DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Former featured article candidateFCSB is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 7, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 26, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 11, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 31, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 26, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 6, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 14, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2025

[edit]

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)[reply]

 Not done Wikipedia only obeys verdicts from San Francisco County, California. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: Please note that 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)[reply]
@Aoidh: Okay, another reason is that both sides claimed victory. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the information on UEFA site about the history and trophies and update accordingly. 109.166.128.247 (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2025

[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.
No action was taken; it is unclear to me what changes were desired. -- Beland (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
At Video on YouTube 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Căvescu is a lawyer, whether you like it or not. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, I'm not Becali. There are just two possibilities:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're assuming that the verdict is coherent. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read? What does it say? 2A02:2F0E:3E0A:A800:C9CA:AA29:E1BE:F663 (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does it say? It supports both the thesis and the antithesis. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
N.B.: these aren't my own opinions. My opinion is get the popcorn. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a hard fact, the hard fact is this: both sides have declared victory. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
https://as.ro/fotbal/liga-campionilor/site-ul-uefa-a-trecut-o-pe-steaua-bucuresti-castigatoarea-cupei-campionilor-1986-fotbal-club-fcsb-a-ramas-fara-cupa-574595.html;
Good enough, now? Tiplica (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that certain, see https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Auefa.com+steaua+bucuresti
So, when you search the UEFA website for Steaua Bucuresti it finds... FCSB.
Maybe UEFA sides with CSA, but that is by no means certain. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not certain because the changes aren't finished yet, however changing the name and crest of the team which participated in the 1985/86 edition from FCSB to Steaua (and the crest from FCSB to a placeholder) has no precedent on the UEFA site for any other club, as all the others are listed with the current names and current crests. https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/seasons/1985/
I am fine with waiting, I have been waiting for 8 years so far, but again it just shows the subjectivity that you have on this matter. You are clinging on the last piece of sources that proves your belief.
Tiplica (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming that I would have a dog in this fight: I don't. I go with WP:RS.
Further, UEFA says that the records of FCSB began in the 2010s. But Hagi and Lăcătuș are FCSB footballers. The information is not coherent. So, no, I don't know what UEFA has decided. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't understand, UEFA does not make the decisions, they apply them as per Romanian law.
Here is the 2nd wave of updates made today:
https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/winners/
FCSB is not listed anymore as a winner, but Steaua Bucuresti is with a placeholder crest.
Furthermore, no trophy icon appeara besides their name on their UCL profile (it used to appear until today, despite having all the records pre-2017 removed, again as per the last court decision).
https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/clubs/50065--fcsb/
Tiplica (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, seen https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/50065--fcsb/ the information is incoherent.
And the generic (grey) logo team is, again, FCSB, see https://www.uefa.com/nationalassociations/teams/2605559--steaua/
So, yup, that's an entry for a team called Steaua, but for UEFA Steaua means FCSB.
I don't deny that the UEFA website made an entry for Steaua. I simply notice that on that website Steaua=FCSB. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You listed a link for a Youth League team that played in 2013/14 (the 2nd one). Maybe double-check what you are referencing.
The "Work in progress" changes prove otherwise, as there is no reason whatsoever to make these updates if they are not going to consider them as two different teams. The updates are not completed, but I will be here updating any time I see changes from their side.
And speaking about my assumption about you having a dog in this race, just look at your responses on this topic these past years and the denial of what's happening right now with these changes.
To sum it up, as I've said earlier, I've waited 8 years, I am good with waiting a few more days.
