Ethical dilemma : Slumdon or Franchise?

Anything yellow and blue

Who would you prefer to go up - Slumdon or Franchise?

Poll ended at Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:02 pm

Slumdon
14
64%
Franchise
8
36%
 
Total votes: 22

DLT
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 8:38 pm

Post by DLT » Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:25 pm

GY, GY, GY.

MK Dons. My point is that the fact the fans failed to stop the move was because they were not strong enough,quick enough. By the time they acted it was a done deal. Like most things in football the authorities always shut the door after a horse has bolted. So what we should be grateful for is that it was the nomadic Wimbledon that bolted.

As all of you seem to agree it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. And because of MK Dons it quite probably won't.

AFC Wimbledon. I had forgotten the fact that they hadn't returned to Merton. From what you say GY they raped a far more historic club of their home when they were in a moment of weakness (that was tongue in cheek by the way). And they didn't start at the bottom of the ladder did they? They certainly lobbied to start higher.

Oxford Councils certainly did help the move to Greater Leys, including supporting a multiplex application.

GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow » Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:38 pm

&quotDLT&quot wrote:GY, GY, GY.

MK Dons. My point is that the fact the fans failed to stop the move was because they were not strong enough,quick enough. By the time they acted it was a done deal. Like most things in football the authorities always shut the door after a horse has bolted. So what we should be grateful for is that it was the nomadic Wimbledon that bolted.

As all of you seem to agree it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. And because of MK Dons it quite probably won't.

AFC Wimbledon. I had forgotten the fact that they hadn't returned to Merton. From what you say GY they raped a far more historic club of their home when they were in a moment of weakness (that was tongue in cheek by the way). And they didn't start at the bottom of the ladder did they? They certainly lobbied to start higher.

Oxford Councils certainly did help the move to Greater Leys, including supporting a multiplex application.
I love it when you start GY GY GY. :lol:

Depends what you mean by bottom of the ladder. At step 6 and below, teams appear and fold regularly. That is essentially the bottom tier of senior league football.

I'd rather we didn't do the whole Ox Shitty Council thing again. They forced us into the least suitable site, because they would never have got rid of it otherwise. And they refused numerous other far better sites e.g. Pear Tree. I'm not going to drag all that debate up again, so I'll say no more on the subject (possibly).

neilw
Puberty
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:14 am

Post by neilw » Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:42 pm

&quotOxford Councils certainly did help the move to Greater Leys, including supporting a multiplex application.&quot ............ Shame the Multiplex didn't help the club though, eh.

DLT
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 8:38 pm

Re:

Post by DLT » Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:46 pm

&quotneilw&quot wrote:&quotOxford Councils certainly did help the move to Greater Leys, including supporting a multiplex application.&quot ............ Shame the Multiplex didn't help the club though, eh.
Not financially no. But surely it kept Corbett away !!!

DLT
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 8:38 pm

Re:

Post by DLT » Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:48 pm

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
&quotDLT&quot wrote:GY, GY, GY.

MK Dons. My point is that the fact the fans failed to stop the move was because they were not strong enough,quick enough. By the time they acted it was a done deal. Like most things in football the authorities always shut the door after a horse has bolted. So what we should be grateful for is that it was the nomadic Wimbledon that bolted.

As all of you seem to agree it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. And because of MK Dons it quite probably won't.

AFC Wimbledon. I had forgotten the fact that they hadn't returned to Merton. From what you say GY they raped a far more historic club of their home when they were in a moment of weakness (that was tongue in cheek by the way). And they didn't start at the bottom of the ladder did they? They certainly lobbied to start higher.

Oxford Councils certainly did help the move to Greater Leys, including supporting a multiplex application.
I love it when you start GY GY GY. :lol:

Depends what you mean by bottom of the ladder. At step 6 and below, teams appear and fold regularly. That is essentially the bottom tier of senior league football.

I'd rather we didn't do the whole Ox Shitty Council thing again. They forced us into the least suitable site, because they would never have got rid of it otherwise. And they refused numerous other far better sites e.g. Pear Tree. I'm not going to drag all that debate up again, so I'll say no more on the subject (possibly).
No we are here to discuss MK Dons and franchising.

