|
|
Guestbook
|
|
| Thank you for visiting my site. If you haven't signed the guestbook yet, please sign my guest book.
Please remember that this is a family based site and so keep all laungauge at a decent level. Anything written that I do not like will be altered but the basis will be the same. |
|
And, Jay, no council could afford to spend upwards of £10 Million + on a piece of land for someone else's use. They do not have the finance and are unable, by law, to acquire it. Don't believe the hype.
Brighton Womble
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 19:08:57 (PDT)
That's right, it's all Merton's fault we ended up with the owners we did, that Hammam was only interested in the money and used MC to his own ends and tried to MOVE US TO DUBLIN. You silly, silly people. And you, Ralph, are just stirring in possession of NONE of the facts.
Brighton Womble
Don't believe a word 'he' says., - Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 19:07:00 (PDT)
WISA NEWS UPDATED - TWO EXCLUSIVES - Maximuscle Having Second Thoughts and Dan Tench denies ITV
Digital tie-up
Brighton Womble
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 19:04:25 (PDT)
There is no council in the country that could do more than express support for a project like a new stadium. It's a private venture that the club are not willing to embark on. GET IT? Blame WFC, not Merton.
Brighton Womble
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 19:03:30 (PDT)
For gawds sake, what is it with people on this site? the phrase is 'would HAVE' or 'could HAVE' not 'would OF'. And for the record, we have people saying MC have done nothing for us, but despite continually coming out saying they want us home, it's obvious some people won't be happy until Judge builds the thing with his own bare hands. Which part of 'we don't have the money' do you not understand? Whereas when WFC told us they had between £30 and £60 million to build a ground, you don't jump on their back about it?
Ronan (rgwarde@ukgateway.net)
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 18:28:41 (PDT)
I have to agree with Ralph on this one! I am sick of MC building up mine and everyone elses hopes about going back to PL and doing nothing about it! If they were serious they would of started bought the land by now! MC have never done anything for us and sadly never will!
Jay
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 15:24:02 (PDT)
have fun working for koppel
WOW
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 12:57:49 (PDT)
BW - When I was chatting to the WISA people at the time they had been told that Safeways would be looking for £16 million for the site this was informtion that didn't come via CK but from enquirys that they had made, so it seems that some committee members of wisa expected the £16 million figure.
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 11:05:12 (PDT)
Ralph - I do know what you mean, I long for the day Merton Council come up with a solution for us (it would be a hell of a lot easier if the club worked with them positively) but what I think we need to understand is that WFC are not their only concern and any announcement could be months or even years away (at least they seem to be showing an interest unlike CK) - personally I would like to see all Dons fans pulling in the same direction, I am a member of WISA but unknown to probably 99.9% of it's members, I will go along with any boycott, not because I am a sheep who follows the crowd but because the stronger WISA are and the more unity we show against MK the more likely we are to get an end to all of this - agree?
Hutch
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 09:41:04 (PDT)
BW - it's got nothing to do with pouring cold water on anything it's about being a realist. I'm amd as hell at the prospect of no return to PL. Sadly Hutch I don't think there is anything to be positive about unless MC can come up with a realistic proposal and stop building up peoples hopes about a site that they nor WFC actually own.
Ralph Malph
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 09:28:04 (PDT)
BW - I think you might be right, he does seem to revel in telling everyone how this and that will not work, I am still waiting to see if he can come up with any alternative suggestions that might dare I say it be positive?!
Hutch
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 08:38:48 (PDT)
It's funny Ralph, but sometimes I actually think you enjoy pouring cold water on everything.
Brighton Womble
But I could be wrong, - Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 08:01:24 (PDT)
Paul, that's what Koppel has been bounding about. Unfortunately it becomes the truth and, TBH AFAIC, being a WISA committee member doesn't mean we know the price of Plough Lane.
Brighton Womble
We've all been lead a merry dance., - Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 07:59:08 (PDT)
Briefly, what Safeway want, and what they get could be two completely different figures. And, RM, Safeway won't be building flats/houses. They need the planning permission to offload the site to developers. Personally, I don't think the Plough Lane site is a goer for us unless new owners come in before the start of next season - in which case, it could definitely happen. (All of which won't matter if the League bottle out on Wednesday)
hoodoo
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 05:41:37 (PDT)
Kris - Cheers thats nice to here that WISA see's this as apotential issue.
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 05:28:57 (PDT)
Ralph - have you ever read the quotes from Rokke from a couple of years ago stating that they will fund a new stadium in Merton should a suitable site be found? what do you think WISA should do then as Plough Lane is obviously not workable in your opinion, should they give up on a return to Merton and accept what Koppel is doing? I know you are going to say that you are being realistic etc but if someone is willing to fund MK why not Merton? what should us as fans be doing?
Hutch
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 05:24:13 (PDT)
BW - I was told by a number of WISA committee members that Safeways wanted atleast £14 million for the site in the early part of this season, infact I think it was closer to £16 million, Double what that paid Sam.
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 05:22:00 (PDT)
Paul - it's certainly a worry, for WISA at least, I can't speak for the Trust. We will have to work harder to show that there are Dons fans around, they just don't want to hand Koppel money up front. That's one of the reasons we're taking 2 WISA coaches to Wolves, which is a first for us.
kris (chair@wisa.org.uk)
London, - Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 05:15:02 (PDT)
£15m is well over the top for the site as it is now. Anyway, we need to be a bit more creative than just thinking we need £15m of cash in our hands today or we should forget it.
kris (chair@wisa.org.uk)
London, - Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 05:13:30 (PDT)
Pete - I wasn't saying a "conflict of intrest" between WISA and DT, I wasnt even aware of the add on to the question on Saturday. I just think that if people are being asked not to get season tickets they will just dump the Dons alltogether. Is not one of the ideas of the DT that we should be building the links between the community and the club which we could be stopping if people are being encouraged not to get season tickets?
