The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

What's the increase in the seated capacity?

[Favourite Worst Nightmare]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Seated capacity is now 2265. I can't find the exact figure for seated capacity in 2002 but 1000 would be an accurate estimate.

Again, please explain why this should now make the ground unsuitable for Kingstonian.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Nobody except our face-saving board is saying that the ground is now unsuitable for us. It's perfectly suitable, which is why we should be staying there.

Of the changes to the ground, yes the athletics end roof has been a welcomed benefit and the small extension to the main stand and extra turnstiles are probably neither here nor there for us.

But regarding the stand that has replaced the Kingston Road End, you are completely out of touch with what a club our size wants in trying to paint it as an improvement.

The fact it was small and shallow made it perfect for us, it meant a small number of people could generate a good amount of noise. And you do realise fans change ends at half-time in non-league football don't you? So no, the athletics end doesn't offer a better view of us attacking the Kingston Road End. Losing that terrace has made our matchday experience significantly worse.

[EIM]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Harry Truscott wrote:
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.

TonTon is fairly appalled by it all.

[Favourite Worst Nightmare]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

SSK it is unfortunate that your match going experience has been diminished, but more seats were necessary in order for the ground to meet Football League criteria.

Do you seriously think it would be reasonable for Wimbledon to be forced to give up their league place because you don't like the new stand?

[Seven Saxon Kings]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

In the context of being at Kingsmeadow, no, and I didn't suggest that. I'm just pointing out that AFC's constant narrative of having 'improved' the ground for us is wrong.

Of course it's interesting that the league place is the be all and end-all though - compared with FC United who prioritised getting their own ground sorted first.

[EIM]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

The difference I guess is that Wimbledon had their league position stolen off them, whereas we didn't. We're a community club without a community.

[Janik]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Favourite Worst Nightmare wrote: SSK it is unfortunate that your match going experience has been diminished, but more seats were necessary in order for the ground to meet Football League criteria.

This is exactly the problem. You have taken over someone else's home and re-arranged it to suit yourselves against their preferences. If you can't see why that is a serious issue, then god help you.

Its all quite logical to do from a selfish perspective, but the AFC Wimbledon thing was about emotion as well. The Kingsmeadow stuff rides roughshod over the feelings of another club. It is and will always be a serious blot on the reputation of Wimbledon.

Someone asked a few pages back what should Wimbledon have done differently? That is easy. They should not have countenanced usurping another sides ground. It ought to have been a non-option, given the founding principles of the club.

That the ground might have been lost to Football if they didn't buy it? Not Wimbledon's issue, it wasn't theirs to protect. Engaging with the asset stripper certainly made his life easier. He had found what he wanted, a willing buyer with cash. As with anyone dealing with an asset stripper, it pulled the rug out from under any attempt of the moral owners to get their property returned to them.

Lots of other clubs would have behaved similarly. But are AFC Wimbledon just another club? Well, yes, for me they became so as soon as they made this move. Their social conscience appears to be inconsistent in its application.

[EIM]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Bingo.

[Paul S]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Well said Janik.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

That the ground might have been lost to Football if they didn't buy it?

And given the covenant on the ground that wouldn't have happened easily.

[Favourite Worst Nightmare]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Janik,

Yes, the purchase of Kingsmeadow by Wimbledon is an awkward situation, and no it doesn't sit comfortably.

I put the same question to you as I did to Seven Saxon Kings - Do you think that Wimbledon should have to give up their league place to cater for the match going experience of Kingstonian fans?

As SSK has acknowledged, Kingstonian fans are not in a position to buy Kingsmeadow themselves so surely some degree of compromise is required.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

I put the same question to you as I did to Seven Saxon Kings - Do you think that Wimbledon should have to give up their league place to cater for the match going experience of Kingstonian fans?

Again, this needs to be turned around. Given that when you reached League Two you'd made no progress towards your own ground in ten years, then at that stage it wouldn't have been reasonable to not take promotion.

But what you should have done is prioritised getting your own, suitable ground at a much earlier stage, then you wouldn't have had to make the changes to Kingsmeadow that you did. There's very little practical difference between being a Conference club and a League club other than a bit of status - your own home in your own town should surely have been the more important goal - and, given the extra crowds and revenue, perhaps you'd even be more successful on the field by now rather than needing a late winner on the last day of the season to avoid almost losing your precious league place again by getting relegated.

[Janik]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Favourite Worst Nightmare wrote: I put the same question to you as I did to Seven Saxon Kings - Do you think that Wimbledon should have to give up their league place to cater for the match going experience of Kingstonian fans?

Given that I don't think they should have contemplated buying Kingsmeadow in the first place, it is a non-question. Whatever alternative arrangements might have been made if they hadn't gone down that path are entirely speculative.

[Favourite Worst Nightmare]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Seven Saxon Kings wrote:

But what you should have done is prioritised getting your own, suitable ground at a much earlier stage

Finding a home in the borough of Merton has been a priority since the very beginning of AFC Wimbledon. However, building a new football stadium in a densely populated area is a complicated logistical exercise requiring a lot of time and money, hence the process has only just reached the current stage.

As for us staying up on the last day of the season in 2012, I do not see the relevance of your comments in this debate.

[Seven Saxon Kings]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

My point about you almost getting relegated was simply that if you'd been home sooner and attracting the bigger crowds that will come with it, then perhaps your league status would be more secure. AFC fans talk a lot about the importance of your league status, but it will never be safe until you start getting more than 4,000 people to your matches bringing revenue to improve your team.

