! All names are Spanish. It's a simple matter.- --Marcospace (talk) 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say it's a Spanish name as well. That Catalan name template was probably just created by some jealous Catalan nationalist. The first line in your link even says that Catalan people abide by Spanish naming customs. Big Dom 06:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in general they follow Spanish naming customs, but there are some specific differences (please read beyond the first line in future). Having the specific {{Catalan name}} tag warns people not to change elements of the name because they don't fit with the standard Spanish naming customs. – Pee Jay 11:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

BigDom, that seems a tad offensive to Catalans. Its obvious there are differences between Spanish and Basque/Catalan names. However small or large they may be. And having these templates informs readers and tells editors not to change them to Spanish names. Adam4267 (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree. Vasco, I beleave that you are missing the point here and not seing the difference between the official language and the Autonomous Community. There are 17 Autonomous communities of Spain and some have their own official language, some don´t. Now, what we call Spanish language is in fact Castillian language. It is the most common language troughout Spain, however there are some Autonomous communities which have their own official language´s.

This is easy to understand if you stick to this rule: all of Spain uses Spanish language except, Catalonia and Balearic Islands (which primarely use Catalan language, then Basque Country which uses Basque language, and Galicia, which uses Galician language. These are all official languages.

There are other provinces where there are ambiguos situations, like the Valencian Community where both Spanish and Catalan share equal status and where there is even a Valencian language which is mostly considered a dialect of Catalan; or the Navarre where Spanish and Basque share official status; and Aragon where Spanish and Catalan share official status; however in all of them the primary language is Spanish. Now, that is why we should use Catalan naming convention, but you wan´t see Madrilenian naming convention, because Catalan is an official language, while Madrilenian doesn´t even exist. You mixed official language´s with Autonomous Communities.

In my view, at least Catalan and Basque have reasons to be used for players born in Autonomous Communities where those languages are official. FkpCascais (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the vast majority of these tags are nothing but nationalist labels. They aren't disambiguation hatnotes. In general they should simply be removed from articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, initially it was about Spanish and Portuguese naming customs, and it was kind of usefull help as most people unfamiliarised with those naming costums usually has hard time exactly knowing why people are known in such way and where do all those names and surnames come from. It is particularly important because of the difference between the two, as Portuguese and Spanish use paternal and maternal surnames in an opposite way - Spanish uses first paternal then maternal, while Portuguese vice-versa. Now, the thing is that once we use these ones for Spanish and Portuguese names, people from Catalonia felt that they should addapt one template for Catalan naming customs, as that is a different language than the other two, and is official and primary in Catalonia. Basically, Catalan names should use a Catalan language template, and not any other one. I understand that it may seem like a nationalistic POV pushing, but basically catalan language template has as much right to exist as the other two have, and it should be used in the same way the other two are used. FkpCascais (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

But are there any difference between the Spanish naming customs and the Catalan naming customs? If there isn't I see no point with a separate template. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There are differences. Adam4267 (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Playerhistory

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This is currently in the process of being deleted following a TfD, DUCKISJAMMY has thoughtfully created a list of articles it transcluded on here so that we're not left with any unreferenced BLPs once it's gone. If anyone has time... Giant Snowman 20:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

So there is no hope that the website will be reactivated soon? :( FkpCascais (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No, looks like it's gone for good. Giant Snowman 10:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad news. Thanks for the update GS. FkpCascais (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad news indeed. I discovered the founder's twitter-account @Playerhistory, and on 26 May he wrote "Playerhistory have decided to go back to covering the history of football and will concentrate on the period between 1900-2000", which I do not know what means. I asked him when we could except the site to be back up and I will post here if I get a reply. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it means that they will focus on payed content only (as the pos-2000 was the free content)? On the other side, for me personally that ends up being the less painfull option, as the pre-2000 content is the one for which Playerhistory was so valiable and exclusive for, as the pos-2000 is mostly possible to be found on other websites. Many thanks Mentoz86 for the update. FkpCascais (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"California Clásico" or "California Classic"?

