The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Whether the article should be merged or split out is not a matter for AfD. Black Kite (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newco Rangers

[edit]
Newco Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the discussion at WP: AN. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the momnent there is no censensus how to deal with this and i am in process of taking this to request for comment see here, it has been in disptue fora while again one side of the argument are pushign there agenda but nither side is right or wrong, i think this afd is pointless it wont solve the underlying issue no consensus--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list of links at the bottom of this page. Number 24 is listed under the links which purport to say that Rangers weren't liquidated, but it's actually a link to a story about someone buying the assets of them when they are being liquidated. Is it in the wrong bit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.7 (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally "Strongly Oppose deletion", but for the sake of readability I've changed it to what is obviously the same thing but worded in a way that AFD regulars will not be confused. Fishiehelper, votes are just almost always "keep" or "delete", so "strongly oppose deletion" can easily be misread (especially quickly) as "strong delete". Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Rangers F.C.. Recent consensus seems quite clear on the talk page there. The demoted team seams to have the same staff and players ... contracts seem to have carried over. Where this end's up isn't clear, but there aren't two teams - at this time at least. Not sure why this would be dealt with any differently than many other recent examples. The name of the page is quite bizarre - and clearly violates WP:COMMONNAME. Nfitz (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With very few reliable sources, most of which say that the development of the future team is questionable as well, I believe this article is due to be deleted. It is an obvious case of WP: CRYSTAL. The unfortunate matter that you are concerned with is that football fans can be fanatic, and I know this. But, as soon as this "Newcastle Rangers" is in fact a real team the article will be up and ready to go. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