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 05:10:30 (PDT)
In that case we're screwed cos we can't afford to but it.
Ralph Malph
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 05:08:23 (PDT)
The difference in real estate costs between Darlington and SW19 don't affect the costs of building, which is what the cost per seat is about. The Safeway number is based on 20,000 seats @ £1000 per seat plus £15m for the land. I keep saying Safeway want to sell because they do. They believe a homebuilder is likely to pay more for the land than anyone else, which is why they are seeking to increase the value of the land by applying for residential planning permission.
kris (chair@wisa.org.uk)
London, - Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 04:56:10 (PDT)
People I can't be bothered with this - with your blinkered views it is pointless to try and have a discussion. Kris £35m may well be CK view, but they won't use it in a press statement withoutsome knowledge and Darlo's stadium costs less but we are talking about SW19 where real estate costs a damn site more. BW 35-21 = 14. Why do you keep saying that Safeway want to sell? I can't see your reasoning they have made it public they want to build houses as is their perogative as THEY own the sodding site. Got to admire their timing before a FL meeting and also just before local elections... that'll teach MC for shafting them all these years, and we are putting our faith in a council that's only sporting interest is in a fortnight in the summer.
Ralph Malph
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 04:42:10 (PDT)
Ralph, housing also depends on the legal stance Merton takes on affordable housing. recently, a lot of companies have started to pull out of schemes because of the lack of clarity of the legal requirement to build 30% affordable housing.
Brighton Womble
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 04:38:59 (PDT)
Steve - in the end WFC has to be involved if we're going to play there, but our plan is to do as much work as possible before involving the owners of WFC Ltd, yeah.
kris (chair@wisa.org.uk)
London, - Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 04:37:37 (PDT)
dear, oh dear. Steve. There is a whole heap of difference between being Pro-MK, and not being Anti-MK. Obviously I was generalising. Don't get upset with me, get upset with the Club - In fact.....no, what's the point in even suggesting it.
hoodoo
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 04:35:40 (PDT)
So, Ralph, where did you get the valuation of £14 million for the land then?
Brighton Womble
Yadda yadda yadda, - Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 04:23:31 (PDT)
Ralph - you must have been in a rush and missed my point. Never mind. Check out the new Darlington stadium, much less than £1000 a seat. The £35m in Safeway's presser is a Koppel figure. And remember they are the ones hoping to sell the land, so I wouldn't take their public valuation at face value, would you? Oh, and 69% of Merton residents would prefer a stadium on that site as opposed to housing / retail / anything else.
kris (chair@wisa.org.uk)
London, - Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 04:23:18 (PDT)
Kris, as an alternative to that, is there anyway that MC and yourself can somehow get PL built and in place without involving the club? I know it would be very difficult financially, but you would eliminate the need for discussions with Koppel and we'd have a ground ready for us to move into. And to 'hoodoo', you insinuate that I am pro-MK. It would appear that because I have a different opinion on certain aspects, some people judge me as pro-MK. Sad.
Steve (dagnallsteve@hotmail.com)
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 03:47:23 (PDT)
Ralph - totally see your points and agree with them to an extent, like you I am frustrated with a lack of new information/positive news, but I think we need to take this one step at a time - the first step is surely to get Koppell and the Nogs out of WFC (remember just how stinking rich they are - if they wanted they could buy Plough Lane build a stadium and not even notice that £30m is gone) then we can focus on a return home. Residents can oppose a stadium but as it has been used as such for 80 odd years and with the council hopefully backing us they will not be a problem. Don't worry about the running of the club - we always survived in the past, just because the current owners have f***** up beyond all reasonable measures doesn't mean that somebody else can't sort our club out
Hutch
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 03:22:30 (PDT)
Get a grip for goodness sake. Housing over a football stadium it isn't even an issue, housing would win hands down every time. Why do people never think to consider what the residents want? Most of the people saying we should go back there don't even live in Merton or the PL area. Safeway have said there has been no interest from anyone in buying the site. Yet Andrew Judge has been having all these meetings with interested parties. My arse... wake up and see the picture. This gives me no pleasure, but it reiterates that MC have been stringing everyone along. £35m to redevelop the land Safeway said... and WISA can buils a 20,800 stadium. Lets do some maths shall we? Stadiums get built to £1000 per seat so to build the stadium costs £20.8m. So to buy the site you need £14m - where is that coming from? And in the mean time where is the cash coming from to keep the club alive? WFC are meant to have the most intelligent fans in the country - so why can't they see the picture. Yes the Club takes the blame, but also included should be Hammam and Merton Council. This is sad news for all Dons fans.
Ralph Malph
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 03:09:07 (PDT)
the season ticket debate will rage on, here are some points.....1) some people say they can't afford to pay on the gate every week and they make savings by having a season ticket, fair point however Koppell will move nearer to MK if he is ever given the go-ahead and he will have already banked your season ticket cash (you might get some back, can anyone honestly say that WFC would refund ST money?) and you might have to bite the bullet and lose some if not most of your money, paying every game will ensure Koppell does not get his hands on your cash to do as he pleases with it. 2)players will leave/be sold if season ticket sales go down.... well what has happened this season? top players sold/loaned to our rivals when we are still in with a shout of promotion - does anyone honestly think that them buying a ST will stop CK getting any money he can for anyone? the answer is surely no, also if we stay at Selhurst for the whole of next season the club will make more money from gate receipts as paying on the door is obviously more expensive than buying a ST. 3)WISA , people have their assumptions about WISA and I can kind of see where they are coming from (I am a member), they are not telling anyone what to do, they are simply trying to get the dons back to Merton and until there is bigger, stronger organisation that will improve our chances of a return home they are our best chance to acheive the dream we ALL hold.