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Is this edit correct? As far as I can see, the league is American and their official language is English, not Spanish. An anglicized version is occasionally used in the English media though. Ideas? Suggestions?

As as side note, the same editor seems to be calling it the biggest rivalry at San Jose Earthquakes, however this is unreferenced, but not completely unreasonable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It depends what the actual usage in sources is. Personally I do not know. But considering there is a "Real" Salt Lake I wouldn't be surprised if there was a California "Clasico". Its not as if Spanish is an uncommon language in California anyway. Adam4267 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The usage in reliable sources seems to be California Clasico without the accent. Hack (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that the subject has been brought up, is this rivalry like the other "Cup Rivalries" in the MLS. The Brimstone Cup, Lamar Hunt Pioneer Cup, Atlantic Cup, Cascadia Cup, etc deliver an actual trophy to the winner of the rivalry at the end of each season. So my question is, does the California Clasico have a trophy to turn in to the better team per season? The article makes no reference to such a trophy won, meaning there isn't really a "winner" after each season. --MicroX (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The article needs a bit of work to show that it meets WP:NRIVALRY. Apart from a sentence in the lead, it doesn't really address the importance of the rivalry. Hack (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There's sufficient third-party coverage of the rivalry, although I don't know if they're all in the article. Can't speak to whether the winners receive a cup or simply bragging rights. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not referenced but California Clasico#Winners suggests there is a cup. BTW as an aside to the original question there is no official language in the US. Hack (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Or it could have been a user that just did a copy-edit of the Atlantic Cup. Other rivalries like the Brimstone Cup don't even include the results prior to the trophy's creation (Dallas and Chicago have played since 1998). --MicroX (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Redundant Olympic templates

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've already mentioned it here a couple months back, but no action was taken. I've noticed that there are 86 templates created solely for one 2012 Olympic football tournament, that cover all team squads (full rosters, not just small footer lists), all individual matches and group tables. I appreciate the effort, but I believe we don't really need any of that: [1] -BlameRuiner (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The team rosters should definitely remain, not sure about the others - can someone with a more technological-mind please explain what they are for and why non-templates wouldn't suffice? Thanks, Giant Snowman 11:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There is an explanation if you enter the template: "The purpose of this template is to collect source text used in several articles in one place, in order to minimize maintenance and storage space. This is the Brazil roster in the men's football tournament of the 2012 Summer Olympics. The template is typically used in two articles: the article covering Brazil at the 2012 Summer Olympics, and the article covering the rosters of all participating teams of the tournament." My experience with such templates (primary league tables) is that while it reduce maintenance as you don't need to update it more than one place, it also reduces the chance of newcomers updating the template. Anyways, I don't think a squad will change much during a tournament, so those templates are redundant aswell as the match-templates. Table-templates might be useful though, as there are some changes through the tournament and it is used in several different articles. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Premier League fixtures

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Seems to come around every season but does anyone know if these are still copyright? Someone has spent an age entering them at 2012-13 West Ham United F.C. season - OK to stay or copyright vio? Cheers.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The list of fixtures page on the Premier League website says "Reproduced under licence from Football DataCo Limited. All rights reserved", so I guess they are copyright. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they're not technically copyrighted any more but you still need a licence from DataCo to be able to show them. Big Dom 09:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not correct. The European High Court has quite specifically ruled that Premier League fixture lists are not copyrightable: that logically implies that no copyright license need be granted, and as such we can include them at our discretion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I know the EHC declared that fixture lists are not copyrightable, but DataCo still sell licences; go on their website if you don't believe me. The quote to be able to show West Ham's fixtures for this season is £266. Big Dom 11:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

They may still sell licences but if they have no copyright over the material then that surely means anyone can show them. Adam4267 (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The lists may not be copyrightable, but if Football DataCo is charging for licences (legally), that puts them on the legal high ground. If Wikipedia wants to remain free, it can't afford to take on organisations like Football DataCo just because we challenge their right to license their fixture lists. Just don't put them up. – Pee Jay 00:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C

