Talk:FCSB

{{re|Alex.bacica}} You're trying to push the authority of a court above the authority of WP:RS. It does not work that way around here. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

:And who are you to question that? Above, you gave literal fake news as sources and your own interpretation of CAS rulings, neither of which are reliable. I haven't looked closely at what the editor you mentioned changed in this article, but I assume it has to do with recent court rulings. There are numerous sources explaining these rulings that can be used for editing this article. ( [https://www-newsonline-ro.translate.goog/motivare-fcsb-nu-poate-pretinde-drepturi-sportive-asupra-palmaresului-2003-2017/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ro&_x_tr_pto=wapp Source] )

:Furthermore, I strongly request a WP:RS that can support these, otherwise I will act accordingly:

:1. SC FC FCSB SA is founded on 7 June 1947. ( [https://orangesport-ro.translate.goog/cand-a-fost-infiintata-fcsb-mts-raspuns-oficial-document-ce-scrie-in-raspunsul-semnat-de-eduard-novak-20991117?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ro&_x_tr_pto=wapp Source that claims otherwise] )

:2. SC FC FCSB SA won their 27th title. And I wish you good luck finding a source, because neither the Romanian Football Federation nor any journalistic site attributes this performance to SC FC FCSB SA. ( [https://iamsport-ro.translate.goog/fotbal/superliga/a-aparut-motivarea-curtii-de-apel-de-ce-are-fcsb-un-singur-titlu-de-campioana-in-palmares-pe-cel-din-2024-din-punct-de-vedere-legal-id15735.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ro&_x_tr_pto=wapp Source 1] ; [https://www-gsp-ro.translate.goog/fotbal/liga-1/frf-joaca-la-alibi-nu-stie-ce-titlu-a-sarbatorit-fcsb-mesaj-740156.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ro&_x_tr_pto=wapp Source 2] ) Cezxmer (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

::I don't think that my own opinion matters. The opinions of WP:RS do matter.

::I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care who wins the court cases.

::A verdict which provides no punishments (i.e. paying damages) is a toothless tiger. Unless such verdict scares the authors of WP:RS, it is doomed to fail. If they discover they can openly ridicule it, it won't reflect well upon CSA Steaua.

::I don't know if FCSB will appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. All I'm saying they would be fools not to do it.

::Oh, yes, I am no fan of Mr. Becali. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

:::Who is the reliable source in this case? Is the club itself a reliable source? Ichim.claudiu (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::::The gist is that WP:RS disagree about who is the "true Steaua". E.g. https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/50065--fcsb/ tgeorgescu (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

how can a club estabilished in 2003 win a cup in 1986? Fcfcsb is not Steaua,two different entities,uefa needs to look properly at this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:40A9:A400:40BF:8D90:18DA:956F (talk • contribs)

:WP:SCOPE: this article is about the soccer team, not about the commercial company F.C. FCSB S.A. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please, stop misinforming. I'm only adding context for posterity's sake. I'm not going to argue since it's pointless.

:1. "There have been intense discussions surrounding Steaua's Sports Identity Certificate. The club was founded in 1947, but received the CIS in October 2001, the year in which Sports Identity Certificates became mandatory through the Sports Law of 2000. (...) It should be noted that all sports sections within CSA Steaua do not have legal personality and operate on the same CIS. Including the football section.

:At the beginning of 2003, Gigi Becali founded Fotbal Club Steaua București SA. In the first phase, AFC Steaua was also a shareholder in the new company, with 36%. Subsequently, Gigi Becali's new company took over the team of players through a controversial protocol, but also the place in League 1, where it replaced AFC Steaua. Because FC Steaua Bucharest was a different team from AFC Steaua , Gigi Becali also needed a new Sports Identity Certificate. FCSB's CIS was thus released on February 21, 2003. Based on this CIS, Gigi Becali managed to register the new team in Liga 1, contrary to the regulations." [https://iamsport-ro.translate.goog/fotbal/foto-exclusiv-cum-arata-certificatul-de-identitate-sportiva-al-lui-csa-steaua-si-in-ce-an-a-fost-dobandit-comparatie-cu-fcsb-id6632.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp [1]]

:2. "The National Agency for Sports has issued a document that sheds light on the identity dispute between FCSB and CSA Steaua București . The documents made public show that the two entities cannot be considered one and the same. The factor that has elucidated the mystery regarding identity is that FCSB and Steaua have two different CISs.

