Wimbledon

[neilw]

Thanks, BigCrompy. You've just saved me the effort of sharing my comments / opinions by capturing all within your post.

[Mooro]

As far as I remember, AFCW started in the lower division of the Combined Counties league, which is the equivalent to the Hellenic East or West Divisions (step 6). While technically all new clubs need to start at the very bottom of the Senior ladder (which could be deemed to be step 13 in some cases), pragmatic decisions tend to be made around the appropriate place to put a 'new' side, depending on facilities, likely fanbase, even which division is short of numbers, etc, which means teh likes of AFCW, FCUM &amp AFC Liverpool all skipped a few levels (and with very little real objection within the NL circuit) when they first landed.

For reference, any club which folds and reforms in their own wake has to take a minimum two division drop, though is often three depending on where gaps appear in the pyramid.

##
Any animosity is held against the old and new owners and the 'club' rather than the supporters themselves. There is a sense of it being unfair

[A-Ro]

pragmatic decisions tend to be made around the appropriate place to put a 'new' side, depending on facilities, likely fanbase, even which division is short of numbers, etc.

Does this mean that if Celtic and or Rangers were to be let into the English League system they would start in the Championship?

[Baboo]

pragmatic decisions tend to be made around the appropriate place to put a 'new' side, depending on facilities, likely fanbase, even which division is short of numbers, etc.

Does this mean that if Celtic and or Rangers were to be let into the English League system they would start in the Championship?

They should never be allowed in of course.

[A-Ro]

pragmatic decisions tend to be made around the appropriate place to put a 'new' side, depending on facilities, likely fanbase, even which division is short of numbers, etc.

Does this mean that if Celtic and or Rangers were to be let into the English League system they would start in the Championship?

They should never be allowed in of course.

As the rest of this thread proves, what should be done and what eventually is done are quite often very different.

[Mooro]

pragmatic decisions tend to be made around the appropriate place to put a 'new' side, depending on facilities, likely fanbase, even which division is short of numbers, etc.

Does this mean that if Celtic and or Rangers were to be let into the English League system they would start in the Championship?

is that not the proposal anyway?

I still think that instead of those two joining the English league, they should tie up with the FAs of a few other similar countries (eg Belgium, Neths, Switz, Wales, Ireland x2) to make a Northern europe Superleague to sit on top of each of their current league systems.

For instance, put the top 2/3 clubs from each into a Super Division of say 16/18 clubs, then each season relegate the bottom4 to be replaced by domestic champion playoffs.
Eg - 16 team league made up of (current league leaders):
Scot - Rangers, Celtic, Hearts
Bel - Anderlecht, Genk, Gent
Holl - Ajax, Twente, PSV
Switz - Basle, Zurich, Young Boys
Austria - Sturm GRaz, Salzburg
Wales - BAngor, TNS
(perhaps add in Linfield and Shamrock from the Irish leagues too)

This would then provide decent competition for the top clubs, while keeping the link to the domestic leagues to allow some movement up/down.

To go one step further, you could do something similar with Scandinavia and one or more in Eastern Europe then have qualification for the European Cup as the top 'x' places from these leagues || 'n' teams from each of the big domestic leagues (England, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Portugal)

Anyway, I digress - the obvious solution is to penalise MKD for some misdemeanor, bump them down a couple of divisions, then let them get on with it - those fans that stay can be deemed 'true' - while it puts the club down to where any reformed club would have dropped to.

[Kernow Yellow]

By the way, the FSF thinks that the MK Dons are OK for near on four years now: http://www.fsf.org.uk/uploaded/press-re ... 6%2007.pdf

Also, do we boycott Arsenal because of their money-grabbing move away from Woolwich?

How about Headington Utd for their shameless name-change to steal supporters from other local clubs, before ditching Headington altogether and moving to Blackbird Leys?

Loads of football clubs have changed owners, names and locations. But Hammam and Winkelman make good pantomime villains for a few agitprop fans with media contacts.

Aargh, I'm going to have to bite again! Either you're just on a wind-up here, or you're completely missing the point, which is that a football club is essentially 'owned' in a very important sense by its fans. Yes, plenty of clubs have to move ground, and some change names, but this is usually done with the blessing, or at least understanding, of most of its fans.