Latest comment: 12 years ago46 comments14 people in discussion

There is a serious dispute on Rangers F.C talk page and on a second article Newco Rangers over how the present situation with Rangers football club is handled. The dispute relates to if Rangers Football Club still exists as a club despite the liquidation of the company, or if the football club now ceases to exist entirely and should be described throughout the article in past tense. This issue fundamentally impacts the article and introduction, requiring dispute tags as a number of editors believe the present method is factually inaccurate and misleading. I hope others will be able to give opinions, and hopefully editors currently involved will give more detailed summaries of why the present article wording/method is right or wrong. Thank you BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The legal identity Rangers Football Club (the brand name and name of the club, not to be confused with the registered name of the OldCo "The Rangers Football Club PLC" (1899)) is now owned by Charles Greens consortium (Sevco Scotland Ltd). Inclusive of the consortiums purchase was the rights to the legal identity of Rangers Football Club. From a legal standpoint, they are recognised & trade as Rangers Football Club and maintain the old indentity inclusive of the name, brand, club crest, logo, badge, colours, strip, website and all other intellectual property & copyrights. Quote: "A company can go through the entire process of ceasing business operations, selling its assets and paying off creditors while not formally dissolving. A business may do this if it wants to keep the legal identity of a business for use in another venture. Read more: Differences in a Liquidation and a Dissolution | eHow.com ehow.com/info_8282875_differences-liquidation-dissolution.html#ixzz207pqrjdy"

The precedent has been set by Leeds, Napoli & Fiorentina, all are examples of Newco's that purchased the legal rights to the clubs legal identity & intellectual property from the OldCo. These clubs are presented and structured within the same page on Wikipedia however documents the corporate history, insolvency events & subsequent reformantions of new companies. This should not be confused with the likes of FC Halifax Town or Chester City FC who did not purchase the legal identity or any of the intellectual property from the OldCo's which were dissolved. As a result, such clubs are described as 'phoenix' clubs which had to start again from scratch, and could not legally use the same 'club name', badge, logo or any copyright or legal identity owned by the dissolved company. As a result the new club with the new identity, club name & badge logically takes on a new Wikipedia page. So which structure fits the bill in the Rangers situation as we strive for consistency? The closest precedent is Leeds. They intellectual rights & legal identity of 'Leeds United F.C' was purchased via liquidation of the OldCo (LEEDS UNITED ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (THE)) by a Newco (http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06233875). Leeds & Rangers are not 'phoenix' clubs as the maintain the same legal identity which they purchased in amongst the assets. 'Phoenix' clubs do not purchase assets, or legal identities, and do not use the same name.

It is therefore undisputable, and a matter of fact, that from a legal standpoint Rangers Football Club will maintain it's legal identity. Wikipedia must therefore recognise it as such and document the legal identity 'Rangers F.C' within the same page, in the same vein as Leeds United, Napoli, Fiorentina. Ricky072 (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Where Leeds United liquidated, or was it a parent company? In other words, is the situation the same, or are you trying to compare apples to oranges? Rangers were a company. The assets including the name, were transferred to another company. Just like Triumph Engineering Triumph Motorcycles Ltd.Heywoodg ^talk 13:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that any 2 insolvencies are entirely identical but it certainly isn't comparing apples & oranges. Both clubs underwent the liquidation process. Many contributors here don't seem to understand what liquidation actually means. It means the process of selling an insolvent companies assets to give a return to creditors. Please read the last 4 paragraphs of the following article from the Herald, on what happened to Leeds: http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/quick-redundancies-are-brutal-but-also-fairer.16945235?_=50d0859b0f3b58690bcf42810401da775be22c96 Quote: ""The CVA is the only insolvency mechanism we've got that preserves the legal entity," says Richard Fleming, head of restructuring at KPMG, who was the administrator at Leeds United. "If it fails, the sale to a newco becomes the only viable option." The Administrators of Leeds KPMG sold Leeds to Ken Bates NewCo formed in 2007. Ricky072 (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You will do much better if you stick to the facts rather than look at other clubs as if they are the same. Leeds United were not liquidated as far as I am aware. The club went into administration in 2007, and was then sold to Bates. Not the assets, the club. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/leeds_united/6920103.stm from the time. Rangers went bust and no longer exist (or will soon no longer exist). Heywoodg ^talk 14:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"You will do much better if you stick to the facts rather than look at other clubs as if they are the same." Sorry, that didn't come across how I meant it! I mean, using the facts of the Rangers case rather than relying on the fate of other clubs, is probably better! Heywoodg ^talk 14:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm telling you as a matter of fact with solid proof that Leeds were liquidated. It's astonishing that few contributors are so reluctant to accept this arguement when i've supplied a link to the OldCo Leeds company page here: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00170600 COMPANIES HOUSE STATUS: IN LIQUIDATION. And to quote the Herald article: "The assets were then sold to a newco Leeds United set up by Ken Bates" Ricky072 (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

