The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

[Bored Of Education]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

they didn't have to buy the ground from an asset stripper in the first place.

Oh, come on, this is ridiculous. Not only did Wimbledon ensure their existence but they ensured Kingstonian's existence at Kingsmeadow. Do you realise how many clubs would want to be bought off asset-stripping chairmen by another club with a decent set of principles and prepared to give Kingstonian the most favourable terms possible?

For all your talk about 300 supporters nor being able to buy the ground, again, I have sympathy but, unfortunately, Kingsmeadow has always been much too big for Kingstonian. No-one's blaming you for that but that is the circumstances and you can't expect Wimbledon to do much more than they are.

What people are suggesting on here is "Wimbledon shouldn't buy of an asset stripper, Wimbledon shouldn't sell to an oligarch, they should stay where they are, possibly atrophying their own livelihood, because Kingstonian are part of a fucked up situation that Wimbledon have been one of the few positive actors in that story.

I don't go along with this "Many AFC fans just don't realise what the reality is like for a small club" business either. Yes, they are an outlier in non-league football but to suggest that they have no conception of what it is to be non-league club is plainly ridiculous. It reminds me of supporters moaning while Wimbledon went up the leagues but were still quite happy for the revenue that their supporters brought when they visited. Kingstonian are doing much the same. Wimbledon are - hopefully - a one-off phenomenon for the last 12 years and there are a fair few positives to come from that - revenue from visiting supporters, a template and higher profile of community-owned clubs - and their purchase of Kingstonian has got to be seen as that. To suggest that it would have been better for the Khoslas to sell to other asset strippers (as, let's face it, K's supporters were in less of a position to buy than now) and the club to go bust is 20:20 hindsight. It's partly because of Wimbledon and their story that many phoenix clubs such as recently Hereford are much more sussed as to the possibilities. Wimbledon do hold themselves to higher principles but that doesn't mean the supporters of other clubs can point the finger at them when they fail while doing something with the best intentions - especially when they haven't made the situation worse just possibly delayed the inevitable.

Wimbledon have a moral duty to restore Kingstonian to a suitable home. If they don't, they're shitting on their few remaining principles

Bollocks. Quite simply.

[Ray de Galles]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Seven Saxon Kings wrote:

I've discussed the issue with Wimbledon fans in recent years and specifically in the few days since the Chelsea story broke but neither I nor they know what the club should do for the best? Not seek to go back to Merton and ignore the absolute prime purpose of the reformed club and right the wrong that eventually killed off WFC? Not seek to take over the only likely site in the area for sporting use? Not look to protect Kingstonian as best they can as they have for over a decade?

Not sell the ground without making sure the buyer does something to look after the tenant. Which to be fair maybe they have, because understandably all the details aren't out, but it seems unlikely."

Why? That seems to me to be exactly what Wimbledon's statement and the stories on the issue are saying. Wimbledon haven't exactly fucked you over since buying the ground, quite the reverse, so why do you seem so certain they will now?

Out of interest, do you think there is any mileage in Kingstonian playing in a revamped version of the Kingsmeadow Athletics Stadium converted to a ground more suitable and cost-effective for them?

Well it wouldn't be more suitable for a start, because it has a running track round it and is therefore shit. Kingsmeadow is perfectly suitable, or at least it was until our home terrace was bulldozed for an all-seat stand. There's this narrative that it's 'too big' and 'unsuitable' but any football ground feels empty with only 300 people in it. It's no different to most step 2 and 3 grounds that can potentially hold a few thousand but rarely hold more than a few hundred.

Anyway, that aside, the biggest barrier is probably that it's still used pretty seriously for athletics - by a successful British League club and a lot of elite athletes (including the likes of David Weir and back in the day Sonia O'Sullivan). This creates conflicts of usage and means the pitch would be dreadful from regularly having heavy metal objects thrown on it. In Enfield Town though, with how they've got little terraces behind each goal inside the track, we would at least have a template for making the best of the situation though.

