Talk:Rangers F.C.
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rangers F.C. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Rangers. Please refer to this FAQ and the archives before repeating them.
Weren't Rangers liquidated on 14 June when the CVA was rejected? (No.)
No. What happened on 14 June was that the proposal for Rangers to exit administration via a CVA was rejected by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), the largest creditor. This meant that the CVA proposal failed and the company would have to be liquidated. A liquidator was appointed on 31 October 2012.[1] The company is in liquidation but it will take some time before the company is dissolved.[2] In June 2015, The Herald reported that the liquidator would propose an interim payment from the old company to its creditors.[3] A final payment depended on the outcome of the "big tax case", which will determine how much is due to HMRC.[3] That case was resolved in favour of HMRC in 2017,[4] and in December 2022 the liquidator and HMRC agreed on a final liability of £56 million.[5] Is it not fact that Rangers Football Club that was founded in 1872/1873 no longer exist, and the club in division 3 this season 2012/2013 is a new football club? (Depends who you ask.)
No. Various news sources initially reported it as being a new club, but this question was subsequently addressed by the governing league body, the Scottish Professional Football League, who stated clearly that it is the same club.[6] Is it true that Rangers could not play in Europe for 3 years (after 2012) because they are a new club, even if they had won the Scottish Cup? (Yes, but not for that reason.)
Yes. because UEFA rules state that a club must have 3 years of audited accounts.[7] Rangers did not have this accounts history because of the liquidation of the old company and creation of a new company. Even if the old company had not been liquidated, they would have still been banned from European football in the 2012–13 season because audited accounts for 2011 were not submitted by the deadline of 31 March 2012.[8][9] Were Rangers relegated to the Third Division? (No.)
Although some sources use the term "relegated" to describe Rangers playing in the 2012–13 Scottish Third Division,[10] this is inaccurate. Rangers FC was a member of the Scottish Premier League and had a membership share in that organisation. The rules of the Scottish Premier League stated that any share transfer (except for the normal process of promotion and relegation with the First Division) had to be approved by a two thirds majority of the member clubs. The new company acquired the membership share from the administrators of the old company, but the proposed transfer was rejected by a 10-1 majority of the 12 clubs.[11] Rangers then applied to join the Scottish Football League and were admitted to the Third Division[12] as an associate member of the league.[13] Is Wikipedia allowing Rangers fans to lie that their club still exists, when it is dead? (No, it is following Wikipedia policy.)
Wikipedia is founded on the key policies of Consensus, reliable sources, neutral point of view, no censoring and no original research. Editors have come to a consensus regarding these key policies. Surely no-one can buy Rangers' history or goodwill? (Not for us to decide.)
It is not for Wikipedia to decide if you can or can not "buy" history and goodwill. However there are many examples of companies buying other companies and taking on their history. Wikipedia relies on sources and if the source say Rangers' new company bought Rangers' history, then that is what Wikipedia will say. Is Wikipedia reporting lies about Rangers F.C. because fans do not want to accept their club has folded? (No.)
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and Rangers FC is therefore treated as the same club because this is what reliable sources say. Which is the ultimate truth is not something Wikipedia can dictate.
|
 | Rangers F.C. was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Club heritage and age
editI'd like to bring a question related to the accuracy of this article. Rangers football club was originally founded approx 150 years ago. However, that club went into administration and was closed. The current club was founded in 2012 following the failed administration.
With that in mind stating, without qualification, that the club is 152 years old is inaccurate. It's also inaccurate to say it's the fourth oldest club in Scotland as the original club no longer exists.
Following administration this club was founded with a different name.
I recommend minor changes to the article to reflect this in points about the age e.g. RFC is 152 years old (original club 1872 - 2012; RFC 2012 - present)
Recommend qualifying the points about the club's relative age too: Fourth oldest club in Scotland (combined age of pre-administration and post-adminstration clubs)
As it stands the article is misleading and inaccurate.
