Talk:NK Olimpija Ljubljana (1945–2005)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The official standing about the club from the 1.SNL - Prva liga[edit]

Slovene: 30/6/2010 Združenje 1. SNL obravnava NK Olimpija Ljubljana tako, kot veleva veljavna zakonodaja Republike Slovenije in tako kot so v zvezi z registracijo omenjenega društva postopali državni organi - torej kot pravno osebo/društvo, ustanovljeno leta 2005, ki si je tekmovalno pravico nastopa v Prvi ligi priigralo z uvrstitvijo iz 2. lige MNZ Ljubljana vse do prvaka 2. SNL v sezoni 2008/09 in je izpolnilo licenčne pogoje za tekmovanje v Prvi ligi. Vse to je razvidno tudi iz arhivskih statističnih podatkov na naši uradni spletni strani - NK Olimpija Ljubljana ima za seboj eno (1) sezono v Prvi ligi.

English: 30/6/2010 The association of 1. SNL treats NK Olimpija Ljubljana as according the applicable laws of Republic of Slovenia and in the same way as the registration of the association/club was carried out by state authorities - that is as legal entity/organization, founded in 2005 who won its right to play in first league with the classification from the 2. MNZ Ljubljana all the way to winning the second tier championship 2. SNL in 2008/09 season and had completed licesing conditions to compete in First league. All that is clear from the archive of statistical data on our official web site - NK Olimpija Ljubljana has had one (1) season in First division.

Sounds great. Could you provide an official link to where this was published? Timbouctou (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no link. This was the email I have received from Mr. Grega Sever who is the official PR for the Slovenian First league (1. SNL - Prva liga), that is Združenja prvoligašev. If in doubt the information can easily be confirmed by sending an email to [email protected] with questions about NK Olimpija (est. 2005) connections with NK Olimpija (est. 1911) and their heritage and how are they treated by the same league.Ratipok (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Milko Ǵurovski (Djurovski) ever part of this team?[edit]

Are there any reliable references that confirm that Djurovski was part of this team and played for them in first league? The only thing I found about him is on 1.SNL official website (click here: [1]), which is the reference that I find very reliable when it comes to stuff about 1.SNL. The website clearly states that Milko Ǵurovski played in 1.SNL as part of NK Maribor and later in his career had a short spell (2 official matches in 1.SNL) at NK Ljubljana.Ratipok (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not. According to Reprezentacija.rs, which is a reliable source for all the players who ever appeared for Yugoslavia, Milko Đurovski only played a single game for NK Bežigrad (e.g. NK Olimpija Ljubljana (2005)) in the 2005–06 season (mind you, it does not list him as ever playing for Maribor although the Milko Ǵurovski article lists him as playing for NK Maribor and NK Železničar Maribor, which is probably correct). I cannot find any source which says he ever appeared for the old Olimpija. Timbouctou 01:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He did play for Maribor and even scored 8 1.SNL goals in the process and the info on 1.SNL website is correct. About 2 matches played for NK Ljubljana it looks like he played them as a late substitution (it seems one was even against Olimpija). For NK Železničar Maribor he also played (dont have the info, but I know that one by myself), but only in lower tiers of Slovenian football, part of which was the club at the time (and still is). His venture in Železničar was more of a recreational type as the leagues the club played in was (and still is) on amateur level. I have made adjustment in the article about Djurovski and have deleted the info that he played for old NK Olimpija and removed the category about NK Olimpija players. I will also remove him from the list of notable former players in the article about the old NK Olimpija (1911-2004).Ratipok (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I think there were more players that, at some point in their career, played for the club and were capped on full internatinoal level. For example, Željko Milinovič was one of them and probably a lot more.Ratipok (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best European results[edit]

