This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I assume you are talking about List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media article. One thing that I noticed was the "Aired UK before america confirmed by UK Viewers" and others references like it are not very good. The lead paragraph needs more work. Looking at the Featured list criteria and articles that are already featured lists is a great way to to see where improvements need to be made in the article you are working on. Hope this helps. ( Duane543 ( talk) 16:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for uploading Image:Yu-gi-oh!_gx_season1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse ( talk) 06:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
|
Content
Number 1, September 10, 2010
The Anime and Manga Newsletter
This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Anime and Manga. The Anime and Manga Newsletter aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global Anime and Manga News. If you wish to receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the Mailing List. This newsletter covers all Anime and Manga events of August 2010
Anime and Manga News
Requested articles
Articles that have been requested to be created can be found at
Anime and Manga and
Seiyū.
Articles that have been requested to be merged can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force#Articles needing to be merged and Category:Anime and manga articles to be merged.
Articles that have requests for images can be found at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of anime and manga
Anime Premiered in August
Anime Premiering in September
Lists Requiring Help
These are lists that were demoted from featured list status and need improvement to become FL quality again.
Articles Requiring Help
Candidate Articles Requiring Help
These are well written articles that need improvement to become FA quality.
Featured articles The following articles reached featured article (FA) status and should be used as references for work on other articles in order to bring them up to FA level.
Featured lists
|
This was not at all appropriate. Firstly, it's gossip. Secondly, it's gossip that isn't even sourced. Thirdly, whether you are dyslexic or not, that is not an excuse to submit material without even a basic spell check (indeed, it's to be hoped that you would be more cautious about that than average). You've been editing here for four years now, so I'd hope you were aware of these basic matters. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 14:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Andrew, Regarding a new page being set up about the newco, the same formatting that was used for Fiorentina should be used. They went into liquidation also(Italian equivalent) and formed a newco and this was just update on the founded section. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Seery234 (
talk •
contribs)
19:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Your wrong there mate. Rangers Football Club is a Company. If you go back and look at the Newspapers the day after Rangers were Incorporated in 1899 you will see them detailing how Rangers are now a Company. At the time there would have been celebration by Rangers fans that they were now a Company, you are now trying to deny Rangers are a Company. You do not make any sence. You cannot seperate Rangers as a Club and a Company, to do so is makebelieve. -- Superbhoy1888 ( talk) 18:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Rangers are a Company mate. I dont know why people think they are not, all professional Football Clubs are Companies. The Official name of Rangers(the whole thing) is Rangers Football Club P.L.C just like the Official name of Celtic is The Celtic Football Club P.L.C. If one of these things ceases to exist then they do. What you have tried to say is that Rangers are a non-entity ie. They don't exist, they only exist in the mind. But we know that to be false as they are an entity they are a Company, Club is only part of the name, the Club is the Company and the Company is the Club. It's Rangers Football Club, Rangers, Rangers FC, Rangers PLC, Rangers FC PLC, call it what you will that is in Liquidation. That is what held the assets that made up Rangers but that in its-self IS Rangers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Andrewcrawford. You are correct that protection is needed as all sorts of edits are being done, often for questionable motives. I merely tried to restore changes to what had been the stable (and correct) version. Regards Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 10:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