Hutch
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 03:08:50 (PDT)
Sorry Ralph, but why would government want housing over a useful local amentity like a stadium? The proposed 176 dwellings (only 30% of which will apparently be "affordable" match-boxes, a figure that doesn't even meet the current 50% London guideline) will generate MORE total traffic and parking problems than a stadium as they will be an issue 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The lack of existing planning permission makes the site even cheaper to purchase (if the club even vaguely wanted to) and the strict rules on what sort of housing can be built really reduces the margins for any construction company. As Kris has put below, WFC have been asked on numerous occassions to get involved but have completely ignored it as an option, even going so far as to try and drum up opposition with the HBRA etc. to any new stadium. I really don't know what is so difficult to understand about Koppel's real intentions (a massive retail/hotel development in MK with a stadium and league club as a sweetener to the local people and council)
Martin D
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 02:53:11 (PDT)
You're going to have to run that one past me again Ralph. I can't see why, now we know there is NOT current usable planning permission, we're in a worse position than two days ago, when we thought there was.
kris (chair@wisa.org.uk)
London, - Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 02:31:17 (PDT)
Jesus. Is this guestbook a home for the blinkered or what?
Fair enough to have an alternative view on things, but come on! Enjoy your 2 hour trip to "home" games, all 100 of ya!
(What will you moan about when we aren't there for you to shout "siddown" or "get behind the team" at?) Madness!
hoodoo
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 01:45:31 (PDT)
Just got ST brochure through, shame it has been wasted. But I have to defend them when people harop on about 'Its a womble thing' and 'its a community thing'. Last year season ticket brochure carried that slogan on the front. BTW totally disagree with WISA & DT (which aren't linked)we are screwed because there is no way MC can deny Safeway planning permission. Anyone who thinks otherwise should take the rose tinted specs off and smellthe coffee. Housing over a football stadium, I wonder which the government would prefer???????? Dare I suggest that MC start to get the flack they richly deserve for 1st not caring about the club and 2ndly pretending to so they can get their names and pictures in the media.
Ralph Malph
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 01:31:24 (PDT)
For the benefit of those who seem to have difficu;ty understanding...The club is in financial difficulty and I am giving them more money by not buying a season ticket. Who is being selfish now. This is my last post on this subject on this website, if you don't see the point now you never will. Womble till MK
cho
- Thursday, April 11, 2002 at 01:14:52 (PDT)
'and although claims of a 'clique' are refuted, I bet you the only people voted onto the committee are those that are 'known faces'' Steve, for your information I didn't know any of the committee before I joined it and had nothing to do with WISA until the meeting at the W'don theatre last June. I asked to get involved 'cos I was unemployed and had just moved back from Brighton. Neither did Luke MacKenzie know them (AFAIK), neither did Ricko and neither does John Lloyd especially, when we were all elected last year. I think it's actually people like you who would like to think there is a 'clique' and it suits you to perpetuate that idea. Shame, but if you don't like it, join and stand in May or set up an alternative body.
Kevin Rye (brightonwomble@hotmail.com)
Sad. When I joined I was told that there was a lot of people who were 'anti WISA'. Seems that still persists. How sad people can't put their differences aside. Still, when it comes down to it, no-one's bothered to set up an alternative. I wonder why?, - Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 16:23:52 (PDT)
Robert - WFC Ltd runs at a loss at the moment. We can argue about the size of the loss, but I don't think anyone would dispute that fact. At the moment, the owners are stumping up for those losses - I would argue because they hold out hopes of making some money through a property deal in Milton Keynes, others may have different ideas. So all that our giving WFC Ltd money does is reduce the losses to be funded by the owners. We bought season tickets this season, and players have been loaned and sold anyway, for financial rather than footballing reasons. I can't see any reason to believe that this won't continue next season regardless of whether or not you or I buy a season ticket this summer.
kris (chair@wisa.org.uk)
Croydon, - Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 16:19:44 (PDT)
Funny old post Steve. Too long to answer everything here, not really the place for huge long posts. The most important point is your one that "you involve him NOW with PL...you can make him forget about MK". I wish it was true, and I hoped it might be when I first talked to him about Plough Lane a year ago. I still hoped it was true when I showed him the WISA plans for a stadium back in October. Andrew Judge hoped it was true when he shared the information about a potential developer back in December. However, CK has shown, through his actions in coaching and funding the small local opposition to a stadium at Plough Lane and through personally attempting to dissuade that developer from any involvement that he is not only not interested but actively opposed to a return to Merton. And I said it wouldn't be a long post, sorry.
kris (chair@wisa.org.uk)
Croydon, - Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 15:58:51 (PDT)
"Firstly, the ST boycott. I'm not a member of WISA so it does not affect me" errrr WRONG mate. Myself (a WISA) member and 3 of my closest friends (non-WISA members) will not be renewing our ST's that we have held for over 10 years. Don't care what WISA say on this issue, I have been lied to and insulted and there is no way I'm going to show support for Koppel. Not renewing our ST's is giving a 2 fingered salute to swivel eyes. KOPPEL IS TRYING TO KILL OUR CLUB AND YET STILL PEOPLE ARE NOT PREPARED TO TAKE DIRECT ACTION!!!
Mac
Why are people so dumb?, - Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 15:36:21 (PDT)
If all the money from ST sales will go to Brunswick and Dan Tench (BW I believe), how does the club get on on a day to day basis?