Tiplica (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The UEFA website about FCSB is work in progress" is a narrative. Equally well, it could have been hacked. Since there is no recent official decision from UEFA affirming or denying the records of FCSB.
CSA Steaua is mentioned upon UEFA website multiple times. But it does not have its own page.
So, yup, UEFA removed FCSB's trophy. But it did not give it to CSA.
And at https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/seasons/1985/statistics/clubs/ the club is: guess who...
You're trying to read bones according to a badly edited website. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're the only one here trying to read the bones and the only one trying to justify these changes through absurd scenarios (e.g. the hacking which, funnily enough is the "explanation" used by FCSB officials and supporters) to fit a narrative (i.e the one pro-FCSB, thus my assumption from earlier), yet completely dismissing the one from Steaua officials and supporters (so much for being equidistant here).
And waiting for an official statement from UEFA is absurd, I repeat, they do not get to decide who is right in this, however, they do apply changes on their website based on the information they receive from the respective federations, in this case, FRF. Patience, I would assume we will find out more in the following days and most probably Steaua will get their own page (their name is Steaua, not CSA). Tiplica (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, both are narratives. If it isn't hacking, then it is a badly executed kludge. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both are narratives, indeed, but some are more far fetched than others. Does Wikipedia not have a policy regarding conspiracies?
Anyway, I have not requested any updates so far, I am merely pointing out the biggest updates we have and all I request is for patience, fairness, equity and to treat the topic with the respect it deserves.
Tiplica (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I promised to come here with any updates and please allow me to also point that there is no record of any matches between FCSB and Barcelona.
https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/h2h/50065/50080/
And yes, this H2H database includes the European Champions' Cup data, as I checked the record between Real Madrid and Barcelona dates back to the 60s in this competition. Tiplica (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu, here is the logo update:
https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/seasons/1985/
I think it's pretty clear UEFA does not consider FCSB as Steaua's successor anymore, therefore the "Honours" section should be changed.
Tiplica (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the principle of explosion, any conclusion can be drawn from contradictory assumptions. So: no, have patience, as you yourself have said. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am having patience, I also said that I will come here any time there will be an update.
Speaking of updates, https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/2614166/. Tiplica (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Played in the Champions League between 2013 and 2016? It does not sound like CSA.
I also see they played matches... while CSA soccer team did not exist.
If that's CSA, then the webmaster smoked too much pot.
So, I don't know what's happening at the UEFA website. But your narrative that it's about CSA is dogma over data. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So point to the discussion where I have said that it's about CSA.
We are on FCSB's talk page, a Wikipedia page that has falsely promoted the idea in the past few years that it's Steaua's successor (you can mention Steaua as the historic team). Right now, my request is to have the honours of the historic Steaua removed from this page as well as the mention about UEFA considering FCSB as such (the successor), as it is clearly no longer the case.
The historic Steaua team being CSA is another discussion, but, I believe 100% relevant to CSA Steaua's Wikipedia page, wouldn't you agree? So for now, let's keep CSA Steaua out of this discussion. Tiplica (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't my decision, it is not up to me to decide that. WP:CITE WP:RS and get WP:CONSENSUS for that. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I have been doing, I have cited uefa.com and I am trying to get consensus by involving in respectful conversation with one of the main people (i.e yourself) that have opposed changes to the article to reflect the current reality.
Therefore, do you now agree that UEFA does not hold FCSB as the successor of the historic Steaua team, thus requiring the article to be edited to reflect it as such? Or are you pertaining to your own dogma? Tiplica (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are being asked to update the history and record of the FCSB club according to the UEFA site, not to pass judgement on the case or to update the record of Steaua Bucuresti, so stop looking for excuses and do your job.. or let someone else do what is right id you are not able to 109.166.128.247 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree. Here is why: according to UEFA, the Romanian team which played in the Champions League between 2013 and 2016 owns the trophy. That team cannot be CSA, so it's FCSB. It also played there between 2001 and 2008. So, definitely, not CSA.

