John_D wrote:
No, you don't. The events that led to MK Dons coming into being is a matter of public record. Your revisionist version of those events does not match that public record.
The events that led to the creation of MK Dons are not under debate (well, some of the finer details are, but that's all) - we all know that shady dealings were behind it all and it all stank to high hell. It certainly wasn't all as black and white as it was portrayed, and AFC had a substantial chunk of culpability in it all and they were a long, long way from the poor, sweet little innocent slaughtered lambs they have managed to have themselves painted as in the press, but it sucked
big time never the less.
The validity of their existence
now as a football club
just the same as any other is what has been debated in these august pages by my good self and which I stand undefeated on a big pile of broken bodies on. Noone has yet offered a valid reason as to why MK Dons deserve vilification and ridicule
now over and above that which any other of dozens and dozens of other clubs are at least equally worthy of, most especially all the Premier League big boys and the plastic construct that is Wigan Athletic in particular. Well, no argument besides "well, football fans just know it, that's all, so ner" anyway (Marvelous debating that by the way - Jonathan Dimbleby will soon be in fear of his job with that kind of insight coming for him). Or "Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Man Utd all raped their communities for the first time 100 years ago instead of 10 so that's alright, and haven't change their names and colours on any of the dozens of occasions they've done it since so they don't count either"... I wonder if that's how the Holocaust Apologists started?
Again, as so often on here, try arguing with the points I am
actually making, and not the ones that you'd prefer I was making instead, eh?
