AFC Wimbledon - Plough Lane (2 Viewers)

I've been following this for a while now as I'm a big follower of short circuit motor sport (which also happens at the dog track) and I think this will happen. It's a regeneration of the whole area, there's an industrial estate to the side of the stadium and that looks set to go to. It's looking like apartments and a sainsburys with a football stadium as a centre piece. I think it's safe to say that it has the councils backing and it's been rumoured for three or more years that I know off through motor sport circles, it's just been a case of securing the finances for the whole scheme including the football stadium.

I remember going to Wimbledon Speedway several times in the 70s for Bees matches and their big individual meeting each year, the Internationale. It was a well-appointed stadium but the place, and the track itself, were very small. Made for good racing though.

Although both were in Plough Lane, the Wimbledon football ground was a different place nearby. They did not play at the greyhound/speedway stadium. I did go to that ground to see City play a friendly around the late 70s IIRC. It was a real dump.

Great news for the real Dons, the sooner the better, they've been shafted over and over since 91

If you click on a link in that article Rob posted you find these words:

A statement read: "The commission has made it clear that their decision is based on exceptional circumstances particular to Wimbledon Football Club.
"They see Wimbledon FC as a one-off. This is not the beginning of a franchise system.
"The Football Association sees it as vital for the game to stop these circumstances ever happening again.
"The Football Association is greatly concerned that this decision should not in any way be seen as a precedent.
"The view of The Football Association is that for clubs to move is not in the best interests of the game."

Click to expand...

I know the circumstances are a little different, but these words ring hollow now.

The independent commission referred to was a kind of appeal following the Football League's refusal to sanction a move.
Where was our independent commission? Why didn't the Football League take a stance, as they did with Wimbledon?

I'm not sure you can make a direct comparison between the two scenarios. We are not a franchise club, nor is a move to Northampton permanent.

Ian1779 said:

I'm not sure you can make a direct comparison between the two scenarios. We are not a franchise club, nor is a move to Northampton permanent.

Click to expand...

Or necessary

skybluetony176 said:

Or necessary

Click to expand...

Very true. It's interesting in both cases that the local council was involved in disputes with the club.

Ian1779 said:

Very true. It's interesting in both cases that the local council was involved in disputes with the club.

Click to expand...

You could also say that both cases involved owners that don't give a shit about the supporters or what happens to the football club.

Ian1779 said:

Very true. It's interesting in both cases that the local council was involved in disputes with the club.

Click to expand...

What was the nature of the dispute Wimbledon had with the council? I can't remember it was that long ago.

skybluetony176 said:

What was the nature of the dispute Wimbledon had with the council? I can't remember it was that long ago.

Click to expand...

I think it was something along the lines that the land the ground was on had usage restrictions imposed on it so it could only be used for sporting purposes. Think there was also a clause that if the club went bust ownership reverted to the council. Hammam claimed that this was stopping him borrowing money against the ground which he needed to do as the club was losing money, seem to recall a lot of fans were suspicious thinking he wanted to sell the ground but couldn't due to the restriction. The restriction got removed at some point and Hammam claimed it was too expensive to redevelop the ground up to the standards required by the Taylor Report and claimed they had no choice but to move out and ground share (sound familiar?). He then sold the old ground to a supermarket chain!

The rest is history as they say, it was claimed it was impossible to move back to Wimbledon and that led the way to the move to MK.

The local council did at one point grant them planning permission for a new ground and the owners of the site being proposed now for AFC also offered to help by redeveloping the existing stadium on that site into a multipurpose facility but neither option was taken up.

Ian1779 said:

I'm not sure you can make a direct comparison between the two scenarios. We are not a franchise club, nor is a move to Northampton permanent.

Click to expand...

I think you have missed my point, but that's probably my fault for not being clearer.

Here are some details about Wimbledon's move to Selhurst Park in 1991. The chap quoted is Matthew Breach from the Dons Trust and he was commenting after CCFC's move to Northampton:

"In 1992, the then owners of Wimbledon Football Club were given permission to move the Club, supposedly temporarily, to Crystal Palace FC’s Selhurst Park. This was meant to be a ground share which would end with a new stadium in our home borough."
(From: http://www.supporters-direct.org/ne...wners-coventry-move-is-dangerous-for-football)

Now I don't think it is Sisu's intention to franchise the club - after all Coventry is now the biggest conurbation in England without a league football club based there - but those words from Mr Breach are not comforting.

The Dons departure from Plough Lane was temporary. They were moving within the same conurbation and it was grudgingly allowed. When the Dons subsequently sought to permanently leave their home conurbation the Football League blocked the move, the FA were involved and there was an independent commission. CCFC has left its home conurbation, but the Football League has not blocked the move, the FA has not got involved and there was no independent commission. The cases are different, but essentially the difference appears to boil down to one of temporarily v permanently leaving the conurbation.

Therefore, returning to my original post, the words ring hollow when I read:
"The view of The Football Association is that for clubs to move is not in the best interests of the game."

Now, it would be more accurate for them to say:
"The view of The Football Association is that for clubs to move permanently is not in the best interests of the game."

Good luck to AFC in this. Unfortunately the creation of Franchise FC set a terrible precident. AFC Cov might be needed if SISU keep playing in Northampton...hell they could become a feeder club in League 3 if Dyke gets his way.

My suggestion would be for SBT to create formal links with WISA who have done very well post-franchise.

Also, would suggest a boycott of the Franchise FC match rather than taking 7000 and filling Winkies boots.

Neutral Fan said:

Good luck to AFC in this. Unfortunately the creation of Franchise FC set a terrible precident. AFC Cov might be needed if SISU keep playing in Northampton...hell they could become a feeder club in League 3 if Dyke gets his way.

My suggestion would be for SBT to create formal links with WISA who have done very well post-franchise.

Also, would suggest a boycott of the Franchise FC match rather than taking 7000 and filling Winkies boots.

Click to expand...

I've never been - not because of distance, but on principle. The poster has a point,

I've felt all along, and have said so, that we could very well be the next franchise club. Should this happen I seriously doubt that the FL will do anything. Again, as I've said previously - FL :jerkit: , REAL FOOTBALL, REAL FANS - my arse

Baginton said:

Great news for the real Dons, the sooner the better, they've been shafted over and over since 91

Click to expand...

4 years less than us then