I'm quite aware that building a ground isn't easy, that doesn't mean it's so difficult as to take 12 years to even get to the stage of submitting for planning permission. It could certainly have been given more energy than it has but once you had KM and kept getting promotions, very little happened on that front until relatively recently.

[Favourite Worst Nightmare]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Seven Saxon Kings wrote: It could certainly have been given more energy than it has but once you had KM and kept getting promotions, very little happened on that front until relatively recently.

This is incorrect. Consultation on getting a ground in Merton has been going on since the very beginning of AFC Wimbledon. However, the club have not always been able to publicly announce their plans due to the risk that it may have caused them to be jeopordised.

[zahidf]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

I think it's very unfair to criticise AFC wimbledon for moving. It's because of them that kingsmeadow has had ten years of exisrence they probably wouldn't have.

AFC are a small club at the end of the day, and funds are limited. They have to think of themselves first and foremost.

[Ray de Galles]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Yeah, FWN is absolutely right. Returning to Merton has always been a far bigger priority to the club than getting back in the league.

The fact that the latter was easier to achieve shows quite how hard the challenge of getting the new stadium has been (and still is, they are some way from achieving it yet) and why they are so keen to make Plough Lane work.

.

[Bored Of Education]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

zahidf wrote: AFC are a small club at the end of the day, and funds are limited. They have to think of themselves first and foremost.

Very true except that the concerns of Kingstonian have been very much in their minds and, it seems, still are.

I have been mistaken. I thought the whole issue was the Wimbledon's additions to the the stadium made it too expensive to maintain. I didn't realise it was because it somehow spoilt the matchday experience for Kingstonian supporters. I am out.

[Janik]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

zahidf wrote: I think it's very unfair to criticise AFC wimbledon for moving. It's because of them that kingsmeadow has had ten years of exisrence they probably wouldn't have.

Its not that they moved, its the way they did it. i.e. as owners, rather than as tenants. Which was a financial decision.
As for the ten more years, I repeat that this wasn't Wimbledon's problem to solve. Or make worse, as the case may be. Kingsmeadow had nothing to do with them. That comment is therefore is very condescending to Kingstonian.

zahidf wrote: AFC are a small club at the end of the day, and funds are limited. They have to think of themselves first and foremost.

And again, this is exactly the problem. If the supposedly ethical basis of the club can be forgotten about when it proves inconvenient, then it is little more than window dressing. Which is why Wimbledon now are little different from any other club.

[Paul S]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Harry Truscott wrote:
The fact that the latter was easier to achieve shows quite how hard the challenge of getting the new stadium has been (and still is, they are some way from achieving it yet) and why they are so keen to make Plough Lane work.
.

But you're getting a new stadium by taking over another sporting venue and effectively killing the three sports that are already there! Where will the bangers, speedway and greyhounds go?

[Ray de Galles]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

So Solidarnosc Crew wrote:

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.

TonTon is fairly appalled by it all.

Is that on Twitter? I will have to look at his timeline there as he's gone from Facebook, I think. I presume he's "appalled" by developments of the last few days and not the historical situation with Kingsmeadow discussed here as he was still active at the top end of the club when Wimbledon bought the ground, no?

Funny to see Janik use the phrase "just another club" as I remember that's exactly what TonTon said he wanted them to be on here some time ago, though that may have been slightly tongue in cheek.

One of the problems here, as you allude to EIM, is that people are judging Wimbledon as if they were FCUM and formed for the same reasons or because they are projecting their view of what a fan's club should be on to them. I happen to think Wimbledon have behaved pretty scrupulously towards Kingstonian. Out of interest, was there much protest (on here, from K's fans or in the wider football world) when they initially stepped in to buy the ground?

[Ray de Galles]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Paul S wrote:

The fact that the latter was easier to achieve shows quite how hard the challenge of getting the new stadium has been (and still is, they are some way from achieving it yet) and why they are so keen to make Plough Lane work.
.

But you're getting a new stadium by taking over another sporting venue and effectively killing the three sports that are already there! Where will the bangers, speedway and greyhounds go?

Read the fucking thread, moron. Speedway is finished at the site and has been since the greyhound administrators fucked the Wimbledon Dons over. All other motorsports are finished too because any new stadium will have a residential development attached and they won't allow the noise.

Greyhounds will be forced out but the people who owned the site until recently were the Greyhound Racing Association and don't seem to think the sport is viable there. I also have to say that I have slightly less concern about a sport that functions solely to service the betting industry rather than local communities.

.

[zahidf]

The Wimbledon/Kingsmeadow shambles

Janik wrote:

I think it's very unfair to criticise AFC wimbledon for moving. It's because of them that kingsmeadow has had ten years of exisrence they probably wouldn't have.

Its not that they moved, its the way they did it. i.e. as owners, rather than as tenants. Which was a financial decision.
As for the ten more years, I repeat that this wasn't Wimbledon's problem to solve. Or make worse, as the case may be. Kingsmeadow had nothing to do with them. That comment is therefore is very condescending to Kingstonian.

zahidf wrote: AFC are a small club at the end of the day, and funds are limited. They have to think of themselves first and foremost.

And again, this is exactly the problem. If the supposedly ethical basis of the club can be forgotten about when it proves inconvenient, then it is little more than window dressing. Which is why Wimbledon now are little different from any other club.

It's not unethical to try and help kingsmeadow, but with the priority being a new stadium