I think it is very missleading to call the best results of Olimpija in 1992–93 UEFA Champions League as Round of 32 and in 1996–97 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup as Round of 16, while it was officialy known as the First round and the Second round as it is correctly inscribed here. Especially for the Round of 32 of the Champions league wheres the main event didn't even start until later stages (groups), the ones that Olimpija, with their 7–0 aggregate loss to AC Milan, didn't qualify on. Today, when a club officialy reaches the Round of 16 in European competitions it means that it has managed to progress out of group stage.Ratipok (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The rounds in question did in fact consist of 32 and 16 clubs respectively. What was known then and now as "first round" has changed considerably, but the fact of the matter remains that Olimpija was in the final 32 and 16 teams in those competitions. Timbouctou (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, tehnically. And every club that once played or today qualifies in the group stage of the Champions League or Europa League can call themself a Round of 32 contender. Even though, officially, their score being group stage, Lp.Ratipok (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, because there are currently 48 teams playing in the group stage so by analogy it would have to be "Round of 48". But since the group stage is not played in a knock-out format it wouldn't be called a "round" either. For comparison, on both of these occasions Olimpija played in a knock-out tournament and appeared in rounds which contained 32 and 16 teams respectively and that's what is relevant here. Calling it "first round" or "second round" does not mean anything to the reader alone but it could be mentioned together with the explanation such as "First Round (Round of 32)" or "Round of 32 (First Round)". Timbouctou (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation year[edit]

Something that I came across of. The official website of the Association of 1. SNL, which governs Slovenian first division, 1. SNL, a part of which was also Olimpija (1911–2004) from 1991 and the independence of Slovenia until 2004–05 season and the dissolution of the club. On the 1. SNL official website the foundation year of the club is listed as 1946 ([2]) and not 1911!

For matters to be even more strange, there is a club in Ljubljana that is called ND Ilirija 1911 who recently (9 May) had a celebration of its centennial year. Acording to them Olimpija is illegally claiming their history, which they will prove in a new book that will soon be published and will contain all of the information regarding Ilirija from 1911 to present day. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the story of their pre-war days is rather dubious. When I expanded the article a while ago it became apparent that Olimpija seems to have claimed lineage to just about any club which existed in Ljubljana before 1945. This is not totally unfounded I guess because there were many mergers - but it does not make sense when attributing trophies is concerned - expecially for the pre-1936 period when Ilirija and Primorje were city rivals and which both won Slovenian regional titles before they merged into SK Ljubljana, which itself became defunct four years later - because the Honours section lists trophies won by both Ilirija, Primorje and SK Ljubljana - none of which existed during WWII and none of which was re-established following it. 1946 is probably right technically but if the club claimed 1911 (as seen on the club crest) then more reliable sources are needed to make the verdict. I wonder what UEFA's yearbook has to say. Since the only two clubs that I know of which officially regarded as older than 1945 in Yugoslavia were Hajduk and Željezničar the FSJ probably considered Olimpija to have been founded in 1945 or 1946 as Enotnost, which would mean that they (like Dinamo for example) had spent 46 years claiming that their foundation year was 1945. Are there any Olimpija almanacs available to consult?
  • Also, I don't know why you moved the article from NK Olimpija Ljubljana (1911) to its present title. Is the end date really relevant to disambiguate it from the present-day club? And if they played until the end of the 2004-05 season then shouldn't it say 2005 instead? Timbouctou (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you believe, or rather, do you know of any reliable sources on how were the clubs and their foundation years treated by the FSJ (governing body of Yugoslav footbal until 1991)? Officialy I mean.
  • I moved the article because there were still some confusion regarding the two (old and new). I see no harm in doing that and I believe that 2004 is correct. Officialy that is the year when the club was dissolved. The reason why it was allowed to finish the season was because Olimpija was at the time, one of three clubs in first division (the other two being NK Mura and NK Ljubljana) that were dissolved at the end of the same year. The Slovenian FA then had to decide what to do. Either to kick all three clubs out after the season was already in progress and therefore finish the season with seven clubs (which would efectivelly meant that the league would not be eligible to participate in UEFA competitions the next season), or to exceptionally allow the three teams to finish the season which they started. Lp, Ratipok (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we will have to improve this article and remove history about ND Ilirija. Even though Olimpija Ljubljana claimed they were successors of Ilirija which, according to Olimpija, was disbanded at the start of World War II, this is clearly not the case as we can see in this example: both clubs playing in the same league during this (and many more) season; Slovenian Republic League 1961-62. According to the official website of the Slovenian Football Association, Ilirija still exists today, never folded and their foundation year is 1911 (again, according to the Slovenian Football Association who is the governing body of Slovenian football; link to the reference [3]). Ratipok (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some conflicting facts about the history of this club:

Olimpija claimed to have been the direct successor of the dissolved ND Ilirija, however, Ilirija never folded and is still officialy regarded as the club established in 1911 (source: Slovenian Football Association official website: [4]). In reality, the two clubs even competed in the same leagues long after Ilirija was supposedly dissolved, that is when it supposedly "became" Olimpija. Ilirija and Olimpija competed in the same league twice during their history (first time in 1961–62 and second time in 1985–86). After the independence of Slovenia in 1991 Olimpija competed in the 1991–92 Slovenian PrvaLiga (top division), while Ilirija competed in the 1991–92 Slovenian Second League. Long after the two clubs supposedly "merged" into one.

Olimpija claimed to have been the successor of Enotnost who was supposedly the direct successor ot SK Ljubljana (name of the football club after the merger of Ilirija and Primorje in 1936 and who operated until the outbreak of WWII). According to Olimpija, Enotnost was renamed to Odred in 1948 and to Triglav in 1961. Supposedly Triglav was then renamed to Olimpija and this is the "life line" for Olimpija claim of the history from 1911 onwards. Here is the link to the Večer daily newspaper from 23 December 1960, which confirms that Odred was in fact renamed to Triglav (source: [5]). However, on 15 Janaury 1961 Triglav lost most of their players and in this article Večer reporter is speculating if any of those players will join, a new club, Olimpija (source: [6]). I think that this source clearly shows that during the early 1961 Triglav and Olimpija existed during the same period of time and therof can not be the same club that just changed its name.

Here is also the link of Večer article from 27 January 1961 where it says that Triglav is having difficulties and is likely to be dissolved. The article is interesting because it also mentions couple of football clubs from Ljubljana, one of which is Ilirija.

As for the newer sources; A public protest by the chairman of Ilirija (published in Dnevnik daily newspaper) where he is, again, appaled by the unilaterally appropriated and claimed history of his club. He also mentiones that in 2001 Ilirija celebrated their 90th year and that during that year there was no celebration of its kind at Olimpija.

An article from September 2012 with a short history of Ljubljana football. The reporter of Dnevnik daily newspaper is stating that the year 1911 is not the foundation year of the current/new Olimpija and was in fact not even the foundation year of the old Olimpija (source: [7]).

I think that the history section of Olimpija prior to 1960 should be removed from this article because it is factualy inaccurate and false. The dissolved Olimpija was founded either in the late 1960 or early 1961.Ratipok (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you understand the 1961 Večer article false. It doesn't mean that NK Olimpija and NK Triglav then existed as two separate clubs, but that the AŠZ Olimpija, ZŠD Olimpija, AŠD Olimpija or however it was clled back then, acedimic society(!) of sport clubs, would incorporate several sport clubs, among them NK Triglav as its entities (that was a common sports organization type in Yugoslavia). That actually happened, but little later, Triglav joined the Olimpija sports society at the time when the club was renamed to ANK Olimpija (january 1962 i think). However, i agree that the prewar period should not be counted as a history of Olimpija, but I'm not so sure if the 1946 is the correct year. 16. september 1946 was used as the founding of FD Svoboda, but that is false, since Svoboda played in leagues earlier that year and even in the fall 1945. The other option was 20. 8. 1945 when FD Udarnik was founded. Svoboda than merged with Udarnik in 1946/47 winter pause. So, I thuink that 1945 is the correct version in both cases, either Svoboda, either Udarnik. Also, most of the sources from SFRJ uses 1945 as founding year. Linhart (talk)