This new Company is the Club. They will just play under the trading name of "The Rangers" like The Rangers Football Club Plc play under the name of "Rangers". That page is a Club page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I know what your saying. But see if you look at the page of the New Rangers, called Sevco 5588 I think it lists Green, Murray and Samuel as the three people will directors roles. Coincidentally they are the only 3 mentioned in sources as being part of the New Rangers. So we know for certain that they are different as the Current Rangers are still listed as The Rangers Football Club PLC and Craig Whyte still owns them and is still a director there. They are in Administration/Liquidation and have now sold various assets to Green's "Sevco" aka "The Rangers Football Club Ltd" we can only go by that name as thats what he says they will be called however they will almost certainly have to change to something else.-- Superbhoy1888 ( talk) 18:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Celtic FC/Celtic/Celtic Football Club is Officially Celtic PLC Rangers FC/Rangers/Rangers Football Club is Officially The Rangers Football Club PLC The unofficial Trade names they go bye such as Celtic and Rangers are just what they are more or less nicknames-- Superbhoy1888 ( talk) 18:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The Club are the PLC though. Look here.... http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC003487 That IS Celtic Football Club, Celtic's Official name is Celtic PLC, you will see Dermott Desmond etc are Directors of Celtic PLC. Celtic Football Club doesnt actually exist its only a name trademarked/copyrighted by Celtic PLC and used as a Trade name. Just like Rangers FC is probably trademarked/copyrighted by The Rangers Football Club PLC. On Rangers Club documents you will see "The Rangers Football Club PLC("The Club")" used as the Official name. Technically Celtic's wikipedia main page should be Celtic PLC and direct to Celtic FC, Rangers' should be The Rangers Football Club PLC and direct to Rangers FC. The New Rangers page would be called The Rangers Football Club Ltd and direct to The Rangers FC-- Superbhoy1888 ( talk) 18:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Rangers FC club dead or not". Thank you. -- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 17:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, by all means please check on the sourcing for the Time Team specials. Since the first thing one sees on the List of Time Team episodes page is an admonishment about the lack of references, getting good sources is important. However—keeping in mind that reliably sourced information is the cornerstone of Wikipedia—I would respectfully suggest that if Channel 4 says a show is a special, then its opinion must carry more weight than a source not affiliated with the programme, regardless of our own opinions. Gaiole ( talk) 19:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you have a look at that subsection on the Rangers F.C. Talk page. Will come up with a edit request if you agree. Would prefer your input though. It's a suggestion for not removing the squad but adding notes. If that's the way we are going then it's the best way but i wanted to see your thoughts. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Andrew. It seems I'm in a minority with my viewpoint then! I reckoned that, because Rangers are not coming back (in that form) then 'defunct' was fair enough. Others will know about it than me though, so I'm happy to leave it to them. Clavdia chauchat ( talk) 20:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Constant flow of new editors making changes without consensus and other editors being very select with sources (cherry picking so to say). I undid some of the vandalism but more keep popping up. Any ideas on what to do? BadSynergy ( talk) 16:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Andrew! Here, have some stroopwafels: heaven in a cookie. Arcandam ( talk) 19:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Andrewcrawford - my humble apologies! I've now corrected the post and put an edit note explaining my error. Regards Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 18:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Andrewcrawford,
So, have I got your argument correct: when Green's consortium bought the assets of Rangers, it also bought Rangers FC but Rangers FC's membership of the SFA was removed from Rangers FC when Green's consortium bought the club. Therefore, Green's consortium now has to get SFA membership?
If that is your argument, it would mean that Rangers FC is currently not a member of the SFA - is that what you are suggesting?
Regards Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 18:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It will be a Club, if it gets the share off of Rangers. Rangers Holding Company is not in Liquidation it is Rangers Football Club P.L.C which is Football Club. The holding Company of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C is Rangers FC Group Ltd - they are not in Liquidation, they are fine and they are owned completely by Craig Whyte and in turn own is it 86% of Rangers Football Club's shares?
Just clearing things up for you, in short:
Rangers are Rangers Football Club P.L.C they used to be known as Ltd(check their Club gates which say Ltd on them) that is the Club which for example Rangers Fans have shares in. The Holding Company is Craig Whyte owned Rangers FC Group Ltd.
Rangers Football Club was formed in 1872, it was Incorporated as a Company in 1899 - Rangers Football Club Ltd, it has since become Rangers Football Club Plc and is currently in Liquidation. There is no seperation of the Club as a Club and the Club as a Company, the Club is a Company.