CSA soccer team simply did not exist between 2013 and 2016. So, it cannot remotely have any claim that it played in the Champions League between those years.

That's what UEFA says there: Steaua București played in that league while CSA soccer team was in a state of dormition.

That CSA won the trophy: that could pass as plausible. That CSA played in the Champions League between 2013 and 2016: that's completely impossible. So, the source which you have cited contradicts you.

Steaua București did play, but CSA didn't, so Steaua București cannot mean CSA, according to UEFA. Therefore Steaua București means FCSB, which did play there.

The real team which played those real matches is the real Steaua București. But that real team is FCSB. Perhaps UEFA wanted to appease CSA, but it made it worse for CSA: implicitly UEFA took a position about which is the real Steaua București. So, yup, the real Steaua București won the trophy, but the real Steaua București isn't CSA, it's FCSB. Even Mr. Talpan does not dare to say that CSA played those real matches between 2013 and 2016. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you keep bringing CSA in this discussion despite us being on FCSB's talk page.
There are two different records for FCSB and for let's call it at this moment a historic Steaua team on UEFA.com, so far, the one thing that is clear, is exactly that FCSB is not Steaua, whilst I agree that this does not prove anything for CSA, it proves EVERYTHING for FCSB.
Besides, don't forget the last court decision stating FCSB's record starts from 2017 as they failed to prove that they own the 2003-17 record. The changes on the UEFA website are strictly in line with this when it comes to FCSB. Tiplica (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The historic Steaua team is the real team which played those real matches (2013-2016). And that team is FCSB. Again, you have over a verdict, while Wikipedia is concerned with history.
You have to distinguish between what UEFA wanted to do and what they did. Now, they took a position about who is the historic Steaua team. That did not happen before. And I don't understand why FCSB deplores that (unless it is a stratagem).
While UEFA probably sought to comply with the verdict, their action bolsters the case that, as a matter of sport history, FCSB is the historic Steaua team. You have a juridical "reality" which has no bearing upon what happened IRL. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"But that real team is FCSB."
Based on what? WP:CITE
Funny how CSA uses the same argument with 1947-1998 but that gets ignored, but when it comes to FCSB, no citations are needed and they are the real team that played during 2013-16. But somehow there is no bias here? Tiplica (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is based upon https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/2614166/
Do you remember that Romanian expression, "Careful with what you say, since it might get interpreted!"? Same applies to that page. It bolsters the case that FCSB is the historical Steaua team. Not in terms of juridical "reality", but in terms of sport history.
The courts can't change the past, unless they have the time machine. So, we don't care about your farcical juridical "reality". We care about what really happened, as a matter of historical fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past. The problem with historians is they can’t repeat an experiment. Today, if we want proof for something, it’s very simple to get proof for many things in the natural sciences; in the experimental sciences we have proof. If I wanted to prove to you that bars of ivory soap float, but bars of iron sink, all I need to do is get 50 tubs of lukewarm water and start chucking in the bars. The Ivory soap will always float, the iron will always sink, and after a while we’ll have a level of what you might call predicted probability, that if I do it again, the iron is going to sink again, and the soap is going to float again. We can repeat the experiments doing experimental science. But we can’t repeat the experiments in history because once history happens, it’s over.

— Bart Ehrman

Quoted by tgeorgescu.
The notion that FCSB did not play the matches it played is farcical to the extreme. It's a juridical fantasy. Nobody has to take it seriously, except for a bunch of jurists. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to see how you concluded that FCSB is the historic Steaua team when there are two different pages now on UEFA.com when it used to be only one (FCSB's profile) with all the records there.
If anything, it is actually implied from UEFA that Steaua stopped in 2017 and FCSB started then as a new team and they don't care about CSA vs FCSB, unless they provide further context in some later updates, a third point of view that even if it wasn't as debated as CSA vs FCSB it has been brought into discussion by some fans that do not support neither of the sides mentioned earlier (I personally don't agree with this, but this is what UEFA currently implies). Tiplica (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, there are two pages. Which both contain matches played by FCSB. Therefore: FCSB is the historical Steaua team. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, I have a dogma. Tiplica (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is the page for FCSB which contains matches played by FCSB. There is the historical Steaua page which contains matches played by FCSB. Q.e.d.
For a history of sport viewpoint, the verdict has become farcical. Wikipedia denies it, since the verdict is deaf to the world. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know what's farcical? Pretending an alleged "sporting continuity" is a good argument to invalidate identity theft because "juridical reality" is not actual reality.
Now you're bending the reality to fit your narrative, despite UEFA splitting Steaua's record in two pages should be raising some eyebrows about their stance or at least what they are trying to say (because certainly if they wanted to say FCSB is the historic Steaua team, they would have simply left the page as it was), especially when you have deemed them as "the source" all these years. Tell me how many pages does Real Madrid have? How many does Barcelona?
You mentioned Wikipedia is concerned with history, alright, keep the paragraphs, keep the history of 2003-2017 heavily detailed there, but explain to me how did FCSB itself won the 1986 trophy? How is FCSB the successor of Steaua if it commited identity theft?
I would agree with you if this page would have been a page about the history of Steaua Bucuresti containing every single piece of detail about historic Steaua, FCSB and CSA all combined together (in an encyclopedic fashion as Wikipedia strives for), but, I repeat, this is about FCSB, solely. Tiplica (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
identity theft is ipse dixit.
Do you know who investigates real identity theft? The Police. It is not a matter for declaratory civil judgments.
To answer your charge: FCSB and the historical Steaua are two different entities juridically. They are not different entities as a matter of sport history.
And that's because you conflate between the company and the team: the team has continuity, regardless of the company. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"So, we don't care about your farcical juridical "reality". We care about what really happened, as a matter of historical fact" ... And yet you say you don't have a dog :)) but in your kind of logic, you are probably right. A flock of sheep is not a dog 😄 109.166.128.247 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia goes with WP:RS. But a source which contradicts itself all over the place is a lousy source. So, first UEFA has to get its story straight, then we can use it inside Wikipedia.
Why UEFA was used before as a source but cannot be used now? Because before it had a coherent message. It will be usable again when it will recover a coherent message. I'm not saying that it has to side with FCSB, just be coherent. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cele trei CONFUZII de la UEFA! Pe site apare STEAUA, nu FCSB! „Este degringoladă totală!” on YouTube Says enough. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://golazo.ro/uefa-fcsb-steaua-cupa-campionilor-europeni-explicatii-site-153467 Tiplica (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are very short responses, which don't solve the incoherence of the website. Neither they explain why matches of the historical Steaua have been played by FCSB.
E.g. https://www.transfermarkt.com/fcsb/startseite/verein/301 takes its information about the records from UEFA. But in this case Transfermarkt does not operate changes based on contradictory information.
For the claim that UEFA has totally separated FCSB from the historical Steaua, I don't see the evidence. Or, at least, I see contradictory evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/seasons/1985/clubs/ tgeorgescu (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2025 (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.

