This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
CSA Steaua București (football) 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 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from FC Steaua București was split to CSA Steaua București (football) on 10 September 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:FC Steaua București. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The information is deceiving AntonescuFCSB47 ( talk) 10:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
dfsfs AntonescuFCSB47 ( talk) 10:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
It seams that I can't post links, so enter UEFA's site (be it UCL or UEL) and have a look where the history is. That team from Liga IV isn't organised as the ex champion of europe (1986) by any national or international federation (FRF, LPF or UEFA).
The lawsuit between CSA and FCSB is only about the brand, not the trophies, not the history and surely not about the sport identity.
1. The court's decision was only for the brand 2. All the Football Federations recognize FCSB as Steaua's successor 3. The majority of people know that FCSB is the real FC Steaua. I mean there are only 2000-3000 people from the ex Steaua ULTRAS who betrayed the team for personal interests VS millions of people who support the team from Liga 1.
So Legal, Social and by the Football federations, FCSB is the ex-FC Steaua!
PS: What really happened! In the comunist era, each fotbal team was owned be a minister, company or a state force. FC Steaua was owned by the army (Ministry of Defence). This is something that I think you know already.
But in 1998 the Army gave the fotbal team up to a non-profit association because of UEFA rule implementations (no departmental team was allowed in the European competitions). Then by 2003 the team collected many depths and was nearly declared bankrupt by the court. But in 2003 the team was reorganized as an action based society, Becali bought the majority of the stock and become the owner of the team. There is nothing illegal with that!
So the page has so much bull**** information...... AntonescuFCSB47 ( talk) 12:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please roll back Scheianu's update in the Steaua vs FCSB lawsuit which I would consider as vandalism: << But then again, a court also ruled that OJ Simpson was innocent when it was fairly obvious that he was responsable for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and then again everyone can edit a Wikipedia page. Currently, UEFA consider that Steaua's achievements belong to FCSB on their official website. >>
From the same paragraph, please delete "The club which had acted as Steaua throughout this time was ruled to be a distinct one, established in 2003, and was summoned to change their name and logo[19]. Additionally, they were legally stripped of their association with Steaua's historical record[20]." There is no reference to the club being stripped of any historical record. On the contrary, please visit UEFA [1] to view that FCSB history record is still untouched, despite the name change
Taras bulba 47 ( talk) 17:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Taras bulba 47 ( talk) 17:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
17:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)@ FlightTime I understand how consensus works, and it makes perfect sense since Wikipedia is maintained by contributors. But we're facing the following problem: contributors with a malevolent agenda create a Wikipedia article where they disseminate false or truncated information, without relevant references or proof (just interpretations derived from primary references). Following this, they obtain protection of the page, and therefore nobody can edit the page without reaching "consensus". How can one reach consensus with these guys, when they have an agenda and reject any attempt of reasoning? Even more alarming, how could the authors of this article produce this with the approval of the administrators? How come nobody verified this information? You are asking me to reach a consensus with the authors - the only consensus I can and I am willing to reach is the truth. The information in the sections I described is at most tangent with the truth, most of the affirmations being blunt interpretations made to support the authors' claim. This situation is really absurd to me. Based on your saying, I could create a Wikipedia article where I would write that the Earth is flat and the Sun is circling it, I would somehow obtain protection and then I would reject any attempts to modify the page simply because there is no consensus. The facts that I would present in the article would be the result of a very rich imagination that has nothing to do with reality, but that wouldn't be a problem - I would not be willing to reach a "consensus" with reality so my page would remain unmodified. Really? Is this what comes out of Wikipedia? Did we actually reach this level of relativisation of the truth? Anyone can be "right" as long as they're the first to say whatever they wish to say?