huh where did newcastle rangers come from?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry. Spell check mistake on my part. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with this statement wholeheartedly. The article is based on wikipedia editors opinions and interpretation of the facts. Koncorde (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The act of transferring a membership from one club to another would surely indicate that Rangers FC (IA) and Sevco Scotland Ltd. are in fact two separate clubs. Why would a club transfer its membership to itself? WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sevco Scotland Ltd. did not purchase Rangers FC (IA), it purchased some of the assets of Rangers FC (IA) from the administrators of the club, prior to the club entering into liquidation. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could elaborate on just who you are accusing of being a WP:SPA? I think pointers to this dicussion have been posted to all the active ongoing discussions. I've nailed all I'm aware of ... but if some have been missed, perhaps you could contribute by adding? I'm not aware of this other AFD you are referring to. Nfitz (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm being accused of being a WP:SPA, then I'm sorry to disappoint, I've never posted on a Rangers forum, and I have edited a few pages on wikipedia over the years. Not many, but then I do have an incredibly busy academic career to get on with. I'm merely interested in accuracy. Digitalantichrist (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any active AfD. I don't see any point delaying a process that is in place, for a future process that may, or may not occur. If he wanted to do an RFC he should have done one. And if that is your position, surely your vote should be "No Consensus" or something rather than "Keep". Nfitz (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait ... this old AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rangers Football Club Ltd. That article was then moved to this one. That article appears to have been about a company, not a team ... and not a team with all of the Rangers F.C. players ... not really comparable. If you look at what is was then, it was a very different beast. Nfitz (talk)
It's entirely relevant, as at the moment, the page is about a Football club named Newco Rangers. If the page was about a company that owned the club, that would be different. But the page starts off "Newco Rangers is the common name being used to describe the new football club formed to replace Rangers F.C.". It's written in the style of a football club page, not a business page. Look at the page categories. You can't claim that this page should be deleted because the company exists, when the page, in it's current form or name, isn't about the company. Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. If there should be an article about Sevco on its own is open to debate, as their only notability is as the new owner of Rangers. I would argue it should be merged within the relevant history of Rangers football club as per other takeovers of other teams. I'm also a West Ham fan, if that somehow mysteriously makes my viewpoint any more valid because I'm not "Rangers" presumably. Koncorde (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Sorry guys as I'm new to all this stuff, however I believe this page would be about the story of the new company i.e. "Servco 5088 Ltd" (might even be "RFC 2012 Ltd" by now), that is operating RFC. The RFC should be returned to present tense however to facilitate neutral browsers of active football teams. Cheers S2mhunter (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The company 'behind' Rangers FC (IA) was called Wavetower. Rangers FC (IA) is the club which is being liquidated, which is why it is no longer an active football club. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet the SFL statement clearly says Rangers F.C will play in the Third Division. Its the same club, different company. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not at all clear that they are the same football club. They are both in existence right now. Rangers FC, in its roll as a football club, was able to vote for Newco Rangers, as a separate football club, to become a member of the SPL. This is only possible as they are separate clubs.--Dingowasher (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not entirely true. Charles green purchased the club but cannot purchase a licence belonging to a different company not club. He had to apply to have that licence transferred into his company that now own Rangers. The old company can vote because its there licence. As was in their rights the SPL refused to transfer it. Newco Rangers is not a football club, it cannot register players or play matches as the licence does not belong to them. So trying to make out they are is totally incorrect and full of pov. The only way to handle is one article that fully explains and does not leave us open to wide accusations of bias. Two articles both say different things and neither are accurate. we are not a forum for views or pov we are Wikipedia and Encyclopedia.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Green purchased the assets of the now defunct club, not the club itself. If he wanted to purchase the club, he would have had to have gotten control of the shares from Craig Whyte. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the discussion is that Rangers FC were allowed a vote regarding another organisation (Sevco Scotland), regarding what league said organisation will be playing in next season. How can anyone think that it is not a new club when there are facts as clear as this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andevaesen (talk • contribs) 06:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awful comparison. The US franchise system works differently and you know that. The Winnipeg Jets are the former Atlanta Thrashers franchise relocated. Specifically as part of the transfer process the historic elements of a club transferred to the Phoenix Coyotes, while the new Winnipeg retain the history of Atlanta. This is MK Dons territory, not anything to do with Rangers. Koncorde (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that while they may share a name, they're clearly two separate entities. That holds true for Rangers as well. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 01:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But in Rangers case they are not two separate entities distanced by 15 years and two defunct franchise names. They are a club that has been bought out wholesale and re-admitted to the football league albeit in a different division. Koncorde (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not simply that the team was bought out and re-admitted to a different division. The old Rangers are no more. They are two separate organizations. Merely having the same name and owning the old club's assets does not make them the same club. The old Rangers are no more. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 03:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of editors suggesting it being kept are not bias at all? And how what evidence do you have towards your allegation? Koncorde (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's Important to Recognise the Difference Between a 'Newco' & a 'Phoenix Club' - i notice some users who are argueing 'keep' citing phoenix sports clubs as precedent. It's important to recognise the difference between a phoenix club & a newco. What is a 'phoenix club'? A phoenix club is when the original club is wound up, and supporters groups create an entirely new club from scratch, without purchasing any assets from the old club/company. In football, this requires the new club to have a different name, and a different badge (as they dont own any intellectual property from the old club). Examples: Chester City was wound up, fans created Chester FC. Halifax Town AFC were wound up, fans created FC Halifax Town. So when have clubs gone down the NewCo route yet retained continuity? Luton Town, Leeds United, Rotherham United F.C, AFC Bournemouth, Charlton Athletic FC, Middlesborough F.C. These are all examples of football clubs who have had companies liquidate or dissolve (which anyone is free to check by searching for them on companies house), and the business purchased by a NewCo. This purchase is inclusive of history & other intellectual property such as the clubs name, badge & crests. Examples outside the UK include S.S.C. Napoli & ACF Fiorentina. The most important aspect here is consistency within Wikipedia. Looking at the precedents here, are Rangers F.C a 'phoenix club' such as Halifax or a 'Newco' such as Leeds? From the facts, we can see that the Old company is being placed into liquidation, with the new company purchasing the business, inclusive of the name, history & crests/badge. The precedent to follow then, is that of Leeds & the other NewCo's cited above Ricky072 (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chester was an entirely different situation. As Ricky has explained the difference between a Phoenix Club and otherwise. Chester FC in their own history (on their own website) even differentiate between the two clubs. [1] Koncorde (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes like i explained above, there are clear difference between Chesters phoenix club, and say, Leeds, who were continued with a newco asset purchase. Wikipedia creates new articles for phoenix clubs, but clubs purchased via the newco route live on under the operation of the newcompany, and is documented y Wikipedia in a single page. Ricky072 (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not document football clubs as companies. If it did, you would be correct, like the motorcycle brand Triumph, its documented in Wikipedia as 2 different companies. Wikipedia documents football clubs as clubs, not companies. Therfore Leeds United, Luton town, charlton (to name a few) woudl all have multiple Wikipedia entries. Ricky072 (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And please explain why Rangers F.C. does not mention once when the initial company was incorporated. It only mentions the founding of the club, that is because it is an article about a club, not a company. And that club continues to exist today, under the ownership of a new company. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would make much more sens to follow the precedent of Airdrieonians F.C. and Airdrie United F.C.. Those two are not the same club, and neither are Rangers FC (IA) and Sevco Scotland Ltd. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ranges Newco and Rangers are not the same club, the Rangers that were founded in 1872 are DEAD. They don't exist any more. Unreal7 (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rangers FC (IA) are being liquidated, and are no longer an active football club. Sevco Scotland Ltd. are a new football club. There is no dubiety here, those are the simple facts of the matter. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it's up to the SFA. If they accept them as a new club, then they are a new club. If they accept them as the old club demoted to Division Three, then it's a new club. Undoubtedly, Newco Rangers have purhcased many of the assets of the old club. My mark would be whether a continuous registration is maintained, or whether a new registration is required. Pretty Green (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(If I've understood your point correctly, I think you've made a mistake in your third sentence).

I agree that how the SFA handles this would be an implicit indication of whether it's one or two clubs. I also agree that the SFA are the lead that the media etc would probably follow. But up until now most of the discussions have been about the transfer of registration, and most of the media reports I've seen have talked about Rangers' demotion to division three. As of yet, there isn't a concrete basis for calling the team Ally McCoist now manages a new club, other than that it is a new business.

Also a factor in my gut instinct to delete is that deleting for now and restoring if appropriate, combined with the full protection of Rangers F.C., would help cool this issue down a bit while we work out what's going on. I think that would be good for Wikipedia as a whole. —WFC— 23:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore if nessecary I agree with WFC's comment. This seems to be the best course of action for this hotly contested topic. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