: Id just like to add a few additional points too, but agree with those made by Ricky.

Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872, yet the previous company was only incorporated in 1899. Nowhere in the article at present does it even mention the date the previous company was incorporated, highlighting the article is about the Football club, not the incorporated Company that existed between 1899 and that went into liquidation in 2012.
Is a club simply the legal entity of an incorporated company or is it the club and its assets, including fans, stadium, some players, the website etc which continue to exist under the new company.
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs which were heavily involved in this situation issued a statement saying ""A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. 'Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation. So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start."[2]

It is clear from the wording from HMRC and other sources available that the football club continues, simply the former company is liquidated. The club and its assets are currently owned by Sevco Scotland Limited operating under the trading name "The Rangers Football Club". If a club can exist before an incorporated company is formed, how does it cease to exist when that company is liquidated with the club and assets being sold to a new company? This along with how other articles are handled as pointed out by Ricky suggests the current method / wording of the article is hugely problematic and an inaccurate emphasis is being placed, mixing up the club with a company. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is already fully protected and the project has been notified of the ongoing dispute multiple times. Rather than repeating one side of the argument over here, it would be best keeping the discussion on the Rangers talk page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is currently locked in a state that is grossly inappropriate and factually incorrect, the same applies to the "newco" page and both should be restructured with immediate effect. Ricky072 (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't have been reworded to use the past tense when the situation hasn't been resolved yet, but we have a process for making corrections to locked pages and this isn't it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

We cannot get agreement to change it back, because some editors claim the club no longer exists and must keep the current wording. Thats why we need additional opinions on the situation, it has radically changed since the last time this was raised on this wikiproject, nor did its previous mention focus on content wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

One golden rule of Wikipedia: when an article is fully protected, it is always the WP:WRONGVERSION. ~~ Bald Zebra ~~ ^talk 14:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. My (biggest) problem with the Rangers articles is that they are currently presenting the issue as if it has been clearly determined that "old" Rangers are no more (a liquidator has not even been formally appointed yet), and that this newco is being definitively described as a new club. Again, this is unclear, although the pronouncements of various authorities (HMRC, SFL, SFA) suggest that the club entity will be continued under a new corporate structure. Either way, the present situation on here does not reflect the reality that Rangers is in limbo, until the authorities agree some policy and new starting position. I think wikipedia is being used by some editors to push the POV that there has been a definite discontinuity in the history of Rangers. That might happen, but it definitely has not yet happened. I also think, judging by the way the authorities are pushing the issue so far, this project will be in the embarrassing position of having to reverse the trend of edits so far towards stating that Rangers has ceased and has been replaced by "Newco". James Morrison (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that there should only be one article. However, when that article was locked and the new one was not deleted. It effectively meant that the new article was always going to end up continuing the same debate and becoming more used. If we are going to have two articles (which at the moment it seems we are) then we might as well make sure that the second article is kept in good order. Adam4267 (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

