Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:07 pm  

100% Wire wrote:

What exactly are you boring on about?

Everybody is a plastic supporter. Apart from him.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:26 pm  

NS, you love you're club, and that's great, it really is. And you’re sticking up for that club like any fan would, but if you can't see why fans from up and down the country felt uneasy about the MK Dons situation you're being blinkered.

You said that the fans could've had the club. How many football fans can afford to take on the wage bill and overheads of a League One club? Not many that I can think of. Nor do many clubs have multi millionaires willing to put money into a lower league club the way that Winkleman did. Milton Keynes did, and Winkleman made it happen. Great, but just because “Wimbledon” didn’t have their own investor doesn’t mean that somehow the Milton Keynes fans are superior. They’re not. If MK residents were so desperate for a team they could’ve supported the several incarnations of the non league club(s), nipped 20 miles up the road to watch Northampton or 20 miles down the road to watch Luton. The fact is, the club (chairman, city, whatever) did something that had ever been done, nor has ever been replicated in English football. To assume that it would pass without incident and accepted in this country, is a bit daft.

You’re bitter about the fairytale way that AFC Wimbledon has been portrayed as in the press. I get that it is annoying (I am a United fan who is constantly told that there’s no United fans in Manchester, usually by Liverpool fans in Warrington or City Fans in Holmes Chapel), but to call people who don’t like what happened numpties is a bit daft.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:38 pm  

Just when I was thinking Roddy was the thickest football fan on the planet he is usurped by a Saint. You could not make it up.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:51 pm  

RedTez wrote:

NS, you love you're club, and that's great, it really is. And you’re sticking up for that club like any fan would, but if you can't see why fans from up and down the country felt uneasy about the MK Dons situation you're being blinkered.

You said that the fans could've had the club. How many football fans can afford to take on the wage bill and overheads of a League One club? Not many that I can think of. Nor do many clubs have multi millionaires willing to put money into a lower league club the way that Winkleman did. Milton Keynes did, and Winkleman made it happen. Great, but just because “Wimbledon” didn’t have their own investor doesn’t mean that somehow the Milton Keynes fans are superior. They’re not. If MK residents were so desperate for a team they could’ve supported the several incarnations of the non league club(s), nipped 20 miles up the road to watch Northampton or 20 miles down the road to watch Luton. The fact is, the club (chairman, city, whatever) did something that had ever been done, nor has ever been replicated in English football. To assume that it would pass without incident and accepted in this country, is a bit daft.

You’re bitter about the fairytale way that AFC Wimbledon has been portrayed as in the press. I get that it is annoying (I am a United fan who is constantly told that there’s no United fans in Manchester, usually by Liverpool fans in Warrington or City Fans in Holmes Chapel), but to call people who don’t like what happened numpties is a bit daft.

Don't get me wrong - I fully understand why some people don't like the way MK came into existence. I wasn't fully happy with it myself at the time and I've never liked the fact that they kept the "Dons" name and still don't (even though the name was originally unwanted and was forced on us by the Football League who insisted we had to keep some part of the old club's identity - another fact that never gets reported naturally). But the simple question remains: in Wimbledon FC's position at the time what reasonably could anyone else expect them to have done? Most Wimbledon fans wanted nothing to do with them after they were forced to move (even when they were still very much "Wimbledon FC" for 2 further years afterwards), so what would have been the point in them retaining the identity of the old club that noone wanted anymore? They had to move to continue to exist, the football league allowed them to, their fans deserted them to form a new club instead so they were forced into changing their identity to appeal more to the local population where they were forced to be to survive. That may not appeal to the romantics but I would still challenge anyone to say what they would have done any different placed in the same position. And I would also challenge anyone to tell me why that's not a whole let better than premier league clubs charging 100 quid a ticket because they know that rich tourists will pay it and **** the real fans who can't afford to go to their club anymore?

And are Cardiff City being vilified and ostracised now because they've sold-out their history and completely changed their colours and identity to whore themselves out to Asian customers to try and make more money? No. Why does that not count as "franchising"? How different is that to what MK did? Hmmm?

At the end of the day the past is the past and there's no point dwelling on it - that's how wars start. 18 months ago my then club was sold down the river by it's former Chairman and went bankrupt and ceased to exist as a result, and then he let our bitter local rivals move in to take over our stadium. It doesn't get any worse or any more galling for any fan than that, trust me - just imagine all the signeage at the "Theatre of Dreams" saying "LFC" for a moment... But I don't stand outside Kettering's training ground with placards, or spend hours every day whining and moaning on bulletin boards, or writing angry letters to newspapers about it to anyone who'll listen. It sucks but I've got on with my life and moved on - I still wish ill on Kettering but not actively because what's the point? And I have a lot more justification in being peeved ay my club's demise than AFC do because, unlike them, I didn't actively play a part in forcing their downfall when ways still remained for them to be saved... I'd bet good money on their secret self-loathing at this fact being what drives them on to want to take the blame out on us still...

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:52 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Everybody is a plastic supporter. Apart from him.

Yes - I am as nothing compared to the fan of a real peoples' club like Chelski, eh?

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:37 pm  

Conroy wrote:

Wigan Athletic. In 20 years (of which I've spent 15 watchig the club) we have changed our crest from the traditional tree and crown to the town coat of arms and back again. Two changes in total. We have never changed our home colours or our name and when we moved grounds we moved less than a mile away.

