Is there any truth in the rumour that AFC sent their kit man to 'represent' them in the director's box when they played us?
A higher calibre of representation than we usually have.
I was told it was some kind of protest against our board. They didn't want to send any representative but had to send someone so sent the kitman.
This is a joke, isn't it? You missed the smiley...
Because it's total bollocks, in case anyone is in any doubt. The only issue regarding boardroom courtesy between these two clubs is that our CEO was absent for our home game with them. They were not especially upset by that, and there was never any question that proper courtesies would be extended in the return game. Source? Kevin Rye, and Erik Samuelson.
Heard it via an AFC mate after the game. I wasn't certain as to the truth of it hence why I asked 'is there any truth in it?'. Fair enough turns out it's not.
I remember at the time there was a lot of support from their fans for our cause. I remember some chose to not enter the ground after being refused entry with a Roland out placard.
Exactly and another reason why I really don't get the vitriol shown towards them by some on his thread.
I didn't like Wimbledon that rose to the top league either - I used to just call them the pub team - but that was getting on 30 years ago. Someone wrote above "you can't change history". True. But you can learn from it and make sure bad things don't happen again. Have the FA ever admitted that what they did was wrong, still less apologised for it? Have they ****. So it could happen again. As @mogodon said, it could happen to us. I see AFCW as being at the forefront of the movement that says "never again". Maybe you think that some of their protests such as the programme are a bit extreme, possibly a bit immature. Unfortunately some people have a similar view of our pink pigs etc. And some of them also claim to be Charlton supporters.
Exactly. My personal view is the stuff against MK is pretty funny and justified. When MK finally drop the dons then I think that is time to move on. I see AFC as the continuation of Wimbledon and all of their fans I have met have been very supportive to the Roland out message.
It seems they have (and always have had) a muggy section of fans possibly more than most clubs and I don't agree with the stuff that went on when we played at their place.
I think the slight difference between our protests and the Wimbledon programme cover, is that our protests were all unofficial actions by the fans, whereas the programme is an "official" club publication.
It's like when Brian Cole was sacked for his Palarse announcement, as a club employee he wasn't allowed to say such a comment.
.Have the FA ever admitted that what they did was wrong, still less apologised for it? Have they ****. So it could happen again.
The FA turned down the move to MK, they won an appeal. The FA changed the rules to prevent a similar thing ever happening again.
I had to remind myself of the exact details via this useful Wikipedia page. Do you happen to know how the FA changed the rule? (I wasn't aware of that). Would it prevent us from being moved to Ebbsfleet?
should they have just let the club fold ? you mean, rather than at least keeping it alive by moving it to MK? Well, if you refer to @mogodon 's hypothetical example, if Charlton were moved to Nuneaton, then in my book - in my heart - they would have effectively folded.
Speaking of which that Wiki page reminds us that in 1973 the Charlton board briefly threatened to move us to MK after a row with Greenwich Council...
I don't care how "classless" Wimbledon are, MK are nothing, a bought-in position in the league, nothing more. Fuck them, they deserve everything they get and Wimbledon rising above them in the league is a justified fuck off to them and to the League that allowed this to happen.
.Have the FA ever admitted that what they did was wrong, still less apologised for it? Have they ****. So it could happen again.
The FA turned down the move to MK, they won an appeal. The FA changed the rules to prevent a similar thing ever happening again.
I had to remind myself of the exact details via this useful Wikipedia page. Do you happen to know how the FA changed the rule? (I wasn't aware of that). Would it prevent us from being moved to Ebbsfleet?
should they have just let the club fold ? you mean, rather than at least keeping it alive by moving it to MK? Well, if you refer to @mogodon 's hypothetical example, if Charlton were moved to Nuneaton, then in my book - in my heart - they would have effectively folded.