since this debate is still going on and people can not wait for the request for comment i am finalising just now i thought i would post the source si been collecting for both sides of the argument, have a look through it shows why there a problem wikipeida bases things on 3rd party reliable sources and the sources are contradicting each other, it should be 1 article until it is known but both sides are correct. review them at your own pleasure i have quote the bits from the article that are signification.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Why wouldn't the liquidation of Rangers FC (IA) not be dealt with on the page of the now defunct club? WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors are have proposed a merge and/pr redirect, so the article can be "handled". Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then, you should probably request to close this AfD. This discussion is located under the "Articles for deletion" space, so it is supposed to be a debate over the deletion of the article itself, not a merely editorial choice to merge it / redirect to another page (a issue that would better be addressed in the article's own talkpage). --Angelo (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But, there is still enough consensus within the editors that the article should be deleted. I am still being wary. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've counted 14 comments in favour of keeping it, and 7 to 10 in favour of merging and/or redirecting it, whereas only 7 to 9 for a plain deletion. With the number and the heated debate all around, and considering I am an admin myself, I honestly doubt a deletion would ever pass. I'd personally focus to solve this problem from a editorial point of view instead (cleaning up and/or merging the article content) rather than keeping the Pandora's box open. The issue is quite sensitive, and that's definitely clear, and proposing the whole article for deletion is not really a solution as far as I can see. --Angelo (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers mean something, but not as much as strength of argument. In the interests of helping to clear up the situation on both fronts, I challenge you (or anyone else) to find a single merge or redirect rationale which is suggesting that we should have separate articles for an old and new Rangers. If you decline to do so, I can only assume that you are conceding that a merge or redirect rationale is an argument for a single article on Rangers. —WFC— 17:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; the current way with speaking of Rangers on the main article in the past tense and having a seperate article for the club as it currently stands is just madness. Clearly they're talking about the same thing, the current mess surrounding the club is irrelevant to making two seperate topics (though a seperate article about Rangers' current misfortunes could be a good idea). As a neutral I have to suspect this is all the work of a bit of schadenfreude on the part of those Scottish football fans who don't much care for Rangers.--219.160.148.118 (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at their website, it also states that the club is the company which is being liquidated. http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495830 for example. "as Rangers formally became a business company". It seems quite clear to me that it states that Rangers FC (IA) is the plc, that which is now being liquidated. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know i listened to that at least three times. Main point is he says its the same club.Edinburgh Wanderer (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I completely agree with you. Digitalantichrist (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