Again, I provided the justification that the following paragraph "Additionally, they were legally stripped of their association with Steaua's historical record" is not supported by facts, by giving you an official reference: the UEFA website. If that is not enough, I can come with multiple other references, all third-party, showing that FCSB has never been stripped of any honours or historical record and that this in fact has never been a subject of discussion or judicial action. The quoted statement is nothing more than a malevolent extrapolation of the truth, i.e. the team now named FCSB has lost the rights to use the "Steaua" trademark, logo and name. There's no reference about change in statute, stripping of honours, etc. Taras bulba 47 ( talk) 08:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Its correct what Taras bulba 47 is saying! AntonescuFCSB47 ( talk) 22:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@ User:AntonescuFCSB47 I'm afraid we need to do our homework and collect as much information as possible and bring it here, making the administrators understand how far from reality the article is in this state. That may probably not be enough, we'd still be asked to reach a "consensus" with the original authors :) Or maybe the admins will show a sign of good will and at least ask the contributors of the ro.wikipedia if this article is in accord with the Romanian version, and whether the creators of this article (TPBP especially) have or have been not banned from editing pages .ro due to actions such as disruptive editing and vandalization. I know the answer to this question. Do they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taras bulba 47 ( talk • contribs) 08:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
~
Since a number of editors do not appear to be able to stop themselves from edit-warring on this page, often without sufficient rationale or sourcing, it is now fully protected. You will need to achieve consensus on this talk page to make changes, and then submit a request using {{Edit fully-protected}}. Please note that if the same behaviour occurs after the protection expires, the likelihood is that this will be met with blocks for the editors concerned. Black Kite (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add the following line to the Steaua vs. FCSB lawsuit section of the article.
"According to recent comments made by Constantin Danilescu, a former Steaua Bucuresti employee who worked for the club until 1999, during the 1998 separation, CSA Steaua did not relinquish ownership of the team's name, honours or brand, as it was falsely believed until recently.(reference - http://www.digisport.ro/Sport/FOTBAL/Danilescu-Cand-ne-am-transformat-in-societate-non-profit-noi-ave) The club only allowed the non-profit it partnered with to use these elements, but the non-profit never had any right to sell them. This means that the claims made by Fotbal Club Fcsb, a team founded in 2003, which pretends to be the owner of the Steaua honours, are in fact false."
I'd lie to add this part between the first and the second paragraphs in the section. - TPTB ( talk) 11:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC) TPTB ( talk) 11:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
13:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"| image = Steaua.svg"=>
"| image = Steaua București.svg"
Thanks -- Begoon 23:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The honor section and history should remove those won by the limited company/new club FC FCSB, they improperly use the Steaua name, but does not mean the real owner of the name Steaua won the trophies. This page should only cover the foundation of the club until became the limited company, and then the re-establishment in 2017. Matthew_hk t c 18:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This club, this entity, was formed in the summer of 2017 by the CSA Steaua București sports club. [1] It currently plays in the Liga IV (fourth league) and officially owns 0 honours.
To add the history of FC Steaua Bucuresti to this page is incorrect:
8Dodo8 ( talk · contribs) 16:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I have added a section here suggesting that the post-2003 club should be split off from the historic Steaua, then both FCSB and CSA 2017 followers can argue over who holds the honours etc, but neither side will 'own' them at present on Wikipedia and can just refer back to the older articles. To keep it all together, could I ask comments on this to be added to the discussion on the FC Steaua talk page (link above) rather than here. Just didn't want any interested party (I know there are several!) to miss the chance to comment so mentioning it here as well. Thanks. Crowsus ( talk) 21:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Below is the real list of honnours for Steaua Bucharest. The team does not share any records with the team known as FC Fcsb. Steaua Bucharest has won just 21 national titles, just 20 cups and just 4 Romanian supercups. It is also the winner of 1 European Champions Cup and 1 UEFA Super Cup. And that's it. The team has no other titles. Please don't promote the lie that Steaua has 26 national titles. It does not.
References
The user 8Dodo8 continues to vandalise the page and to post lies. Additionally, he is extremely aggressive and, as you can see above, keeps insulting users who do not agree with him.