Yes, I was basing my suggestion on visiting grounds such as Enfield and others at that and a similar level which do seem to have come to a workable solution in sharing with an active athletics facility. I'm aware of how Kimgsmeadow Athletics is currently used as I have some contact with the Weir/Archer Academy and one of my children's school uses it but don't think any of that precludes it being an option for you.

As regards the 'narrative about Kingsmeadow being "too big" or " unsuitable" ', that is coming from Kingstonian's own statement though, not anyone else. The change to one stand hardly seems as drastic as you maintain as there is another terrace behind the other goal.

.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Favourite Worst Nightmare wrote: What is your best suggestion to resolve this predicament then SSK?

Well, as I said: Not sell the ground without making sure the buyer does something to look after the tenant. Which to be fair maybe they have, because understandably all the details aren't out, but it seems unlikely.

Oh, come on, this is ridiculous. Not only did Wimbledon ensure their existence but they ensured Kingstonian's existence at Kingsmeadow. Do you realise how many clubs would want to be bought off asset-stripping chairmen by another club with a decent set of principles and prepared to give Kingstonian the most favourable terms possible?

If they hadn't bought it there are countless other scenarios that could have happened to that ground, some better and some worse. One of the better ones you've already alluded to yourself, which would be us sharing with a rugby club and remaining the town's #1 football club. The best case scenario would be that someone buy the club and ground together as a going concern and the worst was bankruptcy but then with the benefit of hindsight perhaps bankruptcy would have been better.

For all your talk about 300 supporters nor being able to buy the ground, again, I have sympathy but, unfortunately, Kingsmeadow has always been much too big for Kingstonian. No-one's blaming you for that but that is the circumstances and you can't expect Wimbledon to do much more than they are.

Nonsense - the ground has been sold out for big FA Cup games and Chelsea friendlies. Nearly any non-league club barely fills its ground to its potential capacity most of the time, so define 'too big'? Kingsmeadow is perfectly in keeping with most step 2 grounds - that's the level we were at when it was built, and we've three times been within playoffs of getting back to it, including last season.

What people are suggesting on here is "Wimbledon shouldn't buy of an asset stripper, Wimbledon shouldn't sell to an oligarch, they should stay where they are, possibly atrophying their own livelihood, because Kingstonian are part of a fucked up situation that Wimbledon have been one of the few positive actors in that story.

All the suggestion seems to be is that they make sure we're looked after, which it's possible they still will. Indeed a number of their fans have said on our messageboard they'd vote against a plan that didn't include such provision. So all we can do is wait and see what happens.

I don't go along with this "Many AFC fans just don't realise what the reality is like for a small club" business either.

I guess that's because you haven't had years of elements of their fanbase querying why 300 of us haven't raised the money to buy something that 4000 of them struggled to buy.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Why? That seems to me to be exactly what Wimbledon's statement and the stories on the issue are saying. Wimbledon haven't exactly fucked you over since buying the ground, quite the reverse, so why do you seem so certain they will now?

On our own statement that we're moving out of Kingsmeadow.

As regards the 'narrative about Kingsmeadow being "too big" or " unsuitable" ', that is coming from Kingstonian's own statement though, not anyone else. The change to one stand hardly seems as drastic as you maintain as there is another terrace behind the other goal.

Well it is coming from others, including Bored on this very thread. But as far as the club's own statement goes, to me that's just putting a positive spin on us having to move.

[Ray de Galles]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Bizarre Löw Triangle wrote: Wimbledon have a moral duty to restore Kingstonian to a suitable home. If they don't, they're shitting on their few remaining principles

"Wider interests of football" you're having a laugh.

They appear to have a suitable home, Kingsmeadow. The people running the club appear to have decided they don't want it. Are Wimbledon now obliged to build them another one as well as their own in Merton?!

I do think Wimbledon have a duty to ensure Kingstonian's position regarding the ground is maintained to the level it has been for the last twelve years since they bought it and do so for the long term.

There are long term problems that have contributed to Kingstonian's decline. I haven't been around long enough to know if the move from Richmond Road was a factor but as far as I am aware the debt accrued in the Geoff Chapple era certainly is and that unfortunately led them to the major problem, Khosala and his asset-stripping. Wimbledon are not responsible for any of that and they have ameliorated what the consequences of that era may have been.