Merger proposal[edit]

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 to keep articles separate per consensus below... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That NK Olimpija Ljubljana (defunct) and NK Olimpija Ljubljana (2005) be merged into NK Olimpija Ljubljana, on the basis of what the English-language sources are saying. See Soccerway, UEFA and worldfootball.net. Eldumpo (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think, the case of Bezigrad/Olimpija has similarities with Montreal Impact, because Montreal Impact is a separate legal entity from the old Montreal Impact, but will carry the Impact name and maintain the team's legacy in the new league (from the article).
Bezigrad/Olimpija is a separate legal entity from the old Olimpija, while UEFA presents the history of old Olimpija for Bezigrad/Olimpija, like the MLS in case of Montreal Impact.
Another example is Russian Football Union which is the successor of the Football Federation of the Soviet Union for UEFA ([8]), but we have two separate articles.
According to the above, I do not support the merger. --IM-yb (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it may technically be a new club legally, it's about how the sources refer to them, and UEFA combine the European records of both clubs into one without differentiating and with no reference to Bezigrad. ACF Fiorentina is an example of where a club went bankrupt and reformed but the article combines both clubs into one. Eldumpo (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lega Serie A presents the history of Fiorentina ([9]) as one club. Not separate. Fiorentina begin the season 2002–03 from Serie C2, not from the lowest division of Italy.
Rangers F.C. begin the 2012–13 season from the third division, not from the lowest division of Scotland.
English-language source separate the clubs of Olimpija ([10]). Bezigrad begin the season 2005–06 in the lowest division of Slovenian football as absolutely a new club.
MLS presents the history of Montreal Inpact as one club ([11]), but we have two articles for the old Inpact and for new Inpact. That happens maybe because the MLS is a separate league without connetion with other leagues (NASL etc.).
I belive that the title of article of Bezigrad can be change from NK Olimpija Ljubljana (2005) to NK Olimpija Ljubljana without the foundation year and the NK Olimpija Ljubljana (defunct) or other title, will stay as separate article about the history of the team like Portland Timbers (MLS) – Portland Timbers (disambiguation), Montreal Inpact etc. --IM-yb (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article NK Olimpija Ljubljana (2005) and i see that:

  • Olimpija Ljubljana was founded on 2 March 2005 as NK Bežigrad
  • Olimpija Ljubljana (means NK Bežigrad) was founded whilst the dissolved Olimpija was still in existence and was a member of the top division, playing their final league match on 28 May 2005 against Celje, before effectively ceasing all operations without even trying to acquire a competition license for the next season.