Now just sod off...... over to Das Boot and set this weeks challenge.

boris
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2786
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 12:44 pm
Location: The house with no door

Re:

Post by boris » Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:49 pm

&quotDLT&quot wrote: MK Dons. My point is that the fact the fans failed to stop the move was because they were not strong enough,quick enough. By the time they acted it was a done deal.
Not true, DLT. The Wimbledon fans were mobilised and fighting the move to MK long before it was a done deal. WISA were pretty much already mobilised to fight the proposed move to Dublin, and I can remember them holding public meetings to oppose the MK move months before it was considered by the FA committee.

DLT
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 8:38 pm

Re:

Post by DLT » Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:49 pm

&quotboris&quot wrote:
&quotDLT&quot wrote: MK Dons. My point is that the fact the fans failed to stop the move was because they were not strong enough,quick enough. By the time they acted it was a done deal.
Not true, DLT. The Wimbledon fans were mobilised and fighting the move to MK long before it was a done deal. WISA were pretty much already mobilised to fight the proposed move to Dublin, and I can remember them holding public meetings to oppose the MK move months before it was considered by the FA committee.
But Boris

The move to MK started the day they left Plough Lane. Whilst at Selhurst the fans were happy for the club to concentrate their efforts on staying in the Premiership rather than getting back to Merton.

Moving home didn't seem to be a big issue until the alternative became Dublin or MK.

Then the economics of the club made the move inevitable.

Maybe the FA were faced with an argument from the club that 'either we move or we go bust and fold the club. Now if we fold, how many others will follow'.

The big crook in this for me was the genial Mr Hamman.

He went to on to Cardiff and failed to persuade a council there to authorise a move. Something a certain Mr Risdale has achieved I think.

Baboo
Grumpy old git
Posts: 3539
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:31 pm

Post by Baboo » Thu Apr 19, 2007 10:16 pm

Anyone else just watched Sea of Souls?

GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re:

Post by GodalmingYellow » Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:16 pm

&quotDLT&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:
&quotDLT&quot wrote:GY, GY, GY.

MK Dons. My point is that the fact the fans failed to stop the move was because they were not strong enough,quick enough. By the time they acted it was a done deal. Like most things in football the authorities always shut the door after a horse has bolted. So what we should be grateful for is that it was the nomadic Wimbledon that bolted.

As all of you seem to agree it shouldn't be allowed to happen again. And because of MK Dons it quite probably won't.

AFC Wimbledon. I had forgotten the fact that they hadn't returned to Merton. From what you say GY they raped a far more historic club of their home when they were in a moment of weakness (that was tongue in cheek by the way). And they didn't start at the bottom of the ladder did they? They certainly lobbied to start higher.

Oxford Councils certainly did help the move to Greater Leys, including supporting a multiplex application.
I love it when you start GY GY GY. :lol:

Depends what you mean by bottom of the ladder. At step 6 and below, teams appear and fold regularly. That is essentially the bottom tier of senior league football.

I'd rather we didn't do the whole Ox Shitty Council thing again. They forced us into the least suitable site, because they would never have got rid of it otherwise. And they refused numerous other far better sites e.g. Pear Tree. I'm not going to drag all that debate up again, so I'll say no more on the subject (possibly).
No we are here to discuss MK Dons and franchising.

Now just sod off...... over to Das Boot and set this weeks challenge.
Too late, I did that earlier on.

A-Ro
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2594
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Beset by fools and ne'er do wells.

Re:

Post by A-Ro » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:10 am

&quotBaboo&quot wrote:Anyone else just watched Sea of Souls?
Not &quotjust watched&quot but yes, pretty creepy all the way through but a weak ending.

imho

Pe├▒a Oxford United
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1760
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:13 am

Re:

Post by Pe├▒a Oxford United » Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:51 am

&quotDLT&quot wrote:The move to MK started the day they left Plough Lane. Whilst at Selhurst the fans were happy for the club to concentrate their efforts on staying in the Premiership rather than getting back to Merton.

Moving home didn't seem to be a big issue until the alternative became Dublin or MK.

Then the economics of the club made the move inevitable.
Absolutely none of this makes any sense. Firstly, it's simply not true that the fans gave up on getting back to Merton. It was and remained a very big issue among Wimbledon fans. Just because they didn't put up council candidates doesn't mean this isn't the case. And just because DLT isn't aware of this doesn't mean it isn't so.