something different from wikipedia. Sthenel (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Scottish Premier League clubs meet on Monday to discuss reaction to the decision to place the Rangers newco in the Third Division after warnings that up to five of them could follow the Ibrox club into administration.". [4]. One of numerous sources that makes it clear that 'Rangers newco' refers to the club not the company. TerriersFan (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sanctions apply to the SFA membership, and by extension, to whichever club holds it at that time. It has absolutely nothing to do with the SFA viewing Rangers FC (IA) and Sevco Scotland Ltd. as the same club. I could set up a club today and apply for the membership. My new club would be subject to whatever sanctions were applied to the club which previously held that membership, it does not mean, or even imply, that my new club would be the club which previously held the membership. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but new clubs do not take on sanctions relating to crimes of another totally different club, no such a thing is heard of. Sparhelda 15:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The sanction would apply to whichever new club wanted to take on the membership of the old one. The sanctions apply to the membership, not the club. If the membership was subsequently transferred to another club, that club would have to accept the sanctions of the membership. It means nothing in terms of being a new club or not. Any club can apply for this membership, and they would have to operate under the conditions attached to it. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The transfer ban was given to Rangers Football Club, not Rangers' SFA membership. The EBT investigation is about Rangers Football Club's activities, not Rangers' SFA membership's activities. Again I ask, where the precedent for a totally new club taking on punishments of a totally different one? Sparhelda 16:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The transfer ban was issued to Rangers FC (IA), and any club which wishes to take on its membership will have to take on any sanctions which were applied to the previous holder of that membership. As I've said, if any new club wishes to apply for the transference of that particular membership, then they will have to accept whatever sanctions were recorded against the club which previously held that membership. As far as I am aware, no club has ever previously asked to be transferred a membership which has any sanctions attached to it from the previous owner, so there could be no precedent. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources vary on the issue, other liquidation and newco senarios have clubs remaining as the same in one article, it's a very valid discussion. Sparhelda 15:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, the most recent precedent for this in Scottish football would be Gretna F.C.. Again, I'm not seeing what exactly any confusion is caused by. Rangers FC (IA) was the club which is being liquidated. If someone wants to buy their assets and do something else with them, then fine, but buying assets does not make you the previous owner of those assets. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing Gretna never went through any sale, the fans just created a new team and did not enter the SFL. HMRC, Duff and Phelps treated it as the club being sold, and similar things have gone on with clubs such as Leeds United F.C, Middlesbrough F.C., Bristol City F.C., ACF Fiorentina. Point is liquidation does not automatically mean the club is gone, as other clubs have failed to exit financial problems through a CVA, so it is NOT a clear cut issue. Sparhelda 16:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not getting the relevance of gaining entry into the SFL? Would you be so kind as to elucidate? The systems of foreign authorities have no bearing on the system used in Scotland. I'm dealing with precedent in the Scottish setup. You are correct, Gretna were liquidated, in much the same way as Rangers FC (IA) are being currently. What happens to their assets is irrelevant. The assets of the now defunct Airdrieonians were bought by Mr Ballantyne to set up his new club, Airdrie FC, a situation which almost perfectly mirrors that of Rangers FC (IA) and Sevco Scotland Ltd. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point I was making is Gretna 2008 was an amateur team formed by the fans. They didn't purchase any assets, apply to take Gretna's SFA membership or the SFL spot, have any of their players and coaching staff remain etc. Worth noting Airdrie never got to take Old Airdrie's membership even though they tried, they took over Clydebank eventually. Fiorentina you could argue isn't relevant, but other UK clubs hardly count as 'foreign', we aren't independant yet! Sparhelda 16:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Buying assets, the level the club played at, SFA membership, leagues applied to are all irrelevant to the fact of Sevco Scotland Ltd. having absolutely no relation to Rangers FC (IA) as a club. Purchasing assets does not make you the previous owner of the assets. Applying for a league does not make you another club. Applying for an SFA membership does not make the applicant the previous owner of the membership. 'Foreign', in this instance, would refer to any clubs outwith the jurisdiction of the SFA. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wee Jimmy, i've given a clear explanation above detailing the difference between a 'Newco' asset purchase such as Leeds or Luton Town, and a 'phoneix club' such as Gretna or Halifax. Hopefuly this is a clear explanation why precedent for Rangers would be, say Leeds, rather than Gretna. Ricky072 (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, although I may be wrong, Leeds have never played in Scotland. I'm using examples from the Scottish game, such as Gretna, Airdrie etc. as those would provide the precedent. What happens in other leagues under the jurisdiction of foreign national associations would be a matter for them. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the closest situations to what actually happened in this case is slightly more important than which governing authority of the thing happened in? The example of Gretna is nothing like what happened in this case. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. The most important thing is to look at previous cases, under the auspices of the same governing body as Rangers FC (IA) were, to see how it should be dealt with. The example of Gretna is quite similar. Gretna FC went bust, like Rangers FC (IA) are, someone set up a new club with a slightly similar name, as Charles Green claims he intends to do with Sevco Scotland Ltd. It's really quite similar. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fully accept that there are difference between English cases & Scottish ones. This debate hs 2 sides to it, the legal implications of a new company, and secondly, how the footballing authorities deal with it. From a legal perspective it's almost identical to what happened at Leeds, so therefore there is no reason to discard that as precedent. The Scottish Footballing Authorities are another matter however. Leeds were granted permission to transfer their share in the FA & EFL (at the cost of 15 point deduction), while the SPL put it to a vote & the SFA yet to make a decision. So i fully accept there are difference in regards to how footballing authorites deal with the process of liquidation/newco. Gretna should never be a precedent however, they did not undergo the lqiuidation/newco process, making the situation fundamentally different, they are a new club with a new 'club name' and new badge, there is no legal link between the Old club & the new one. It's like compairing Halifax to Leeds. Surely anyone can see the difference between a NewCo purchasing all of the assets which make up a club (including the name, badge, goodwill & other intellectual property) and transfering them to a new legal entity, compared with starting again entirely from scratch with a enw club name & badge.Ricky072 (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From a legal perspective in Scotland, which does still have its own legal system completely independent of that of England and Wales, what happened at Leeds is of much less importance than whhat happened at say, Gretna, or Airdie, or indeed Third Lanark. Purchasing assets makes absolutely no difference in terms of whether the purchaser is a new club or not. Were, for example, Tesco to have purchased Ibrox, I doubt anyone would be claiming that Tesco were in fact Rangers FC (IA). WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case perhaps you can tell us the legal differences between the liquidation process in England and Scotland, and why it makes Rangers a different scenario than Leeds. What the Newco purchased was in fact "the business, history & assets" from the old company. Infact hey purchased everything that makes up a football club. That includes intellectual property such as the club name, (allowing thm to continue to be called & recognised as 'Rangers F.C'. It also included the badges, crests and all other intellectual property of the brand. This process is nothing new in football, clubs dont even need to be insolvent to move all the asstes out of 1 company and into another, this would merely be a straight forward corporate restructure. In the case of Gretna, the asstes & business that made up the club was not sold, and therefore dissolved with the old company. Hence why the new club name is "Gretna FC 2008" and they redesigend the badge. Ricky072 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the absolutely nonsensical idea that history is an asset which can be traded, as I have stated, buying assets is meaningless. Someone bought the old Woolworths domain name, they are not Woolworths, someone bought some of the old Woolworths shops and set up pound shops in them, they are not Woolworths, buying assets does not make you the previous owner of the assets. You are correct, anyone could buy assets from Rangers FC (IA). Some clubs bought players, it does not make the buying club Rangers FC (IA). Some people bought pies from Rangers FC (IA), it does not mean that the individual purchaser of the pie is Rangers FC (IA), in actual fact, buying any asset of the club, does not make you the club. This is rather simple. The club was the company which is being liquidated, and nothing else changes that. The only way for Rangers FC (IA) to have transferred to a new owner would have been for the purchaser to complete the purchase of the club from Craig Whyte, by virtue of buying his shares. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Craig Whyte's shares were bought by Charles Green, albeit for the token sum of £2. "Green has purchased Craig Whyte's 85% shareholding in Rangers, joking that he paid £2 to give the former chairman "a 100% profit"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.215.177 (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When did Charles Green acquire Mr Whytes shares? The last I heard, that offer was dependent upon a CVA being successful. the failure to achieve such being what precipitated the death of Rangers FC (IA). WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Green's offer to buy the shares relied on the acceptance of the CVA. Indeed, Green's offer of an £8.3 million loan to Rangers PLC was dependent upon the CVA being accepted. If a CVA was not accepted by the creditors then Green's offer states that he would purchase the business and assets of Rangers for £5.5 million and completion would have to occur by the 30th of July. In Duff and Phelps 29th May statement: "In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential." Duff and Phelps stated that they continued to run Rangers as 'a going concern', and they point out that sale of Rangers as a 'going concern' is preferable to the liquidation of the company, but second to the CVA settlement. The 'old' company has not yet been liquidated - it is in the process of liquidation. In Duff and Phelps 29th May statement they announced that "From 6 June 2012, Charles Green will be appointed to assist in the day-to-day management of the business of the Company (at no cost to the Company or the Joint Administrators), in order to manage the ongoing trading costs of the Company and allow for a smooth transition in ownership". The same statement lays out the various payment options under the three conditions - CVA, New Company and Liquidation. In the case of liquidation there is an offer of £4,590,214 for the Freehold property - no offer is made on other assets. At the moment the deal struck with Green is the New Company deal, where the business, assets, "intellectual property, player contracts, goodwill and stock" have been purchased and completion must be made by the 31st of July. The stance of the SFA has been that in order for Rangers to be considered a continuation - they are as yet seemingly unsure - then the history of the club ahs to be accepted, which includes the disciplinary history... so, it's all up to Green now. If the newco accept the punishments of the oldco, then it's the same club. If not, then they're a new club. A side note. I've found this website to be enormously entertaining and informative: http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/why-rangers-fc-continues-even-in-newco-and-why-this-is-no-use-to-ceo-green/ 84.45.215.177 (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