I posted a link to their report on Rangers talk page however are you still collecting sources for someone else to judge what needs done? After I posted it certain editors started applying their POV of what the report means. It seems that no matter what anyone posts it will be refuted. Hows the request coming along? BadSynergy ( talk) 16:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
although it shouldnt be there ther eis no conesnese to move it back to one article it is at request for comment so when that comes out later this week reply to it, if you do a bold thing liek that again i will have to leavea warnign even though i agree it should be one article-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 17:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC) There's clear consensus in the Rangers Talk page ... not sure why you'd suggest otherwise.
This is clearly racism by Celitc supporters. If you agree with me that it should be one page, you shouldn't be supporting such bizzare edits. Nfitz ( talk) 17:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Rangers F.C. and Newco Rangers Nfitz ( talk) 18:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Andrew finally got something from SFA regarding Rangers.
How can “Rangers” gain league/SFA membership when they cannot produce requisite three years of accounts? The SFA answer: ” the…policy relates to applications for a new membership. In this case, Rangers Newco will be applying for the transfer of an existing membership held with the Oldco. Rangers Oldco submitted the necessary financial information for 2009 and 2010. It did not submit for the year 2011, which resulted in the Judicial Panel sanctioning the club a total of £160,000 for various breaches of its Articles of Association, and also imposing a transfer embargo which has been subsequently set aside after the Court of Session ruling by Lord Glennie.” That is – transferring old to new is not the same as a new club pitching up and wanting in. [1]. Hopefully it will all be sorted soon. BadSynergy ( talk) 00:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Summary: On the 14th of June, 'The Rangers Football Club Plc', a company formed in 1899 entered liquidation proceedings. Liquidation is the process of selling of the assets of an insolvent business to recoup as much funds as possible to raise funds for the companies creditors. Charles Green led a consortium which purchased the 'history, business & assets' (as sources show) from 'The Rangers Football Club Plc' as a means to continue 'Rangers F.C' within a new company (NewCo).
So what is the debate? Well, this process has thrown up some questions. Is it the same club, or an entirely new club? Does this club retain it's history? Does a club operate within a company, or are they as 1? And should the club have a seperate Wikipedia page to be represented as a new club, or do we recognise it within the 1 Wikipedia page as teh same club but simply under new ownership?
1. What Do the Sources Say? Many journalistic sources have taken the viewpoint from both sides, the 'Talk' pages on the articles are littered with thm from each side of the arguement. The tabloid newspapers have often described the 'new company' as a "new club". Some ex-Rangers players even described it as so. However, many others have reffered to them as the same club, including Neil doncaster (SPL chairman), and even HMRC (whos decision to reject a CVA caused the liquidation). The 'new company' has often been refered to 'Rangers F.C' (the club name) within official documents from the SFA & SFL. Although it could be argued that the sources in favour of the "new club" arguement have only ever been journalistic view points and therefore documents from official governing bodies should take precedent, it is still a gray-area in regards to how the situation is being represented within the media. Therefore we need to evaluate further evidence.
2. Is 'A Club' a seperate thing from the company, or are they 1 and the same? 1 arguement being put forward by the "new club" camp, is that a club IS a company. That they are 1 and the same. It's a reasonable arguement as many official documents and sources purposefully define them as so, by stating the company name, and placing in brackets (the club). But perhaps this is simply to clarify to the readers that when they speak of 'the club' they are talking about the company. So what is 'a club' exactly? Well the FA in England produced this document on club structures: http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/The%20FA%20Club%20Structures.pdf says "The FA does not have any rules or requirements that specify that a club must be structured in one legal form or another." The term 'Club' is actually a pretty lose term, infact 2 people getting together to form any kind of association coudl call themselves a 'club'. Most professional football teams however are formed as companies. On page17 of the same document cited above, it details the process of turning a club into a corporate entity. After creating & registering a company, you then proceed to transfer the assets which make up the club, into the new company. If we move on to page20, it then outlines the rules regarding the transfer of membership from 1 legal entity to another. In other words, there is nothing to stop owners of a football club transferring all the assets out of 1 corporate entity to another, (if approved by the regulatory bodies). So, from that we can guage that a 'football club' is made up of certain assets (normally player contracts, a stadium, intellectual property), and these assets can be moved into a company during it's initial creation, and it can also be moved out of 1 company, and into another. So even if you take the viewpoint that club/company are 1 of the same, there is no evidence to suggest they cannot ever be broken apart, (otherwise a simple corproate restructure would be impossible without creating an entirely new club).