As a neutral I would like to be able to understand the facts about the club at a glance. Misterfitzy (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Misterfitzy This has all been discussed at great length before on this talk page. Reliable sources, and official bodies, treat the club as a continuation, with a change of owning company. Therefore, so does this article. Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Welcome back, after 14 years. Seasider53 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Founded year 2012?
editThe Wikipedia article for Airdrieonians FC states they were founded in 2002. This is because Airdrieonians FC went out of business in 2002 and a phoenix club was formed.
http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Airdrieonians_F.C.
Should the article for Rangers FC not say "Founded: 2012" in the same way as the same thing occured to Rangers in 2012?
The Airdrieonians FC article already set the precedent on how the "Founded" date would be set on Wikipedia.
Airdrieonians FC's own website states they were founded in 1878 but Wikipedia has accepted the 2002 date for their article as the foundation date.
Therefore, the same rule should apply to the Rangers FC article.
https://www.airdriefc.com/club-history#:~:text=Airdrieonians%20FC%2C%20long%20known%20to,by%20the%20local%20cricket%20club. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:B937:BB51:29B0:8357 (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- What happened in the circumstances of Airdrieonians, and the Airdrieonians_F.C. article is not necessarily applicable to Rangers and the Rangers article. I can see differences between the two, the original name of the Airdrie club being just a start. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- It was very much the same thing. Company got liquidated and the current club claims formation date of the old club. This is blatant bias to appease a bigger support base. By this logic, you could say Rangers 2012 were originally Sevco Scotland. The 2 Rangers clubs coexisted at one point. The old club even voted in favour of letting the new club into the top division. The new club formed before the ild club even played their final match. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:7D3F:15D3:DE39:FAAB (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- The Man Utd article clarifies a name change doesn't mean a clubs history is broken. So that isn't a relevant issue for Man United and therefore isn't for Airdrieonians (Airdrie United). So what makes Airdrieonians formation date 2002 is clearly their liquidation. Therefore, the same rule should apply to the Rangers article.
- http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Manchester_United_F.C. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:7D3F:15D3:DE39:FAAB (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Gretna
- http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Gretna_F.C._2008
- Clydebank (5th version)
- http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Clydebank_F.C.
- Both again given founding dates to reflect their phoenix clubs. Consistency on this should have Rangers at very least showing with 2 founding dates of 1872 then reformed 2012. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:7D3F:15D3:DE39:FAAB (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- You cannot insist on consistency across entirely different circumstances. Airdrie United, a newly formed club, bought an entirely different club (Clydebank), then relocated it, then years later "inherited" the Airdrieonians' name. How this is reflected in the "Airdrieonians F.C." article is a matter for that article's talk page.
- You are bringing nothing new to this article. All this has been discussed exhaustively before. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 08:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Rangers 1872 voted on allowing Rangers 2012 (a newly formed club) into the top flight. They can't be the sane club if they coexisted. You are clearly just appeasing the biggest fan base by allowing this lie to be part of the Rangers article. The current club were formed in 2012. They had to apply for a place in the Scottish football pyramid. They wouldn't have to do that if they were already part of it. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:7D3F:15D3:DE39:FAAB (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- The article reflects what is said in reliable sources. What the Airdrie article says about its history is irrelevant. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, the article says what some want ot to say to appease a larger fan base. The proof of this is what similar articles on other clubs say. If Airdrieonians and Gretna were founded this century because companies were liquidated, then so were Rangers. It's very simple and the inconsistency is blatant. It needs changed to be consistent, otherwise, why have a system of recording factual information at all if we are just going to allow the system to be altered depending on how popular the team in the article are? 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:BC15:5E83:CC:B3F9 (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- @2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:BC15:5E83:CC:B3F9 Again, if you have a problem with how things are in other articles, go address them there. There might now be an argument for merging the Airdrie articles. This article, very properly, only reflects what reliable sources and footballing authorities say. If you don't like what they say, go take it up with them. Complaining about things here isn't going to change anything elsewhere. Escape Orbit (Talk) 06:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, the article says what some want ot to say to appease a larger fan base. The proof of this is what similar articles on other clubs say. If Airdrieonians and Gretna were founded this century because companies were liquidated, then so were Rangers. It's very simple and the inconsistency is blatant. It needs changed to be consistent, otherwise, why have a system of recording factual information at all if we are just going to allow the system to be altered depending on how popular the team in the article are? 