|
|
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. |
|
Well said paul about that wolves article thingy
Ronan (drunk)
- Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 17:24:02 (PDT)
I think the found on the net story was trying to be funny because if we did play in that combination it would be palaces kit Red & Blue anyone only difference hoops not stripes.
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 10:19:22 (PDT)
in your rush to laugh at the apparent contradiction with news on other Dons fans websites, you forget to comment on the change of strip colour, that OK with you then?
out there (nothere@me.co.uk)
- Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 10:05:32 (PDT)
"****Breaking Story**** - next season, both Wimbledon and Crystal Palace FC will be having their kits manufactured by TFG Sports Ltd. TFG have enjoyed an exciting season with Crystal Palace, and are looking forward to a fruitful association with Wimbledon Football Club. Next Season will see the Dons kicking off in Navy Blue and Fire Engine Red Hoops, whilst Crystal Palace will be in the reverse."
Found this on the net , Nike? HA!
- Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 09:33:02 (PDT)
limbo - so why hasn't the merchandise appeared in the club shop yet? Don't you think that any suggestion of selling merchandise would have to be cleared with those more senior? Not knocking the lads in the club shop, but AFAIK, they ain't stupid
Robert Paulson
- Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 09:25:16 (PDT)
and IIRC, didn't he club say the Trust can't put a membership application form in Pravda?
Ronan (rgwarde@ukgateway.net)
- Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 08:21:03 (PDT)
Read W&WW news section Nike being approached by Wimbledon FC
Another battle to fight
- Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 08:20:24 (PDT)
WFC: "The Club is not prepared to offer any further support to the launch of the Trust at this time." The Leeds chairman, Peter Risdale, has GIVEN the Trust several items that will raise a considerable amount of money, as have other decent clubs. Wimbledon Football Club have NOT GIVEN the Dons Trust ANYTHING. If you are seriously suggesting offering to sell official WFC merchandise at Trust events etc. is in any way helping the Trust then I'd question your sanity.
Martin D
- Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 06:14:34 (PDT)
Moira Stewart - aren't you that useless newsreader who got relegated to a sideskick slot on BBC News 24 or are you someone bearing no relation at all. As for WFC merchandise being available, AFAIC, WFC Ltd have been little or no help at all. Why do you keep defending the people who are trying to drive us away?
Brighton Womble (brightonwomble@hotmail.com)
I have also been going the whole time since we arrived at Smellhurst and I still have never understood why we let Hammam get away with it and then let the Nogs do it., - Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 06:14:10 (PDT)
Ronan it means the majority shareholders and board members, i.e GT's bosses.
limbo
City, - Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 06:06:12 (PDT)
When people say 'shareholders' do they mean Koppel/Gjelsten/Roekke or do they mean the 240+ shareholders?
Ronan (rgwrade@ukgateway.net)
- Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 05:12:22 (PDT)
Graham Thorley, knows sweet FA unless Kopel tells him what to say and do, if anyone should resign it should be him
cynical
- Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 05:03:11 (PDT)
But does Graham Thorley and the WFC shareholders know about that offer to sell Dons Trust merchandise in the club shop? Because it appears to be in complete contradiction with his letter to Lou.
limbo
City, - Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 04:51:42 (PDT)
Paul - I hope BW is paying you for all these adverts he is putting on this gb.
A new BBC series 'Rye Investigates' starts tonight with intrepid reporter Kevin Rye infiltrating a group of HBRA hooligans in an attempt to expose there sickening ways. Using the codename Brighton Womble, their activities, a throw back to the dark days of the 70's & 80's, show they are infact part of a much bigger gang - the Brunswicks. Brunswicks rule with an iron rod and can manipulate national media with great ease. The show culminates with violent scenes as innocent Merton residents are caught up in a bun fight between Merton Council, WISA and the feared HBRA hooligans.
Kevin Rye has been nominated for this years 'Most Self Important Web Jounalist of the Year'.
Moira Stewart
- Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 03:14:58 (PDT)
Not taking one side or the other - just reproducing a letter.
Dear Lou,
Thank you for your letter of 21 January 2002 requesting that the Club support the launch of The Dons' Trust on Sunday 10 February. I have now had the opportunity to discuss your requests, which I address here.