Robert Paulson
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 15:07:46 (PDT)
Steve,your posting put across a lot of points in a logical manner. Don't agree with everything you say but you have the right to say them. I'm sure however you are going to get pillored.
wiltshire don
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 14:35:29 (PDT)
I love this guestbook! An on-going saga of wind-ups, lies, personal attacks and foolish people. Time for me to get involved in the debate! Firstly, the ST boycott. I'm not a member of WISA so it does not affect me but I do agree that it is not an issue on which WISA should ballott people on. As REPD said, it's a highly charged issue, and a very personal one. But it's not my place to say. I shall be buying a ST however. First of all, I want to save money (selfish, I know, but I'm no Richard Branson, guys). Secondly, this club, financially, is in BIG trouble. We all moan about the sale of players and number of contracts that will not be renewed at the end of the season, and yet we (by the merchandise boycott, which I used to support but do no longer, and the probable ST boycott) take money away from the club which would go towards helping us keep a couple of players and not need to sell a player like Cooper for such a small fee. I feel that by giving the club a lump sum, I am helping it stay afloat. By the time MK is rejected, we might not have a club to take back to Plough Lane. Think about it. Thirdly, people say that they can use the ST boycott as a PR exercise against MK. Conversely, the press can manipulate this and say how the fans don't care anymore, how bad attendances are and how the loss of potential revenue from not buying ST's is killing our club and the only option available is Milton Keynes. Anyway, on to other matters. I do find it funny that when Koppel says that the merchandise boycott is 'hurting the club', or words to that effect, people believe him. "DON'T BELIEVE A WORD HE SAYS" is a song I often hear at Selhurst these days. Also, Plough Lane. I was reading over my copy of Y&B from the West Brom game, in which Andrew Judge said he would not talk to the club about Plough Lane until the MK proposal is withdrawn completely. It's going to be a long wait. As far as Koppel is concerned, it's MK or bust. Koppel will only forget about MK when the blockers are firmly put on. However, you involve him NOW with PL and you can make him forget about MK. He won't look at PL? He'll find a way to scupper the plans? That reeks of paranoia, the same paranoia that is missing when he says the boycott is effective. Interesting. Also, anyone wondering why I no longer support the merchandise boycott should find the answer above. The club needs money to stay alive. Wasted on Brunswick? Maybe. The club should not spend so much money on them (even though I don't believe it could be as much as some people say). But then, even with the boycott, the club are still paying for them, no? You can look at this two ways. It could be because only a third of all fans are boycotting, and if everyone did they would not be able to. Or, you could say that we should all pump money into the club so although it wastes some on Brunswick and trying to make MK happen, it has a lot more left to pay players' wages etc. Many will plump for the first option. Funny that people say that the fans should all stand as one in such issues (for instance, we should all boycott). Bet you these people would not join in a 'buy merchandise' campaign, or something of like effect, because they do not agree with it. Anyone thought that those still buying merchandise aren't 'blind and need educating', but don't believe in the boycott, and therefore do not take part of it. Indeed, WISA says we need all fans to be united, yet they must unite with what WISA believes. WISA could be the wrong ones here, you know. And please don't tell me I should join WISA to make a difference. The only people capable of making a difference in WISA are those on the committee, and although claims of a 'clique' are refuted, I bet you the only people voted onto the committee are those that are 'known faces'. It's like picking teams for football in the playground. And finally, to the guys that continue to work for WFC, WELL DONE. Not for continuing working for the club, but for having your own opinion and doing what you want to do, without letting other people force you into doing something you don't want to do. Oh, and to people that say my views are 'blinkered' or say that I need to 'wake up' to what is happening to our club, perhaps it should be you that need to 'wake up' and listen to other peoples opinions.
Steve (stevedagnall@hotmail.com)
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 14:19:20 (PDT)
Paul, I don't get your point about a conflict of interests... WISA is asking it's membership if WISA should recommend that Wimbledon supporters don't buy a season ticket. That is all. During the debate it was proposed to ammend the ballot question to suggest that people put their ST money to the Don's trust, but that ammendment failed (though by a narrow margin). There is no Dons trust involvement in this. It's WISA, and WISA's policy is being decided by the members. Democracy is supposed to be unifying.
Peter Bowles (peter@wisa.org.uk)
Wimbledon, Wimbledon Wimbledon - Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 13:41:10 (PDT)
"Doesn't this conflict with the aims of the Dons Trust?" - no mate, your employers trying to re-locate our club to Milton Keynes does.
When are you lot finally going to get it?
Reality Central, - Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 13:16:53 (PDT)
The comment I made at Cho was not meant to be acusing him of saying that, it's was a question. It goes to show that the question is one that is going to divide supporters I still think that people who vote yes will not get a season ticket and the ones that vote no wont get a season ticket you may get a few more people not buy them who voted no but we could also lose some long term support where people are not prepared to pay on a match by match basis and once again when we left plough lane we lost a generation of new fans. Doesn't this conflict with the aims of the Dons Trust?
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 11:02:40 (PDT)
I have never heard a more honest statement of truth than that which jimmy from guildford spouted. Ardley is truly abysmal. Unfortunately for me, i've had the pleasure of watching Neal for the duration of his career - a quite memorable career too. With the possible exception of Dean Holdsworth, he is undoubtedly the most overrated player in the clubs history. Why do some fans persist in liking him? He clearly only loves the club because they've paid him a decent salary for 15years and no other team would take him! Who wouldn't love that! Possibly his only attribute is that he can take set pieces, but then again, so could anyone when they have a forward line of six foot black men to aim for. In the words of keegan, "I would love it" if in the words of kinnear, "our david beckham" made it to the premiership. I reckon the ITV viewing figures would double at the sight of another incompetent on the premiership - shame we lost Akinbiyi, but certainly an ample replacement!