It would be really good to have TonTon back in here to give his view but I know that there is a significant groundswell of opinion in The Dons Trust to ensure Kingstonian are treated in the correct manner.

[Bored Of Education]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Seven Saxon Kings wrote: Well it is coming from others, including Bored on this very thread. But as far as the club's own statement goes, to me that's just putting a positive spin on us having to move.

No, there is a subtle but telling difference. I have said that Kingsmeadow has always been too big, regardless of big FA Cup games and Chelsea friendles, not just since Wimbledon moved in and upgraded. What was Kingsmeadow's capacity when it first was built and what was its attendance just before Wimbledon moved in?

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Harry Truscott wrote:

Wimbledon have a moral duty to restore Kingstonian to a suitable home. If they don't, they're shitting on their few remaining principles

"Wider interests of football" you're having a laugh.

They appear to have a suitable home, Kingsmeadow. The people running the club appear to have decided they don't want it. Are Wimbledon now obliged to build them another one as well as their own in Merton?!

If Wimbledon have [strike]trashed[/strike] improved K's home to the point it can't be restored, then yes, that doesn't seem totally unreasonable.

I swear this wouldn't be as difficult a discussion were it any other club but the Wider Interests of Football Themselves.

[Bored Of Education]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Harry Truscott wrote: I know that there is a significant groundswell of opinion in The Dons Trust to ensure Kingstonian are treated in the correct manner.

Not only this but Wimbledon are one of the few clubs where this groundswell of opinion would exist. Not completely analogous but Bath City supporters were quite happy for Team Bath to go out of existence even though the deal we had with them groundsharing was very good.

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Team Bath were an abomination though.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Bored of Education wrote:

Well it is coming from others, including Bored on this very thread. But as far as the club's own statement goes, to me that's just putting a positive spin on us having to move.

No, there is a subtle but telling difference. I have said that Kingsmeadow has always been too big, regardless of big FA Cup games and Chelsea friendles, not just since Wimbledon moved in and upgraded. What was Kingsmeadow's capacity when it first was built and what was its attendance just before Wimbledon moved in?

Capacity is not really relevant. If our crowds are only a few hundred then we will feel quite spread out in any ground or indeed around a park pitch, because football pitches are pretty big things. If we move to Met Police or Corinthian-Casuals then the ground will feel empty with only 300 in it, indeed it does when we play those sides away.

Kingsmeadow, at least until the changes AFC Wimbledon made, has always been perfectly in keeping with what other clubs of our approximate size have, ie Sutton, Carshalton, Dulwich, Bromley, etc

[Ray de Galles]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Seven Saxon Kings wrote:

Why? That seems to me to be exactly what Wimbledon's statement and the stories on the issue are saying. Wimbledon haven't exactly fucked you over since buying the ground, quite the reverse, so why do you seem so certain they will now?

On our own statement that we're moving out of Kingsmeadow.

As regards the 'narrative about Kingsmeadow being "too big" or " unsuitable" ', that is coming from Kingstonian's own statement though, not anyone else. The change to one stand hardly seems as drastic as you maintain as there is another terrace behind the other goal.

Well it is coming from others, including Bored on this very thread. But as far as the club's own statement goes, to me that's just putting a positive spin on us having to move.

The more I look at the K's board's statement the less I can work out exactly what their intent in releasing it is. It certainly doesn't read as an indication that Wimbledon are likely to fuck you over though.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Bizarre Löw Triangle wrote: Team Bath were an abomination though.

I think everyone in non-league was perfectly happy to see Team Bath go out of existence.

[Bored Of Education]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Bizarre Löw Triangle wrote: If Wimbledon have [strike]trashed[/strike] improved K's home to the point it can't be restored, then yes, that doesn't seem totally unreasonable.

I swear this wouldn't be as difficult a discussion were it any other club but the Wider Interests of Football Themselves.

Firstly, were Wimbledon to restore Kingsmeadow to the point before they acquired it, it would still leave Kingstonian in a stadium too big for their purposes and with a possibly higher rent.