If someone purchased all the assets that mad eup woolworths, including the shops, stock, the name, logo & goodwill they could continue to trade as 'Woolworths' and the chain would continue on as before, under the new ownership. It's common practice in business, many big brands have been baught-out in this manner as the old company is liquidated and the new compnay carries on. It's common practice. Your arguement is fundamentally flawed as it means the business & assets which form a club can never be moved out of the old company and into a new company, without creating an entirely new club. This simply isnt the case and the footballing associations allow for such procedures. Ken Bates purchased the business & assets which formed Leeds united and moved them into a Newco. The OldCo was liquidated. The club continued on under the new corporate entity, but it's recognised as the same club, has it's history intact, and is documented within a single page on Wikipedia. Now if your theory was correct that buying assets was meaningless, then this would not be possible and Leeds United would have died in 2007, with a new club forming in 2007. Ricky072 (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purchaser of the assets can do whatever they like with the assets they've bought, including having their new company trade as Woolworths. They're still not Woolworths. Assets are moved from club to club all the time, they're called players. It doesn't generally involve setting up any new clubs/companies to facilitate the transfer of assets. I have no idea what the Football Association in England permits or disallows, I don't follow foreign football, and this case is not any more within their jurisdiction than it is of the Football Association of Uzbekistan. There is no precedent in Scottish football for a club which has been liquidated to carry on in any way, shape, or form. Quite the reverse when we look at the examples of Gretna, Third Lanark and Airdrieonians, as high profile examples. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made this point elsewhere, but dimissing sanctions and debts in this dispute is surely madness? If the 'newco' are taking on sanctions and paying football debts formed by the 'oldco' then it puts across and incredibly strong case for it being the same club. The same example as I said elsewhere too, if someone get convicted and given a prison sentence, they cannot just make and agreement with some other person for them to take the jail time. If Rangers are unable to sign players and have money owed to other clubs then how can they seriously be called a new club? Sanction and debts to not belong to an 'SFA membership'. Sparhelda 18:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you name any other case of a new club attempting to gain hold of an SFA membership from a club which previously had sanctions attached to it? WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any evidence to back up your opinions and theories? Ricky072 (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me where it says the SFA membership is what has the sanctions and the debts? The way you're talking is as if Rangers weren't given the punishments and didn't owe the money to other clubs, the membership did... Sparhelda 18:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, a desperate POV arguement to fit an agenda. Ricky072 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to NPOV on here? This talk page is downright hostile. "opinions and theories"? "The way you're talking"? Seriously? Look, the SFA board has the power to impose whatever conditions it wishes to to transfer a licence from one club to another. The potential transfer of membership has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Rangers FC (IA) (SC004276) is the same club as Sevco Scotland Ltd. (SC425159). As things stand, right now, you allege that no one knows if this is a dead club, or a club which lives. Is this some sort of Schrödinger's Football Club which no-one knows is alive or dead? Rangers FC (IA) was the club which is now defunct, Sevco Scotland Ltd. is the new club which Charles Green is trying to put into place. How complicated is this? WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'r right'weejimmy', it is very simple. A club is made up of assets and is owned by a company. Those assets which make up the club have now been sold to another company. Same club, under new ownership. No different from Charlton, Middlesborough, Napoli, Fiorentina, Bournemouth, Luton & rotehrham united. (Unless you can state why these cases are different?) Ricky072 (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does a club have to be a company? Some are private members associations, some are publicly limited companies, some are private limited companies, some are charities, and lots are any manner of variance of these and more which there isn't time to mention. A club is not made up of assets, the club is the owner of assets, such as players, stadiums, pies, etc. Buying or selling pies, players, etc does not signify that the purchaser of those assets is the seller, merely that they have purchased the assets from the seller. Buying a pie, a player, or a stadium from Rangers FC (IA) does not make you Rangers FC (IA). Unless I'm mistaken, none of the clubs you have mentioned are based in Scotland, play in Scotland, or indeed have ever been under the jurisdiction of the SFA. Why don't you look into the cases of Gretna FC, Third Lanark, Airdrieonians, and the numerous other clubs which have gone bust and ceased to be football clubs. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So Wee Jimmy, Rangers Football Club never had those punishments or debts, just the SFA membership? If the club is totally dead all punishments (apart from past honours being revoked), debts etc should die totally with it, it's a total fantasy what you're suggesting. Unless you can show proof where anyone has said 'the SFA membership has been given a 1 year player registration ban' or 'the SFA membership owes £900k to Hearts in future transfer payments.' As for 'hostility', you've shown some yourself by claiming the debate isn't even worth having, and going by your username there's a very good chance you're showing plenty of POV yourself. No SPL club or it's fans is going to want to conceed Rangers being the same club due to resentment. Sparhelda 00:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
(SC004276) and (SC425159) are different companies, nobody is claiming they are the same company. The point is it is the same club. Please explain how the club existed BEFORE the company was incorporated if the two things are entirely the same? Also please explain why Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs said that liquidation of the company would not prevent the sale of the club? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Through the process of incorporation of the club. It's even listed in the clubs own history. "as Rangers formally became a business company" http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495830 "when the club became a limited liability company" http://www.rangers.co.uk/coaching-staff-profile/article/1555141 The club is the company which is being liquidated, even their own website says so. There's nothing stopping actually buying the club, as HMRC say, Di Stefano is trying got do so right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Their own website says so". Who is the "their" that you refer to? That is the website of "newco rangers" rather than the football club founded in 1872 isnt it? or maybe just maybe.. its the same club, but a different company? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This opinion that a club becomes a company and can never be undone is increidbly bizarre. Are you saying it's not possible to move the club out of a company and into another 1 without creating an entriely new club? Did Charlton Athletic become an entirely new club in 1984 then? How do you explain clubs who have underwent this process of moving all the assets out of 1 compny, and into another, yet are recognised universally as the same club opearting under a new company? Ricky072 (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Whyte sold his shares to Green" I'm going to need a citation for that. Failure to acquire the shares from Mr Whyte would be the death of Rangers FC (IA). This is rather crucial. Failure to acquire the shares from Whyte would signify the death of the club. Citation is really needed here. WeeJimmyFaeGorgie (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's only crystal clear if you accept this news agency's interpretation of events, and as we've seen through the dozens of stories cited, the media's interpretation is muddled at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.215.177 (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
Club liquidated or Club/Company are the same
[edit]