Don Howe
Loughborough, - Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 10:55:05 (PDT)
WD - you can read the full Roberts article on the WISA site
Ronan (rgwarde@ukgateway.net)
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 10:39:57 (PDT)
So Andy Roberts joins the list of players who have expressed an opinion about MK and because he's not against it he is now a hate figure.Perhaps before turning against them, and here I leave Roberts out of it because haven't seen exactly what he is supposed to have said,Hughes and Kimble in the past have, to my recollection, hinted MK could be the way forward BUT HAVEN'T SAID THEY ARE IN FAVOUR OF IT and they become hate figures.No doubt someone will correct me on that one!!! Neil Ardley a while ago said if the club moved to MK there was a possibilty he might be kept on next season ( and by the way in response to that recent posting slagging off Ardley what rubbish. Did you go to the Crewe game where I think he was the best player on the pitch and ran himself into the ground).Remember he is employed by WFC and at the end of the season he will be losing his job...he will be UNEMPLOYED unless he gets another club so what's wrong with expressing a view that means he might keep his job. And again I don't remember him saying he's in favour of MK. It's a great pity some individuals turn against people in such a way with an attitude such that if you don't say you are against it you must be for it.Damned for what you don't say as against what you do say.And no I am not in favour of MK before any accusations are made.If MK comes off I will follow my local non league side full time
wiltshire don
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 09:54:40 (PDT)
Ralph - that was apparently re used old news that was just used as a filler. Have you not learnt through this whole MK saga that lazy journos/reporters will just as soon re-use old news than new stuff. Having said that I have little faith in the council but they are our only hope and we need to work with them if we are going to get anywhere near Merton - alienating ourselves from the club and the council would acheive nothing
Hutch
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 09:44:14 (PDT)
My ¥0.02 worth: the one thing that is starting to concern me about this whole ST debate is that it's almost starting to turn into a witch-hunt if anyone voices a dissenting voice. I'm not convinced that WISA (as an organisation) should be "encouraging" people to go one way or another, especially as something as highly charged as this. I get the feeling that there will be some people who will vote "no" in the ballot yet still may not get an ST. Something to be careful of there. As for whether to get an ST or not, it's a tricky one, but IMO it's a lot more than either a principle thing or a money thing. It's also a PR thing, and whilst WISA will doubtless claim the PR coup, it's just as easy for Koppout to claim the PR coup himself. *We* may think his bullshit is discredited, but he does seem to have a lot of clout in the meeja still and can easily plug the "they're not true fans because they're not turning up". I don't want WISA to become complacent.
REPD (repd@repd.net)
Late as usual and still got a hangover, - Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 09:34:58 (PDT)
I told you but no-one would listen. Merton Council have shafted the supporters once again as they have done for the last 10 years. Safeways are going to build residential on Plough Lane and there is nothing the council can do as they recommended that when the supermarket was rejected. Why would you beleive a bunch of small time irrelevent politicians? What is the club going to do now? Andrew Judge you are a 2 faced gimp of the highest order.
Ralph Malph
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 09:27:06 (PDT)
The kit deal was cancelled 'by mutual concent'. However, if WFC had decided to cancel it you'd expect them to announce who our kit manufacturer is going to be next year. Therefore I think it's safe to say that Puma pulled out. Could be for a number of reasons, slow selling of those lovely yellow shirts, or just bad publicity to be associated with the biggest crooks in football for years.
Peter Bowles (peter@wisa.org.uk)
Wimbledon, Wimbledon Wimbledon - Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 08:23:31 (PDT)
Have Puma stopped the kit deal?
Jools
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 08:20:47 (PDT)
Colette, you didn't :)
Brighton Womble
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 07:08:44 (PDT)
To all these people banging on about "but we'll be giving him more money by not buying one after the 17th home game". How do you know we will play even ONE game next season, let alone make it to 17? Personally, I'd love for WFC to still be around with 11 professionals in January for that very occurrence, but judging by the recent player exodus and bad business decisions I'm certainly not definite it'll happen. Why do you people continue to bury your heads in the sand and pretend that you're still supporting an almost normal football team? Koppel has STATED PUBLICALLY on MANY OCCASSIONS that he will close the club down if the MK decision goes against him. Yes, he has lied before, but are you happy giving your money to someone who has said this? I'm not. The other scenario is that the MK decision goes his way (not likely IMO) and God knows what will happen with our matches then :(
Martin D (WAKE UP!)
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 07:07:21 (PDT)
To Robert Paulson and others, as other people have already posted about a million times, the WISA ST ballot was "to recommend WISA members didn't buy STs". There was/is/never will be any intention to throw out members who buy them, disagree or to stop ANYONE buying one. As for being stupid for buying one, I personally cannot believe you are happy giving a man who has been proven to lie to you and abuse you regularly several hundred pounds when you *know* what he will do with it. And if anyone believes having "Holmesdale Road Stand" on an application form means they are either *guarranteed* their ST will be there or that they will even have ONE game to watch from there, they're living in a dream-world. I despair that there are STILL fans who just don't get it.
Martin D
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 07:00:06 (PDT)
Paul, as you know I did not say that, and as for starving the club of cash, my actions by not buying a season ticket are going to provide WFC with more money than if I bought one. As I am absolutely caked I am prepared to make this sacrifice for the Dons but if MR Kopout tries any fancy stuff I will not be giving him any more cash than I need to.Simple
cho
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 06:53:47 (PDT)
BW, sorry for seemingly gatecrashing your points. Your posts didn't show up before I added my 2p'orth :)
Colette (secretary@wisa.org.uk)
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 06:32:53 (PDT)
Oh, and Graham Thorley informed us that if the venue for football changed during the season, we would all be informed in writing. How nice.
Brighton Womble
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 06:13:12 (PDT)
Paul, your interpretation (on expulsion) is right. WISA policy on season ticket renewal will be determined by those members who return their ballot papers. If, and I do mean ‘if’, that decision is not to buy STs next season, then that is something we would recommend but not seek to enforce, even if that were possible. There is absolutely no way anyone would be expelled for buying a ST, any more than someone buying the official programme would be excluded. WISA is a broad church and each individual member has his/her own views, on any subject you care to mention. Whilst I’d find it very odd for a member to be against our principal aim (a home ground in/near Merton), the idea that everyone can or should agree on everything is pretty far-fetched.
