Talk:Old Firm

Validity of Old Firm

The liquidation of Rangers FC 1872 has questioned the relevance and or validity of the term 'Old Firm'. Fans of Rangers FC claim that the Club formed in 1872 is still the 'Same Club' as the Club admitted to SFL Div 3 in 2012.

However under Scots Law of incorporation this is an impossibility. Under Article 12 of UEFA Club Licencing document “A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions…”. So they are NOT the same Club under the Law of the Country they operate nor are they recognised as the 'Same Club' as European football's governing body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see ongoing and archived discussion at Talk:Rangers F.C.. Wikipedia doesn't accept original research, please provide sources and gain consensus at Talk:Rangers F.C. or on this talk page if you wish to make such a substantial edit. Cheers, VanguardScot 14:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The term 'Old Firm' was never an official term. My point is that fans outwith Rangers FC 2012 are questioning the validity of the term in light of the compulsory liquidation under Scots Law of Rangers FC 1872. The term was used to describe two Clubs that were formed in 1872 and 1888. Only fans of Rangers FC believe that the Club survived a liquidation event. Which is contradictory to Incorporation rules under Scots Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a section on 'Old Firm' page detailing Celtic Fans protest of legislation? What has that to do with a term 'Old Firm'? This page clearly constructed and edited by fans of Rangers FC 1872 (In Liquidation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That is classic WP:OR. The old firm is a commonly used term and that is the reason it has a wikipedia page. The term "New Firm" is also not an 'official term' but it is a commonly used term that refers to a football derby, so it has a wikipedia page that is sourced to RS's. If you want to change the article to say that the OF no longer exists then you need to provide WP:RS, not some gibberish copy and pasted from a fan blog. Also stop removing the talk page headers they are an important part of WP:Footy. VanguardScot 14:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This is where the page has problems because since Rangers FC 1872 liquidated there is no derby. The page has a piece on Celtic fans protesting about Government legislation yet you are deleting ANYTHING that mentions liquidation of RFC 1872(IL)? That is clearly devious. MagicEagle67 (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The liquidaton of The Rangers Football Club Plc is adequtely covered in the relevant wikipedia articles. Still you refuse to give sny sources to back up your claim the 'old firm' no longer exists? VanguardScot 15:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The liquidation of Rangers FC 1872 has clear mistruths. The Club under Scots Law is no longer and I will bring that evidence to the table. Where is your evidence that the 'Old Firm' is still in existence? What constitutes it's very existence in your mind? What my point is, is that fans outside of Rangers FC no longer recognise the 'Old Firm' as a terminology or a relevant term given the liquidation of Rangers FC 1872. As I said before, it is clear this page has been constructed and edited by fans of Rangers FC 1872 giving ignorance to a Compulsory Liquidation and how there is a section on Green Brigade protesting about government legislation on this page I will never know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The article talks about protests against Scottish Parliament legislation by both sets of fans, which is sourced to RS's. There is no point in you continuing this discussion without any sources to back up your proposed changes. You were asked for your RS's about six hours ago and still haven't provided any. VanguardScot 19:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You are asking me for sources on the 'Old Firm'? The 'Old Firm' is a hypothetical terminology used to describe a rivalry between Celtic FC formed in 1888 and Rangers formed in 1872. Scot's law and to anyone outside the Rangers fanbase, Rangers FC formed in 1872 are no longer in existence. Only emotional fans of Rangers FC and organisations who have commercial interests in having ANY Rangers FC in existence believe the fiction that they survived a compulsory liquidation event. Celtic were never part of any 'Old Firm' with a club formed in 2012. My point is that the term 'Old Firm' is now a term that has to be used as a past tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You are simply asked to provide a RS that backs up your claim that the term old firm is now only used in the past tense. I have found numerous RS after a quick google search that say otherwise ([1], [2][3], [4], [5]) so I am taking your continued editing of this page as vandalism. See Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and What Wikipedia is not. VanguardScot 15:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

My point is that contrary to certain media outlets using the term for commercial advantage as well as fans of RFC 1872 clinging to a fiction the 'Club never really died', the term 'Old Firm' can only be in existence when both Club's the term was used to describe are also both in existence. Here we even have the current THE RFC 2012 head of media communications describing how RFC 1872 did in fact die whilst making the comment "No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club. When the CVA was thrown out Rangers as we know them died 1 other media outlets describe CVA rejection meant '140 years of History' formally ended (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Now we also have the head of the Scottish Football Association giving us an insight into the consequences of there being NO RANGERS AT ALL (8) This is where the fiction was created that the 'Club didn't really die' absurdity.