3. Precedents. Ofcourse, this is nothing new, it would be naive to believe Rangers F.C were the first club to suffer such fate. So what precedents can we draw upon? All of the following clubs have either been "liquidated" or "dissolved" and now function under new companies (NewCo's); Leeds United AFC Luton Town Charlton Athletic Middlesborough FC AFC Bournemouth Rotherham United
There are also examples of Clubs within Wikipedia which document clubs on different pages, such as; FC Halifax & Chester FC. So what's different? Well these are 2 examples of what is often described as 'Phoenix clubs'. When the old clubs were wound-up, fans groups got together and created these new clubs. The greatest fundamental difference is they did not acquire 'the business & assets' from the old clubs in liquidation. Therefore they have no legal link what-so-ever to the old clubs. They cannot lay claim to any of the intellectual property, use the same 'club name' or use the same cub badge/crest. In theory these clusb could have been created while the old clubs still in existence. So which sets precedent for Rangers F.C? Well since the NewCo purchased "the history, business & assets [1] " of the old company, it is NOT a 'phoenix club'.
There is 1 other issue regarding the sale of assets. Within the sale of the assets was membership to the SFA. Even though it was sold, it still must be sanctioned by the governing body, and we await that decision.
4. History & Goodwill
Another arguement made by the 'new club' camp is that the history ends with the old company, and the 'new club' is starting a fresh. Well as we can see from the above precedents, this certainly isn;t the case of Leeds United AFC or Charlton Athletic, who lay claim to their respective histories even though they present companies operating them were formed in 2007 & 1984 respectively.
A more robust piece of evidence however is this
Interim Creditors Report produced by Rangers Administrators Duff&Phelps, which details the transaction of assets from the OldCo to NewCo.
"4.2 The continuation of trading operations enabled the Joint Administrators to put the CVA Proposal to the creditors of the Company and after the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors, the Joint Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the Company to Sevco (see Section 5 for further details)."
"4.4 Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club."
So within this document the administratos clearly state the new company has purchased "the history" aswell as the assets. It also goes on to state that "the club" is no under ownership & operation of "Sevco" (the new company).
If we move onto appendix 2, the document then details the transaction with exactly what was sold and to what value. It is here we can see the transaction of " goodwill".
what is 'Goodwill'? Goodwill is an intangible assets, which aims to encapture the value of a brand, inclusive of history. If i were to purchase 'Fanta' the soft drink from it's owners 'The coca-Cola Company' this would allow me to continue to trade as if nothing changed (same name, label, intellectual property) lay claim to the soft dirnks history, and ultimatly keep the same customers & same market share. Without the goodwill, i'd still have the manufacturing rights & recipe, but i'd need to come up with a new name, and be percieved by as a new product, thus likely to lose many customers & the current market share of Fanta. Even though "Goodwill" may be a concept hard to grasp, it has been common practice in business for a long time and applies here, with clear record of it's transaction.
5. Conclusion with the above evidence provided, it's difficult to see how a case for 'new club' to be substantiated. The above evidence has dealt with the 3 main arguements heard from otherside of the debate, which thus far have been;
The wikipedia article Rngers FC was changed to reflect the club in the past tense, as if no longer in existence, and a new article set-up to describe a new club (in the same manner as the above named Chester or Halifax). such change was done WITHOUT concensus. In order to make such a drastic & hotly disputed change without concensus, the onus is surely on those who believe we are dealing with a 'new club' to prove as a matter-of-fact, and beyond all doubt, that this is a new club. So far there has been very thin evidence, if any at all to lead us to believe undoubtebly we are dealign with an entirely new club, and this arguement seems to be based almost entirely on point-of-view.