Colette (secretary@wisa.org.uk)
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 06:11:54 (PDT)
Robert Poulson, would pay for a holiday with a company that could go bust before you get what you paid for? Would you also pay for a holiday on a Greek Island when you could end up on the Isle of Sheppy? As for paying double by the time the season's up, that's not true. Also, the point is we're not giving CK an interest free loan to spend on Brunswick and Dan Tench to spin and lie against us (HBRA and numerous other occassions). I think people are very naive if they don't understand that, but I won't (nor will any other 'official' rep's of WISA) be calling for people to either be 'expelled' from WISA or for them to be subject to a witchunt.
Brighton Womble
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 06:10:32 (PDT)
And Paul, I think you're being a little mischevous with what Cho said. He just believes that the vote will come out in favour of a boycott. He didn't at anytime (IIRC) that members would be expelled. That's unfairly misinterpreting what he said. Also, apologies for assuming you didn't buy an ST.
Brighton Womble
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 06:04:53 (PDT)
Robert Poulson, I don't really care if you asked me or not, I was just stating a fact. As for it being something members will either get expelled for not following or whether certain members will use this against other supporters for not following, any such approach is NOT WISA policy. This is not a vote we will use to turn the screw on people who disagree and neither will WISA look favourable on people who do. This was a vote, our members are not bound to follow what is WISA policy, it's just a lot probably will. The fact is there are committee members who voted against the final motion (with a recommendation to vote yes) on Saturday.
Brighton Womble
Please - members and non-members alike - don't start assuming that WISA is some sort of police state. It's a democratic organisation, the vote was and the ballott is, democratic., - Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 05:56:23 (PDT)
Fair point, but (by my calculations), by the time you've bought a match ticket for the first game, you'll have paid for two if you'd have bought a ST. Also I think the arguement over where we play is a little farcical: it says so right on the price list : HOLMESDALE ROAD STAND.
Robert Paulson
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 05:55:06 (PDT)
Jay - I don't think you see the real reasons behind the boycott either - give a man you don't trust £250 and hope WFC stay at Selhurst all next season or pay on the gate for every match and not help fund his MK plans, giving him £15 a time will just make things harder for Koppell, I do agree that prices could go up alarmingly should the boycott come into effect - although club merchandise hasn't gone up as a result of the boycott has it? has the price of the official programme gone up?
Hutch
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 05:39:51 (PDT)
I wasn't going to buy a season ticket anyway so what happens if WISA vote against it? TBH I don't think this is the kind of thing that should be voted on. For some people it is far easier (and cheaper) to buy a season ticket. Also, watch those ticket prices go up if we boycott the season tickets, TRUST ME!
Jay
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 05:27:57 (PDT)
Rob P - I don't think you understand the whole idea behind the season ticket boycott. What will happen is season ticket holders will not renew their season ticket and give Koppell (a man we don't trust - any disagreements on that?) £250 up front to fund his MK plans, we will simply pay on the gate and give him OUR money in OUR own time, this way if in early August a letter comes through your door saying WFC are moving into a temporary stadium in Northampton until MK is ready you have not wasted £250 of your hard earned cash. Also Rob why do you think the club is going under? - we only have Koppells word and our own - probably misinformed - calculations to go on.
Hutch
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 02:37:09 (PDT)
Cho - I have a view. By not buying a ST I believe the club will go under quicker. WISA members have said that they would prefer death than MK. Well I agree. But now they are choosing between death and a ST. I choose a season ticket.
Robert Paulson
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 02:08:20 (PDT)
Cho - So on that basis "if it goes the way it should do" would that mean that any WISA member who buys a season ticket after that time would be expelled for not following WISA policy? Thats not the way I have read the discussion so far.
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 01:57:21 (PDT)
I can confirm that I paid money for a season ticket this year. But as I said this is a WISA matter over the vote and as I am not a member I am not entitled to a vote.
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 01:54:27 (PDT)
BW - Did I ask you? What I don't get is the whole "You can have your own opinion but you're wrong" ideal that seems to be the wont of some WISA members.
Robert Paulson
- Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 01:49:30 (PDT)
Robert Paulson, because stopping someone from buying one and having an objection are two different things entirely.
Brighton Womble
Why are you all obsessed with 'Fancy that!'?, - Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 16:35:53 (PDT)
It certainly doesn't affect you, Paul, because the club pay for your season ticket.
Brighton Womble
Truth though, isn't it?, - Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 16:33:07 (PDT)
Paul, if the vote goes the way it should it will become WISA policy,just wondered if you guys had any views
Cho
- Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 13:57:20 (PDT)
I have no life, no real friends, the muscles in my right wrist and forearm are unnaturally huge, my entire life is spent annoying people I have never even met, and yet, despite this, I seem to believe that everyone is interested in what I have to say. I am sorely misguided. FANCY THAT!!!
FANCY PRAT, sorry, THAT!
- Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 13:31:34 (PDT)
Cho - I'm not a member of WISA so the question doesn't affect me but I think it's the sort of question that readers of this site would like to know. If you have seen the discussion on WISA you will see that it's not 100% in favor it might change after discussions but i'm sure that WISA committe members would like questions to be raised so they can answer them.
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 09:36:29 (PDT)
Secretist Agent, How come? I thought part of the deal was free tickets. If that is not the case appologies guys and welcome to the debate.
Cho
- Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 07:59:41 (PDT)
MD - I have a problem with this, you say you wouldn't stop anyone buying a ticket, but then with the next breath, say that they'd be stupid to, thus invalidating your origional point - or am I missing something?
Robert Paulson
Oh, and I wish Fancy That would go too, but no one says anything about him/her, Not saying tha F*ck that is a nice person or anything. - Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 07:26:46 (PDT)
Cho - yes, you do.
Secret Agent
- Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 07:22:02 (PDT)
WISA News Updated - Brilliant article from Advantage Magazine - 'The Magazine of Wimbledon' - http://www.wisa.org.uk
Brighton Womble
- Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 06:46:48 (PDT)
You don't have to buy a season ticket if you work in the club shop.
