It's a praise for the MK Dons experience

[Tyler Durden]

Actually the ground was offered to various clubs, not just WFC. Hamman and the Norwegians plans had nothing to do with Winkleman.

There's a lot of misinformation still going around over this. MK got a leg up league wise but Wimbledon were a busted flush long before that and the AFC set up were nowhere near capable of doing the deal.

They didn't need to in hindsight. Wimbledon once again has a club in the league and will be moving far closer to home soon.
And I say Wimbledon, because they are. Whatever the semantics over who owns/owned the bricks and mortar.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Thing is, the opportunities for doing it the "proper way" are vast now - so many small, non-league clubs have seen big investment and have risen & risen. (Sadly, in some cases, risen to unsustainable situations & gone bust - like Rushden & Diamonds, or Colne Dynamos.)

MK had the backing & the funding & the resources - they could quite easily have done it properly & have gained the respect and admiration of the football world. Crawley did it, Fleetwood are doing it. FFS, Forest Green are doing it.

Winkleman didn't move WFC to MK. WFC folded. He had nothing to do with that either. The ite should be directed at Hamman and the people he sold it to, but they're long gone but Hamman has stated more than once he stuck with that club far longer than most of its "supporters" did. As the gates show.
I get the sympathy for the ones at AFC but many of the statements on this subject are inaccurate.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

Despite their shiny new stadium & their facilities, MK are as likely to go bust as to be any sort of sustainable club above this level. Think Coventry, think Rushden, for two very different types of club with spanking new stadia.

Yep, they're stable right now. But another season or two of relative failure like this one? It's all been rise & rise up to now. This season was their first backward step.

 

[Bladesman]

Actually the ground was offered to various clubs, not just WFC. Hamman and the Norwegians plans had nothing to do with Winkleman.

There's a lot of misinformation still going around over this. MK got a leg up league wise but Wimbledon were a busted flush long before that and the AFC set up were nowhere near capable of doing the deal.

Not really, it goes back well before their demise. It goes back nearly 20 years before.

The fact remains Wimbledon fans didn't deserve to lose their club. If their club tumbled back down a few divisions then so be it.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

Winkleman didn't move WFC to MK. WFC folded. He had nothing to do with that either. The ite should be directed at Hamman and the people he sold it to, but they're long gone but Hamman has stated more than once he stuck with that club far longer than most of its "supporters" did. As the gates show.
I get the sympathy for the ones at AFC but many of the statements on this subject are inaccurate.

You go on sympathising with Franchise and Sam Hamman, Sean.

I'll stick with them Wimbledon "supporters" you mention.

 

[Tyler Durden]

The problem is that loads of current league clubs were formed by merges and/or killing other clubs.
Another example is Arsenal were Woolwich Arsenal playing in South London, imagine the uproar when they re-located into North London, now it's all forgotten and no one is bothered, the same will apply to MKD In a few decades.

I do agree though that it would be a good idea to drop the "Dons" name and have a name or knickname specific to MK like the "concrete cows" etc. "Come on you concrete cows" ha ha

The distinction is that Arsenal (and Millwall actually) relocated to another place in the same city. They didn't move 70 miles out of town, change their name and colours then have the audacity to tag the name 'Gunners' onto the end of it.

 

[Sean Thornton]

They didn't need to in hindsight. Wimbledon once again has a club in the league and will be moving far closer to home soon.
And I say Wimbledon, because they are. Whatever the semantics over who owns/owned the bricks and mortar.

There's nothing semantic over the actual facts though. When some don't actually know the facts, any opinion is bound to be skewed.

Good for AFCW. They've done well in such a short time. Would they have done as well as quickly if they'd had to pay WFC's football creditors as Winkleman did?

 

[Sean Thornton]

You go on sympathising with Franchise and Sam Hamman, Sean.

I'll stick with them Wimbledon "supporters" you mention.

Sympathy? But dramatic. All I've done is mention the actual facts.


It's a pity some aren't as passionate about the Blades on here as they are about AFCW.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Which in itself is criminal.

You could say the same for anyone buying the assets of a club that's gone into liquidation and simply taking the place of a legal entity that no longer exists.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

Sympathy? But dramatic. All I've done is mention the actual facts.

It's a pity some aren't as passionite about the Blades on here as they are about AFCW.

Not actual facts - your interpretation of the facts. Facts that many Wimbledon fans interpret very differently.

E.g. To say "Hamman has stated more than once he stuck with that club far longer than most of its 'supporters' did" is a fact in that Hamman no doubt did come out with crap like that.

But you're privileging his point of view and diminishing that of Wimbledon supporters.

As is your right of course, however much I disagree with you.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Not really, it goes back well before their demise. It goes back nearly 20 years before.

The fact remains Wimbledon fans didn't deserve to lose their club. If their club tumbled back down a few divisions then so be it.

And was Winkleman around then?

 

[Tyler Durden]

There's nothing semantic over the actual facts though. When some don't actually know the facts, any opinion is bound to be skewed.

Good for AFCW. They've done well in such a short time. Would they have done as well as quickly if they'd had to pay WFC's football creditors as Winkleman did?