:The Steaua name and brand belong to CSA Steaua, and FCSB first appeared on the Romanian football scene replacing the old club, AFC Steaua.

:In 2004, Gigi Becali indirectly admitted that FCSB did not have the identity of the Steaua club, as he requested the consent of the Army Sports Club to use the name and brand. However, unlike the old company AFC Steaua, FCSB never received the right to use the original Steaua brand." [https://www-prosport-ro.translate.goog/fotbal-intern/superliga/gigi-becali-a-recunoscut-totul-a-aparut-documentul-care-rastoarna-totul-in-dosarul-fcsb-csa-cine-este-steaua-19957547?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp [2]]

:3. "In an official response, the Ministry of Sports announces that FCSB was founded in 2003. The Ministry of Sports provided an official response to a Steaua fan who requested the FCSB Sports Identity Certificate. In the official document, the forum led by Eduard Novak specifies that FCSB's CIS dates back to 2003, when Gigi Becali took over the team. (..) With a newly founded club, on a new CIS, Gigi Becali then requested the CSA's approval to also register the "Steaua Bucharest" brand for the new team. But the former MEP was refused. Subsequently, Gigi Becali registered the trademark "Steaua Bucureşti" without taking into account the position of the Army Sports Club." [https://orangesport-ro.translate.goog/cand-a-fost-infiintata-fcsb-mts-raspuns-oficial-document-ce-scrie-in-raspunsul-semnat-de-eduard-novak-20991117?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp [3]]

:Additionally, please refer to official Romanian Football Federation website. https://www.frfotbal.ro/index.php?competition_id=15 Cezxmer (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::You're pleading juridical-bureaucratic shenanigans vs. sport history. We describe the legal controversy, but stick to sport history. WP:RGW.

::All you could show till now is that the actions of CSA are juridically allowable. You cannot show that sport historians have to abide by such actions.

::Our task is to repeat what WP:RS have said about this matter. It is not our task to solve the dispute between CSA and FCSB. We don't pass judgment upon which is the "true Steaua". Such judgments are outsourced to WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|FCSB|answered=yes}}

Please update the Honours section, as there is definitive legal action that is now taking effect as 05 June 2025, which states that Fotbal Club FCSB does not have the right to be associated in any way with CSA Steaua Bucuresti hounours.

Below you can find a link with the news in regards to the High Court of Cassation and Justice decision, which is definitive and can't be revoked in any way:

https://www.sport.ro/liga-1/cum-arata-acum-palmaresul-si-trofeele-de-campioana-stehttps://www.sport.ro/liga-1/cum-arata-acum-palmaresul-si-trofeele-de-campioana-steaua-vs-fcsb-dupa-decizia-definitiva-a-iccj.htmlaua-vs-fcsb-dupa-decizia-definitiva-a-iccj.html

You can contact me for further information in regards to this topic.

Thank you in advance. Sandru.iulian (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}} Wikipedia only obeys verdicts from San Francisco County, California. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{Reply to|tgeorgescu}} Please note that {{tq|Wikipedia only obeys verdicts from San Francisco County, California}} is not accurate and should not be used as a reason to decline an edit request. - Aoidh (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|Aoidh}} Okay, another reason is that both sides claimed victory. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:See also https://romanialibera.ro/la-zi/decizie-definitiva-privind-palmaresul-stelei-iccj-respinge-recursul-lui-fcsb/ tgeorgescu (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|FCSB|answered=yes}}

Update honours section accordingly.

https://www.euronews.ro/articole/decizie-definitiva-fcsb-nu-detine-palmaresul-stelei 78.34.134.67 (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Don't take for granted that FIFA and UEFA will recognize the verdict. For a start, they are not parties to that trial. Second, "action of noticing" means that Talpan got a pat on the shoulder, for the rest he obtained nothing from the court: no damages being paid, no obligations/restrictions imposed upon FCSB or third parties. Abiding by that verdict is entirely voluntary. Or, as we say in ethics, it is supererogation. See https://romanialibera.ro/la-zi/decizie-definitiva-privind-palmaresul-stelei-iccj-respinge-recursul-lui-fcsb/ for details.