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:BC15:5E83:CC:B3F9 (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- The article reflects what is said in reliable sources. What the Airdrie article says about its history is irrelevant. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Rangers 1872 voted on allowing Rangers 2012 (a newly formed club) into the top flight. They can't be the sane club if they coexisted. You are clearly just appeasing the biggest fan base by allowing this lie to be part of the Rangers article. The current club were formed in 2012. They had to apply for a place in the Scottish football pyramid. They wouldn't have to do that if they were already part of it. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:7D3F:15D3:DE39:FAAB (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- It was very much the same thing. Company got liquidated and the current club claims formation date of the old club. This is blatant bias to appease a bigger support base. By this logic, you could say Rangers 2012 were originally Sevco Scotland. The 2 Rangers clubs coexisted at one point. The old club even voted in favour of letting the new club into the top division. The new club formed before the ild club even played their final match. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:7D3F:15D3:DE39:FAAB (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
This issue has been covered extensively in the talk pages over the past 12 years. If you read the complete talk page archive you will find consensus was reached on this matter. Attempts to change the article to reflect personal opinion is fruitless. CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- The consensus obviously doesn't seek consistency in comparison to other articles and is agreement to appease a bigger fan base. 80.195.219.40 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Flags on non-players
editThe flags on the tables of non-players is unwarranted icon decoration, drawing prominence to the nationality of these people when it has no relevance to their role on the article subject. It also does not conform to MOS:FLAG in that these people are not representing their country, and the country is represented by the flag alone.
Some of the people may have had prior careers as footballers, but this is not relevant to the job they are now doing. What relevance is there to the nationality of Chairman John Bennett? Is he likely to chair for Scotland any time soon? What is the reader to conclude from the fact that it is important that they know Chief commercial officer Karim Virani is English? (And apart from anything else, this is totally unsourced information).
It is ridiculous that the first, and only, thing we are told (unsourced and unverifiable) about the club doctor is that he is Scottish. It's not relevant to his job with the club, not relevant to his career and no indication of his qualifications or skills. If he was listed as employed in any other organisation on Wikipedia the flag would not be there, so what makes a football club different? (Indeed, by suggesting that it is significant, that his nationality is important in some way, it suggests that Rangers Football Club is employing a recruitment policy that is discriminatory.)
MOS:SPORTFLAG guidance does not apply. These are not sports persons, and the article is not about them. The error being made on other club's articles is not a justification for it being here.
I therefore suggest they should be removed. Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. We also don't need to know who the club's masseurs are. Seasider53 (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
It just seems a bit, I don't know, earnest, to me. Is it really a topic worth getting worked up over, either way? For me the flags provide a bit of colour (no pun intended), an insight into the spread of nationalities employed at the club. It would be preferable if there was a uniform policy across all club pages to be followed but that's a forlorn hope. Anyway I vote for the status quo but if consensus proves to be against then so be it. CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- One person's "bit of colour" is another's distraction. It also can present problems for screen-readers and the visually impaired. Any uniform policy across all club pages is unlikely to trump Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Flag waving gives prominence to nationality when often it is not a significant attribute, or of no more significance than any other personal attribute that could, but doesn't, have an icon to decorate it. (🩺, ♂️, 👴🏻, 💍) --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
If no-one has an argument for keeping the flags, I'll proceed with removing them, on the bases they are unsourced and icon decoration giving undue prominence to an irrelevant attribute.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done. I've left the flags on a few where it could conceivably be argued as being relevant and notable. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't even have those. It will be a gateway to someone filling in the rest with the pretty flags later. Seasider53 (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2024
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Date founded 2012 BigboyBillyBear (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotAGenious (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