I request that this page be protected against this guy. He is clearly in this just because he hates Steaua Bucharest. I, as a fan of Steaua Bucharest, keep to this page. I don't go to his team's page, to cause problems over there. I think he should do the same. - TPTB ( talk) 16:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
More on UEFA coefficient, one ruling said PFC CSKA Sofia was a entirely new club thus reject the club to enter 2016–17 UEFA Europa League, but at the same time recognize the club for 2014–15 season result on UEFA coefficient. As the owner of CSA Steaua București, those football honor under the name "CSA Steaua București" had no dispute under the club or its CSA successor, but for FC Steaua București era, just any reliable source and news reporting on any court ruling is required. Otherwise it just an edit war that both of you will be blocked. Matthew_hk t c 19:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FC Steaua București, the most notable football club from Romania, lost its name and logo following some Romanian Justice Court decisions and became "Fotbal Club FCSB" in early 2017. [1] Meanwhile, the Romanian Army, which had owned the club until 1998 and is still in charge of several sport clubs, "restarted" its football department ( CSA Steaua București (football)) in the summer of that year and commenced play in the fourth league. [2]
As of now, FCSB is credited as the successor of FC Steaua by both UEFA and the Romanian Professional League (LPF), owning 26 domestic titles and 1 UEFA Champions League, among others. This is very easy to verify by checking FCSB's UEFA.com profile. [3] However, the fans of the fourth league club CSA Steaua claim that their club has 21 league trophies and the UCL from 1989, which has not been confirmed by any reliable source (UEFA, LPF or the Romanian Justice Court). Currently, they have only won the right to use the "Steaua" brand, and the process about the honours has been only been opened in December 2017 and it will take several years to resolve, probably. [4]
Despite this, User:TPTB called me a "vandal" when I added this sentence on the CSA Steaua page: "However, according to UEFA, FCSB is the successor of Steaua and they hold the records of the former club, including the European Champions Cup won in 1986." He also changed the link from Template:UEFA Champions League winners and it seems nobody is doing anything to resolve this issue for more than one year.
I suggest removing the honours of the club on this article and most of its content which is copy-pasted from FC Steaua Bucuresti, until either a Court Decision or UEFA shows that FCSB lost its right to have the records of Steaua. User:TPTB argues that CSA also won the honours in Court, but this is false:
He also called me a "liar" on multiple occasions for trying to resolve this issue. 8Dodo8 ( talk · contribs) 18:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
So far no reliable sources have been cited to establish that CSA has been granted these honors by the UEFA. I do not believe that CSA is a reliable source in this context on whether CSA owns the honors. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 05:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
CSA Steaua București is a clone of FCSB. (football) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want a request 82.76.116.122 ( talk) 19:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add * Steaua Liberă to External Links as Fan website 89.136.51.123 ( talk) 09:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 10:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Even admitting that the court verdict had an enforceable title, it has been quashed, so it is no longer enforceable. tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Summary of the verdict:
Complet de judecată: Completul nr. 9 AP
Numărul documentului de soluționare: 490/2022
Data documentului de soluționare: 15.03.2022
Tipul documentului de soluționare: Hotarâre
Soluție: Admitere recurs - Admitere recurs - cu casare - Dispune rejudecarea
Detalii soluție: Decizia nr. 490:Respinge cererea de repunere pe rol a cauzei formulată de recurentul -reclamant Fotbal Club FCSB S.A, ca nefondată. Admite recursurile declarate de pârâtul Clubul Sportiv al Armatei Steaua București și de reclamantul Fotbal Club FCSB S.A. împotriva deciziei nr. 682A din 25 aprilie 2019 și a hotărârii intermediare nr.1491 din 27 noiembrie 2018, ambele pronunțate de Curtea de Apel București - Secția a IV-a civilă. Casează deciziile și trimite cauza, spre rejudecare, la aceeași curte de apel. Definitivă.
Trial panel: Panel no. 9 AP
Settlement document number: 490/2022
Settlement document date: 15.03.2022
Settlement document type: Decision
Solution: Admission appeal - Admission appeal - with cassation - Order the retrial
Solution details: Decision no. 490: Rejects the request for reinstatement of the case filed by the appellant-claimant Fotbal Club FCSB S.A., as unfounded. It admits the appeals declared by the defendant Steaua București Army Sports Club and by the plaintiff Fotbal Club FCSB S.A. against decision no. 682A of April 25, 2019 and of the interim decision no. 1491 of November 27, 2018, both pronounced by the Bucharest Court of Appeal - Civil Section IV. It quashes the decisions and sends the case for retrial to the same court of appeal. Definitive.