:The court has agreed with the abstract statement that the records belong to CSA. For getting any real concession, or anything real from FCSB, CSA has to start another trial.

:If I declare the verdict to be a load of tosh, what's the punishment? There is no punishment.

:If Becali violates the verdict, what's the punishment? There is no punishment.

:What has CSA obtained? Bragging rights. They are officially entitled to brag that they are the true Steaua. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::To start, there is no ”action of noticing”. So this proves exactly how well equipped you are to speak about this subject. The legal term is declaratory judgement. A declaratory judgment is a court ruling that clarifies the legal rights and obligations of parties in a legal dispute, but without ordering any specific action or awarding damages. So the decision Talpan got clarifies the legal rights that Steaua Bucharest, not CSA, has over its own history and honours. It says, in case you still do not understand, that Steaua Bucharest is the only owner of the Steaua Bucharest records. So of course you can say that it is not so, because you do not really matter and nobody cares about what you say. But that ruling proves that Steaua is the owner of the Steaua records. It is, if you will, the same as a document of ownership.

::And you are mistaken. If Becali violates the verdict, there will definitely be punishment. It will be decided by the court. But you should have noticed that Becali did not violate the verdict. In fact, his club website has no mention of any Steaua Bucharest trophies whatsoever. Neither does his social media. You do not need to be a rocked scientist to understand why. 2A02:2F0E:3E0A:A800:153B:2B41:3D8B:AA74 (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Provide WP:RS that the verdict provides punishment or paying damages. AFAIK, Becali can brag live on TV that he violated the verdict 200 times, and CSA won't be able to do anything about it.

:::The list of records is not a matter pertaining to law. It is a matter pertaining to history, i.e. sport history. So, the academic community (sport historians) own the problem, not courts of law.

:::Courts do not have jurisdiction upon an abstract statement pertaining to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::And, frankly, I'm an Wikipedian, so I know that my own opinions aren't worth much.

:::That's why I WP:CITED the following WP:RS:

:::* https://www.digisport.ro/fotbal/liga-1/o-noua-amanare-in-procesul-pentru-palmaresul-stelei-hotararea-inaltei-curti-de-casatie-si-justitie-2279689

:::* https://romanialibera.ro/la-zi/decizie-definitiva-privind-palmaresul-stelei-iccj-respinge-recursul-lui-fcsb/ tgeorgescu (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Who cares what becali is saying on TV? What he is saying does not matter. Especially since he is no longer owner of FCSB. His daughter is the legal owner and she is not saying anything. And the club is not doing anything to show that it does not respect the decision. The actions taken by FCSB actually prove that they are agreeing with the decision. 2A02:2F0E:3E0A:A800:AD0E:3B4E:BFBE:E6DC (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::At {{YouTube|vIocZy-YQww}} Becali declared that he did not really need the recourse, since he was perfectly content with the decision of the Court of Appeal. Since HCCJ rejected the recourse, the verdict which Becali liked remains definitive.

:::Morals: it is at least dubious who owns the records. We need really thoroughgoing WP:RS in order to posit who owns the records; churnalism won't do.

:::Becali stated that the verdict says that since 1998 CSA can no longer be a party to such dispute.