In Wimbledon's case, its chairman unilaterally decided - against the strong wishes of the vast majority of supporters - that the best thing for him would be to have a league football club in prosperous Milton Keynes, several cities away from South London, where he was struggling to make it work. He never thought he'd take the club's fans with him - he knew he'd have a nice new lot waiting for him in MK, with its large population and lack of decent football team. To compare this with OUFC (or any other club) changing name, or moving a few miles within its home city, while keeping its fan base largely intact simply shows up the shallowness and pedantry of your argument.

As to the FSF - what they achieved in making Winkleman give back the history he'd tried to steal, and ensuring that rules were brought in to try and ensure this kind of move never happened again, is massively to their credit. That they did so using the carrot of (eventually) recognising MK Fans, and effectively ceasing hostilities with the club, was also sensible in my view. But to try to use this to support your argument that what happened wasn't a problem, and even something you'd welcome benefitting from as a football fan in Oxford given the chance, is misleading in the extreme. That is not now, and has never been, the view of the FSF or the vast majority of football fans they represent.

[SmileyMan]

Aargh, I'm going to have to bite again! Either you're just on a wind-up here, or you're completely missing the point...

Moi?

In Wimbledon's case, its chairman unilaterally decided - against the strong wishes of the vast majority of supporters

But there's another special case regarding Wimbledon's supporters - hardly any of them were local. Part of the reason that Merton Council were opposed to the various ground proposals was that there was virtually no local support for them. In terms of supporters in Wimbledon, or wider Merton, they're a smaller club than us.

They had a particular perfect storm of a good manager, a decent set of players with a quirky media profile and the advent of the Premiership and Sky money to thank for having a much larger fanbase than their location probably justified.

Hatred of MK Dons has moved beyond a legitimate protest and into the realms of zealotry.

As for AFC Wimbledon, and their rise through the leagues, try asking the fans of the other teams in those leagues what they thought about having one of their seasons effectively decided before a ball was kicked as a massively over-resourced club trampled all over them. They're regarded as a bullying monster that everyone is glad to be shot of.

The one good thing to come out of the whole situation was the realisation that fan-run clubs was a concept that would work. Maybe in a century or two, when fan-run clubs are the norm, we'll all look back and laugh.

[theox]

Perhaps Mooro has hit on the best answer - find a way to stick MK in the Conference (it seemed easy enough with Luton) and let them take it from there. Surely the Conference is close enough to oblivion to appease those that want them to start low and it means that the true fan and employees of MK are still left with their young club.

[SmileyMan]

And I can't believe that my 1000th post trundled past somewhere amongst all this shit

[Myles Francis]

This is actually a good branch to the debate. I saw a documentary a few years ago about building new grounds which focussed on Derby and Bolton in particular. It showed the devastating effect on the local community that moving the grounds had. Businesses and pubs shut and the area declined rapidly.

There was an interesting piece in the Independent last week in a similar vein, but looking at the situation with Manchester City. The move from Maine Road basically ripped a large hole in the local community and fans still resident in that area were particularly miffed that the FA Cup winners parade actually went nowhere near the old ground.

[Kernow Yellow]

But there's another special case regarding Wimbledon's supporters - hardly any of them were local. Part of the reason that Merton Council were opposed to the various ground proposals was that there was virtually no local support for them. In terms of supporters in Wimbledon, or wider Merton, they're a smaller club than us.

Of course they're a smaller club than us! Always were. But that doesn't make it any better. And don't forget our local council were opposed to various ground moves for 30 odd years before it finally happened. Only one of our chairmen threw his toys out of the pram and tried to take the club somewhere else. Fortunately he never got his wish. Or maybe you were in favour of Thames Valley Royals? Do tell...

[SmileyMan]

Of course they're a smaller club than us! Always were. But that doesn't make it any better. And don't forget our local council were opposed to various ground moves for 30 odd years before it finally happened. Only one of our chairmen threw his toys out of the pram and tried to take the club somewhere else. Fortunately he never got his wish. Or maybe you were in favour of Thames Valley Royals? Do tell...