[6] "June 14 - Charles Green completes purchase of Rangers assets and business following the club's liquidation, hours after a consortium led by former manager Walter Smith makes a late bid."

[7] "Both Steven and I and our agent fought hard with administrators during negotiations to insert clauses that offered protection to staff and players at the club. I am extremely proud of the actions we took but I am disappointed and angry that Rangers Football Club no longer exists in its original form."

[8] "Green needs seven other clubs as well as the soon-to-be liquidated Rangers to vote in his favour at a meeting next Wednesday and, unless there is a U-turn from at least one chairman, there will be no top-flight football at Ibrox next season." says club is liquidated

[9]"The decision means the troubled club will now be liquidated with prospective owner Charles Green hoping to confirm his newco which will be known as 'The Rangers Football Club'."

[10]"Rangers duo Naismith and Whittaker reject contract transfer to new company Whittaker remarked that: We owe no loyalty to the new club, there is no history there for us."

[11] " The consortium led by Charles Green believe the players' contracts should transfer from the old, soon-to-be liquidated Rangers. "

[12] "Meanwhile, manager Ally McCoist says Andy Little and Salim Kerkar have been offered new contracts at Rangers.

Both players' deals to the old Rangers expired this summer and McCoist hopes the pair will sign on with the relaunched Ibrox club."

[13] "Green's Sevco consortium bought Rangers' assets after the club was consigned to liquidation with debts that could reach £135million, mostly to the taxpayer."

[14] "The clauses were inserted amid speculation over the Glasgow pair moving to England or into a European league but they have proved costly after Rangers went into liquidation last month."

[15] "Charles Green's Sevco consortium had their application to replace the old liquidated Rangers in the Scottish Premier League rejected last week."

[16] "The demise of Rangers hasn’t quite sunk in yet, not if the Scottish media is to be believed - apparently it is they who are still going strong and Scottish football that is on life support.

The Glasgow giant ceased to exist as an entity several weeks ago, yet reading the columns of several Scottish newspapers and listening to the multitude of pundits on the TV and radio, one could be forgiven for thinking that Rangers are still alive and breathing."

[17] "Rangers, who are being relaunched by a new company after the former incarnation could not be saved from liquidation, had their application to replace the old Ibrox club in the Scottish Premier League formally rejected on Wednesday."

[18] "The issue of where to place Rangers originated when the club could not be saved from liquidation and was relaunched by a new company."

[19] "However, the club's recent liquidation has complicated the process, with the newco club having not yet registered as a member of the SFA. "

[20] "We owe no loyalty to the new club. There is no history there for us."

[21] "The club, which dates back to 1872, will now be wound up by liquidators BDO after a thorough investigation into its financial affairs over the past few years."

[22] "The issue of where to place Rangers originated when the club could not be saved from liquidation and was relaunched by a new company."

[23] "THE SPL have issued placement money to each club for last season – with the exception of soon-to-be-liquidated Rangers."

[24] "The SPL have issued the placement money each club is entitled to for last season – with the exception of soon-to-be-liquidated Rangers."

[25] "The Ibrox side went into administration in February after Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs lodged a petition over the non-payment of about £9 million PAYE and VAT since Craig Whyte's 2011 takeover. It later emerged the club's liabilities could total as much as £135 million. A CVA with creditors was later turned down by HMRC - consigning the club to liquidation."

Club not liquidated
[edit]

[26] "Season ticket income looks vital if he's to avoid pitching the club back into administration. So Charles Green now has control of the assets, but faces hostility from his customers."