Cho
- Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 06:29:58 (PDT)
Dan Tench, weasel extroidinaire. After all his antics, the 'principled' Guardian newspaper still employs him to write for their Media section. If this makes you pig sick, mail them to complain; letters@guardian.co.uk - makes sure you include a postal address.
Model Citizen
- Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 04:17:08 (PDT)
Well done F*ck that, you are such an intelligent organism
Brighton Womble
- Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 04:16:01 (PDT)
Cheers for the answers guys. MD You still havent answered my other question :)
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 03:49:50 (PDT)
Paul, as with everything we do as fans, the ballot motion was deliberately conciliatory and sensible. Having a full postal ballot of all WISA members stops anyone complaining about WISA cliques or undemocratic decisions ("why should WISA tell me what to do?" etc.) And the actual question was "should WISA recommend" people don't buy STs. It doesn't say anything like "NO WISA member shall buy an ST" IYSWIM. Yet again, the fans organisations are shown to bend over backwards to be sensible and thoughtful under continued and increasing provocation by the useless people at the club. No-one would stop anyone buying and using a ST. But personally I find it incredible that anyone would trust Mr.Koppel with £200+ of their hard-earned cash, especially when he has ALREADY said he would wind the club up if the FL MK decision goes against him. You would be just pissing your money away to partly pay off player contracts, badly negotiated contracts with suppliers and the "shareholder loans" to Koppel and Roekke etc. And, with this mind, just ask yourself WHY there is an extra early discount on STs for next season.
Martin D (I wish Fuck That! would fuck off)
- Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 02:28:54 (PDT)
Got the response I required!! Ha ha. It's soooooooooo easy to get you lot wound up.
F*ck That
- Tuesday, April 09, 2002 at 01:31:19 (PDT)
Oh and Paul the actual question on the ballot paper (which will be recieved by all members of WISA) is "Should WISA call upon Wimbledon supporters not to buy season tickets in protest at the continued attempts to move to Milton Keynes" and advisignthat the EGM recommends a yes vote.
Sean Fox
- Monday, April 08, 2002 at 14:58:23 (PDT)
Paul perhaps I can clarify the point on why WISA are balloting its members. It was recognised that this was a signifcant issue for all members and that many have difficulty attending a meeting on saturday lunchtimes for a variety of reasons. We wanted maximum involvement in the decision hence the meeting granted permission to hold the ballot and amended the motion to make a recommendation. Perhaps those who consider WISA undemocratic or unrepresentative may care to consider this fact? Essentially democracy doenst come cheap but we ( on the the committee) felt it was a small price to pay , a fact the meeting agred with. Hence there is no WISA season ticket policy unti lsuch time as the ballot are counted in a secret ballot HTH
Sean Fox (seanphilfox@aol.com)
- Monday, April 08, 2002 at 14:53:29 (PDT)
Can I ask a question to the WISA committee people that read this site, (And in no way is this meant to be flaming). Why do WISA need to spend (I presume) over £200 on postage for a postal ballott on "Should people buy season tickets next season" the reason I ask this is that wont people who vote in favor of the motion wont buy one however the result goes? I wasn't at the meeting on Saturday as you know so if this was covered I apologies. Once again not trying to flame and i'm aware that it's something that not everyone has made their mind up on yet.
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Monday, April 08, 2002 at 12:39:17 (PDT)
I told you so months ago - we wouldn't be allowed to get to the playoffs by the board!
A club that is supposed to be in dire financial straits, which according to CK is because we lost our Premiership status, doesn't think that it is worth keeping some decent players for a few weeks longer to try and force our way back there. Not of course that it would have made any difference, because the weird team selections and up and down performances, and "unfortunate" habit of throwing away leads would have continued.
The football authorities would never let a Premiership club move so we had to get ourselves relegated. Milton Keynes wouldn't want a 2nd division club, so we've had to do enough to stay comfortably in mid table, and throw in the odd occasional good performance against Man City to show what the team could achieve.
This means that some players are involved in the skullduggery, but that's no surprise in this day and age. The rewards for the Norwegians to complete the move must be huge!
But just go on believing that we we're trying our best on the pitch, and that the only thing that matters is the abandonment of the club shop.
Walthamstow Don
Formerly Walthamstow now Suffolk Don
Suffolk, - Monday, April 08, 2002 at 11:08:27 (PDT)
Sorry Kevin must of been suffering Double vision I thought i saw a couple of quotes that was in both my error. - Ronan , I know WISA t-shirts were on sale on Saturday (I got one) just wondered if the sales were combined as you may have been using one selling point. Although the Farley is a great meeting point. A lot of people wont go their as it may not be on their way home hope that lots of people revisit the Trust area in Crystals. - MD What about the assination of JFK and Man landing/notlanding* on the Moon * delete as appropriate :)
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Monday, April 08, 2002 at 10:33:39 (PDT)
Sportswear firm Puma have pulled out of their kit supply deal with Wimbledon - halfway through the contract.
Club spokesman Graham Thorley confirmed the four-year deal had been terminated "by mutual consent".
Fancy that!
From Ananova.com, - Monday, April 08, 2002 at 09:04:29 (PDT)
I wouldn't put anything past Mr.Koppel. And did you know Brunswich are responsible for global warming?b
Martin D
- Monday, April 08, 2002 at 08:06:03 (PDT)
Paul - that was just Trust takings - don't forget the trust is a seperate organisation!! ;-) WISA takings were not as high, but surprised us all the same. Expect a massive end of season sale soon.
Ronan (rgwarde@ukgateway.net)
- Monday, April 08, 2002 at 08:04:51 (PDT)
Paul, I didn't duplicate my original article, answered the issues raised by the previous 'person'. IMO, you should leave it up as an example to people of mindless idiocy. As for takings, Charles Koppel, in an open forum, has admitted that the boycott is hurting the club.
