Comments on: Franchising Wimbledon: The Panel Decides http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2008/01/30/franchising-wimbledon-the-panel-decides/ Exploring football culture around the world. Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:47:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: JamPot http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2008/01/30/franchising-wimbledon-the-panel-decides/#comment-2545 JamPot Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:09:31 +0000 http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2008/01/30/franchising-wimbledon-the-panel-decides/#comment-2545 Tony - an excellent summary of events. Even if you allow for, shall we say, extraction of quotes from the report to substantiate the points you choose to make, you cannot take away that these quotes were actually made, even if surrounded by other which might support the move. This simple fact makes one question the whole episode; as a neutral you cannot believe there was not another agenda going on here. That agenda was fear. The FA feared that Koppel et al would drag them screaming expensively through the courts. It is still the mentality which allows the Chelsea's and Man U to get away with occasionally breaking the rules and not be sufficiently financially or otherwised punished. I believe technically - I am not sad enough to have looked at the regulations myself but other kind souls have - such a situation COULD happen again. The rules have not be changed. The statements have been made but if the rules themselves have not be modified, how will another threat of legal action based on them not be thwarted? No-one will understand how we Wimbledon fans feel totally until the same thing happens to them; if setting up our club is one of our successes in life then our other claim to fame must be ensuring this sorry occurence never happpens again to another club of our standing. Tony - an excellent summary of events. Even if you allow for, shall we say, extraction of quotes from the report to substantiate the points you choose to make, you cannot take away that these quotes were actually made, even if surrounded by other which might support the move. This simple fact makes one question the whole episode; as a neutral you cannot believe there was not another agenda going on here. That agenda was fear. The FA feared that Koppel et al would drag them screaming expensively through the courts. It is still the mentality which allows the Chelsea’s and Man U to get away with occasionally breaking the rules and not be sufficiently financially or otherwised punished. I believe technically - I am not sad enough to have looked at the regulations myself but other kind souls have - such a situation COULD happen again. The rules have not be changed. The statements have been made but if the rules themselves have not be modified, how will another threat of legal action based on them not be thwarted? No-one will understand how we Wimbledon fans feel totally until the same thing happens to them; if setting up our club is one of our successes in life then our other claim to fame must be ensuring this sorry occurence never happpens again to another club of our standing.

]]> By: Tom Dunmore http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2008/01/30/franchising-wimbledon-the-panel-decides/#comment-2535 Tom Dunmore Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:49:47 +0000 http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2008/01/30/franchising-wimbledon-the-panel-decides/#comment-2535 Thanks for the link, Alex. Agree with Samuel on most counts there, though the best part comes from one of the readers, on franchising in English football: "Elliott comments that the NFL works on a franchise basis and is successful. This is true, but only because the NFL was explicitly set up on a franchise basis. It is an example of a top-down league, where the league is formed and then the teams that participate are chosen. The English football pyramid is a bottom-up structure, where the clubs are formed and then find an appropriate league, at a suitably low level at first, with the opportunity to move up the pyramid. Allowing franchising into a bottom-up league structure breaks the system. Milton Keynes had a club, until Winkelman effectively forced it to close by parachuting a league team into its territory. If Milton Keynes' residents wanted the opportunity to watch League football in their town, they should have supported Milton Keynes City and let it grow and progress up the pyramid." Thanks for the link, Alex. Agree with Samuel on most counts there, though the best part comes from one of the readers, on franchising in English football:

“Elliott comments that the NFL works on a franchise basis and is successful. This is true, but only because the NFL was explicitly set up on a franchise basis. It is an example of a top-down league, where the league is formed and then the teams that participate are chosen. The English football pyramid is a bottom-up structure, where the clubs are formed and then find an appropriate league, at a suitably low level at first, with the opportunity to move up the pyramid. Allowing franchising into a bottom-up league structure breaks the system. Milton Keynes had a club, until Winkelman effectively forced it to close by parachuting a league team into its territory. If Milton Keynes’ residents wanted the opportunity to watch League football in their town, they should have supported Milton Keynes City and let it grow and progress up the pyramid.”

]]> By: alex http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2008/01/30/franchising-wimbledon-the-panel-decides/#comment-2533 alex Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:10:29 +0000 http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2008/01/30/franchising-wimbledon-the-panel-decides/#comment-2533 It's always worth reminding ourselves of the circumstances of this club coming into being. The fact that the committee ruled in favour of MK despite the opposition of the Football League, the Premier League and pretty much all the football world beggars belief. The always opinionated Martin Samuel weighs in, inspired by that same Telegraph article I think: http://timesonline.typepad.com/thegame/2008/01/martin-samuel-1.html It’s always worth reminding ourselves of the circumstances of this club coming into being. The fact that the committee ruled in favour of MK despite the opposition of the Football League, the Premier League and pretty much all the football world beggars belief.

The always opinionated Martin Samuel weighs in, inspired by that same Telegraph article I think: http://timesonline.typepad.com/thegame/2008/01/martin-samuel-1.html

]]> By: Ian http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2008/01/30/franchising-wimbledon-the-panel-decides/#comment-2528 Ian Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:15:30 +0000 http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2008/01/30/franchising-wimbledon-the-panel-decides/#comment-2528 If you're in this country during the football season, Thomas, you should come up the Kingsmeadow with us. I've never experienced anything quite like it, and I mean that in the most positive sense possible. I did the story of football in Milton Keynes before here: http://200percent.blogspot.com/2007/10/story-of-football-in-milton-keynes.html And the one thing that is the most noticeable is that MK had numerous opportunities to get behind a senior football club, with all of them collapsing due, ultimately, to a lack of public interest. There is no question that MK doesn't "deserve" a Football League club. If you’re in this country during the football season, Thomas, you should come up the Kingsmeadow with us. I’ve never experienced anything quite like it, and I mean that in the most positive sense possible. I did the story of football in Milton Keynes before here:

http://200percent.blogspot.com/2007/10/story-of-football-in-milton-keynes.html

And the one thing that is the most noticeable is that MK had numerous opportunities to get behind a senior football club, with all of them collapsing due, ultimately, to a lack of public interest. There is no question that MK doesn’t “deserve” a Football League club.

]]>