In plain speak this means that HCCJ performed a reset and a retrial is pending. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
79.78.250.250 ( talk) 01:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
FCSB = STEAUA
According to several surveys, the most popular team in FCSB or FC Steaua Bucharest (however you want to call it). FCSB/Steaua has medium of around 40% of respondents, CSA Steaua isn't even in the top 3. I request this page to be edited and the sentence where it mentions that CSA Steaua is the most popular team in Romania 5.14.142.43 ( talk) 19:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
CSA Steaua București (football) 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 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from FC Steaua București was split to CSA Steaua București (football) on 10 September 2017. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:FC Steaua București. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The information is deceiving AntonescuFCSB47 ( talk) 10:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
dfsfs AntonescuFCSB47 ( talk) 10:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
It seams that I can't post links, so enter UEFA's site (be it UCL or UEL) and have a look where the history is. That team from Liga IV isn't organised as the ex champion of europe (1986) by any national or international federation (FRF, LPF or UEFA).
The lawsuit between CSA and FCSB is only about the brand, not the trophies, not the history and surely not about the sport identity.
1. The court's decision was only for the brand 2. All the Football Federations recognize FCSB as Steaua's successor 3. The majority of people know that FCSB is the real FC Steaua. I mean there are only 2000-3000 people from the ex Steaua ULTRAS who betrayed the team for personal interests VS millions of people who support the team from Liga 1.
So Legal, Social and by the Football federations, FCSB is the ex-FC Steaua!
PS: What really happened! In the comunist era, each fotbal team was owned be a minister, company or a state force. FC Steaua was owned by the army (Ministry of Defence). This is something that I think you know already.
But in 1998 the Army gave the fotbal team up to a non-profit association because of UEFA rule implementations (no departmental team was allowed in the European competitions). Then by 2003 the team collected many depths and was nearly declared bankrupt by the court. But in 2003 the team was reorganized as an action based society, Becali bought the majority of the stock and become the owner of the team. There is nothing illegal with that!
So the page has so much bull**** information...... AntonescuFCSB47 ( talk) 12:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please roll back Scheianu's update in the Steaua vs FCSB lawsuit which I would consider as vandalism: << But then again, a court also ruled that OJ Simpson was innocent when it was fairly obvious that he was responsable for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and then again everyone can edit a Wikipedia page. Currently, UEFA consider that Steaua's achievements belong to FCSB on their official website. >>
From the same paragraph, please delete "The club which had acted as Steaua throughout this time was ruled to be a distinct one, established in 2003, and was summoned to change their name and logo[19]. Additionally, they were legally stripped of their association with Steaua's historical record[20]." There is no reference to the club being stripped of any historical record. On the contrary, please visit UEFA [1] to view that FCSB history record is still untouched, despite the name change
Taras bulba 47 ( talk) 17:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Taras bulba 47 ( talk) 17:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
17:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)@ FlightTime I understand how consensus works, and it makes perfect sense since Wikipedia is maintained by contributors. But we're facing the following problem: contributors with a malevolent agenda create a Wikipedia article where they disseminate false or truncated information, without relevant references or proof (just interpretations derived from primary references). Following this, they obtain protection of the page, and therefore nobody can edit the page without reaching "consensus". How can one reach consensus with these guys, when they have an agenda and reject any attempt of reasoning? Even more alarming, how could the authors of this article produce this with the approval of the administrators? How come nobody verified this information? You are asking me to reach a consensus with the authors - the only consensus I can and I am willing to reach is the truth. The information in the sections I described is at most tangent with the truth, most of the affirmations being blunt interpretations made to support the authors' claim. This situation is really absurd to me. Based on your saying, I could create a Wikipedia article where I would write that the Earth is flat and the Sun is circling it, I would somehow obtain protection and then I would reject any attempts to modify the page simply because there is no consensus. The facts that I would present in the article would be the result of a very rich imagination that has nothing to do with reality, but that wouldn't be a problem - I would not be willing to reach a "consensus" with reality so my page would remain unmodified. Really? Is this what comes out of Wikipedia? Did we actually reach this level of relativisation of the truth? Anyone can be "right" as long as they're the first to say whatever they wish to say?