Ricky072 (
talk)
23:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I assume you are talking about List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media article. One thing that I noticed was the "Aired UK before america confirmed by UK Viewers" and others references like it are not very good. The lead paragraph needs more work. Looking at the Featured list criteria and articles that are already featured lists is a great way to to see where improvements need to be made in the article you are working on. Hope this helps. ( Duane543 ( talk) 16:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC))
Thanks for uploading Image:Yu-gi-oh!_gx_season1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse ( talk) 06:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
|
Content
Number 1, September 10, 2010
The Anime and Manga Newsletter
This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Anime and Manga. The Anime and Manga Newsletter aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global Anime and Manga News. If you wish to receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the Mailing List. This newsletter covers all Anime and Manga events of August 2010
Anime and Manga News
Requested articles
Articles that have been requested to be created can be found at
Anime and Manga and
Seiyū.
Articles that have been requested to be merged can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force#Articles needing to be merged and Category:Anime and manga articles to be merged.
Articles that have requests for images can be found at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of anime and manga
Anime Premiered in August
Anime Premiering in September
Lists Requiring Help
These are lists that were demoted from featured list status and need improvement to become FL quality again.
Articles Requiring Help
Candidate Articles Requiring Help
These are well written articles that need improvement to become FA quality.
Featured articles The following articles reached featured article (FA) status and should be used as references for work on other articles in order to bring them up to FA level.
Featured lists
|
This was not at all appropriate. Firstly, it's gossip. Secondly, it's gossip that isn't even sourced. Thirdly, whether you are dyslexic or not, that is not an excuse to submit material without even a basic spell check (indeed, it's to be hoped that you would be more cautious about that than average). You've been editing here for four years now, so I'd hope you were aware of these basic matters. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 14:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Andrew, Regarding a new page being set up about the newco, the same formatting that was used for Fiorentina should be used. They went into liquidation also(Italian equivalent) and formed a newco and this was just update on the founded section. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Seery234 (
talk •
contribs)
19:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Your wrong there mate. Rangers Football Club is a Company. If you go back and look at the Newspapers the day after Rangers were Incorporated in 1899 you will see them detailing how Rangers are now a Company. At the time there would have been celebration by Rangers fans that they were now a Company, you are now trying to deny Rangers are a Company. You do not make any sence. You cannot seperate Rangers as a Club and a Company, to do so is makebelieve. -- Superbhoy1888 ( talk) 18:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Rangers are a Company mate. I dont know why people think they are not, all professional Football Clubs are Companies. The Official name of Rangers(the whole thing) is Rangers Football Club P.L.C just like the Official name of Celtic is The Celtic Football Club P.L.C. If one of these things ceases to exist then they do. What you have tried to say is that Rangers are a non-entity ie. They don't exist, they only exist in the mind. But we know that to be false as they are an entity they are a Company, Club is only part of the name, the Club is the Company and the Company is the Club. It's Rangers Football Club, Rangers, Rangers FC, Rangers PLC, Rangers FC PLC, call it what you will that is in Liquidation. That is what held the assets that made up Rangers but that in its-self IS Rangers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Andrewcrawford. You are correct that protection is needed as all sorts of edits are being done, often for questionable motives. I merely tried to restore changes to what had been the stable (and correct) version. Regards Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 10:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
