Talk:FCSB

Court Decisions

The history of the club has already been stated in the court decisions in 2021. 1947-1998 the football section of the Army Sports Club Steaua Bucharest was active, 1998-2003 AFC Steaua was active and in 2003 SC FC FCSB SA has illegally registered in the first league and has illegally registered the logos at OSIM. This has already been proven in court. UEFA and FIFA has no say in this, exactly the same way they have no saying in any other case judged by any court in the world. 82.174.69.36 (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hold your breath about what has already been proven in court since retrials have been ordered in both trials concerning FCSB. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

One process, regarding some logos, not the history, name or trademark. The name is final, Trademark final, History at the supreme court. You are in denial? 193.231.104.153 (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.scj.ro/1094/Detalii-dosar?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=300000000753242

https://www.scj.ro/1094/Detalii-dosar?customQuery%5B0%5D.Key=id&customQuery%5B0%5D.Value=300000000798700

From a Romanian newspaper: https://www.digisport.ro/fotbal/verdict-in-procesul-pentru-marca-steaua-intre-fcsb-si-csa-decizia-inaltei-curti-de-casatie-si-justitie-1574745

I have no dog in this fight, I simply follow what the courts have decided till now.

I don't care if FCSB wins or loses those cases, I simply care that the verdicts are accurately rendered.

According to https://api.osim.ro:8443/tm-registry/results.htm , the trademark "STEAUA BUCURESTI" is pending litigation (storage no. 040052).

You conflate between being temporarily enforced and final verdict. There is no final verdict about those.

AFAIK this is like asking the International Court of Justice to decide whether Stephen the Great is a hero of Romania or a hero of the Republic of Moldova. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

And https://www.digisport.ro/fotbal/liga-1/palmaresul-echipei-steaua-se-rejudeca-inalta-curte-de-casatie-si-justitie-a-admis-recursul-fcsb-ului-1691204

Official view of UEFA: https://ziare.com/fcsb/fcsb-steaua-uefa-1745505 tgeorgescu (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

And yet, until a retrail shows and pr proves otherwise, this entire pages information is incorrect. FCSB only came into existance in 2017. That is fact and law as of the time of me writing this. All information on this parge needs removing and transferring to the CSA STEAUA BUCURESTI page instead, UNTIL otherwise changed in court. As it stands now, CSA hold all the records and information on this page, likewise the list of records page also. It is very obvious that the editors of FCSb are extremely biased and have no interest in portraying accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:C054:DA00:24E3:51F7:20C2:6622 (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Evidence? tgeorgescu (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Update: https://www.digisport.ro/fotbal/palmaresul-stelei-judecat-azi-la-inalta-curte-de-casatie-si-justitie-cand-se-va-lua-decizia-2251379 , which means business as usual (nothing newsworthy).

Another source (says the same): https://www.prosport.ro/fotbal-intern/azi-se-judeca-palmaresul-stelei-toate-detaliile-celui-de-al-doilea-termen-dintre-csa-si-fcsb-19604732 tgeorgescu (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Verdict postponed to 28 March 2023. Lawyer Virgil Boglea says that "action of noticing" does not amount to much, juridically speaking, and that it isn't executory. So, yeah, it seems likely that CSA will win such dispute, but the victory will be tainted by general irrelevance. https://www.digisport.ro/fotbal/liga-1/o-noua-amanare-in-procesul-pentru-palmaresul-stelei-hotararea-inaltei-curti-de-casatie-si-justitie-2279689 tgeorgescu (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

So, yeah, Mr. Talpan lost many years with a futile litigation. Meanwhile his main claim might be struck with the statute of limitations. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Nobody won the case, a retrial has been ordered: https://www.digisport.ro/fotbal/liga-1/cazul-palmaresului-celor-de-la-csa-steaua-si-fcsb-se-rejudeca-2304299

Mr. Talpan decidedly not happy: https://www.sport.ro/fotbal-intern/zdecizie-absolut-halucinanta-florin-talpan-a-iesit-la-atac-dupa-decizia-iccj-de-rejudecare-a-procesului.html tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

STOP SHOWING PRESS ARTICLES WRITTEN BY "journalists" that get money from the owner of football club fcsb. Judges don't care about some fool's articles. They only take in consideration contracts and signed paperwork! 92.40.219.204 (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Even assuming that those journalists do take money from him, they didn't invent the verdicts. The verdicts are available on https://portal.just.ro and https://www.scj.ro/ , thus very easy to be checked by anyone who understands Romanian. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong! The “Fotbal Club Steaua București” association (@owns the historic club according to the 1st article in its statute , which hasn’t been nullified)now called “SC FC FCSB SA” was founded in 2003 (note association , not team). That’s also why the entire trial is wrong from a sporting perspective. The honors are tied to the historic team , not the company/association who manages it (note the Rangers case). Also , the trial isnt executory. It is literally useless. In conclusion , the info on this page is correct 2A02:2F05:D108:700:9426:987F:58F5:2886 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Today, some trademarks of CSA Steaua are still listed as "pending litigation", see https://api.osim.ro:8443/tm-registry/results.htm