Again, I provided the justification that the following paragraph "Additionally, they were legally stripped of their association with Steaua's historical record" is not supported by facts, by giving you an official reference: the UEFA website. If that is not enough, I can come with multiple other references, all third-party, showing that FCSB has never been stripped of any honours or historical record and that this in fact has never been a subject of discussion or judicial action. The quoted statement is nothing more than a malevolent extrapolation of the truth, i.e. the team now named FCSB has lost the rights to use the "Steaua" trademark, logo and name. There's no reference about change in statute, stripping of honours, etc. Taras bulba 47 ( talk) 08:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Its correct what Taras bulba 47 is saying! AntonescuFCSB47 ( talk) 22:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@ User:AntonescuFCSB47 I'm afraid we need to do our homework and collect as much information as possible and bring it here, making the administrators understand how far from reality the article is in this state. That may probably not be enough, we'd still be asked to reach a "consensus" with the original authors :) Or maybe the admins will show a sign of good will and at least ask the contributors of the ro.wikipedia if this article is in accord with the Romanian version, and whether the creators of this article (TPBP especially) have or have been not banned from editing pages .ro due to actions such as disruptive editing and vandalization. I know the answer to this question. Do they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taras bulba 47 ( talk • contribs) 08:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
~
Since a number of editors do not appear to be able to stop themselves from edit-warring on this page, often without sufficient rationale or sourcing, it is now fully protected. You will need to achieve consensus on this talk page to make changes, and then submit a request using {{Edit fully-protected}}. Please note that if the same behaviour occurs after the protection expires, the likelihood is that this will be met with blocks for the editors concerned. Black Kite (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add the following line to the Steaua vs. FCSB lawsuit section of the article.
"According to recent comments made by Constantin Danilescu, a former Steaua Bucuresti employee who worked for the club until 1999, during the 1998 separation, CSA Steaua did not relinquish ownership of the team's name, honours or brand, as it was falsely believed until recently.(reference - http://www.digisport.ro/Sport/FOTBAL/Danilescu-Cand-ne-am-transformat-in-societate-non-profit-noi-ave) The club only allowed the non-profit it partnered with to use these elements, but the non-profit never had any right to sell them. This means that the claims made by Fotbal Club Fcsb, a team founded in 2003, which pretends to be the owner of the Steaua honours, are in fact false."
I'd lie to add this part between the first and the second paragraphs in the section. - TPTB ( talk) 11:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC) TPTB ( talk) 11:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
13:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"| image = Steaua.svg"=>
"| image = Steaua București.svg"
Thanks -- Begoon 23:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The honor section and history should remove those won by the limited company/new club FC FCSB, they improperly use the Steaua name, but does not mean the real owner of the name Steaua won the trophies. This page should only cover the foundation of the club until became the limited company, and then the re-establishment in 2017. Matthew_hk t c 18:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This club, this entity, was formed in the summer of 2017 by the CSA Steaua București sports club. [1] It currently plays in the Liga IV (fourth league) and officially owns 0 honours.
To add the history of FC Steaua Bucuresti to this page is incorrect:
8Dodo8 ( talk · contribs) 16:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I have added a section here suggesting that the post-2003 club should be split off from the historic Steaua, then both FCSB and CSA 2017 followers can argue over who holds the honours etc, but neither side will 'own' them at present on Wikipedia and can just refer back to the older articles. To keep it all together, could I ask comments on this to be added to the discussion on the FC Steaua talk page (link above) rather than here. Just didn't want any interested party (I know there are several!) to miss the chance to comment so mentioning it here as well. Thanks. Crowsus ( talk) 21:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Below is the real list of honnours for Steaua Bucharest. The team does not share any records with the team known as FC Fcsb. Steaua Bucharest has won just 21 national titles, just 20 cups and just 4 Romanian supercups. It is also the winner of 1 European Champions Cup and 1 UEFA Super Cup. And that's it. The team has no other titles. Please don't promote the lie that Steaua has 26 national titles. It does not.
References
The user 8Dodo8 continues to vandalise the page and to post lies. Additionally, he is extremely aggressive and, as you can see above, keeps insulting users who do not agree with him.