Facts as they may be in terms of who did what deals and who owns what, aren't the only significant factor when talking about football clubs.

Wimbledon fans see the AFC incarnation as their club, for them, the lineage between old and new isn't broken. If they didn't see it that way then wouldn't have been campaigning with apparent success to move back to Plough Lane.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Not actual facts - your interpretation of the facts. Facts that many Wimbledon fans interpret very differently.

E.g. To say "Hamman has stated more than once he stuck with that club far longer than most of its "supporters" did" is a fact in that Hamman no doubt did come out with crap like that.

But you're privileging his point of view and diminishing that of Wimbledon supporters.

As is your right of course, however much I disagree with you.

The facts relate to the legal financial side of it. There's nothing wrong with my "opinion" - hope that eases your pain - of when Winkleman became involved. There's something wrong when it's suggested he moved them and somehow was behind their demise. That's because it's bullshit.

Fans deserting them is also a fact. Whatever Hamman says, the attendance tables show that. Hence the club couldn't pay its way. Creditors got stuffed, we have no problem throwing this at Pig fans so shall we blame the original Wimbledon fans? Of course not.

Double standards?

 

[Tyler Durden]

Taken in isolation, I wouldn't disagree that Milton Keynes is a good experience in terms of their approach to organisation, stewarding and policing.
The stadium despite lacking character is a very good venue if you see comfort as an important factor, the concourses are spacious, the seats are comfortable, the leg room is decent and the sightlines are brilliant.
The stadium announcer congratulated us on our success this season not once but twice and the matchday programme notes has their Executive Director, their manager Robbie Neilson and their captain Dean Lewington all praising Sheffield United very highly, and despite the fact that I'm opposed to everything their franchise stands for, I never begrudge a kind word from anybody and I appreciate that.

BUT

None of that disguises the fact that they are a cancerous operation, forged out of deceit, betrayal and the pursuit of commercial interest over all else. They should never be recognised and seen as a legitimate football club because they are not. If what they are was ever normalised in English football, it would be the death of it.

As Bladesman alluded to. Their formation killed two football clubs. It should be forgiven or forgotten.

Missed out a *not* at the end. Shit.

 

[Bladesman]

And was Winkleman around then?

No but he could have invested in a Milton Keynes club though couldn't he?

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

Facts as they may be in terms of who did what deals and who owns what, aren't the only significant factor when talking about football clubs.

Wimbledon fans see the AFC incarnation as their club, for them, the lineage between old and new isn't broken. If they didn't see it that way then wouldn't have been campaigning with apparent success to move back to Plough Lane.

Also many facts relevant to a particular case remain hidden, meaning that the facts that are available skew the picture.

Sometimes hidden facts come to light, many times they don't. Either way, powerful people have an interest in suppressing facts which don't show them in a good light or are against their own financial interests. As in the case of Sam Hammam...

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/complex-paper-trail-kept-sam-10823095

 

[Tyler Durden]

The facts relate to the legal financial side of it. There's nothing wrong with my "opinion" - hope that eases your pain - of when Winkleman became involved. There's something wrong when it's suggested he moved them and somehow was behind their demise. That's because it's bullshit.

Fans deserting them is also a fact. Whatever Hamman says, the attendance tables show that. Hence the club couldn't pay its way. Creditors got stuffed, we have no problem throwing this at Pig fans so shall we blame the original Wimbledon fans? Of course not.

Double standards?

If that deal was waved in front of our faces then I would very much hope that any self-respecting Sheffield United supporter would also 'desert' the club. There are some lines that should not be crossed.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Facts as they may be in terms of who did what deals and who owns what, aren't the only significant factor when talking about football clubs.

Wimbledon fans see the AFC incarnation as their club, for them, the lineage between old and new isn't broken. If they didn't see it that way then wouldn't have been campaigning with apparent success to move back to Plough Lane.

True, but some don't want to accept those facts. Ive not sympathised with MK fans - or Hamman - as Alf likes to interpret for some reason, just pointed out that Winkleman wasn't behind the demise. Far from it.

Again I fully understand that sentiment. All I've pointed out is that although they were formed a year before the move they didn't make any serious bids to the liquidators to buy the old set up. That may of course been down to money but in not doing so they enabled that money to be spent on the new set up which, as can be seen by their success and league position, with good management at all levels must have aided them tremendously.

 

[Sean Thornton]

No but he could have invested in a Milton Keynes club though couldn't he?

MKC had gone bust once and was going under again, but he did invest in an MK club and is still doing so.

Surely all the approbrium should be about MKD just taking the league place and the authorities part in that, rather than constantly painting Winkleman as the bogeyman?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Also many facts relevant to a particular case remain hidden, meaning that the facts that are available skew the picture.

Sometimes hidden facts come to light, many times they don't. Either way, powerful people have an interest in suppressing facts which don't show them in a good light or are against their own financial interests. As in the case of Sam Hammam...

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/complex-paper-trail-kept-sam-10823095

And that has what to do with the untruths surrounding Winklemans dealings?