This new Company is the Club. They will just play under the trading name of "The Rangers" like The Rangers Football Club Plc play under the name of "Rangers". That page is a Club page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I know what your saying. But see if you look at the page of the New Rangers, called Sevco 5588 I think it lists Green, Murray and Samuel as the three people will directors roles. Coincidentally they are the only 3 mentioned in sources as being part of the New Rangers. So we know for certain that they are different as the Current Rangers are still listed as The Rangers Football Club PLC and Craig Whyte still owns them and is still a director there. They are in Administration/Liquidation and have now sold various assets to Green's "Sevco" aka "The Rangers Football Club Ltd" we can only go by that name as thats what he says they will be called however they will almost certainly have to change to something else.-- Superbhoy1888 ( talk) 18:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Celtic FC/Celtic/Celtic Football Club is Officially Celtic PLC Rangers FC/Rangers/Rangers Football Club is Officially The Rangers Football Club PLC The unofficial Trade names they go bye such as Celtic and Rangers are just what they are more or less nicknames-- Superbhoy1888 ( talk) 18:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The Club are the PLC though. Look here.... http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC003487 That IS Celtic Football Club, Celtic's Official name is Celtic PLC, you will see Dermott Desmond etc are Directors of Celtic PLC. Celtic Football Club doesnt actually exist its only a name trademarked/copyrighted by Celtic PLC and used as a Trade name. Just like Rangers FC is probably trademarked/copyrighted by The Rangers Football Club PLC. On Rangers Club documents you will see "The Rangers Football Club PLC("The Club")" used as the Official name. Technically Celtic's wikipedia main page should be Celtic PLC and direct to Celtic FC, Rangers' should be The Rangers Football Club PLC and direct to Rangers FC. The New Rangers page would be called The Rangers Football Club Ltd and direct to The Rangers FC-- Superbhoy1888 ( talk) 18:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Rangers FC club dead or not". Thank you. -- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 17:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, by all means please check on the sourcing for the Time Team specials. Since the first thing one sees on the List of Time Team episodes page is an admonishment about the lack of references, getting good sources is important. However—keeping in mind that reliably sourced information is the cornerstone of Wikipedia—I would respectfully suggest that if Channel 4 says a show is a special, then its opinion must carry more weight than a source not affiliated with the programme, regardless of our own opinions. Gaiole ( talk) 19:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you have a look at that subsection on the Rangers F.C. Talk page. Will come up with a edit request if you agree. Would prefer your input though. It's a suggestion for not removing the squad but adding notes. If that's the way we are going then it's the best way but i wanted to see your thoughts. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Andrew. It seems I'm in a minority with my viewpoint then! I reckoned that, because Rangers are not coming back (in that form) then 'defunct' was fair enough. Others will know about it than me though, so I'm happy to leave it to them. Clavdia chauchat ( talk) 20:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Constant flow of new editors making changes without consensus and other editors being very select with sources (cherry picking so to say). I undid some of the vandalism but more keep popping up. Any ideas on what to do? BadSynergy ( talk) 16:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Andrew! Here, have some stroopwafels: heaven in a cookie. Arcandam ( talk) 19:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Andrewcrawford - my humble apologies! I've now corrected the post and put an edit note explaining my error. Regards Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 18:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Andrewcrawford,
So, have I got your argument correct: when Green's consortium bought the assets of Rangers, it also bought Rangers FC but Rangers FC's membership of the SFA was removed from Rangers FC when Green's consortium bought the club. Therefore, Green's consortium now has to get SFA membership?
If that is your argument, it would mean that Rangers FC is currently not a member of the SFA - is that what you are suggesting?
Regards Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 18:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It will be a Club, if it gets the share off of Rangers. Rangers Holding Company is not in Liquidation it is Rangers Football Club P.L.C which is Football Club. The holding Company of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C is Rangers FC Group Ltd - they are not in Liquidation, they are fine and they are owned completely by Craig Whyte and in turn own is it 86% of Rangers Football Club's shares?
Just clearing things up for you, in short:
Rangers are Rangers Football Club P.L.C they used to be known as Ltd(check their Club gates which say Ltd on them) that is the Club which for example Rangers Fans have shares in. The Holding Company is Craig Whyte owned Rangers FC Group Ltd.
Rangers Football Club was formed in 1872, it was Incorporated as a Company in 1899 - Rangers Football Club Ltd, it has since become Rangers Football Club Plc and is currently in Liquidation. There is no seperation of the Club as a Club and the Club as a Company, the Club is a Company.