The whole point of this 'Old Firm' page should allow for this information to be displayed because you know fine well that people outside the fanbase of RFC 1872 DO NOT RECOGNISE the term 'Old Firm' because of the compulsory liquidation event. Of course there are going to be commercially driven news organisations in particular keen to cling to the term in order to generate money, however the term is no longer representative of the two Clubs it was used for to describe. It is not unreasonable to suggest it should be in there to make people aware of the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting for those cites... Waffle about the possible status of Rangers is of no relevance. Let's see something that says "The old firm no longer exists". If we know fine well that people don't recognise the term "old firm" then it should be easy to find those cites. Where are they? Who are these people? Why is their opinion noteworthy? (Be forewarned; forum posts by random anonymous people don't count. This is an encyclopaedia, not a football fan site.) --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand your logic. You state "possible status of Rangers is of no relevance"? Are you being serious? The relevance is that the term 'Old Firm' was coined UNOFFICIALLY as a terminology to describe Rangers FC 1872 and Celtic FC 1888. Now Rangers FC 1872 are no longer in existence and you ask what's the relevance? You also say it Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a football fan site which I totally agree with. The whole of this page appears to be written by fans of Rangers FC 1872. It talks of sectarianism yet doesn't mention Rangers FC had a Sectarian policy but it mentions Celtic fans marching on 'Unofficial' protests? And is the term 'Old Firm' not relevant to football fans because it is does not have any cites anywhere printing that there is no 'Old Firm'? For the record, who has the right to say whether the term is relevant or not?

I suggest you read over the archives at Talk:Rangers F.C., this has been done to death over there. The current wikipedia consensus on the whole situation is all over there. VanguardScot 20:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You are making at least two unsupported statements about Rangers, then extrapolating that to construct an unsupported conclusion about the "Old Firm". You have cites for neither. If you don't understand why this is original research (and more specifically; shoddy original synthesis) then I suggest you go and read more about them, and understand why Wikipedia does not permit it. If you want to declare the "Old Firm" as no more you need a reliable and authoritative source that says exactly that. Cobbling together arguments from what the Old Firm was (in your opinion), what Rangers is now (in your opinion), and therefore what the Old Firm is now (in your opinion), is a million miles from being acceptable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would a page on this website called Talk Rangers be the bearer of truth on the liquidation of the Club? Because the term 'Old Firm' was never official who has the final say on it's existence because if it's unofficial then surely anyone who uses it is doing so in an opinionated expression. In all honesty you couldn't produce anything that declares the term 'Old Firm' as an official description much the same way as what the 'New Firm' is for Dundee Utd and Aberdeen. Similarly what Nimmo Smith delacred the Rangers FC 'In Common Speech' can be deemed a continuing entity. He had to use that 'In Common Speech' term because Lord Nimmo Smith knows that in Law, Rangers FC formed in 1872 are officially liquidated. There's your difference. That's what the 'Old Firm' term is: In common speech but not strictly official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the "Old Firm", a term that is used 'In Common Speech' to describe a rivalry between two football clubs and their fans. As long as it is used by reliable sources "In Common Speech" then this article will reflect what it means, its context, history and use. So that anyone who encounters it "In Common Speech" may come to Wikipedia to understand what it means.

Until you have agreement among a number of good sources that the term "Old Firm" is now only of historical interest, you have precisely nothing to add to this article. Constructing your point in any other way is original synthesis. Your assessment of what is "official" and "law", and what the status of the clubs and their rivalry is, is beyond irrelevant. Wikipedia is not the place for your original synthesis. Please read policy on original synthesis before you continue edit warring on this any further. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You have just done your own argument in by describing the term as to 'describe a rivalry between two football clubs and their fans'. The 'Old Firm' rivalry was between Celtic FC 1888 and Rangers FC 1872. The Club currently playing at Ibrox is not the Club formed in 1872 so how on earth can the 'Old Firm' term be used as anything other than in the past tense? Would people reporting sightings of Elvis Pressley on the Las Vegas strip 'In Common Speech' be regarded as FACT that he was alive. I rest my case. This example of page hijacking by fans of Rangers FC 1872 has made Wikipedia nothing other than an embarrassment as a source of information.