Article Edit request: UEFA have recognised CSA's status as the UCL winner.

[edit]

I want to preface this with the fact that I am not a FCSB or CSA Steaua fan. I have never lived in Bucharest and I have no interest in any of the teams. I simply want Wikipedia to state the facts about who owns Steaua's honours and who doesn't. I also want to say that I am VERY sorry for any mistakes I make:

On the 17th of October, UEFA officially changed the 1986 European Cup winner from FCSB to Steaua on the UCL site, initially leaving the emblem blank, but officially putting Steaua's logo on the 21st. To add to this, FCSB's UCL profile only contains the 2024/2025 and 2017/2018 progress. This effectively means that UEFA have officially recognised the Romanian High Court's verdict to award Steaua's honours from 1947 to 1998 or atleast the 1986 European Cup, to CSA. FCSB legally owns everything they won from 2003 onward. These include: 7 Liga I/Superliga titles, 3 Romanian Cups, 4 Romanian Super Cups and 2 Romanian League Cups. My request is to atleast move the European Cup title to CSA and at most to move the '47-'98 honours to CSA.

Sources: UEFA, GSP

Again, I am very sorry for any mistakes made and I will correct myself if any are pointed out. U-BTBasketballGuy (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has analysed the UEFA website: Cele trei CONFUZII de la UEFA! Pe site apare STEAUA, nu FCSB! „Este degringoladă totală!” on YouTube.
Conclusion: at this moment the information from UEFA is full of contradictions. Also: discussed above ad nauseam.
Further, UEFA said Steaua Bucuresti, not CSA Steaua. And UEFA's Steaua Bucuresti includes matches played by FCSB.
So, yes, UEFA has a different page for Steaua Bucuresti than for FCSB. But, wonder of all wonders, FCSB appears on both pages. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I did not look far enough into the site. Seems a little weird that UEFA would do that, putting the FCSB on both FCSB's and Steaua's pages. Although, I can't really expect much from them. U-BTBasketballGuy (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to www.uefa.com, this page needs to be updated with correct info about the awards won by this club

[edit]

Following the legal disputes between Steaua București and FCSB, legal disputes won by Steaua București, UEFA has updated its website. It no longer considers FCSB as the winner of the 1986 European Champions Cup and the 1987 Supercup. According to the UEFA website, FCSB is a new club, launched in 2017. According to the UEFA website, FCSB has only 2 national titles and no international cups.

Please update this page or delete it. To users saying that UEFA refers to Steaua București, not CSA Steaua, these are lies. CSA Steaua București is the full name of the club. It operates under the Steaua București brand, which it owns, which offers it the possibility to use only the Steaua București part of the name. This is according to the Romanian Football Federation, which also lists the club CSA Steaua as Steaua București in its competitions.

There are no confusions, there is no hacking taking place, there are no errors on the UEFA website. UEFA has received the legal documents and the final rulings of the Romanian judges and has made corrections to its website. Also, UEFA updated the Steaua București page on its website with a logo received from the Steaua București club.

https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/2614166--steaua-bucuresti/

These decisions are final. FCSB has not protested against them (they did not send anything to UEFA, although they said in the press that they would. But they did not). The Romanian Football Federation has not protested against this.

UEFA has modified its website and, according to these modifications, FCSB has nothing to do with Steaua Bucharest. FCSB is a new club, launched in 2017, with just 2 national titles in its trophy case.

Update this page or delete it, but stop using it to spread misinformation. FCSB is not Steaua, it will never be. As it is right now, this article is full of lies! Uiefa (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there are no errors on the UEFA website Bru-ha-ha! You make no sense! See https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/seasons/1985/clubs/
See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#UEFA cited at FCSB. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no error regarding the attribution of the 1986 European Champions Cup. That one belongs to Steaua București, not FCSB. There are 4 different places on the UEFA website where it clearly states that Steaua București is the winner of that trophy:
1. The main Steaua București page: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/2614166--steaua-bucuresti/
You see here the Steaua București name and the Steaua logo, a logo which belongs to the Steaua București club and which was sent to UEFA in a vector format by the Steaua București club.
2. The UEFA most titles section: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/winners/
Again, you have here the Steaua București name and logo.
3. The 1985-1986 season page: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/seasons/1985/
Here you have the name, the logo, the same as above.
4. The page dedicated to the 1986 final: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/match/63987--steaua-bucuresti-vs-barcelona/
The Steaua name, the Steaua logo.
In addition to all of these, there is no mention of FCSB on any of the pages and articles on the UEFA website where the 1986 final is talked about. and there is also the FCSB page on the UEFA website: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/50065--fcsb/
It has absolutely no ECC mentioned there. In fact, the entire history of Fcsb starts from 2017.
I see that you are everywhere when it comes to this topic. I have to ask. Are you being paid by Fcsb to stop anyone who wants to update this page with the correct information? Are you being paid by Fcsb to create propaganda for them? Uiefa (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. Baloney! SportsLover1967 (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2025

[edit]

The FCSB page contains a lot of false information at the moment. 1. All the mentions and all the ties to the Steaua Bucharest club have to be removed from this article. Steaua Bucharest is a totally different club, one that actually sued FCSB. In court, Steaua won several lawsuits against FCSB. These lawsuits clearly state that FCSB is not Steaua Bucharest and that it should not be confused with Steaua Bucharest. 2. By the decision of a judge, FCSB is prohibited from using the Steaua name or even being associated with it. Associating this page with the keyword Steaua, through linking, is both a mistake and contrary to the ruling of a judge. 3. Until a few weeks ago, there were issues regarding the records of FCSB. FCSB claimed that it won the 1986 ECC, because on the UEFA website it said that it won the ECC in that year. However, this was a mistake. UEFA has since updated its website and made corrections: There are 4 different places on the UEFA website where it clearly states that Steaua București is the winner of that trophy: a. The main Steaua București page: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/2614166--steaua-bucuresti/ You see here the Steaua București name and the Steaua logo, a logo which belongs to the Steaua București club and which was sent to UEFA in a vector format by the Steaua București club. ba. The UEFA most titles section: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/winners/ Again, you have here the Steaua București name and logo. c. The 1985-1986 season page: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/seasons/1985/ Here you have the name, the logo, the same as above. d. The page dedicated to the 1986 final: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/match/63987--steaua-bucuresti-vs-barcelona/ The Steaua name, the Steaua logo. In addition to all of these, there is no mention of FCSB on any of the pages and articles on the UEFA website where the 1986 final is talked about. and there is also the FCSB page on the UEFA website: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/50065--fcsb/ It has absolutely no ECC mentioned there. In fact, the entire history of Fcsb starts from 2017.

4. According to UEFA, the history of FCSB starts from 2017, so it is a mistake to say that the year when the club was founded was 1947. This is not the case. 2017 is the correct year. 5. George Becali is no longer the owner of the club. He sold of his shares. 6. Fcsb has no rivalry with Dinamo București. Its rivalry is with CFR Cluj. And it also had a rivalry with the former FC Rapid, the club owned by George Copos. But it does not have a rivalry with Dinamo. 7. According to UEFA and to the www.fcsb.ro website, the official website of the club, FCSB only has 2 Romanian Liga 1 titles. Mihai Stoica, the club CEO, has admitted this. On his own Facebook account, Mihai Stoica took a photo with all the FCSB trophies. You can see it here: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=24169782592641697&set=pb.100001098797640.-2207520000 Those are 2 Romanian Liga 1 championship trophies, and 2 Romanian Supercup trophies. Stoica shows no other trophies, because FCSB has no other trophies. It won no other trophies. And this information has been confirmed by court rulings, which say that FCSB did no show any proof that it won any tropies in the time period between 2005 and 2017: https://www.prosport.ro/fotbal-intern/superliga/soc-fcsb-va-pierde-cele-5-titluri-din-2003-pana-in-2017-ce-s-ar-intampla-cu-ele-20189979