I request that this page be protected against this guy. He is clearly in this just because he hates Steaua Bucharest. I, as a fan of Steaua Bucharest, keep to this page. I don't go to his team's page, to cause problems over there. I think he should do the same. - TPTB ( talk) 16:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
More on UEFA coefficient, one ruling said PFC CSKA Sofia was a entirely new club thus reject the club to enter 2016–17 UEFA Europa League, but at the same time recognize the club for 2014–15 season result on UEFA coefficient. As the owner of CSA Steaua București, those football honor under the name "CSA Steaua București" had no dispute under the club or its CSA successor, but for FC Steaua București era, just any reliable source and news reporting on any court ruling is required. Otherwise it just an edit war that both of you will be blocked. Matthew_hk t c 19:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FC Steaua București, the most notable football club from Romania, lost its name and logo following some Romanian Justice Court decisions and became "Fotbal Club FCSB" in early 2017. [1] Meanwhile, the Romanian Army, which had owned the club until 1998 and is still in charge of several sport clubs, "restarted" its football department ( CSA Steaua București (football)) in the summer of that year and commenced play in the fourth league. [2]
As of now, FCSB is credited as the successor of FC Steaua by both UEFA and the Romanian Professional League (LPF), owning 26 domestic titles and 1 UEFA Champions League, among others. This is very easy to verify by checking FCSB's UEFA.com profile. [3] However, the fans of the fourth league club CSA Steaua claim that their club has 21 league trophies and the UCL from 1989, which has not been confirmed by any reliable source (UEFA, LPF or the Romanian Justice Court). Currently, they have only won the right to use the "Steaua" brand, and the process about the honours has been only been opened in December 2017 and it will take several years to resolve, probably. [4]
Despite this, User:TPTB called me a "vandal" when I added this sentence on the CSA Steaua page: "However, according to UEFA, FCSB is the successor of Steaua and they hold the records of the former club, including the European Champions Cup won in 1986." He also changed the link from Template:UEFA Champions League winners and it seems nobody is doing anything to resolve this issue for more than one year.
I suggest removing the honours of the club on this article and most of its content which is copy-pasted from FC Steaua Bucuresti, until either a Court Decision or UEFA shows that FCSB lost its right to have the records of Steaua. User:TPTB argues that CSA also won the honours in Court, but this is false:
He also called me a "liar" on multiple occasions for trying to resolve this issue. 8Dodo8 ( talk · contribs) 18:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
So far no reliable sources have been cited to establish that CSA has been granted these honors by the UEFA. I do not believe that CSA is a reliable source in this context on whether CSA owns the honors. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 05:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
CSA Steaua București is a clone of FCSB. (football) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want a request 82.76.116.122 ( talk) 19:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add * Steaua Liberă to External Links as Fan website 89.136.51.123 ( talk) 09:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 10:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Even admitting that the court verdict had an enforceable title, it has been quashed, so it is no longer enforceable. tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Summary of the verdict:
Complet de judecată: Completul nr. 9 AP
Numărul documentului de soluționare: 490/2022
Data documentului de soluționare: 15.03.2022
Tipul documentului de soluționare: Hotarâre
Soluție: Admitere recurs - Admitere recurs - cu casare - Dispune rejudecarea
Detalii soluție: Decizia nr. 490:Respinge cererea de repunere pe rol a cauzei formulată de recurentul -reclamant Fotbal Club FCSB S.A, ca nefondată. Admite recursurile declarate de pârâtul Clubul Sportiv al Armatei Steaua București și de reclamantul Fotbal Club FCSB S.A. împotriva deciziei nr. 682A din 25 aprilie 2019 și a hotărârii intermediare nr.1491 din 27 noiembrie 2018, ambele pronunțate de Curtea de Apel București - Secția a IV-a civilă. Casează deciziile și trimite cauza, spre rejudecare, la aceeași curte de apel. Definitivă.
Trial panel: Panel no. 9 AP
Settlement document number: 490/2022
Settlement document date: 15.03.2022
Settlement document type: Decision
Solution: Admission appeal - Admission appeal - with cassation - Order the retrial
Solution details: Decision no. 490: Rejects the request for reinstatement of the case filed by the appellant-claimant Fotbal Club FCSB S.A., as unfounded. It admits the appeals declared by the defendant Steaua București Army Sports Club and by the plaintiff Fotbal Club FCSB S.A. against decision no. 682A of April 25, 2019 and of the interim decision no. 1491 of November 27, 2018, both pronounced by the Bucharest Court of Appeal - Civil Section IV. It quashes the decisions and sends the case for retrial to the same court of appeal. Definitive.
In plain speak this means that HCCJ performed a reset and a retrial is pending. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
79.78.250.250 ( talk) 01:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
FCSB = STEAUA
According to several surveys, the most popular team in FCSB or FC Steaua Bucharest (however you want to call it). FCSB/Steaua has medium of around 40% of respondents, CSA Steaua isn't even in the top 3. I request this page to be edited and the sentence where it mentions that CSA Steaua is the most popular team in Romania 5.14.142.43 ( talk) 19:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)