And you are still just repeating your own made-up definitions and own opinions without any sources to back them up. Apart from still being original research, it's got boring. And you're still edit warring. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Rangers died in 2012 Bonhillcsc (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

————

Regardless of whether Rangers of 2017 is a separate entity from that formed in 1872, it really has no bearing on the Old Firm, which (as discussed above) has no official definition but is universally recognised as being a rivalry between a team called Celtic wearing green and white, and a team called Rangers wearing blue. As there is only one entity claiming to be Rangers, it is them who take the present role in the rivalry, which therefore continues. The claimants to the contrary acknowledge that the fans of Rangers assert that it is the same club, and so that represents one half of the support base which gives the rivalry its notability and notoriety. Obviously Celtic go on as before so their side of the support base remains and the rivalry is thus alive and well, and even the small percentage who claim Rangers are 'dead' are invariably still attending the games and taking a keen interest in the results, even if their reason provided may now be to take pleasure from defeating what they see as a false club rather than the traditional reasons for disliking Rangers. Crowsus (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Top scorers

Anyway, the reason I came on this talk was to express my surprise that there isn't a top scorers list on this article. Obviously the games go back into the dim and distant past and in many competitions but had at least local interest from the outset so I'd be shocked if every match wasn't reliably sourced somewhere with goalscorers, and maybe even full lineups. I think it would be something which would enhance the article and is also a standard list for rivalries like this. I could possibly get hold of the stats myself (e.g fitbastats) but I think other editors would have much more ready access to the information, at least for their own team if not the enemy. Maybe something Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Scotland task force could look at? Crowsus (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Added the above myself in May 2017... Crowsus (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

List of results

Have there ever been infoboxes of head-to-head results (league, cup, etc.) placed on this page? I would be happy to have a go at creating this unless there are any objections, this article just seems a little lacking in these kind of statistics as opposed to other football derby pages - Andygray110 (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The tables added need reviewing urgently. If we have been using a betting website or similar unreliable source this is in danger of being fundamentally incorrect. Rsssf is largely reliable but still needs verifying. Koncorde (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

New tables

There is way too much colour in those new tables, and what exactly is the point of listing all Scottish Cup and League Cup winners in the table, this has nothing to do with this rivarly, seems like much trivial statistics in all those new tables. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I can definitely take the colour out of the smaller tables, and will move the big one to History of Scottish football (it's a pretty poor article but best of place for it). Will also move text relating to other teams and probably some for old firm too, referring to that other article. I'll ping you when I'm done. Crowsus (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: Hope this is better, I have moved the other table to the History article, it was hasn't been updates in a while. Cut down the text as well, it could maybe do with a bit more trimming as well. And the cup totals tables look a bit ugly but I couldn't think of a better format to put them in. There is still some mention of other clubs in the stats but just as a comparison to show how few cups they have won compared to Celtic and Rangers.Crowsus (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Quote used is poor

I am in this article quite a lot, and the eye is drawn to the quote which heads the text after the lead paragraph:

"When I was growing up, I went to a Catholic school, and there wasn’t one Rangers fan in the entire school," said Neil McGarvey, 43, who is involved in the operation of Kerrydale Street, a popular Celtic fan Web site. "It’s much more mixed now — my boy goes to a Catholic school, and there are maybe 5 percent Rangers fans now."

— The New York Times, 2012

This might be a true representation of what the guy said, but it hardly reinforces the point of things being more mixed. He went to a Catholic school, so does his son. And from no Rangers fans there are now 'maybe 5%' - in a school of 1200 pupils where half of the girls don't care about football (to use a very basic figure) that would only be an increase from 0 to 45 out of 900. Not exactly a total mix.

And where did he get this 5% figure from? From his point of view, it's fair enough to casually say it as a guesstimate in an interview, but this throwaway comment shouldn't then be used in a respected online encyclopedia as the only source for how fans of these two teams are mixing in childhood. For balance there should at least be a quote from an equivalent Rangers fan spokesperson with their view on the matter.

Personally speaking, I attended a non-denomonational school in Glasgow in the 1990s, there were about 1200 pupils and from what I remember there were possibly 10 Celtic fans in my year group of ~250 (4%), which mirrors the figure from Mr McGarvey but really demonstrates the divide between the school systems in producing Old Firm bigots, rather than indicating any decrease in the problem. So if the quote is to remain on the article, in my opinion it should take much less prominence as the point he is attempting to make is not borne out by the numbers he gives in support of it.Crowsus (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