Give me one good reason why this would be "simply my own opinion", rather than official data from the Romanian Trademarks Registry. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2023

FCSB is a football club founded in 2003, not 1947 as this page suggests. This has been established by Romanian court officials many years ago. This page also has other errors like the number of titles FCSB has won. The history that this article claims FCSB has previous to 2003 belongs to CSA Steaua Bucharest, another Romanian football club. FCSB has used Steaua Bucharest's identity for over 10 years. The owner of FCSB has been sued over this and lost some years ago. CSA Steaua Bucharest also has a Wikipedia page which is fairly similar as a result of FCSB trying to claim the identity of Steaua Bucharest. In conclusion, this page has many problems all because FCSB claims to be Steaua Bucharest. Sima69420 (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done There is no final (definitive) court verdict about that. Correct me if I am wrong, by providing WP:SOURCES for your claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Romanian court decided that the history from 1947 to 1998 belongs to CSA STEAUA BUCHAREST. Football club fcsb was founded in 2003 and illegally used the identity of Steaua Bucharest. 92.40.219.204 (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Meh, partially true. The historical record belongs now to CSA, but only for the time being, since a final verdict does not exist thereupon. And UEFA has its own rules and its own mind, and has disregarded the Romanian court decision in a public statement. Yup, that logo is a small detail, but it says that according to UEFA, FCSB is the winner of the 1986 European Cup final. See also https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/50065--fcsb/ Newspaper article: https://www.digisport.ro/special/reactia-lui-gabi-balint-cand-a-vazut-ca-uefa-a-folosit-sigla-fcsb-ului-in-dreptul-trofeului-cce-cucerit-de-steaua-in-1986-2433415 Another: https://as.ro/fotbal/liga-2/marius-lacatus-prima-reactie-dupa-ce-uefa-a-pus-sigla-fcsb-ului-in-lista-castigatorilor-cce-ce-sa-fac-sa-ma-dezic-de-steaua-297242.html Yet another: https://www.prosport.ro/fotbal-intern/superliga/uefa-a-dat-lovitura-decisiva-celor-de-la-csa-steaua-reactia-lui-gabi-balint-cand-vede-ca-apare-sigla-fcsb-in-dreptul-cupei-campionilor-castigate-de-steaua-in-1986-19674562 Did UEFA admit it was wrong? Did they made public a rectification? tgeorgescu (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The decision regarding the records belonging to Steaua Bucharest (the 1986 ECC and the 1987 Supercup) is final. It was established so by the ÎCCJ this spring, when they sent FC Fcsb's request for its own records to be recognised back at the appeals court. The sping decision said that Steaua's records belong only to Steaua, that the records of AFC Steaua belong only to AFC Steaua and that the issue of the Fcsb records needs to go back to trial. This autumn, the Bucharest Appeals Court looked over this issue and made a decision. At the ICCJ, they will not look over the entire lawsuit. They will only look over the issue of fcsb's records, the ones that start from 2003. So the decision regarding the European Champions Cup is final. That belongs to Steaua and there is no way it will ever change. But I know you will lie and refuse to do the right thing, because you are as partisan as possible. Not that it matters though. Whether you like it or not, this page will have all references to Steaua removed from it sooner or later. I look forward to seeing you cry about it :)) TPTB (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

See the last message at #Court Decisions: the team owns its own history, not any of the companies which own the team. It's like suing the Romanian Academy to change Stephen the Great to Stephen the Terrible. Courts do not change history.

And, frankly, I have no dog in this fight. For me it is just get the popcorn. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You are embarrassing yourself. There is no difference between a team and the legal entity that owns the team. In fact, saying this is nonsense. The team and the legal entity are the same thing. If you are trying to suggest that they are not the same, please show me an ID for the team. Legal entities have identification numbers so that they can pay taxes, do business, sign contracts, etc. Can the team, as you suggest it, do this? No it cannot. Because the team does not exist.

And the decision from the latest trial says this exact thing. This is why Steaua is credited with its own records, AFC Steaua with its own records and FC Fcsb with its own records, to which it was unable, for some reason, to bring any evidence that proves they actually belong to it.

Like I said, I look forward to seeing you cry when this page will eventually be updated with the correct information. TPTB (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I frankly don't care which side wins those trials. I simply report the result here. I also report that UEFA is still unimpressed by those trials, and mandating UEFA to change its own rules in order to accommodate those trials will be extremely difficult. It will open a can of worms.

Also, you ignore that for historians teams do exist regardless of who owns them. The owner might change, the team still remains that team.