Secondly, what on earth is the word &quotinevitable&quot doing in that sentence above? What do you mean, &quotinevitable&quot? It was no more inevitable that Wimbledon should be moved to MK than any other struggling club in debt.

It's a nonsense argument based on non-existent facts (as with the one higher up about the relative attendances of Franchise now and Wimbledon then). What a crock.
entirely disenchanted

DLT
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 8:38 pm

Post by DLT » Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:55 pm

That is better Pena. Some content to your derision.

You accuse me of lying, but I never said the Wimbledon fans gave up, I simply said that they were happy that Hamman and Co worked harder at keeping them in the Premiership than finding them a 'home at home'.

It was inevitable because it was clear that there were no rules in place at the time to stop it and a legal challenge would be lost if the FA tried.

Now rules are in place, same as ground share agreements.

Pe├▒a Oxford United
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1760
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:13 am

Re:

Post by Pe├▒a Oxford United » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:29 pm

&quotDLT&quot wrote:That is better Pena. Some content to your derision.
Says the man who made a completely spurious claim about attendances which I then refuted.
&quotDLT&quot wrote:You accuse me of lying
Of course I've done no such thing. I will however go as far as to say that you give no impression whatsoever of caring what basis your claims have in reality.
&quotDLT&quot wrote:It was inevitable because it was clear that there were no rules in place at the time to stop it and a legal challenge would be lost if the FA tried.

Now rules are in place, same as ground share agreements.
In fact rules were in place at the time. The FA panel chose to override them.

Another claim which founders on the rocks of reality.
entirely disenchanted

Resurrection Ox
Puberty
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 9:45 pm

Re:

Post by Resurrection Ox » Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:17 pm

&quotPeña Oxford United&quot wrote:
&quotDLT&quot wrote:That is better Pena. Some content to your derision.
Says the man who made a completely spurious claim about attendances which I then refuted.
&quotDLT&quot wrote:You accuse me of lying
Of course I've done no such thing. I will however go as far as to say that you give no impression whatsoever of caring what basis your claims have in reality.
&quotDLT&quot wrote:It was inevitable because it was clear that there were no rules in place at the time to stop it and a legal challenge would be lost if the FA tried.

Now rules are in place, same as ground share agreements.
In fact rules were in place at the time. The FA panel chose to override them.

Another claim which founders on the rocks of reality.
I was at college with one of the three man FA panel that decided on the veracity of the MK move. A guy by the name of Raj Parker.

He's lawyer (partner at Freshfield) who does/did a lot of legal work for the FA. I actually emailed him after the decision to protest at what they had done. He did reply - saying that there was a lot more to the decision than what was being made generally available to the great unwashed. So there you go. Lawyer knows best.

Not a friend of mine but I can confirm he was no football man. Not at all.

trevor l
Baby
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:05 am
Location: Oxenford

Post by trevor l » Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:01 pm

It’s not a case of there were no rules in place to stop it at the time DLT, rather that the rule book was thrown out of the window by the FA and the Football League. After initially throwing out the application to go to MK according to its rule book which prohibited movement of a club outside its area, Charles Koppel appealed and the League agreed to FA arbitration. Charles Hollander as the legal adviser, David Dein (amazing how these figures crop up in different contexts in football) and Douglas Craig (he of selling the York City ground fame) formed the arbitration panel. These three (on the face of it a fairly safe selection to permit the move) met and failed to make a decision, referring the matter back to the League for a third try. The League then asked the FA to set up an independent panel, which is the stage at which the aforementioned non-football-person Raj Parker, Steve Stride (operations director at Aston Villa at the time) and Alan Turvey (chairman of the Ryman League) were appointed. In the end in May 2002 they decided by 2-1 to permit the move. The votes have never been revealed, though Turvey is thought/assumed to have been the one who voted against.

The fundamental point I draw from this (apart from the completely unacceptable decision) is that while there may be a rule book, it seems it is not something to be relied on and when convenient to the powers that be it will be ignored, or ways round the rules will be found until the required decision is arrived at. In this case it took three attempts to engineer a decision which suited the suits (if you see what I mean).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests