Talk:Gretna F.C.

message: Is it a little premature to say that Gretna are in next season's UEFA Cup? I was reading a thread at Gretna's discussion forum yesterday which says that Hearts have to finish no lower than 2nd in the SPL, so chickens may be being counted... -- Arwel (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been sorted and you're right, if Hearts finish third and win the cup the UEFA slot reverts to the SPL. Gretnagod 13:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are definitely a few firsts here, aren't there. First team to represent a country in Europe within such a short space of time since being a non-league team. 'First team to represent a country who have spent most of their existence playing in the league pyramid of another country'....any others? Martyn Smith 14:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'First team to represent a country who have spent most of their existence playing in the league pyramid of another country' - I'm afraid that FC Vaduz, FC Schaan and FC Balzers have long beaten them on that one. --Robdurbar 17:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's rather different though, isn't it. These teams have always played in the Swiss pyramid, in the absence of any Liechtenstein league Martyn Smith 20:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UEFA Cup

message: Some of players has links to wrong people (like those 2 FW players one is born in 1926? and was member of US navy?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.188.142 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for point that out, I've corrected them. --Robdurbar 19:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Links

message: What's happened to the flags next to the players' names? --Tomaths — Preceding undated comment added 15:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: National Flags

message: Where is the squad list?, try www.soccernet.com to find out
MiddlesbroughFan 11:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's the squad?

message: :Image:Gretna logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Gretna logo.jpg

message: OK, I am well aware of the club's situation and know there's little to no hope, but I think these premature edits saying that they're no longer in existence are not constructive. Would semi-protection be a good move? DrFishcake (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not premature I'm afraid... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/7430745.stm Digifiend (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the club is expelled from the Scottish Football League, it is possible that Gretna could resurface in the South of Scotland league or the East of Scotland league. The main problem is that they will probably have to find another ground because it looks like Raydale Park will be sold to pay off some of the debt. Therefore any edits which say the club has been dissolved should be reverted. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much the only thing that can be done per WP:NOTCRYSTAL I would think. It's a bit like the Deaths in 2006 page the night they were getting ready to hang Saddam Hussein, a mass scramble to be able to claim "I was the Wikipedian who..." DrFishcake (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I would agree. While it seems inevitable that the club will be liquidated pretty soon, it has not happened yet, so we should avoid jumping the gun. All this being said, the statements currently in place seem to explain the situation pretty well, qualifying statements where needed. Also, I'm not myself a Gretna fan, but it's sad to see any football club end up in this situation, especially one with such a good record in recent seasons (this season excluded, obviously). PaddyUniv (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jumping the gun

message: Okay, is this article supposed to talking about both the original 1946 version of the club AND the new 2008 version, or is it just meant to address the old one? Right now it looks like a confused mishmash between the two, and a lot of the information about the new club has actually been added to, and then stripped out of the article. Should we perhaps move this article to a new page (i.e. Gretna F.C. (1946)) and keep this page talking purely about the new club, or should this article encompass both clubs? (Bear in mind that they're both called "Gretna F.C.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveJB (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fairly clearly that Gretna (2008) is a continuation of the club that was formed in 1946. Therefore it should all be in the same article. This is in similar fashion to Hibernian, who went bust and were reformed in the early 1890s, or Middlesbrough, who went bust and were reformed in 1986. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim This club is recognised as being a continuation of the club that was founded in 1946 in the article is not backed up by the reference given - which makes no mention of it being officially recognised by the SFA as such. The fact the article states "The club that went bust two months ago have reformed as Gretna FC 2008", while another news article says the old Gretna have been liquidated after the new club was set up , which casts doubt on the official continuation claim? Qwghlm (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually looking further into that article - the person behind the 2008 reincarnation states: "It’s the last act in the history of the old Gretna but we're now looking to the future with a new club." so in his mind he believes the clubs are different entities - so I propose to split the new club's article into one called Gretna F.C. 2008. Qwghlm (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with that. What the media reports are talking about is the semantics over limited companies, the old Gretna company being wound up and a new Gretna company being started up. It is the same football club supported by the same people in the same town with a very slightly different official name for legal reasons, in the same way as Middlesbrough and many other clubs have reformed. It's not like the club has relocated to a different settlement (ie MK Dons), or folded then restarted after a long abeyance. Clydebank F.C. is all in the same article, even though the Clydebank that was in the SFL until 2002 was bought over, moved to Airdrie and renamed Airdrie United F.C.. Legally the Clydebank that exists now is a different entity to the one that existed until 2002, but it is in the same place. A far better candidate for being split up is Livingston F.C. / Meadowbank Thistle. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference with Middlesbrough (or for that matter Leeds United more recently), was that the club was reformed, it retained the same players and staff, the same ground and their place in the Football League, and even some continuity from the old board of directors (with Steve Gibson), while Gretna have unfortunately lost them all. They have retained the fans and geographic base, true, but we have separate articles on clubs which have inherited the fanbase of others - for example, Wimbledon F.C. & AFC Wimbledon, and Scarborough F.C. & Scarborough Athletic F.C. - the latter example is particularly pertinent as they went through a very similar situation to Gretna. Qwghlm (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Which Gretna F.C. are we talking about?

message: Did Rowan Alexander really step down for "health reasons"? If so, what exactly were those reasons, and is there evidence? FloydPink99 (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that 'health reasons' was the official given reason; but Alexander contests this - it might be worth bringing this up in the article. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Health reasons?

message: "The Celebrant"? "The Monochrome"? Yes, I can see the list of supposed nicknames in the infobox has been in the article for years, but come on, someone was clearly having a laugh with these! I've removed all but the official nickname of "The Black and Whites" as most of the rest look entirely spurious. The infobox guidelines say only the most common nickname should be used there, in any case. Jellyman (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Dodgy nicknames