When the second article was put up for deletion previously some suggested it be renamed and turned into an article about the administration/liquidation. It would make more sense to have that specifically dealing with the these matters and change the pasttense on the main page back to present tense, rather than duplicating much of the content on the main rangers article and having that article talk in past tense which is hugely controversial and inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the definition of a 'club', if not the assets and people, compared to a company? CLUB - a group of persons organised for a social, literary, athletic, political, or other purpose: the building or rooms occupied by such a group. COMPANY - a business enterprise. The two are no defined the same because they aren't. Therefore Rangers FC should be treated the same by Wikipedia as the other clubs e.g. Leeds Utd S2mhunter (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A 'club' is a rather loose term open to interpretation. In it's most basic form a club can be defined as simply a group of 2 or more people with a common goal. I would define a football club as consisting of more than simply a company or shareholding. A club can only exist with a group of fans/supporters, which cannot be owned by a company. A company is nothing more than a legal entity that consists of tangible assets (player contracts, property/land, intellectual property such as the name of the club, the brand & legal identity, the strip, badge/crest etc....). A club is a combination of these tangible assets & the fans or spirit of the club, and with the same common goal (in this case a football team). In the case of Charles Green & Ken Bates, both purchased the tangible assets of the club, maintained the same support & legal identity, which in my view, is enough to satisfy the criteria for continuation of the same club. In the case of Chester for example, the fans groups decided to recreate a phoenix club rather than raise the funds to purchase the tangible assets, including the legaly identity of the old clubs. As a result the old company was dissolved and they could not, from a legal stand point, create a new club under the same name or use the same legal identities such as the badge. Therefore, their 'phoenix club' takes on a new identity. Ricky072 (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Newco is a new club. It is simple. Why is the transfer of league membership needed if it is the same club? This doesn't even entail the "company" aspect that so many Rangers fans are talking about as it is a decision based purely upon the *club*. Rangers still exist. For a few more weeks. They will then be replaced by Newco, which will be known as "The Rangers". It's quite simple, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.96.185 (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Because football association rules make it against their rules to transfer a membership from 1 entity to another to prevent clubs buying/selling memberships (for example when Newcastle were demoted to the championship Mike Ashley could not simply "buy" a share in the premier league from another club). Rangers & Leeds both have the legal right, in the eyes of the law, to be recognised as (and trade as) the same club because they purchased the "business & assets", including the legal identity of the clubs. Ricky072 (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers joined the SFL in 1890, as did the other clubs, without needing a company. However, the SPL of 1998 did. The automatic transfer would not be possible for the reasons given above. Rules evolve. I think however the EFL transferred membership to Leeds Utd without asking the other teams, different association though. S2mhunter (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, you're saying that if I create my own self-employed company, based on my name, and it goes bust, I would lose all of my individual history on Wikipedia and get a new birthday on the date that I create my next self-employed company, because I am the company? S2mhunter (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My tuppence worth: Bristol City (spits on ground) went bankrupt in 1982 and were immediately reformed by a new company (Bristol City 1982 Ltd), but there's never been any suggestion that this constitutes a separate club. ~~ Bald Zebra ~~ ^talk 18:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Good example, i dida little research but it's difficult to find information on an insolvency event dating back 20 years ago. The OldCo was indeed declared bankrupt and dissolved, and Bristol actually word that "a new club" was created on their website, but then contract it by stating "saving the club", suggesting that they interpret that by creating a NewCompany (1982) the club lived on through the NewCo. From forum posts returned in search engine posters have stated that indeed the NewCo purchased the assets such as the stadium in 1982, (although admitedly a forum post shouldnt be given much credence). It does seem as though that Bristol Rovers are yet another example of club continueing when a newco has purchased "the club (the assets & business)" from the old company. Which is significantly different from that of Chester, who created a Phoenix club with a different name & legal identity. Ricky072 (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