This wikipedia page is a disgrace and falls well below the standards of the site

Seriously, a page that starts off reading as a little to and throw over the club rivalry, and then turns into the sad old lovers of Celtic trying to post rubbish about Rangers being a new entity despite just about every football governing body proclaiming otherwise. Are we seriously creating pages to run weak, pathetic arguments in the background because it is not tolerated on the main pages? The Rangers favouring editors that are trying to counter the arguments are just making the page look worse, try complaining to the site, this nonsense belongs on football forums, not an encyclopedia website. Get a life folks, I'm putting this page forward for deletion unless it is sorted out quickly. Mrspy (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Crowsus is usually a reliable editor, though I feel the big tax / little tax case is largely irrelevant in the detail to which it is taken here and appears heavily POV because of its focus. You have no hope of a delete request. Koncorde (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Koncorde: I think Mrspy may be referring to the content above in the Talk page, rather than the article itself? @Mrspy: The talk pages are always going to be informal and full of shouting the odds, but unless there's personal attacks or abuse going on, which I did not see, the text can and should stay, even to show as an example of what this rivalry now largely consists of. And this was only 2 or 3 editors involved, with the last meaningful contribution over 4 years ago, so I don't think we need worry about it being an ongoing issue. An archive could probably be justified to remove the discussion from the current view?

As for my recent edits, what I have tried to do is explain the reasons behind what is a big part of the rivalry now (beyond the local stuff that every derby has, and the sectarianism which is covered already). The debates/arguments on this talk page reinforce what I hear and read in Glasgow on a daily basis. Interested casual readers who have seen zombie-related banners etc at the Old Firm games on TV and want to read about it on this article may not be familiar with what happened so I have tried to summarise all of that with numerous references to back it up at every point. I agree that the tax case stuff perhaps goes into too much detail but I'm not sure the background to it is covered adequately but succinctly anywhere else, and it was really to highlight how Celtic (both fans and club) have been involved in the complicated situations with Rangers, as each of the issues has caused a lot of anger between the opposing sets of fans and is very relevant to the current status of the rivalry, which is very tense albeit thankfully mostly keyboard-based. I don't feel its particularly POV, since I have consciously tried to avoid this, all I have done is paraphrase that facts of what happened according to each of the sources which follow every sentence, but I will try to look at it and reduce it (and obviously other editors can do the same, although there was an attempt to bin it tonight in its entirety, without explanation other than 'an agenda' which I obviously won't accept). For the record, I support neither club. Crowsus (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

....OK, I have now taken out the tables, as it wasn't adding much value and could be seen as support for the 'new club' argument, which wasn't the intention and was never stated as such. My intention is not to push a particular viewpoint or antagonise others, and I don't want my other less contentious additions removed by association. I'll try and condense the tax stuff later today, although it might no longer be clear what is being referred to without referring to the sources.Crowsus (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

See no harm in the Zombie bits, but it needs to have context and a balanced weight rather than recentism. Most of the tax details should be a "see also" or "see main article" and point at Administration and liquidation of The Rangers Football Club plc and let this focus on the 'rivalry'. Koncorde (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool, yeah what I will probably do is move most of the detail into the aforementioned Admin etc article (which is not bad but a few more lines and refs wouldn't hurt) and just refer to that in the old firm article. Should have done that in the first place. Crowsus (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Constructive criticism and working together, it's what it's about. Koncorde (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Comparative league placings

In the first table, under the year 26, I reckon the table says Rangers finished eighth yet the article 1925-26 Scottish Division One says they were sixth. Splićanin (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It says 6th...? But if you do spot one you think is wrong, go ahead and change it with an explanation why in the summary, folk will have a look to double check anyway, errors aren't intentional but may be present. Crowsus (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have looked on a friend's laptop with notoriously low zoom. You may delete this thread, it's beyond useless. Splićanin (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Total matches

594 matches between the two teams, including unofficial games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:A04C:600:B895:A3EF:E919:BE83 (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I hesitate to ask, but what kind of "unofficial" games are these? Koncorde (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Look at the defunct minor competitions in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:A04C:3422:B1F4:354A:F562:FF6F (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, "unofficial" is probably the wrong word for them to be honest and the source doesn't describe them in that way. I will take a look. Koncorde (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Revert

@Snowflake91: Why do you think it's more important to link to the broader competition instead of the specific match that features the derby if it has its own article? GOLDIEM J (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@GOLDIEM J: Specific match is already linked right below at "Celtic v Rangers", it was previously reverted by one of the IP editors, check history. I don't mind if you link to the 2023–24 Scottish cup article, but then the second link to the same article below needs to be removed. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: Oh, I didn't see that. Thanks for letting me know. GOLDIEM J (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)