Speaking of which that Wiki page reminds us that in 1973 the Charlton board briefly threatened to move us to MK after a row with Greenwich Council...
the club was moribund for want of another word. Their fans could have chosen to back the club and kept it viable but the heart wasn't there. This was premiership years, not 1985 when football was a dirty word. People refer to franchising but this was a world away from someone deciding to take a vibrant successful club and up sticks to another town. The club was to all intent dead, this gave a chance for them to survive. Ideal solution would be for the fans to have supported the original team but they didn't.
.Have the FA ever admitted that what they did was wrong, still less apologised for it? Have they ****. So it could happen again.
The FA turned down the move to MK, they won an appeal. The FA changed the rules to prevent a similar thing ever happening again.
I had to remind myself of the exact details via this useful Wikipedia page. Do you happen to know how the FA changed the rule? (I wasn't aware of that). Would it prevent us from being moved to Ebbsfleet?
should they have just let the club fold ? you mean, rather than at least keeping it alive by moving it to MK? Well, if you refer to @mogodon 's hypothetical example, if Charlton were moved to Nuneaton, then in my book - in my heart - they would have effectively folded.
Speaking of which that Wiki page reminds us that in 1973 the Charlton board briefly threatened to move us to MK after a row with Greenwich Council...
the club was moribund for want of another word. Their fans could have chosen to back the club and kept it viable but the heart wasn't there. This was premiership years, not 1985 when football was a dirty word. People refer to franchising but this was a world away from someone deciding to take a vibrant successful club and up sticks to another town. The club was to all intent dead, this gave a chance for them to survive. Ideal solution would be for the fans to have supported the original team but they didn't.
Well I don't know. It wasn't that the fans turned their back on Wimbledon, was it? More that their rise through the divisions didn't solidify and build support as quickly as the owners expected. But is that really so surprising? In the years we are speaking of, (mid/late 90s) we were building our support. I am sure @Airman Brown would be the first to confirm that the growth of our support wasn't automatic, but a result of consistent week in. week out, hard ground level marketing work throughout the 90s. Yet we were still able to build on a foundation where people were alive who could remember being part of a 75,000 crowd at the Valley. Wimbledon had none of that.
As I understand it, the current AFCW resent the MKD propaganda which tried to belittle their efforts as they started their journey from Wimbledon Common, and unfortunately Karl Robinson, in his naive, dumbass way, contributed to that.
I think the slight difference between our protests and the Wimbledon programme cover, is that our protests were all unofficial actions by the fans, whereas the programme is an "official" club publication.
It's like when Brian Cole was sacked for his Palarse announcement, as a club employee he wasn't allowed to say such a comment.
Fan ran club. I would like to see more of it.
I would personally say what they've done has far more class than Brian Cole's comment.
Comments
It seems they have (and always have had) a muggy section of fans possibly more than most clubs and I don't agree with the stuff that went on when we played at their place.
It's like when Brian Cole was sacked for his Palarse announcement, as a club employee he wasn't allowed to say such a comment.
@MrOneLung
should they have just let the club fold ? you mean, rather than at least keeping it alive by moving it to MK? Well, if you refer to @mogodon 's hypothetical example, if Charlton were moved to Nuneaton, then in my book - in my heart - they would have effectively folded.
Speaking of which that Wiki page reminds us that in 1973 the Charlton board briefly threatened to move us to MK after a row with Greenwich Council...
In my opinion.
the club was moribund for want of another word. Their fans could have chosen to back the club and kept it viable but the heart wasn't there. This was premiership years, not 1985 when football was a dirty word. People refer to franchising but this was a world away from someone deciding to take a vibrant successful club and up sticks to another town. The club was to all intent dead, this gave a chance for them to survive. Ideal solution would be for the fans to have supported the original team but they didn't.
As I understand it, the current AFCW resent the MKD propaganda which tried to belittle their efforts as they started their journey from Wimbledon Common, and unfortunately Karl Robinson, in his naive, dumbass way, contributed to that.
I would personally say what they've done has far more class than Brian Cole's comment.
Ah just read further & it's not true, never mind it's a good story