Let me see now.... 1977-1982: blue and white stripes. 1982-1986: solid blue. 1986-1989: solid white with a few blue bits. 1989-1993: solid blue again. 1993-1995: black and blue stripes (can't beat that Inter vibe, eh?). 1995-1998: Blue with white sleeves and green stripes (those mid '90s fashion crime strips...) 1998-2000: Blue again. 2000-2002: Blue and green hoops? Eeeuwwww.... What the heck were you thinking? 2002-2003: Blue with more green bits. 2003-2006: Back to blue and white stripes. 2006-2007: Blue with white sleeves. 2007-2010: More blue and white stripeyness. 2010-2011: Blue with a token single white stripe. 2011-2012: Solid blue. 2012-2013: Blue and White stripes with added black bits now. Coo - very slimming....

Nope, no cynical cashing in going on by a club trying to maximise revenue streams by frequently changing it's image and identity going on there at all...

And FWIW MK have never played in any colours at all other than all white home, all red away and all black 3rd. We have chopped and changed our colours far, far less than any other team in football has in the period of our existence i.e. not at all. Pipe/Smoke interface time.

Conroy wrote:

MK Dons purchased a club, shut it down and moved 60 miles away to another town and county.

No, let's try keeping to those inconvenient facts again please... Wimbledon FC moved 60 miles to survive. They renamed themselves to MK 2 years later after almost all of those lifelong "Wimbledon" fans had long deserted them to support another club called "Wimbledon" instead and them then keeping the name "Wimbledon" too served no further purpose other than irony.

Conroy wrote:

They then changed their name, crest (changed completely not just updated) AND colours before attempting to claim they won the FA Cup in the late 80's despite being formed in 2004. Not quite the same is it really?

Again - they were forced to move to MK and Wimbledon fans all disassociated themselves from them. To stand any hope of prospering they needed to replace the old fans that had all abandoned them with fans from the new community they had been forced into being a part of. What else are they going to do in that situation? Touche.

And we did win the cup in 1988 - our chants say so, so ner

Conroy wrote:

If nobody wanted Wimbledon FC then they should have folded and another club from the lower leagues should have been allowed to be promoted into the football league. A new club should not have been created and just dropt into the football league without earning it.

Maybe so, but the football league allowed it so again: what would you expect the people running Wimbledon FC at the time to have done? If there is muck to be thrown in this affair then it needs directing at the FA and football league, not at the club and it's management who simply did what they had to do and what anyone else would have done in the circumstances. Do AFC fans smash up the toilets down at the Football League headquarters? No, they do not.

Conroy wrote:

How did you feel about Crusaders when they moved from Bridgend to Wrexham? If you disagree with any part of what happened there then you can't support MK Dons as the same thing happened but on a far greater and worse scale.

It sucked at the time big style. But then Crusaders were never more than a manufactured club on a massive scale anyway so I see no comparison.

Conroy wrote:

EDIT - And if someone came in now and bought Wigan Athletic before announcing that we were moving to somewhere north of Leeds and being called Yorkshire Athletic whilst playing in green and yellow and having a white rose as a crest then I would spend the rest of my life wanting them to fall flat on their face.

If your club was bankrupt, with no stadium and a tiny and ever-dwindling supporter base (a bit like Warriors, arf, arf ) who were all deserting you to set up a brand new club also called "Wigan", was slipping inexorably down the leagues and was being forced to play all it's "home" games in Rochdale or Oldham, and someone from Leeds offered them a tonne of money, loads of new supporters and a fantastic state-of-the-art stadium of their own to go and play there instead then what reasonably would you expect them to do? That question once again....

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:50 pm  

Northampton_Saint wrote:

Yes - I am as nothing compared to the fan of a real peoples' club like Chelski, eh?

Like I said - everyone is a plastic supporter, apart from you.

You're nearly crying because other people have a negative perception of your club, but you're clearly willing to have the same thoughtless perceptions on other clubs.

I think that 99% of football supporters in England don't like what happened to Wimbledon. The whole American thing of ripping up a club from one place and moving them to another place is anathema to the English football fan.

But I think most fans have moved on and don't really GAF about it any more. Sure, when AFC Wimbledon play MK Dons the general feeling will be to side with AFCW, but this argument is mainly you trying to create an argument that no one else cares about.

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:58 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Like I said - everyone is a plastic supporter, apart from you.

You're nearly crying because other people have a negative perception of your club, but you're clearly willing to have the same thoughtless perceptions on other clubs.

I think that 99% of football supporters in England don't like what happened to Wimbledon. The whole American thing of ripping up a club from one place and moving them to another place is anathema to the English football fan.

But I think most fans have moved on and don't really GAF about it any more. Sure, when AFC Wimbledon play MK Dons the general feeling will be to side with AFCW, but this argument is mainly you trying to create an argument that no one else cares about.

Yes - I'm in flood of tears me... Oh whoa is me...

And FWIW the remaining 1% of supporters who were happy to see what happened to Wimbledon were their own fans...

...and I never started any argument - I started off wanting merely to gloat at AFC fans and others started up the whole "franchise" chestnut...

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:00 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Everybody is a plastic supporter. Apart from him.

Ironic considering he's a fan of the only plastic club in the Football League

*hides*

Re: Football Chat Thread PART II : Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:04 pm  

100% Wire wrote:

Ironic considering he's a fan of the only plastic club in the Football League

*hides*

You'd better run boy!