Finally, a decent argument not based on the 'poor ickle Wimbledon fans' (who abandoned their club when it needed them most) argumentum ad misericordiam!

The Royals plan wouldn't have worked for precisely the opposite reason that the MK Dons plan did (sort of...

That involved taking two existing clubs, both underachieving at the time (based on a notional achievement level related to potential local fanbase) and merging them together in a place where there was a significantly smaller local population, no disrespect to Didcot intended.

Council's have to balance the fact that (gasp!) only about 1 in 22 people regularly attend football matches, and the other 21 really aren't keen on football stadia, especially in the Eighties and all that came with it.

So taking two clubs with big local fanbases and moving them both away is fundamentally different to taking a club with a small local fanbase and a large amount of 'plastic' fans (who turned out to be less plastic than the locals in the end) to a town with a large natural fanbase but for various reasons, no club.

And I would have vehemently hated the Royals, but if it had happened, which would have been nothing to do with me, and I had continued to support what was left of my club, would I have deserved the hatred of 91 other clubs?

A counter-question do you think it would be fair for Liverpool to have to forfeit their European places in favour of the teams that were excluded from taking part post-Heysel? And if you do, would the extra revenue that that brought those clubs be unfair on their rivals in the respective leagues?

[Snake]

pragmatic decisions tend to be made around the appropriate place to put a 'new' side, depending on facilities, likely fanbase, even which division is short of numbers, etc.

Does this mean that if Celtic and or Rangers were to be let into the English League system they would start in the Championship?

is that not the proposal anyway?

I still think that instead of those two joining the English league, they should tie up with the FAs of a few other similar countries (eg Belgium, Neths, Switz, Wales, Ireland x2) to make a Northern europe Superleague to sit on top of each of their current league systems.

For instance, put the top 2/3 clubs from each into a Super Division of say 16/18 clubs, then each season relegate the bottom4 to be replaced by domestic champion playoffs.
Eg - 16 team league made up of (current league leaders):
Scot - Rangers, Celtic, Hearts
Bel - Anderlecht, Genk, Gent
Holl - Ajax, Twente, PSV
Switz - Basle, Zurich, Young Boys
Austria - Sturm GRaz, Salzburg
Wales - BAngor, TNS
(perhaps add in Linfield and Shamrock from the Irish leagues too)

This would then provide decent competition for the top clubs, while keeping the link to the domestic leagues to allow some movement up/down.

To go one step further, you could do something similar with Scandinavia and one or more in Eastern Europe then have qualification for the European Cup as the top 'x' places from these leagues || 'n' teams from each of the big domestic leagues (England, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Portugal)

Hasn’t that already been sort of invented? It’s called the Europa League and it’s on some obscure terrestrial channel every Thursday night during the football season. Top English contenders include Stoke, Birmingham City and maybe even Fulham or Blackpool on account of the fact they didn’t get up the ref’s nose all season so qualify by means of ‘fair play’. Great - a dozen and a half games against the likes of teams most football fans have never even heard of if you want to win it.

///

But I digress. If MKD went bust then for me that would be the only football club on the planet I would really celebrate going under and if we played them away the only chance of me turning up would be if I had a free ticket (and even then I'd take a can of spray paint in my pocket).

[Kernow Yellow]

Finally, a decent argument not based on the 'poor ickle Wimbledon fans' (who abandoned their club when it needed them most argumentum ad misericordiam!

And finally, you show your true colours after much teasing. Wimbledon FC (or rather its board of directors) abandoned its fans, not the other way round, and it did so precisely because it didn't need them in MK. Had the club needed its fans, it wouldn't have moved. Your revisionism (note also the FSF debate above) is becoming increasingly transparent.

By the way, nice to know you would have rejected the TVR proposal purely on pragmatic grounds, but that you would have supported them anyway, despite also 'hating' them (your word). So many contradictions there it's hard to know where to begin. But let's start here - would you also have continued to support them in Guildford (a better MK Dons parallel), rather than Didcot? And expected other fans to do the same, or accuse them of abandoning their club (Maxwell) in its hour of need/greed?