I posted a link to their report on Rangers talk page however are you still collecting sources for someone else to judge what needs done? After I posted it certain editors started applying their POV of what the report means. It seems that no matter what anyone posts it will be refuted. Hows the request coming along? BadSynergy ( talk) 16:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
although it shouldnt be there ther eis no conesnese to move it back to one article it is at request for comment so when that comes out later this week reply to it, if you do a bold thing liek that again i will have to leavea warnign even though i agree it should be one article-- Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 17:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC) There's clear consensus in the Rangers Talk page ... not sure why you'd suggest otherwise.
This is clearly racism by Celitc supporters. If you agree with me that it should be one page, you shouldn't be supporting such bizzare edits. Nfitz ( talk) 17:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Rangers F.C. and Newco Rangers Nfitz ( talk) 18:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Andrew finally got something from SFA regarding Rangers.
How can “Rangers” gain league/SFA membership when they cannot produce requisite three years of accounts? The SFA answer: ” the…policy relates to applications for a new membership. In this case, Rangers Newco will be applying for the transfer of an existing membership held with the Oldco. Rangers Oldco submitted the necessary financial information for 2009 and 2010. It did not submit for the year 2011, which resulted in the Judicial Panel sanctioning the club a total of £160,000 for various breaches of its Articles of Association, and also imposing a transfer embargo which has been subsequently set aside after the Court of Session ruling by Lord Glennie.” That is – transferring old to new is not the same as a new club pitching up and wanting in. [1]. Hopefully it will all be sorted soon. BadSynergy ( talk) 00:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Summary: On the 14th of June, 'The Rangers Football Club Plc', a company formed in 1899 entered liquidation proceedings. Liquidation is the process of selling of the assets of an insolvent business to recoup as much funds as possible to raise funds for the companies creditors. Charles Green led a consortium which purchased the 'history, business & assets' (as sources show) from 'The Rangers Football Club Plc' as a means to continue 'Rangers F.C' within a new company (NewCo).
So what is the debate? Well, this process has thrown up some questions. Is it the same club, or an entirely new club? Does this club retain it's history? Does a club operate within a company, or are they as 1? And should the club have a seperate Wikipedia page to be represented as a new club, or do we recognise it within the 1 Wikipedia page as teh same club but simply under new ownership?
1. What Do the Sources Say? Many journalistic sources have taken the viewpoint from both sides, the 'Talk' pages on the articles are littered with thm from each side of the arguement. The tabloid newspapers have often described the 'new company' as a "new club". Some ex-Rangers players even described it as so. However, many others have reffered to them as the same club, including Neil doncaster (SPL chairman), and even HMRC (whos decision to reject a CVA caused the liquidation). The 'new company' has often been refered to 'Rangers F.C' (the club name) within official documents from the SFA & SFL. Although it could be argued that the sources in favour of the "new club" arguement have only ever been journalistic view points and therefore documents from official governing bodies should take precedent, it is still a gray-area in regards to how the situation is being represented within the media. Therefore we need to evaluate further evidence.
2. Is 'A Club' a seperate thing from the company, or are they 1 and the same? 1 arguement being put forward by the "new club" camp, is that a club IS a company. That they are 1 and the same. It's a reasonable arguement as many official documents and sources purposefully define them as so, by stating the company name, and placing in brackets (the club). But perhaps this is simply to clarify to the readers that when they speak of 'the club' they are talking about the company. So what is 'a club' exactly? Well the FA in England produced this document on club structures: http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/The%20FA%20Club%20Structures.pdf says "The FA does not have any rules or requirements that specify that a club must be structured in one legal form or another." The term 'Club' is actually a pretty lose term, infact 2 people getting together to form any kind of association coudl call themselves a 'club'. Most professional football teams however are formed as companies. On page17 of the same document cited above, it details the process of turning a club into a corporate entity. After creating & registering a company, you then proceed to transfer the assets which make up the club, into the new company. If we move on to page20, it then outlines the rules regarding the transfer of membership from 1 legal entity to another. In other words, there is nothing to stop owners of a football club transferring all the assets out of 1 corporate entity to another, (if approved by the regulatory bodies). So, from that we can guage that a 'football club' is made up of certain assets (normally player contracts, a stadium, intellectual property), and these assets can be moved into a company during it's initial creation, and it can also be moved out of 1 company, and into another. So even if you take the viewpoint that club/company are 1 of the same, there is no evidence to suggest they cannot ever be broken apart, (otherwise a simple corproate restructure would be impossible without creating an entirely new club).