just to give both sides a godo read [3] foudn this and it supports the argument the club is dead according to fifa or cant be trasnferred at least read near the bottom, as i say foudn this on process of making request for commentAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That article is an opinion piece and offers no substance to the definition of a "club". You've also misinterpreted the FIFA rule, the rule is designed to prevent 1 company 'purchasing' a league share from another club. For example if when Newcastle were relegated to the Championship they could not approach Wigan and offer to buy their share in the Premier League to ensure that Newcastle stay in the Premiership, not could they "swap clubs" meaning they couldnt just swap everything around, rename Wigan as Newcastel, change stadium etc... so that Newcastle were in the Prem and Wigan in the Championship. Ricky072 (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Newsnet Scotland is a rather biased website with political motives and not to be trusted as a neutral "source" on this. What that site says is as about as neutral as a celtic fans site. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The initial post is correct in both the legal sense, and also the wiki sense. I present the Cleveland Browns, whose franchise up and left and when a new team was created in the original town the owners of the copyright (the league) conferred all those rights to the Newco. The history is fluid, and anyone amending the article to past tense would be dealing with that finite time between the end of the club, and the immediate establishment of the new club. The only consideration at the moment is what league will they play in, given that they are at liberty to make applications to join pretty much any league they want. Also, out of curiosity - are they a "Scottish football team" or a football team that potentially plays in Scotland? Koncorde (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you koncorde, further proof that a Newco can purchase the business & assets, inclusive of the brand name, and continue to be recognised as the same brand. Wikipedia does not document Sports Clubs in the same vein as it documents companies. If it did, the pages woudl not document Rangers Football Club (brand name) it would document "The Rangers Football Club PLC 1899" and then "Sevco Scotland Ltd", and by the same token Leeds United would be documented as firstly the OldCO which registered in 1920 and liquidated in 2006, then the NewCo from 2007 until present. But Wikipedia does not document Clubs as companies, it documens them by the club name (by the brand name, or legal identity).Ricky072 (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So far this appears to be a very one-sided debate - let me try to describe a contrary view.

Rangers FC started life in 1872 as an unincorporated football club. In 1899, the football club itself became a limited company - there were not two entities ('the club' and 'the company') but a single entity - a football club that was itself a limited company. That orginal company - number SC004276 - had become Rangers FC PLC by the time it entered administration in 2012. With things looking increasingly bleak for the club/company, and no buyers willing to step forward to buy the club, Charles Green formed a consortium (the company Sevco 5088) and then offered £8.5M to buy the club if a proposed CVA were agreed by the creditors, and if that were rejected and the club entered liquidation, he offered £5.5M for the 'assets and business interests' of the club. HMRC announced on the 12th June 2012 that it would reject the proposed CVA, and it was indeed formally rejected on 14th June so the club entered the liquidation process. Green's consortium therefore went ahead and bought 'the assets and business interests' of the club. Key point: he had previously offered to buy the club; he now offered to buy the 'assets and business interests' - are those two things the same? I would say they are not the same - if you buy the club, you take on the club's debts unless fixed through a CVA. You would also have bought 'the club' so the club continues with history intact and ongoing. However, if all you do is asset strip - take all the assets from the soon to be liquidated club - you avoid taking all the debt with you, but 'the club' itself has been left behind to be liquidated. Therefore the debt is left behind, but the club dies with the debt.