Please update this article as it is FULL of false information at the moment. It does not help to inform anyone. It is just misleading and duplicate information, as a lot of the information here is already present on the Steaua București page, where it should be. Uiefa (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as no specific edit has been suggested in X to Y format, as required and noted by the template. In any case, we care about how secondary sources treat names, not on any court cases determining legal ownership of a name according to local law. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added the secondary sources there. The links are in the post. UEFA links, press articles. From what I see at this point, this refusal to update this article is just in bad faith. Are you a fan of FCSB? Are you paid by this team to keep the incorrect information here? Uiefa (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You provided a WP:PRIMARY source to social media and a mention of a court ruling that has little use for our purposes. It's a moot point anyway; you must make edit requests in the form of a specific X to Y request, and the change(s) proposed must either be uncontroversial or already supported by a consensus of editors.
In addition, casting WP:ASPERSIONS is a poor strategy for getting your edit request approved. If you believe that me or other editors are being paid to keep an article a certain way, then you should file a complaint at WP:COIN or WP:ANI with evidence supporting your allegations of undisclosed paid editing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GOlazo.ro, a publication in Romania, has just confirmed that the Romanian Football Federation reached out to UEFA to ask them to make those modifications: https://golazo.ro/fcsb-steaua-uefa-frf-decizie-justitie-cce-154128 Uiefa (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What UEFA and the Romanian federation do is up to them, but reliable sources have consistently described fcsb as the same club as steaua since 2003 and they still play in the top division, even though they were later forced to change names. The recent controversy around this and rulings by a court don't change basic facts. In any case, this isn't a question that can be settled with a simple edit request, it requires consensus across all the linked pages, and there has never been such a consensus.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please list reliable sources from recent years that describe FC FCSB as the same club as Steaua. Cezxmer (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They can't. Their "reliable sources" are the fake news articles that have absolutely no value and are disproved by reality. Uiefa (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When Uefa said what they wanted it to say, it was a reliable source. Now that it says that fcsb does not have the 1986 ECC, it is not a reliable source anymore. As of right now, the only place where you find the info that Fcsb won the 1986 ECC is Wikipedia. Nobody else says this anymore. Not even the fcsb website. Uiefa (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even "what UEFA says" is murky, see:

So, yeah, I would like to know what UEFA says about FCSB, but at this moment such message is totally incoherent. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If what Uefa says is murky, then just remove everything from Fcsb until things clear up and afterwards you can add it back again. Uiefa (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably the most vocal, but I'm not in charge of such decision. See why at WP:CONSENSUS. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But then why do you do all this propaganda? It is not fair. It is not honest. Nobody in Romania believes that fcsb is Steaua anymore. Nobody in the media believes it. There are some articles that try to push it but those are written by guys who everybody knows are paid by becali. So why are you doing this? Why are you defending this lie so much? Uiefa (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the court sought to change past history. Well, that's not what courts should do. It's not their task. So, I consider the verdict to be absurd. As in absurdism, I rebel against the absurd. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the courts are trying to change history, not a convicted fellow very well known in Romania for his wrongdoings? In the past 10 years, how many times did Becali actually show at least one document as proof that his team is Steaua? And I am not talking about xerox copies. I am talking about actual, real documents. You are talking about absurdism when you are the one that is absurd. Although Becali has lost every lawsuit against Steaua, alhough his own website does not have any information related to Steaua and although his own people admit that their team is not Steaua, that it does not in fact have 28 titles, you still insist to not update this wikipedia page. Is this not absurd? Uiefa (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is now the third time that you've accused a party of being bribed. Again, if you have evidence that either editors or sources are being bribed, then you need to substantiate it, or stop doing it. If the case is so simple to make, then you ought to have no problem demonstrating that reliable sources independent of the situation have largely changed how they describe the history without WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. And with this strong evidence, you ought to be able to make a convincing position to change the existing consensus. That is how Wikipedia works.
Your best chances of making changes to this article involve remaining an editor in good standing in this topic area. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this is the only logical conclusion. When you refuse to accept facts and instead only present your opinions as the truth, what does that say about you? I do not want to accuse people of being insane, although this behaviour is borderline insane. To refuse all these facts and to only push the lies of a former convict, you have to either be insane or paid to do so. Am I wrong? Is there a third option here? Please tell me if there is. I really want to understand why you are so obsessed with not removing the false information on this page. Uiefa (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last warning I intend to give you about casting WP:ASPERSIONS on others. If you cannot collaborate in the spirit of Wikipedia and WP:AGF of people who disagree with you, then the community must decide what, if anything, should be done. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See? This is what I mean. There are about 8 different instances on the Uefa website where UEFA says that Steaua București won the ECC in 1986. There is the Steaua București page, where you can find the Steaua logo, which belongs only to Steaua, not to Fcsb, the Steaua name, and the freaking 1985-1986 season attributed to it. There are articles clearly saying Steaua Bucharest won against Barcelona, not FCSB.
The page dedicated to all the winners of the ECC shows the Steaua București name and logo.
The matches of the 1985-1986 ECC season show Steaua, with the name and the logo, as the team that played against Barcelona, Anderlecht, Kuusysi, Honved and Velje.
These are all proof that Steaua played those matches and won that cup, not FCSB. But if this is not enough, the actual FCSB page has no mention of the ECC tropy or even the 1985-1986 season.
The only place on the entire UEFA website which says what you want to say is that page that you posted here. And it is not even the entire page. It is just a section of that page, just a logo which was not removed when UEFA updated its website. Because the rest of the page says Steaua. It does not say Fcsb. That is just one logo which was not replaced. An error!!!
But you say that this is enough. All the other pages, all the other articles, all the other proof that UEFA credits Steaua București with the 1986 ECC, these things do not count at all.
Please explain to me how this makes sense to you? Uiefa (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how WP:SECONDARY works. You should review that article and provide evidence that comes from WP:SECONDARY sources. Where a logo is located on a particular page isn't how this works; we don't do "sourced by implication" or original research. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But just a few months ago, when the lawsuit for the history was finalized, the arguments of the people who were against making updates to this page were that the UEFA page says that fcsb won that trophy, not Steaua. Now the UEFA website is not a reliable secondary source? Can you please show me an example of a reliable secondary source, preferably for information on the FCSB page? Uiefa (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reality? Which reality? I'll tell you which is the reality, according to UEFA:
See https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/seasons/1985/clubs/
There is a name and a logo for the team which played against Barcelona. That team, having that logo, is the real Steaua, according to UEFA.
That's a way of reading their website. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That logo, by the way, was sent to UEFA by the Steaua București club. UEFA reached out to Steaua, asked them for a high quality logo, and that is the one Steaua sent. Because it is one of the trademarks registered by Steaua. Uefa did not get that logo from Wikipedia or any other page on the internet. They got it from Steaua. If this is not proof that the changes are not a mistake, not hacking, not a glitch, I do not know what is. Uiefa (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, boy: CSA sent the logo of FCSB. That's what you're saying? tgeorgescu (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Steaua sent the logo that is now on the Steaua București page, that page created by Uefa about a week or two ago, where they show the winner of the 1986 ECC. This page: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/2614166--steaua-bucuresti/
THe Steaua logo here was sent to UEFA by the Steaua București club. The page was created by UEFA on purpose. So it was not a mistake, not a hack, not an error. Uiefa (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brother, it is the same club. The club that player Barca in 1986 was Clubul Sportiv al Armatei Steaua București. Uiefa (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2025

[edit]

The information currently presented on this page is mostly false. Fotbal Club Fcsb does not have anything to do with the Steaua Bucharest club. All mention of Steaua Bucharest should be removed from this article or the article should be entirely deleted.

Fotbal Club Fcsb was not founded on June 7, in 1947. It was founded in 2003: https://iamsport.ro/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

Fotbal Club Fcsb does not have the same history as Steaua Bucharest. A large part of its history section needs to be deleted, as it is at the moment duplicate content. The Steaua Bucharest article already has this information and that is where it should be.

The list of statistics and records also has to be either edited or deleted, because it also features duplicate content, copied from the Steaua Bucharest article.

FCSB has never won a Champions League trophy, as its UEFA page currently shows. The 1986 trophy which is mentioned on this page belongs only to Steaua Bucharest: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/2614166--steaua-bucuresti/

There are many other errors on this page. An administrator needs to make the edits or delete the page. Or remove the protected status so that users can correct this article. Uiefa (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotJamestack (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also,  Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. NotJamestack (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change Honours Section

[edit]

The FC Fcsb honours section currently includes the 1986 ECC and the 1986 European Supercup. These trophies are attributed by UEFA to Steaua Bucharest, not FCSB. Please remove them from FCSB.