Kevin Rye
- Monday, April 08, 2002 at 07:27:06 (PDT)
MD - Was that just Trust merch or included the wisa t-shirts? Nice to see anyway - Regarding your last part I would presume that he would of been a hero of yours now then based on what I have read on WISA :)
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Monday, April 08, 2002 at 06:38:50 (PDT)
No danger of that Paul ;o) I'd be surprised if the Club Shop is making the same money as last year, but then I really wouldn't know. I know we made £2,000 from Trust merchandise in Crystals on Saturday though :)))) As for the QM, it is my considered opinion that Mr.Koppel killed her!
Martin D
- Monday, April 08, 2002 at 06:26:50 (PDT)
A few points to clear up 1) I think I may have removed the "F!ck That" post as it seemed to be typed when someone was just typing away and not really thinking and we all know what happeneds when we do that :) , 2) BW/KR You seemed to have duplicated everything from your original article so we now have these comments on twice you could have just said have a look at the comments made below. 3) Regarding the Shop I would say we are having as many people into the shop as we did last year but with regards to "Like For Like" takings you would need to ask the club. 4) MD Nice to see you back here for we had lost you in the QM debate on WISA :)
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Monday, April 08, 2002 at 06:22:42 (PDT)
I try to reason I suppose because I can't believe people can be SO irrational. It might make someone, if not the original poster, think a little I suppose.
Keivn Rye
- Monday, April 08, 2002 at 04:49:52 (PDT)
Kev, I don't know why you bother trying to reason with these sort of people. They are probably club stooges or others with a vested interest in the current club set-up. I also find it pathetic that certain people on here accuse you of being abusive and irrational, and you don't need to hide behind a silly fake name (unless it's BW of course!)
Martin D
- Monday, April 08, 2002 at 04:42:50 (PDT)
And will you be apologising if you are wrong then Mr(s)/Miss 'F*ck that'? Fortunately, most people don't see things in the ill thought-out manner you do.
Kevin Rye
- Monday, April 08, 2002 at 04:39:31 (PDT)
First of all, F*ck that, you don't have to be quite so heavy with the abuse. Secondly, I actually wrote the article - whoever 'Fancy that!' is, s/he didn't write the story, it was just posted on here. Thirdly, the WISA you talk about is not the WISA I know ("You people couldn't organise a piss-up in an oversized Rusian vodka factory"). The WISA I know has commissioned the design of a new stadium for PL, an ICM opinion poll for SW London, organised Fans United and an accompanying press conference and a Walk for Wimbledon, gave birth to the Dons Trust, is regarded independently as the most effective supporter organisation in the country (by the FSA, other supporter groups and in the media) and has generally run a campaign though to have been beyond its resources (e.g: on very little money).
As for the article itself, my question was why, when the it was stated in the OFFICIAL programme from May 2000 (when the deal was signed) that the deal was to last for four years until the 2003/4 season, has it 'abruptly' ended? It was stated, by Sharon Sillitoe at the time; 'I want to introduce our new kit sponsors for the next FOUR seasons, PUMA (UK) Ltd', and the deal outlined in the programme outlined this four year 'cycle'. Also, if the club did terminate the deal, why didn't they say that? They said (from the official press release): 'Wimbledon Football Club and Puma (UK) Ltd have announced that their kit supply agreement will finish at the end of the current season.' NOWHERE does it say that WFC Ltd 'terminated' or otherwise, the deal. Now, are you going to seriously tell me that raising these questions is totally counter productive? If it emerges that WFC did terminate the deal then I'd love to know why and regard it as a move that seems utterly out of step with the current financial climate in football where lucrative contracts and sponsorships are on the waine and it appears to be a bit silly if the club are chucking away a perfectly good one for the guarantee of nothing. Also, the reason there aren't a lot of quotes from people now is that the press release from the club is so short on detail, there were none to put in. If you've got some, send me them and I'll reword the article. Also, tell me, is the boycott not working? Yes it is. Sorry to go on about this, but I'm sure Paul, Chris or Stuart will confirm, as Charles Koppel did in the most recent Fans Council he (bothered) to attend, that it has seriously hurt the club. And, no, I won't be apologising for asking questions. You need to apologise for being so aggressive in your line of quesitoning.
Kevin Rye
Who is the arsehole? Not me. It's you has hasn't used your brain my friend., - Monday, April 08, 2002 at 04:35:07 (PDT)
whoever you are, u need to realise that if it was not for WISA, and the efforts of all the WISA people, Wimbledon FC would have died yonks ago. SO BE GRATEFUL.
The Real Hash
- Monday, April 08, 2002 at 04:33:14 (PDT)
Yet another "WISA says it so it must be true" article by the mysterious "Fancy That". What a load of arse. You people couldn't organise a piss-up in an oversized Rusian vodka factory. What IS your problem - "Ooh look, Puma don't do the kit anymore - MUST be because WISA organized a boycott" - DON'T TALK SUCH SHIT. I'm glad to see lots of quotes from the people involved NOW and not THEN. Christ almighty, for all you know, they already have another manufacturer lined up - will you apologise to all if/when it happens? Thought not. Bunch of arseholes the lot of yer. AND WFC ENDED THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH PUMA!
F*ck That
- Monday, April 08, 2002 at 02:02:39 (PDT)
Jimmy, Ardley has (fairly) recently lost his pace, of that there's little doubt. It's hardly fair to slam him in the way you have though. He was, for a long time, a very talanted midfielder/winger. Also, remember 1999-2000 when he basically fought tooth and nail to get back in the side AND he deserved his place back when he did - after Olsen telling him he was no longer part of his plans.
Brighton Womble
- Monday, April 08, 2002 at 01:47:45 (PDT)
|