Secondly, the fact that you are using the FA Commission's quote (I know that Wimbledon have reclaimed it to certain extent) to whip Wimbledon suggests another agenda here. Put it another way, would Wrexham, Bath City, whoever, have done as much as Wimbledon have done and still have received such shit for it? I very much doubt it

[Bored Of Education]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Seven Saxon Kings wrote:

Well it is coming from others, including Bored on this very thread. But as far as the club's own statement goes, to me that's just putting a positive spin on us having to move.

No, there is a subtle but telling difference. I have said that Kingsmeadow has always been too big, regardless of big FA Cup games and Chelsea friendles, not just since Wimbledon moved in and upgraded. What was Kingsmeadow's capacity when it first was built and what was its attendance just before Wimbledon moved in?

Capacity is not really relevant. If our crowds are only a few hundred then we will feel quite spread out in any ground or indeed around a park pitch, because football pitches are pretty big things. If we move to Met Police or Corinthian-Casuals then the ground will feel empty with only 300 in it, indeed it does when we play those sides away.

Kingsmeadow, at least until the changes AFC Wimbledon made, has always been perfectly in keeping with what other clubs of our approximate size have, ie Sutton, Carshalton, Dulwich, Bromley, etc

All I have to say is that capacity is certainly relevant when you build a stadium that is many time bigger than your support base and you can't afford the maintenance on it which is the issue. Rattling around a big stadium is no problem at all if you can afford it, believe me.

[Ray de Galles]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Bizarre Löw Triangle wrote:

Wimbledon have a moral duty to restore Kingstonian to a suitable home. If they don't, they're shitting on their few remaining principles

"Wider interests of football" you're having a laugh.

They appear to have a suitable home, Kingsmeadow. The people running the club appear to have decided they don't want it. Are Wimbledon now obliged to build them another one as well as their own in Merton?!

If Wimbledon have [strike]trashed[/strike] improved K's home to the point it can't be restored, then yes, that doesn't seem totally unreasonable.

I swear this wouldn't be as difficult a discussion were it any other club but the Wider Interests of Football Themselves.

Yeah, you're kind of revealing that this is about some other issue you have with Wimbledon and not about Kingstonian for you. Is is because you were a punk before they were a punk?

Using terms like "trashed" and talking about a need for it to be "restored" is just fucking nonsensical. I've been going to the ground for around twenty years and the changes are not so dramatic as to drastically alter it's suitability for Kingstonian.

.

[Bored Of Education]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Seven Saxon Kings wrote:

Team Bath were an abomination though.

I think everyone in non-league was perfectly happy to see Team Bath go out of existence.

Yes but none of you lot profited from their rent, bar revenues and training facilities. We did and still people didn't see that we were benefitting from it in a way we could do with now but, you know, I digress.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

All I have to say is that capacity is certainly relevant when you build a stadium that is many time bigger than your support base and you can't afford the maintenance on it which is the issue. Rattling around a big stadium is no problem at all if you can afford it, believe me.

I don't know how much step 3 football you watch, but you clearly have no idea what a 1,000 capacity stadium would actually look like - basically a flat concrete path roped off around the pitch.

Just go on the Wikipedia page for this year's Ryman League and look at the stadium capacities. The median is around the 3,000 mark, that's for the Premier Division (which we;re in) and the regional division ones below. Yes, KM is above average but it's not spectacularly out of keeping, and most of the clubs have capacities many multiples of their average crowd. The maintenance bills come in the form of things like the pitch, heat, light, floodlights and general facilities, not whether the terracing has eight steps rather than three.

[Bored Of Education]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

So Wimbledon have saddled you with pitch, heat, light, floodlights and general facilities that you wouldn't be able to keep up, is that the issue?

[Seven Saxon Kings]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Bored of Education wrote: So Wimbledon have saddled you with pitch, heat, light, floodlights and general facilities that you wouldn't be able to keep up, is that the issue?