Source for 1986 Supercup: https://www.uefa.com/uefasupercup/history/1986/ Sources for 1986 ECC: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/2614166--steaua-bucuresti/ https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/00c5-0e6a0bc49898-3c69a840d79b-1000--1985-86-steaua-stun-barcelona/ https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/match/63987--steaua-bucuresti-vs-barcelona/ https://as.ro/fotbal/liga-campionilor/site-ul-uefa-a-trecut-o-pe-steaua-bucuresti-castigatoarea-cupei-campionilor-1986-fotbal-club-fcsb-a-ramas-fara-cupa-574595.html ~2025-29244-45 (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary change to honours section

[edit]

Right now, the Honours section for FCSB includes several titles in Romania, 28 to be exact. It also include 23 Cups, 8 Supercups and 2 League Cups.

However, according to UEFA, only 4 of these trophies actually belong to FCSB. Everything that is up until 2017 does not belong to FCSB, but rather to Steaua Bucharest. Source: https://as.ro/fotbal/liga-1/uefa-a-explicat-in-premiera-de-ce-a-sters-cupa-campionilor-din-dreptul-lui-fcsb-cum-a-revenit-la-steaua-trofeul-576255.html

UEFA was asked by Romanian journalists about this and their reply was: “Bună ziua, după cum probabil știți, acum câteva luni a fost pronunțată o hotărâre definitivă de către o instanță din România în această privință“. Astfel, UEFA face referire la hotărârea judecătorească luată de Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, când CSA Steaua a câștigat procesul în fața FCSB-ului privind palmaresul. Din acel moment, “militarii” au intrat în posesia trofeelor obținute între 1947 și 1998, în timp ce palmaresul FSCB-ului din 2003 până în 2017 nu a fost recunoscut.

This translates to:

”Good day, as you probably know, a few months ago a final decision was given by a Romanian court regarding this matter (the trophies which belong to FCSB)”. UEFA is referring to the decision given by the High Court of Casation and Justice, when CSA Steaua won the honours in the lawsuit against FCSB. From that moment, the ”soldiers” (nickname for Steaua Bucharest) were recognised as owning all trophies from 1947-1998, while the records of FCSB from 2003 until 2017 were not recognized.

UEFA and the Romanian Courts do not recognize the trophies won by fcsb in the period between 2003-2017. Thus FCSB is left with just the 2 Romanian National titles, 2023-2024 and 2024-2025, as well as the 2 Supercups, 2024, 2025. These 4 are its only trophies as of now. ~2025-29244-45 (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA first has to clean its own mess, err, contradictions. I mean https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/seasons/1985/clubs/ tgeorgescu (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article you shared also says that Steaua Bucharest won that trophy. :)))))) ~2025-29244-45 (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, and it also says Steaua Bucharest=FCSB. See the name and the logo of the team, next to "Barcelona". tgeorgescu (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say that. The logo of fcsb appears, but it does not say that. It is just a mistake. Anyway, we can get past this by simply going to the Fcsb page. Over there, it says that Fcsb won no Champions League trophies ever. And it also says that its first european season was in 2017, confirming all the things which I said above. ~2025-29244-45 (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it does not say that—that's merely an interpretation. It is just a mistake—how do you know? WP:CITE WP:RS. I have cited sources that the UEFA website is a mess about FCSB. See above. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu you deserve more respect. ❤️ SportsLover1967 (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because I, unlike you, clicked on the fcsb logo and went to the fcsb page, where there is no sign of any European trophy present. The UEFA website looks pretty clean to me. It just seems that you want to not add the correct information to this page. Can you please show me any source where it says that Fcsb won a European trophy? ~2025-29244-45 (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. SportsLover1967 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a WP:OR interpretation. Does not hold water. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. SportsLover1967 (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So is yours. Right now, on the internet, there is no page saying that FCSB won the 1986 ECC. Not even the FCSB website. The only place still stating this lie is wikipedia. ~2025-33554-05 (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR will get you in trouble. SportsLover1967 (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FCSB is Steaua Bucuresti.

[edit]

Do not listen to those pro CSA Steaua people. SportsLover1967 (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add some sources to back up your statement? ~2025-29244-45 (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Above. UEFA are not the world. SportsLover1967 (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are your sources? Please add them here so that I can see them. I found no relevant website on the internet saying that fcsb is Steaua. ~2025-33554-05 (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FCSB sent both the Steaua and FCSB logos. No returns. SportsLover1967 (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There should honestly be a mental disability check before making an account on Wikipedia Cezxmer (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My lawyer is @Tgeorgescu. SportsLover1967 (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]