I understand that is more complicated than I thought. --IM-yb (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both clubs existed in same time for some years, and that is why we should keep the articles separted. FkpCascais (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are showing them as combined. I note the Irish source above is different but that was 4 years ago - over time newly-formed teams can come to be regarded as the same as the original club to all intents and purposes. Eldumpo (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both clubs have absolutely not existed in the same time for some years, as you say. While it may be true that both clubs existed in the same time for about a month, NK Bežigrad was founded only after the realization of what was about to happen to the old club. It was founded solely for the purpose of the continuation of the old club's history. It was founded by the fans, old Olimpija's players and the parents of children that were playing in the youth systems of the club that was being dissolved. And let me go back to the fans. What makes a football/soccer club? It's the fans. The fans are the soul of the club, and the fact that the fans of the old Olimpija were there at the foundation of NK Bežigrad and have been there to support it ever since, make this "new" club the same club as the club that was dissolved more than 10 years ago. Now, let's go to the media part. Not only do the foreign media regard the new club the same as the old club, the Slovenian media do it as well, for the most part. Not to mention even UEFA and FIFA regard the new club the same as the fans of the club do. The new club is the continuation of the original club. And it should be regarded the same on the wikipedia.QuinlanLJ (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in english has a battle (chelseafc.com Sun 27 Jul 2014). --IM-yb (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the fans, we have FC Red Bull Salzburg and SV Austria Salzburg. In the heart of the fans of old Salzburg football team, are the titles of the past, but we do not give the titles of the past in new SV Austria Salzburg. The difference is that the FC Red Bull Salzburg does not defunct yet and the media does not connecting the old team with new. If we want to be objective, all these should be presented in article. I proposed the example of Montreal Impact and if it is acceptable from the WP:FOOTY, it can proceed. --IM-yb (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - looks to be two separate clubs who have the same name. The fact that a few sources gets them mixed-up is irrelevant. GiantSnowman 20:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me the main question is, what the wikipedia articles are about or better, what exactly is the "club". Is it primary a legal subject (question of law) or sports society (question of culture)? The answer on this will help me decide. To me it seems that the problem is being dealt differently in different environments here. Almost all russian clubs I know (Alania Vladikavkaz, Rotor Volgograd and many many others) are considered as one club with one article, while it seems that its stricker for western teams from Spain for instance (ALmeria, Extremadura...). Slovenia is in central Europe and I understand it's not clear there. But i must atest that, firstly, no Slovenian club is older then 1970s', because they became new legal subjects then with the changes in sport system, and also even more no club can be older than 1945, when all sport was legaly organized in totally new way, and seconly, whatever will be decided, must be then a rule for all the other clubs in Slovenia. ND Gorica for instance became new legal subject in 2003 and therefore also needs two articles. It has two different registration numbers in all oficial Slovenian Football Association documents and also has 2003 foundation date on official Slovenian Football Association website. I don't really care for Olimpija, but I am very interested in the decision, as it will affest also FC Ljubljana and others. Linhart (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - official Slovenian PrvaLiga has two different entries for two teams on their all-time table (LINK), old olimpija is 8th and the new one is 10th, and also Football Association of Slovenia treats both clubs as different (LINK, in "Ljubljana" section), the old club simply went bankrupt and was established again to start again (and this new fake club never repaid old debts from 2004 which are still there) 86.58.36.235 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. But the link you posted has only one Olimpija (that of 2005) and no sign of the second one. However it also has only one Gorica, that of 2003, which is then also a new fake club that never repaid old debths. Linhart (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Olimpija Ljubljana (ex-Bežigrad) has made official public statements that they are a different legal entity and are not, by any means, connected with Olimpija Ljubljana (defunct) ([12]). Whoever established Bežigrad and for what purpose is irrelevant. The legislation of Slovenia, and the rules of the Football Association of Slovenia and the Association of 1. SNL, do not permit what they did and supposedly desire. On the all-time table and stats for the PrvaLiga ([13]) we can see that the two teams stats record are kept separate (for example, the above mentioned ND Gorica stats are tracked as one). The defunct Olimpija never even tried to resolve their debt and Bežigrad was established when it was clear that Olimpija will fold (as someone mentioned). This was done couple of years after a new legislation was passed, especially to prevent such cases of malversation. How would this be resolved and treated if they did the same move perhaps in the 1990s or early 2000s is debatable, but at the end irrelevant. The notion that there are no clubs in Slovenia that were established prior to 1976 (Portorož accords) and 1945 is laughable. Also, if something is written on UEFA website it doesn't mean that is the official stance of the organization towards the matter. UEFA has local correspondents who deal with local subjects on their website. In any case, the organization is not above the legislation and rules of countries and local entities. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the notion about 1945 laughable? Legally it is the same, sportspeople of old club let's say SK Olimp Celje founded in 1945 new legal subject FD Olimp Celje or whatever, they were new legal entity and never payed old debts from old club to varios entrpises from Kingdom of Yugoslavia (which were also dissolved of course). 99% percent of slovenian prewar clubs had huge debts and none paid them off as they all become new legal subjects. Similar, but less radical happened in 1970s. I'm just saying if "legality" and "debt" are the main arguments, then no club can be older than 1945 at least. All-time table is also a funny argument as it has ŠD Naklo there. So I propose then we merge NK Naklo articles, if prvaliga all-time table is such a relevant source. I have slso seen another all-time tabe, that lists "both" Muras and Olimpijas together. It's from Sportske Novosti 27.12.2013 and I can scan it. To sum up, alost all clubs did the same in one time or another, but because Olimpija is listed two times on one all-time table, then we musst have two articles. For me that agument is certainly not enough. 23:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    Because Olimpija is by far most media-covered and known Slovenian club that went bankrupt, no one (media/people) really cares about Naklo and other irrelevant teams from lower divisions, and about Gorica, they never went bankrupt and played in the 1st division all the time since 1991, they just changed the club's name from "NK GORICA" to "ND GORICA" in 2003, they even won the league in 2004, so how would this be possible if they were the new club, you cant just establish a new club and start in the 1st division. The easiest solution is to keep Olimpija articles seperate (becasue they are both big and well sourced), and merge those small clubs with 2 articles as they are just stubs with couple of words (nk naklo, nk piran, maybe nk ljubljana and several others), BUT it should clearly be written that the club was established again, both in the lead section and in the infobox in "Founded" section 86.58.36.235 (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For Gorica... It was possible, you could have established new club and start in 1st division back then. How ask NZS. They didn't change name, they were new club and they did NOT pay old debts (one of reasons how they won the league). If the president of ND Gorica was in court, he would say the same as Olimpija, that the are legally new club. My statement stays that we must do the same for Olimpija, Gorica, Piran, Naklo or whatever club, for media coverage and people I don't care, for me they are all the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.147.139 (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    well basically, if you merge Olimpija articles, then you should merge I. SSK Maribor, NK Branik Maribor and NK Maribor too, its just a little difference, maribor is a normal club and they admitted that they went bankrupt and started again in 1960, unlike that plastic mafia-owned club called olimpija, which claims all history of ND Ilirija 1911 and other clubs, those two olimpija teams are legally not the same just like in maribor case, just because they tried to steal and change history it doesnt mean it should be like that on wikipedia 86.58.36.235 (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I agree in part, the Ilirija part is dubious at least. Still, the 2005 situation is not much different of something many clubs did in the past. I'm pretty sure Maribor would do the same, if they started in lowest league and didn't steal a position from Železničar. However, I still wouldn't oppose 1919 if the club was claiming it. It is a complicated question and I would like to see more opinions. For me questions are "what is a club" and "who is relevant in deciding that". Law? Federation (which)? Fans? Media? Club itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.147.139 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NK Branik Maribor never bankrupted but was forcibly dissolved. NK Maribor was founded later on, however, they never claimed any connection with Branik (or SSK). Whilst Maribor was heading in its own direction Branik was trying (and did) to establish a new club but after years they dissolved that one as well. Today Maribor is a member of "Branik" sports society (as are most of sports clubs in the city of Maribor) but that's merely a honorific connection and again has nothing to do with the dissolved football club Branik Maribor. What Gorica did (and a number of other clubs, including the defunct Olimpija one time during 1990s) prior to 2004 was at the time legal. If it was ethical its another matter.. What the defunct Olimpija, NK Ljubljana and NK Mura did at the end of 2004–05 season was against the rules and laws and thus not permitted (ps: the "successor" clubs of Ljubljana and Mura bankrupted and folded as well couple of years after they were established in 2005). Same goes to all other dissolved clubs. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have the governing bodies for various sports (in this case Football Association of Slovenia) that recognizes a number of clubs as founded prior to 1945 so this debate is irrelevant. Also, what was happening in 1945 (change of political system after WWII) and 1976 (Portorož accords) has nothing to do with clubs going bankrupt. Especially in 1976 it was politics trying to meddle with sports, but ultimately failed. In any case, I thought we are discussing NK Olimpija Ljubljana (defunct) and NK Olimpija Ljubljana (2005) merger, aren't we? The overwhelming majority seems to be against the merger so far, with arguments to support it. If we are going to debate other matters and different clubs, shouldn't we move the discussion elsewhere (for example WikiProject Slovenia talk page)? Regards, Ratipok (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know very well that no one (except me) will discuss about Gorica, Ljubljana etc. so I'm discussing here. But OK, about Olimpija, it is totally irrelevant if the club went bankrupt. The relevant part is that club was one legal entity and then became another, no mather for what cause. What Olimpija did in 2003 was totally legal, club can go bankrupt. It was also legal what Gorica did in 2003, but I think it was illegal what NZS did (letting them play in 1st league). Im just asking who is relevant in deciding when two different legal subject are one club and when two? So far I see no valid arguments against the merger (or for it), just gibberish about debt and bankrupcy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.147.139 (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. What Gorica did was legal according to the laws and rules at the time (couple of other clubs, including Olimpija once, did the same prior to Gorica). Laws and rules changed and what Olimpija, Ljubljana and Mura did or tried to do during and after 2004–05 season was at the time illegal and a breach of rules and still is today. It is my understanding that officials of the defunct Olimpija never even tried to resolve the matter and they knew the club will fold and be dissolved months before the season ended. "Bežigrad" was then established, whilst the league was still playing with Olimpija as one of the active members. So we have two different clubs that existed during the same period of time and the fact that the current Olimpija (ex-Bežigrad) on its own has made officials statements that they are not the same legal entity and connected in any way with the defunct Olimpija is making this debate of a merger pointless. Regards, Ratipok (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree it's getting pointless. What Olimpija did is of course not ilegal. Who will go to jail? Gliha? Remih? No laws changed, only people in NZS, along with UEFA pressure with licences and other things. You can say whatever you like, but legally it's just the same what Gorica and dozens of other clubs did. We have two different Goricas that existed during the same period of time (from 3.7.2003 untill today) and the fact that the current Gorica (ND) made official statements that they are not the same legal entity and connected in any way with the defunct Gorica, when they had to pay former players after 2003. I'm ending this debate.31.15.147.139 (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in Italy, i think only legal successor was club using Article 52 of N.O.I.F. to obtain a sports title. They are two companies but due to the sports title was officially granted from Italian FA, they are in a continuum. What it may comparable was Rangers F.C.. Matthew_hk tc 20:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seem the case was a club that CLAIMED as a successor, sounds like the case of FK Bohemians Prague (Střížkov) and Bohemians 1905 (Czech one was way more complex). I suggested left it as two page article, just like Giulianova Calcio and A.S.D. Città di Giulianova 1924 (the former bankrupted, restructured and closed its football activities, which grant the latter (and few more), a club relocated from nearby town the rights to use the name.), but feel free to suggest a general resolution , as i observed Piacenza Calcio 1919 and Piacenza Calcio are merged into one, due to the liquidator, just grant Piacenza Calcio 1919 (former Libertaspes) to use the brand name, but not obtained the sports title. Matthew_hk tc 21:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comment. Well yes, it's a simialr case to Piacenza (Olimpija got rights from Academic Sports Society to use the name). It is problem in Slovenia, that there is no clear rule like that of NOIF, so obtaining a sports title depends on a free will of Football Association of Slovenia. We have diferent legal subjects that in one case obtain the titles and in other don't. This practice changed around 2004 (most of clubs before 2004 have obtained titles), as I said with pressure from UEFA.Linhart (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on NK Olimpija Ljubljana (defunct). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on NK Olimpija Ljubljana (defunct). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Year[edit]

Old Olimpija was dissolved in 2005 not 2004! https://www.rtvslo.si/sport/nogomet/1-slovenska-nogometna-liga-2004-05/olimpija-obstaja-le-se-na-papirju/106944 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.225.128 (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NK_Olimpija_Ljubljana_(1945–2005)&oldid=1204306079"