:::Becali stated that the recourse was a ploy, so by losing the recourse, FCSB really lost nothing. The aim of the ploy was preventing CSA from filing a recourse. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Again. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT SOMEONE WHO IS NOT LEGALLY LINKED TO FCSB SAYS ON TV! Becali is not the owner of fcsb anymore. He gave the club to his daughter. He can say whatever he wants. What matters is what his club is doing. Does FCSB have any mention of the 1986 Champions Cup on its website or social media? No. Why? Because there is a decision that says it does not have that cup and because fcsb is obeying the law. 2A02:2F0E:3E0A:A800:AD0E:3B4E:BFBE:E6DC (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The answer is surprisingly straightforward: Wikipedia cites Becali, because WP:RS think he has something to say about that. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I have to say that I am not only surprised, but shocked to see that you place your trust entirely on the words of a former convict and known liar. Read the verdict and tell me if it says what becali is saying. I guarantee that it does not. The verdict is very clear. It states that the court has accepted the request made by the Steaua Bucharest club to recognise its ownership of the Steaua records and that it denies the request made by fcsb. Nowhere in the verdict does it say that Steaua can no longe rbe party to such a dispute. 2A02:2F0E:3E0A:A800:AD0E:3B4E:BFBE:E6DC (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Căvescu is a lawyer, whether you like it or not. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Save your time, mate. That guy is a schizo, his own words, and loves to be a contrarian. Once the UEFA website will be updated, it will be reflected in the Wikipedia pages as well. Cezxmer (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, I'm not Becali. There are just two possibilities:

::::* he is delusional;

::::* he actually read the verdict and knows what it says (why else would he invite that journalist to read it?). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Becali's own words: "Nu are calitate procesuală activă din 98." Source: https://www.digisport.ro/fotbal/liga-1/gigi-becali-dupa-decizia-iccj-in-procesul-pentru-palmaresul-stelei-gata-3627799 tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::If this were the case, Steaua would not have been able to go to the court in the first place. 2A02:2F0E:3E0A:A800:AD0E:3B4E:BFBE:E6DC (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's not my task to iron out the inner contradictions of the verdict. Both Talpan and Căvescu quote what they like from the verdict. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I also WP:CITE https://iamsport.ro/fotbal/superliga/avocatul-fcsb-steaua-nu-poate-folosi-palmaresul-pentru-ca-echipa-istorica-a-murit-ei-zic-ca-au-castigat-bai-ce-ati-castigat-id33930.html

::::The gist: WP:RS are a tad confused about who won the trial. Talpan says CSA has won the trial, Becali and Adrian Căvescu say FCSB won the trial. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Ok. But what does the decision say? Did you read that? 2A02:2F0E:3E0A:A800:AD0E:3B4E:BFBE:E6DC (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::You're assuming that the verdict is coherent. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Can you read? What does it say? 2A02:2F0E:3E0A:A800:C9CA:AA29:E1BE:F663 (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::What does it say? It supports both the thesis and the antithesis. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::N.B.: these aren't my own opinions. My opinion is get the popcorn. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::If you want a hard fact, the hard fact is this: both sides have declared victory. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|You do not need to be a rocked scientist to understand why}}—that's correct: according to Becali, it was a cunning ploy. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|Once the UEFA website will be updated}}—yup, if UEFA will side with CSA Steaua over FCSB, then I will also side with CSA Steaua. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|FCSB|answered=yes}}

The honors section should be changed in order to reflect the most recent court ruling from June 4, 2025, which is final and definitive. CSA Steaua Bucharest was officially renamed a while back to just Steaua Bucharest and has won the court case for the track record. The ruling is final. As such:

1. 1947-1998 belongs to Steaua Bucharest

2. 1998-2003 belongs to AFC Steaua (defunct)

3. 2003-2017 doesn't belong to anyone. It has been stripped from FCSB (by the ICCJ, a.k.a High Court of Cassation and Justice) and CSA Steaua Bucharest have not put any claims to it.

Here is one source, but there are plenty out there with a quick google search.

https://www.euronews.ro/articole/decizie-definitiva-fcsb-nu-detine-palmaresul-stelei Liverpool989878 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}} You assume that courts own the problem, we assume that WP:SCHOLARSHIP owns the problem. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)