[27]This is a video you have to watch it to see what iti says

[28] "the club's assets have been transferred to a new company while Rangers Football Club plc is liquidated. "

[29] "specifically the section that states; ISSUE ONE: THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER TUPE APPLY 2. It is now clearly established that, in order to decide whether TUPE apply to a particular transaction, it is necessary to ask two questions: 2.1 does the function which is being transferred constitute an economic entity? 2.2 will that entity retain its identity after the transfer? As TUPE has already been established to apply in the case of Rangers then they must have satisfied the courts already that they are the same economic entity as before and they have therefore retained their economic identity."

[30] "Q. After the liquidation/death of Rangers FC PLC and the creation of a brand new legal entity, when can/does the new company become a new club? A. As of yesterday, the new company operates the club. Of course, it does not yet have membership of either the SPL or SFL, which is an essential rquirement for any professional football club."

[31] "the history of the club remains with the club, so the club moves from Rangers Plc into the new company and all of the titles and 140-year history will remain with the club."

[32] "Rangers' parent company is being liquidated, meaning the new owners need to win the approval of seven other clubs in the 12-team SPL if they are to maintain their status."

[33] "The Edinburgh club are still owed £800,000 from Rangers for the player."

[34] "The issue is complicated by uncertainty over Scottish Football Association action, with an appeal hearing due against Rangers before Green bought the club's assets and business.'There are sanctions that could withdraw the club's ability to play,' Green said. 'Part of my job is to work through the issues and make sure we're playing football and we're playing football at Ibrox for many years to come.'"

[35] " And it stresses that either way, the sale goes on and Rangers, the team, does too."

[36] " This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA"), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA and by the Judicial Panel Protocol which sets out the disciplinary rules relating to the conduct of members of the SFA and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to enforce such rules. "

[37] "We are acutely aware that events at our club, brought about by people who are no longer here, have triggered a crisis in Scottish football," he said. "Ally McCoist, the staff and players have nothing to apologise for

"But the club needs to make an apology. It is only right that someone expresses our sorrow and regret."' if it is a new club they wouldn't apologise for a club they dnt own and wouldn't talk about people who are no longer there, also " the old company was consigned to liquidation "

[38] "Meanwhile, manager Ally McCoist says Andy Little and Salim Kerkar have been offered new contracts at Rangers.

Both players' deals to the old Rangers expired this summer and McCoist hopes the pair will sign on with the relaunched Ibrox club."

[39] "Rangers FC plc entered administration in February owing up to £134m to unsecured creditors. The company will eventually be liquidated and has been replaced by a new company run by Charles Green."

[40] "Irrespective of what’s decided by the two league bodies in the coming week, the Tribunal, having been handed the case back by the Court of Session on appeal from Rangers, must find an alternative to their original sanction of a one-year transfer ban.
The options likely to be considered are suspension and termination of membership.
Suspension leaves no avenue within the Scottish game for appeal – the only option left for Green would be to lobby the Court of Arbitration in Sport.

But termination of membership would allow newco Rangers an appeal to the SFA Board – who could arrive at a different determination again from either the Judicial Panel or the Appellate Tribunal."

[41] "The re-formed Ibrox club will now apply to play in the Scottish Football League but it remains unclear which division they will enter.

The company will eventually be liquidated and has been replaced by a new company run by Charles Green."

[42] "John Fleck has become the ninth player to object to his contract switching to the new Rangers, with midfielder Jamie Ness also agreeing a move elsewhere – although Kyle Hutton has become the third player to announce he will stay on at the stricken club.

The new Rangers are facing the prospect of being refused entry to the SPL and could be playing in Division One - or even starting over again in the Third Division - should they be forced to apply to the Scottish Football League."

[43] "Charles Green's consortium has since started the process of relaunching the club under the banner of a new company with Rangers FC plc heading for liquidation."

[44] "Rangers FC plc entered administration in February owing up to £134m to unsecured creditors. The company will eventually be liquidated and has been replaced by a new company."

[45] "Many supporters questioned Green’s reasons for buying the stricken club for £5.5million and some have backed consortiums fronted by Walter Smith and John Brown. But a stockbroker is now due to arrive from London next week to help the club launch a share issue."

[46] "The transfer of the SFA membership from soon-to-be-liquidated Rangers to Green's newco could take place at the same time as a decision is made over which league the club will play in."

[47] "However, in this case, the issue is muddied by Rangers FC plc being consigned to liquidation and the newco Rangers having not yet become members of the SFA."

[48] "Meanwhile, Rangers chief executive Charles Green said the 140-year-old club was "deeply disappointed" with the result of the vote and will be applying to join the Scottish Football League - and he will be hoping Regan's plea that they be allowed to join Division One doesn't fall on deaf ears.

'If our application were to be accepted, Rangers will play in whichever division the SFL sees fit and we will move forward from there,' said Green, who purchased the club's assets in a 5.5 million pound deal after Rangers went bankrupt in February. ...

Failure to secure agreement with tax authorities led to Green launching a takeover and establishing a new company."

[49] "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."

[50] "The Light Blues have been at loggerheads with the governing body since their judicial panel imposed a year-long transfer ban because of the way previous owner Craig Whyte ran the club. ...

New Rangers owner Charles Green, has already admitted the club made a mistake turning to the courts and he is keen to defuse the situation and for his club to move forward."

[51] "A sweetener of £1m has already been negotiated as the TV companies see an appeal in the novelty of covering Ally McCoist’s new-look squad in a lower league for the first time in their 140-year history."

[52] "And the Teesside supremo insists he was watching the same club on both occasions despite being the man forced to put Boro into liquidation to form a new company as part of his 1986 rescue package.

That’s why Gibson has told Rangers fans the club’s 140-year history will live on despite would-be owner Charles Green set to go down the dreaded newco when a CVA is officially rejected at today’s meeting of creditors at Ibrox."

