Dons supporters call for MK to change name

[Simster]

Wrong, we did not know that at the time it happened or as a Stockport fan are you suggesting you knwo better than me on this as well?

Try not to be so f***ing condescending with people who have a different viepoint than you eh?

But your "viewpoint" is complete rubbish. Attendances down the pan? Considering the move was made public in 2002, you can ignore the last two years of that graph. And 2000-2002 are still not bad, much higher than ours have been for the past 15 years anyway.

 

[Gritt23]

Considering what happened to Woolwich Arsenal, I would have thought the precedent is already set that they do the complete opposite of what is being asked, and just call themselves "Dons".

 

[Icy Gull]

.

Koppell recieved several offers to buy the club from fans, including at least one from a friend of mine, QUOTE]

NOW I understand your very aggressive stance on this

 

[Icy Gull]

But your "viewpoint" is complete rubbish. Attendances down the pan? Considering the move was made public in 2002, you can ignore the last two years of that graph. And 2000-2002 are still not bad, much higher than ours have been for the past 15 years anyway.

Yeah ignore the freefall the crowds were in before 2002

 

[Brovion]

It's llike you haven't bothered reading the replies you asked for.

Why couldn't they have stayed 3 miles away in Selhurst, while waiting for a site to become available? And even sten's idea that you deem only suitable as an afterthought is MUCH fairer than Winkelman and the city of MK just stealing the club.

I did read them. There wasn't one concrete alternative response, it was all speculation. And far from being an afterthought actually I think Sten's idea is what should have happened. If returning to Plough Lane, accepting that they would have to play at a lower level (even maybe resigning from the League) until they could find a site big enough for a modern ground WAS a rock-solid option, then yes, moving to MK was wrong. If it wasn't viable then I stand by my original post - now that all the dust has settled everything has actually worked out as best as it possibly could have, even if it didn't seem that way at the time.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Wrong, we did not know that at the time it happened or as a Stockport fan are you suggesting you know better than me on this as well?

Try not to be so condescending with people who have a different viewpoint than you eh?

It's true that Albion fans did not know the full permanence of the move to Gillingham at the time, but at least both board and fans were united in their desire to return to Brighton, this was not the case at Wimbledon. It wasn't a matter of finding a saviour for Wimbledon, the exsiting board saw a 'golden future' elsewhere, they didn't want to stay. The two situations were entirely different. There is no doubt in my mind that AFC represent the true spirit of Wimbledon, they could have faded away but they did not. They took the hard way out. It wasn't the fans that gave up on a future in South London, it was the club.

 

[ROSM]

Wrong, we did not know that at the time it happened or as a Stockport fan are you suggesting you know better than me on this as well?

Try not to be so condescending with people who have a different viewpoint than you eh?

well the Stockport man does have a point here. the League only sanctioned us playing outside of Brighton and Hove for 3 seasons max. They also demanded a bond of 500k from the club and finally needed proof that the council supported a move back to brighton and hove in the timeline. To do this, the club put in a half hearted application for waterhall that the council spoke positively about in a letter to the league.

So to all intents and purposes the club had to prove that it wasn't permanent

One other thing I forgot to mention earlier was that when the proposals from the council and supporters for potential new grounds went out for public consultation, I was told by a planning officer and a councillor from merton, that people in the employment of Charles Koppel attended those meetings and stirred up opposition from the local residents.

The proposals for sites in Merton and takeovers of the club were strangled at birth.

 

[Icy Gull]

well the Stockport man does have a point here. the League only sanctioned us playing outside of Brighton and Hove for 3 seasons max. They also demanded a bond of 500k from the club and finally needed proof that the council supported a move back to brighton and hove in the timeline. To do this, the club put in a half hearted application for waterhall that the council spoke positively about in a letter to the league.

So to all intents and purposes the club had to prove that it wasn't permanent

Don't know about you but I wasn't that confident we'd return to Brighton when we kicked off at Gillingham but I do take your point

 

[sten_super]

But your "viewpoint" is complete rubbish. Attendances down the pan? Considering the move was made public in 2002, you can ignore the last two years of that graph. And 2000-2002 are still not bad, much higher than ours have been for the past 15 years anyway.

Yeah ignore the freefall the crowds were in before 2002

Actually according to wikipedia (unless this is wrong?) the Wimbledon board announced their intention to move in August 2001. They were relegated in 2000, which is presumably why their attendances fell (halved!) in 2000/01. After the announcement they were only going to go one way.

I honestly cannot understand anyone saying that what happened to Wimbledon was 'the best' or even 'acceptable'. It made a complete mockery of the league pyramid.

 

[Sheebo]

I'm still waiting for Ringleader Returns to come on the thread and preach that there's nothing wrong with MK Dons and he would support them if he lived in Milton Keynes when they moved there etc etc..........

 

[ROSM]

Actually according to wikipedia (unless this is wrong?) the Wimbledon board announced their intention to move in August 2001. They were relegated in 2000, which is presumably why their attendances fell (halved!) in 2000/01. After the announcement they were only going to go one way.

I honestly cannot understand anyone saying that what happened to Wimbledon was 'the best' or even 'acceptable'. It made a complete mockery of the league pyramid.

As I mentioned previously, Milton keynes were actively seeking a club in 1999, Wimbledon had also discussed moves to Dublin in 1998 - all of which would have had an impact. And in 1995, Hamman was in talks with Archer about a ground share (this was around the time Wimbledon had used the Goldstone for an Inter Toto cup game). He also looked to buy the Goldstone in the period between the sale being leaked (and the club denying it was sold) and the sale being confirmed.

 

[readingstockport]

The FA sanctioned the permanent move of franchise to MK on the basis that it was permanent and irrevocable.

The FA sanctioned BHA's ground share with Gillingham on the basis that it was temporary.

For those of you who can not understand the difference then I feel sorry for you, very sorry.