the scottish courts see the club and the company as serperate and that goes as far back as them entering administration the club is asset of the company how it listed in annual reports i dnt know as for the plc being the club that is your interuption of the sources no where does it says the company is the club nor is there anywhere it says the club is the company that is original research and teh fact the sources say both means the sources dnt know but the article reflects that fact as for the comapny that is not dealt with in the ownership page this page is about the club only i dnt think it appiorate to rename it 1st team no other article does that including aresenal one which is shows a holding company please note i have nothing against liquidation in the article in fac ti encouraged it but it got removed but because we ca nt say one way or the other if it was the company or the comapyn and the club that was liqudiated then i only support meantion liquidaiton of hte plc which is not disputed only meantion Rangers entered liquidation although this does nt speficially say the club did it kinda applies it so is misleading readers i am currently working on getting this article to FA first to GA and if there is a problem with the way it reads it will be brought up there and i am no where near finished but i am planning to get the references to back this all up the ECA is 3rd party reliable source and says its the same club as for your arguement that you ca nt find any source from aroudn the time of the 14th june saying the club and company are serperate that is irrevelent you ca nt just say you want to build a article on old sources new evidence means a new consensus hence why i am encouyraging discussion here as it might lead to new consensus of its a new club but even if that is the case we dnt need two articles it can easily be house din one article jsut needs it reworked i suggest to you both hippo and fisherhelper please re read wp truth wp nor wp consensus wp rs wp verifiable everyone who is making there points here are correct you must remember the problem for wikipedia is we can not choose what to put if the sources say both we have to put both and that is what the article is doing you also should re read wp npov and all these policies should be re read by both sides as you all clearly forget what wikipedia is