My reference to Hamman was in respect of a quote he made about the support.

How about something that Winkleman was behind the demise, the original move, eating kitten sandwiches, you know, the original points I made about people not even being aware of the timescale of his involvement.

You disagree , that's fine, at least try to stick with the debate.

 

[Bladesman]

MKC had gone bust once and was going under again, but he did invest in an MK club and is still doing so.

Surely all the approbrium should be about MKD just taking the league place and the authorities part in that, rather than constantly painting Winkleman as the bogeyman?

Winkleman was just the last piece of the jigsaw in getting Milton Keynes a league club.

 

[Tyler Durden]

MKC had gone bust once and was going under again, but he did invest in an MK club and is still doing so.

Surely all the approbrium should be about MKD just taking the league place and the authorities part in that, rather than constantly painting Winkleman as the bogeyman?

Winkleman is just the high-profile one. Charles Koppel was the one who set the whole affair in motion.

 

[BushBlade]

Thing is, the opportunities for doing it the "proper way" are vast now - so many small, non-league clubs have seen big investment and have risen & risen. (Sadly, in some cases, risen to unsustainable situations & gone bust - like Rushden & Diamonds, or Colne Dynamos.)

MK had the backing & the funding & the resources - they could quite easily have done it properly & have gained the respect and admiration of the football world. Crawley did it, Fleetwood are doing it. FFS, Forest Green are doing it.

The irony is that the failure of the MKDons franchise (remember they thought they'd bought a premier league club) means that it's unlikely anyone will ever try it again. As you say, it makes more economic sense to buy a small non league club in a densely populated area and build it up.

 

[Bladesman]

Winkleman is just the high-profile one. Charles Koppel was the one who set the whole affair in motion.

I'd have said it was Ron Noades who got the ball rolling back in the late 70's.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

The facts relate to the legal financial side of it. There's nothing wrong with my "opinion" - hope that eases your pain - of when Winkleman became involved. There's something wrong when it's suggested he moved them and somehow was behind their demise. That's because it's bullshit.

Fans deserting them is also a fact. Whatever Hamman says, the attendance tables show that. Hence the club couldn't pay its way. Creditors got stuffed, we have no problem throwing this at Pig fans so shall we blame the original Wimbledon fans? Of course not.

Double standards?

But you're being selective in your facts (as you know you are). You talk as if there weren't any prehistory to the move, nor any financially-motivated players willing it to happen. And Wimbledon never had a large fanbase, just like Fleetwood don't, just like Crawley or Stevenage don't.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Winkleman was just the last piece of the jigsaw in getting Milton Keynes a league club.

Bearing in mind you originally claimed he moved them there himself - which he didn't - are there any links to that claim? Were the FA/FL involved in this skullduggery? Bilderberg Group, Duke of Edingburgh?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Winkleman is just the high-profile one. Charles Koppel was the one who set the whole affair in motion.

In 2001 whilst Wimbledon chairman.

 

[Bladesman]

Bearing in mind you originally claimed he moved them there himself - which he didn't - are there any links to that claim? Were the FA/FL involved in this skullduggery? Bilderberg Group, Duke of Edingburgh?

No I said he could have invested in a Milton Keynes club which he could have years earlier.

He also could have invested and kept Wimbledon in London building a new ground there without the club moving. Yes, Koppel got approval from the FA for the move but Winkleman still bought the club after and set them up at the Hockey Stadium.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

And that has what to do with the untruths surrounding Winklemans dealings?

My reference to Hamman was in respect of a quote he made about the support.

How about something that Winkleman was behind the demise, the original move, eating kitten sandwiches, you know, the original points I made about people not even being aware of the timescale of his involvement.

You disagree , that's fine, at least try to stick with the debate.

I was talking about facts (and the use of them) more generally. Entirely valid in the circumstances, I'd have thought. Especially bearing in mind the character of some of the people (e.g. Sam Hammam) involved in the Wimbledon/MK Dons case.

You seem keen to restrict any debate to how kindly and selfless Pete Winkelman is. But his financial motivations in all this were/are pretty base.

This article mentions the Wimbledon/MK relocation as being “the high water mark for attempts to paint football as some sort of free market”. It's a sordid affair and Pete Winkelman has played a knowingly and majorly sordid role in it too.

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifesty...-manchester-united-didn-t-cause-universal-joy

 

[Sean Thornton]

But you're being selective in your facts (as you know you are). You talk as if there weren't any prehistory to the move, nor any financially-motivated players willing it to happen. And Wimbledon never had a large fanbase, just like Fleetwood don't, just like Crawley or Stevenage don't.

There's no selectivness. Which bit have I missed out? Posts were made on here which were factually incorrect. No comment from you at all.

If you want pre history, see Ron Noades late seventies, as someone said. Ham mans proposed relocations. Winkleman took an opportunity. The Wimbledon demise was nothing to do with him building a stadium in MK. No one was interested in buying it, Merton Council didn't help, the Norwegians etc.

I think the first offer of a move to MK was to Luton, Wimbledon going into administration made it easier for PW. The only one who put his money on the table.