3. Precedents. Ofcourse, this is nothing new, it would be naive to believe Rangers F.C were the first club to suffer such fate. So what precedents can we draw upon? All of the following clubs have either been "liquidated" or "dissolved" and now function under new companies (NewCo's); Leeds United AFC Luton Town Charlton Athletic Middlesborough FC AFC Bournemouth Rotherham United
There are also examples of Clubs within Wikipedia which document clubs on different pages, such as; FC Halifax & Chester FC. So what's different? Well these are 2 examples of what is often described as 'Phoenix clubs'. When the old clubs were wound-up, fans groups got together and created these new clubs. The greatest fundamental difference is they did not acquire 'the business & assets' from the old clubs in liquidation. Therefore they have no legal link what-so-ever to the old clubs. They cannot lay claim to any of the intellectual property, use the same 'club name' or use the same cub badge/crest. In theory these clusb could have been created while the old clubs still in existence. So which sets precedent for Rangers F.C? Well since the NewCo purchased "the history, business & assets [1] " of the old company, it is NOT a 'phoenix club'.
There is 1 other issue regarding the sale of assets. Within the sale of the assets was membership to the SFA. Even though it was sold, it still must be sanctioned by the governing body, and we await that decision.
4. History & Goodwill
Another arguement made by the 'new club' camp is that the history ends with the old company, and the 'new club' is starting a fresh. Well as we can see from the above precedents, this certainly isn;t the case of Leeds United AFC or Charlton Athletic, who lay claim to their respective histories even though they present companies operating them were formed in 2007 & 1984 respectively.
A more robust piece of evidence however is this
Interim Creditors Report produced by Rangers Administrators Duff&Phelps, which details the transaction of assets from the OldCo to NewCo.
"4.2 The continuation of trading operations enabled the Joint Administrators to put the CVA Proposal to the creditors of the Company and after the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors, the Joint Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the Company to Sevco (see Section 5 for further details)."
"4.4 Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club."
So within this document the administratos clearly state the new company has purchased "the history" aswell as the assets. It also goes on to state that "the club" is no under ownership & operation of "Sevco" (the new company).
If we move onto appendix 2, the document then details the transaction with exactly what was sold and to what value. It is here we can see the transaction of " goodwill".
what is 'Goodwill'? Goodwill is an intangible assets, which aims to encapture the value of a brand, inclusive of history. If i were to purchase 'Fanta' the soft drink from it's owners 'The coca-Cola Company' this would allow me to continue to trade as if nothing changed (same name, label, intellectual property) lay claim to the soft dirnks history, and ultimatly keep the same customers & same market share. Without the goodwill, i'd still have the manufacturing rights & recipe, but i'd need to come up with a new name, and be percieved by as a new product, thus likely to lose many customers & the current market share of Fanta. Even though "Goodwill" may be a concept hard to grasp, it has been common practice in business for a long time and applies here, with clear record of it's transaction.
5. Conclusion with the above evidence provided, it's difficult to see how a case for 'new club' to be substantiated. The above evidence has dealt with the 3 main arguements heard from otherside of the debate, which thus far have been;
The wikipedia article Rngers FC was changed to reflect the club in the past tense, as if no longer in existence, and a new article set-up to describe a new club (in the same manner as the above named Chester or Halifax). such change was done WITHOUT concensus. In order to make such a drastic & hotly disputed change without concensus, the onus is surely on those who believe we are dealing with a 'new club' to prove as a matter-of-fact, and beyond all doubt, that this is a new club. So far there has been very thin evidence, if any at all to lead us to believe undoubtebly we are dealign with an entirely new club, and this arguement seems to be based almost entirely on point-of-view.
Ricky072 (
talk)
23:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)