[53] "Doncaster admits to being “baffled” that in this country such a distinction is drawn between Rangers exiting administration through a company voluntary arrangement [CVA], as prospective new owner Charles Green will attempt in the coming weeks, and doing so by moving the assets to a new company [newco] as the old one sinks because of debt, as he probably will be forced to do to effect a successful purchase.
Doncaster simply does not accept that morality and sporting integrity are served very differently by throwing yourself at the mercy of your creditors, as in a CVA, or simply walking away from them, as in the newco route. A newco, he says, could raise more money for creditors than a CVA. He could give no examples where this had ever occurred in football. However, the SPL chief executive did provide examples from England, with the cases of Luton, Bournemouth and Rotherham, where clubs have failed to obtain a CVA, set up a newco, and retained their same league status, but with a points penalty – as will be one of the new financial fair play proposals clubs will have a third go at voting on come 30 May.

..."Whenever I speak to people about the distinction between a CVA and a newco what I keep being told is that it’s simply wrong that any club should be able to create a newco and shed debt. As if a CVA doesn’t lead to the shedding of debt. Administration is the protection the court gives you when you can’t pay your debts. There are two ways out of that; one is a newco, one is a CVA. Of the six administrations which have happened down south in recent years two went with a CVA and a newco, Palace and Plymouth, and there were four where there was no CVA and a newco.
“The distinction between the two is relatively fine. To draw such a huge distinction is just wrong. When Livingston were relegated to Division Three did they cease to exist and start again? Of course they didn’t. Leeds are the same. Every single club which has had an insolvency event has either continued as a football club or has ceased to exist. I’m not aware of any club which sort of started again. Of course it’s not okay to waive £90 million of debt, of course it’s not. But it happens. In football as in business.”"

[54] "It says In an asset purchase, all of the good and valuable assets (records, marks, names, trophies, players, staff, history) are preserved and separated from the bad and harmful liabilities (tax bills, bad contracts, creditors), which have put the club into administration and which act to force the entirety into liquidation. By putting all of the assets into a different corporate structure, the assets are in fact rescued from liquidation. Such a transaction would be very similar to the one that occurred at Leeds United in 2007, which simultaneously rescued that club, maintained its proud history and allowed the club to shed its debt burdens so that it could have the opportunity for future success."

[55] "Duff and Phelps, appointed by the Court of Session on February 14, have broken down all the "asset realisations", the majority of which relate to their sale of the Ibrox club to Sevco Scotland Limited."

[56] "A FIFA spokesperson said: 'At the time of writing, FIFA does not appear to have been approached by any association with respect to the international clearance of any particular player currently registered with Rangers FC.'"

[57] "Duff and Phelps have broken down all the “asset realisations” of the deal — the majority of which relate to their sale of the Ibrox club to Sevco Scotland Limited."

[58] "Regan argued the 140-year-old Rangers, Scottish football's most successful club, should be dropped just one league to the First Division."

[59] "The Scottish Football Association will consider what, if any, punishments to impose on Rangers before granting membership to the new company."

Club liquidated, Club/Company the same and the club lives on
[edit]

This section of sources are quite interesting because they refer to it being a new club and refer to it as just the company is liquidated
[60] "Rangers chief executive Charles Green says he will not challenge the vote by the Scottish Football League to place his new club in Division Three." "Green's Sevco consortium had been forced to apply for entry to the SFL after Scottish Premier League clubs voted against the new Rangers being admitted to the top flight with the old company destined for liquidation."

Charles Green bought the club from Craig Whyte
[edit]

[61] "Mr Green completed his purchase of the 140-year-old club's assets with £5.5 million, which is believed to be in the form of a loan that the club repays, having paid just £2 for Craig Whyte's shares."

[62] "Green confirmed he had given Whyte £1 – the same value paid – for his 85% stake in Rangers, and said: 'I gave him a pound out of my own pocket too, so he has made a 100% profit.'"

[63] "Whyte has agreed to sell his 85 per cent shareholding in Rangers for £2 to Charles Green, who is leading the consortium in place to take control of the club."

[64] "Charles Green’s consortium bought the club’s assets for £5.5million two weeks ago, buying out Whyte for a nominal £2."

Other Sources
[edit]

[65] Just a general sources that does not say one way or the other.

[66] Says Rangers Football Club in administration then says "The Company" and "The Club" it does not state whether the club and the company are the same or seperate. It also does not clarify the situation now that liquidation procures have begun.

these discussions Wikipedia:AN#The_Case_For_Rangers_F.C_to_Remain_Within_the_Same_Wikipedia_Article, does not matter it was less than a month ago consensus can change within a day if reliable sources report differently on the subject i dnt mean this subject any subject, it be like saying just because a nominated delete on a article regarding someone death was keep but the following day news broke that the information was false renominate for delete is fine--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me the discussion, I think it should be included in the deletion rationale, just for make it minimally understandable. That said, as no new arguments for deletion were offered in this afd (for what I can see these are the same arguments of previous AfD), I'd suggest to close this discussion for keep (or no consensus) and open a more proper merge discussion (with Rangers F.C.) in the article talk page. Cavarrone (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no problem, i was not the one that started it but i do know where the discussion is. this only happened because some people can not accept the fact the page is locked on this and the rangers fc article and want it to reflect there pov but i keep saying the the request for comment i have made is about ready to go live this is better suited because it is dispute and it is moving through the dispute resolution process.I do not know the reason for creating this again so soon but jsut pointing out that if something changes consensus can to--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More