So, yeah, according to Romanian courts FCSB isn't Steaua (although the final verdict is still pending, and we will see if "action of noticing" amounts to something). But according to UEFA, FCSB is definitely Steaua. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That is not how it works. UEFA does not "recognize" anyone, the football federation of that country has to inform UEFA on these decisions so it can update it's information, because as you can imagine UEFA isn't interested enough in this topic in order to change anything. The "FRF" isn't willing to give notice to UEFA because of its won interests. Despite this the FRF will have to do the right thing in the end as the all of the trials will end at some point. However the trials over who is Steaua and who won the Champions League in 1986 have finished so this page,(no matter what UEFA says at this point) should change its information as it is misleading, especially where it states that FC Fcsb SA was founded in 1947.

Here is the official court decision about the trophies: https://portal.just.ro/2/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar=200000000422471&id_inst=2 Sima69420 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Romanian courts do not have the legal authority to change sports history. It's a matter of academic freedom, courts have nothing to say about that.

UEFA has statutory rules about when a team remains the same team. Such a rule is uninterrupted temporal continuity, which does not exist for CSA Steaua. So, even if CSA Steaua wins all the trials, UEFA cannot recognize that CSA Steaua is the real Steaua. Regardless of what FRF even says. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You really seem to be confused about the structure of multi-sport clubs in Romania and how they operate. More so, "So, even if CSA Steaua wins all the trials, UEFA cannot recognize that CSA Steaua is the real Steaua. Regardless of what FRF even says" is a bold claim that showcases some bias from your part, and I do hope you have some evidence that can back up that claim, otherwise continuing this discussion is worthless. Cezxmer (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, here at Wikipedia "evidence" means WP:RS. I do have a WP:RS about article 15, paragraph 4, of FIFA rules: [1]. FIFA Disciplinary Committee renders a verdict upon article 15, paragraph 4. The decision of the committee can be appealed at this court: https://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/index/ . So, CAS has the final say upon who's who in soccer. Not Romanian courts. FIFA may punish CSA Steaua for non-compliance, and CSA Steaua may appeal to CAS. The ultimate penalty is being banned from soccer competitions. As they say: take care what you wish for, since it might come true (and bite you in the back). So, yes, CSA winning the Romanian trials could spell the doom of CSA. As for me, if there's sport on TV, I switch the channel. So I have no dog in this fight. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You should also switch tabs, because you're more than clueless. You show a great deal of ignorance by making such accusations and then presenting an article that is literally fake news as a "reliable source". ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}

Please refrain from making further deleterious comments on this topic here or on other Talk pages. Cezxmer (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Whatever, here is a legal precedent from an official source: https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/7290.pdf

See argument from fallacy. Or, as the saying goes, "geometry is the art of correct reasoning from incorrectly drawn pictures". tgeorgescu (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"Whatever" is a nice way of dismissing your lies...

What legal precedent are you even talking about? From your source: "The abovementioned elements are not exhaustive; in other words, the existence of several elements can lead, in its combination, and so even if not all elements are met in a specific case, to the conclusion that a club has to be considered as a “sporting successor”. The overall package of elements is decisive. In fact, because such analysis is to be made on a case-by-case basis, i.e. elements present in a certain case may tip the balance in one direction, whereas the elements present in a lesser or higher degree in another case, may tip the balance in the opposite direction." . Also, if you cite a 40 page document, have the decency to cite the relevant parts.

You cannot dismiss my previous reply as a fallacy, because your WHOLE comment was a lie. What you stated never happened. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this. Cezxmer (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Search the file for contin. It clearly says that continuity and permanence are a heavy element in that consideration. So, even if that was "fake news", the requirement of continuity is not a lie. CAS clearly sides with continuity and permanence over who owns the team. Continuity is defined as important, who owns the club is defined as not important. These have been clubs denying they were still the same team, but I see no reason why it would not work for clubs affirming they are still the same team. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Summary:

1. The two Romanian trials have not ended;
2. When the trial about the records will end, we don't know if it will amount to much (besides a merely formal recognition that the records belong to CSA Steaua, the trial does not offer any remedy);
3. It's naive to think the dispute will stop at Romanian courts. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

sc fc fcsb sa is not steaua bucharest

this in not steaua bucharest!!! 2A02:2F0A:B20B:F200:3372:F5EA:9DB1:5E65 (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not merged. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose merging FC Steaua București into the history section of FCSB since it seems like consensus on that page's talk might lean towards that. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose All entities in this affair are notable on their own. The Banner talk 10:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. Per my comments here, the article as it stands is an absolute mess. Where it is not duplicating content in this article, it is unintelligible. It is not suitable to merge in anywhere. Scolaire (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment. @BuySomeApples: Looking at the discussion at Talk:FC Steaua București I see arguments to delete it, arguments to keep it as is, arguments to re-write it, arguments to make it a disambiguation page, and arguments to make it a redirect. How on earth do you summarise all that as "consensus is leaning towards a merge"? Scolaire (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I misread the majority of comments as leaning towards it not needing to be a standalone page as it is, if consensus doesn't lean towards merging that's fine. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@BuySomeApples: Do you want to close this and take the Merge templates off the two articles, then? Scolaire (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure! BuySomeApples (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - unless I am mistaken, these are two separate entities. GiantSnowman 20:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose – They are separate entities, so a merge is inappropriate. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.