No, that's not remotely what I've said at any point in this thread. Way to completely misrepresent me to distract from the fact you made a completely nonsense statement about our ground 'always being too big for us'.

[Favourite Worst Nightmare]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

[/quote]
If Wimbledon have [strike]trashed[/strike] improved K's home to the point it can't be restored, then yes, that doesn't seem totally unreasonable.
[/quote]
Yes that's right, Wimbledon have trashed Kingsmeadow.

They trashed it by putting a roof on the terrace at the Athletics End of the ground. They trashed it some more by extending the main stand to cover the full length of the pitch (an increase of around 100 seats). They trashed it further by adding an extra set of turnstiles at the North end of the ground. They finally finished trashing it by putting a new seated stand to replace the shallow terrace at the North end.

In a just world Wimbledon would not have built the new stand, they would have relinquished their hard won league place in order to save Kingstonian fans from having to watch the game from the terrace at the other end of the ground. The terrace which is larger and provides a better view.

For the record, the capacity has changed from approx 4500 to approx 5000.

[Bored Of Education]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Seven Saxon Kings wrote:

So Wimbledon have saddled you with pitch, heat, light, floodlights and general facilities that you wouldn't be able to keep up, is that the issue?

No, that's not remotely what I've said at any point in this thread. Way to completely misrepresent me to distract from the fact you made a completely nonsense statement about our ground 'always being too big for us'.

Hold on, the board are maintaining that the ground is too big for you, yet you are now saying that "The maintenance bills come in the form of things like the pitch, heat, light, floodlights and general facilities, not whether the terracing has eight steps rather than three." which suggests that it isn't the ground (whether it is pre-Wimbledon size or post-enlargement) that is the issue but the "maintenance bills [for] the pitch, heat, light, floodlights and general facilities". All I am asking is whether Wimbledon's league status has forced this on you? By your own statement, it isn't the ground expansion.

you made a completely nonsense statement about our ground 'always being too big for us'.

Have Kingstonian, at any point in the 25 years since Kingsmeadow was built, regularly filled the original capacity it was built for or the capacity that it had before Wimbledon improved/trashed it? If not then it doesn't matter whether it is 3000 or 4850, it is still too big. However, if what you are saying is correct, the stands aren't the problem, it is the pitch, floodlights etc.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

As me and others in the thread have said, our boatd's statement is not to be taken at face value. We can't stay at Kingsmeadow, they know that will be unpopular, so they're spinning that it's not in our best interests to, which is bollocks.

We haven't regularly filled that capacity as you know - nor has any other Ryman League club except for Maidstone, who are a bit of a special case (and when they're in the Conference will soon find their ground too small). But if your definition of the right size is what we can regularly fill, then please design us a 300 capacity stadium bearing in mind the dimensions of a football pitch. All I can say is that you must like a hell of a lot of personal space. But yes, of course it is the pitch and facilities that cost more to maintain than a bunch of concrete steps. That's why so few people take our boatd's statement at face value.

[Bored Of Education]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Seven Saxon Kings wrote: Just go on the Wikipedia page for this year's Ryman League and look at the stadium capacities. The median is around the 3,000 mark, that's for the Premier Division (which we;re in) and the regional division ones below. Yes, KM is above average but it's not spectacularly out of keeping,

Yes, the median (and mean) is the 3000 mark but there are as many stadiums in the 1500-2000 size as there are KM's size with a rough mean (it's late) of about 500-750?

[Seven Saxon Kings]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

You're just being ridiculous. By the way there's also ground grading to consider. The Conference (which we spent 3 years in) needs 4k and Conf South (which we were in playoffs for last season, and we were at the equivalent level for when we built the ground) needs 3k, with potential to expand to 4k. So there you go, just as well we built a ground that could accommodate 4k then. If you think that's stupid blame the FA, I'm going to bed.

[Favourite Worst Nightmare]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

I've checked the exact capacity figures:

The capacity of Kingsmeadow in 2002 when Wibledon began playing there was 4720.

The capacity of Kingsmeadow now is 4850.

I fail to see why an increase of capacity of 130 makes such a big difference to the suitability of the ground for Kingstonian.