Green's consortium is trying to promote the idea that by buying the 'assets and business interests' of the club, he has bought the club, not kept its debt but somehow kept its history intact. While some editors believe that by buying the assets, Green has bought the club, others of us see that this route - of a football club being liquidated and its assets sold as a job lot to a new company that then wishes to run a club by the same name - leads to an entity that is not the same club. It may be the club reborn, but it is a new club none-the less. Green's consortium has now applied for membership of the SFA for his club - the does not have to happen when a club is bought over by a new owner, but it has had to happen under this newco route, illustrating that it is not a continuation of the same body under a different owner. Though it is true that Green's consortium bought the name 'Rangers Football Club' as part of the asset purchase from Rangers FC, that means, to me, that Green's club - or newco Rangers as they are being referred to in the media - has a right to call itself Rangers FC in the future, but as a successor club and not the original club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What motive does Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs have in putting out a statement saying that liquidation of the company does not prevent the proposed sale of the club? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, it's rather simple, included in the purchase of "the business & assets" is the Brand. The Brand name, the logo, the legal identity. Check out the above example of Triumph, the motorcycle. The OldCo went into administration and the Brand Name was purchased as an asset by a newco and Triumph continued to trade. Different company, but same brand. Check their website, they also lay claim to "110 years of Triumph" as is their legal right, as they OWN the brand. Indeed you are correct that Charles Greens preffered method would have been to acquire TRFC plc (1899) via a CVA as it would remove such consequences such as European footballing licence, and the membership transfer, TUPE employment transfer etc.... but purchasing the "business and assets" from the company, instead of the company instead, still entitles him to the Brand, legal identity of Rangers F.C. Ricky072 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly to reply to Britishwatcher: you only quote parts of the statement. HMRC also said that "Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox." - notice 'that football will continue at Ibrox' and not that 'Rangers FC will continue'. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I quoted the full HMRC statement initially above. The point is HMRC said both, that liquidation would not prevent the sale of the club, and that the sale of the football assets could be made to the new company. Again, this all implies that Rangers as a club continues to exist despite the former company going into liquidation. What motivation would HMRC have to mislead people by claiming the club sale could still go ahead via liquidation. And what evidence do u have that specifically states or suggests that is not what happened. HMRC said the sale of the club could go ahead, Greens statement talked about getting the club. They seem to supplement not contradict each other? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

With due respect Ricky072, the Brand is not the issue - from a footballing point of view, just because someone else has bought 'the Brand' from a club that is being liquidated so he can run a team of the same brand as that original club, does not make it the same entity. It is clearly related to the previous club; it may be regarded as a relaunched club; but it is not the same original club. That's what this disagreement is about: the newco Rangers is not the same original club whatever they call themselves, whatever colours they play in, wherever they play. The original Rangers FC is coming to an end: a new Rangers FC is seeking to replace it (assuming its gets SFA membership and a league to play in). Wikipedia needs to deal with situations like these by having an article for the original Rangers FC and one for the new Rangers FC. That is what the status quo effectively is just now, and that is how it should remain going forward. Whether or not Rangers fans like it or not should be immaterial. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The brand IS the club, it's the legal identity. In the yes of the law, (regardless of what you think a club consists of or whatever bizarre ideology you have a club becoming married to a corporate identity which can never been undone) Charles Greens NewCo has the legal right to represent itself as the brand Rangers and lay claim to the brands history (in the exact same way in which Motorcycle brand Triumph are claiming "110 years of Triumph"). Many sports clubs have undergone the exact same procedure before. The procedure of liquidation is extremely common practice in the business world and allows many brands to 'live on' under a new corporate identity. You are bring everything back to your own personal point of view in relation to what you believe a football club is, and if we are to buy into you're theory, we should be rewriting & restructuring potentially hundreds of Wikipedia articles on Sports Clubs to have undergone the same procedures. Ricky072 (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a friendly advice to all here, if you are going to contact other editors please do not canvas editor who will only support your side of the argument if you feel the need to post onto other talk page to get there input post in both sides of the argument not just one as this is canvasng which is against wikipedia rules, i have seen a few editors who could be seen to do this i am not goign to report or warn any user only give you al avice so you dnt get into trouble--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrewcrawford. I don't know if you are thinking about me or not but, for the record, I sent the following message to 4 editors who had contributed recently to discussions at either the Rangers FC or Newco Rangers articles but had not also commented here: "I'm not sure if you aware that there is a discussion about the Rangers dispute at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Rangers_F.C to discuss whether there should be a single Rangers FC article instead of the two that presently exist for Rangers 1872-2012 and the Newco Rangers." I assume this is just being helpful to this process rather than 'canvassing' as the statement I made was not encouraging support for either side of the debate and the only editors I missed out (to my knowledge) were those who had already posted here and ips. Of the 4 I contacted, I believe two would support my view from previous posts I have read, and I don't know about the other two. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources that Rangers and Newco Rangers arent the same Club

http://www.plus-sx.com/companies/plusCompanyDetail.html?securityId=10824

http://www.plus-sx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/RangersPublicCensureFeb2012.pdf;jsessionid=9EA142C7247E4F79D12253203EE173C8

http://www.plus-sx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/RangersFCDisciplinaryNoticeFeb2012.pdf;jsessionid=9EA142C7247E4F79D12253203EE173C8

http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495830

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/09%20Articles.pdf

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartThree-UEFAClubLicensing/03%20The%20Club%20as%20Licence%20Applicant%20and%20Licence%20%282%29.pdf

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Incorporation_%28business%29

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

http://i47.tinypic.com/1feomo.jpg

http://i46.tinypic.com/33b35fr.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/ja9swl.jpg

http://i47.tinypic.com/xpbscj.jpg

http://i50.tinypic.com/1enw34.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/2vd6738.jpg

http://i47.tinypic.com/21jt8o8.jpg

http://i49.tinypic.com/2eujzq1.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/2wf0nzt.jpg --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

None of those tinypics appears to work and many of the other links do not deny that the new company now owns the club and its assets. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! My view is that there should currently be two articles - one for the soon-to-be-liquidated Rangers and another for "Newco Rangers". However, if it later transpires that secondary sources treat the two clubs as one (e.g. football record books listing Newco Rangers as "Rangers" and stating their foundation date as 1872 and listing all the honours), then and only then do I consider that the two articles should be merged. Mooretwin (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Many sources are already treating the new ccmpany as owning the club which the article is about, HMRC stated that liquidation would not prevent the sale of the club, the club and its assets have been bought by the new company so it is the same one that was funded in 1872, decades before the previous company that is now in liquidation was formed. So there is justification for a single article now, but more importantly the article should not have been changed without consensus to controversially put everything in past tense. The case will be even stronger as time goes on when rangers would still be viewed as rangers by more secondary sources. But that makes it even more problematic for the article to have been changed to the past tense, predicting the club has ceased to exist despite it not being the case and would need to be changed in the future. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

ok here is a source that support the club is alive [4] "The old Rangers is currently in administration and will be liquidated shortly. Charles Green transferred the assets to his newco Gers after buying the club for £5.5million.
Di Stefano wrote: “I’m aware the assets of the company were sold to Charles Green, but I have spoken with the registrar at Companies House that confirms The Rangers Football Club Plc is a company still ‘only in administration’ and is capable of acquisition, transfer and/or assignment." says charles green bought the club and only the plc is in administration--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

They are still alive Andrew. Thats why we know they're two different Clubs. Technically Rangers(1872) can still be saved, if someone goes to Duff and Phelps and Craig Whyte with £50million and attempts another CVA it will almost certainly be accepted and that person would then own Rangers, however they dont have a Stadium or anything now but I guess could apply to Ground share Hampden or even Celtic Park and since they've lost their license would need to re-apply to join the SFL but since they are already an existing Club and have filed accounts before, they'd still be accepted over the New Rangers and would be able to compete in European Competition from whenever they first qualified, like if they won the Scottish Cup this year they could play in Europe next season. However time is running out, if they are to be saved then someone only has probably mere weeks to do so.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, they would not own Rangers, they would own the majority shareholding (85%ish from Craig Whyte) of an empty shell of company called 'TRFC plc'. That company no longer holds the rights to the name 'Rangers' or even use the club badge, that is now property of Sevco. Ricky072 (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The 'empty shell' is still a member of the SFA. Since only clubs can be members of the SFA - and the SFA have not moved to expel it - this empty shell must still be recognised as a club by the SFA. If the club is still held by the administrator, what Green's consortium has bought is not 'the club' - just a load of 'assets and business interests' - and the club/emply shell is still heading for liquidation. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul McKinnon‎

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At this page we have a editor adding an unreferenced year-of-birth to the article, citing the equally unreferenced German-language article. Can anyone locate a source please? Giant Snowman 08:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)