I am pleased to confirm that the Club remains happy to contribute to the promotion of the Trust through the provision of a page in the official match day programme, announcements over the ground PA system and flash adverts on the electronic scoreboard. As previously discussed with Lou, the content of such promotion shall at all times be subject to our editorial approval.
The Club is not prepared to offer any further support to the launch of the Trust at this time. Whilst the Trust and supporter groups such as WISA are clearly separate entities, many of the people involved are the same. Given the current differences of opinion that exist as to the best way forward for the Club, given the animosity shown towards the shareholders, board, administrative and playing staff and given the commercial and merchandising boycott that is being imposed on the Club, it is inappropriate to ask the Club to contribute to the fundraising of the Trust.
The Club would be prepared to reconsider this position once the differences of opinion are resolved, the animosity removed and the economic embargo withdrawn.
Yours sincerely
Graham Thorley
Director of Media & Communications
Graham Thorley ((via Ronan))
- Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 02:45:35 (PDT)
BW - "the club refused to allow ANY memorabilia to be given to the trust for auction because of WISA's 'embargo' - even though WISA and the trust are, and HAVE to be on a legal basis (from the trust side), separate entities (WISA members being trust members is not the same as what the club are incinuating)." Total A*se mate. I know for a cast-iron sure-fire FACT that the club shop has attempted to build a bridge by offering services (they have Junior Dons Trust forms, DT joining packs and also direct people to Crystals) AND some merch. and no one has taken them up on it. What you're doing there mate is atempting to turn things round ("spin" if you will), by saying No one can help. What _I_ was told by a senior member of the DT was that it may be seen as breaking the boycott if any WFC merchandise was available at the Trust launch. The other thing I have a problem about is the fact that you seem to think the stwards have only now started to treat us like scum. Well, as someone who as been at Selhurst since 1992, I can tell you it's ALWAYS been this way. Just thought you should know. Also, if it bothers you so much about the CS boys - you really need to get out more.
Very pissed off Don
- Tuesday, April 16, 2002 at 02:12:08 (PDT)
Paul, I wasn't necessarily making a judgement, just saying that you whilst all this goes on, people will carry onn referring to all the club shop stuff - particularly on your message board. BTW, WISA News has also been updated Kjetil Whaeler Investigates - WISA's intrepid investigator takes time off from the treatment table - http://www.wisa.org.uk
Brighton Rye or Kevin Womble (brightonwomble@hotmail.com)
Only one personality. Does that answer your question, Paul?, - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 15:24:27 (PDT)
Robert - I never said that WFC employees couldn't join the Trust. I stand by my statement that they are not permitted to participate in fund-raising activities, the biggest of which would be personal appearance by players. I don't understand your comment about spouting off before investigating, I don't know all the WFC employees and I wouldn't check off memberships to see whether they'd joined or not. My point was that WFC are not working with the Trust in good faith. From my standpoint, the Trust remains open to constructive dialogue with the club, but I'm not prepared to make all the running. Also, for the record, I don't think the ST boycott contradicts the aims of the Trust and that the whole issue can only be properly examined once the Trust Board is elected.
Nige (nigehiggs@yahoo.co.uk)
Wimbledon, - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 15:02:59 (PDT)
Kris, thanks for your reply. A bit of realism which is reassuring from someone such as yourself.I admire all you are doing but still don't close your eyes to the hard facts. Keep up the good work and you never know what can happen.
wiltshire don
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 12:29:54 (PDT)
Kris - I recognised one name on the Top 1000 list was listed at No 22 In Wales on the basis of born or made money in Wales was valued at £40 million and we all know who that is dont we :)
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 12:22:06 (PDT)
BW - A few points 1) No one was hasseling me if you care to read the post rather than just comming out with your usual stupid comments. 2) Nice to see that I am a valued member of The Dons Trust!! whats that saying about everyone being equal apart from those that arent!! 3) I see in the WISA accounts that they pay for advertising who do I invoice :) 4) I notice sometimes you post as Brighton Womble and others as Kevin Rye is there a defined time when you post as one or the other?
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 12:02:02 (PDT)
wiltshire - don't disagree particularly strongly with much of what you say, except that bit about "rich new owners" - doesn't that just put us back where we started? Anyway, if you think that's the way forward, The Times' "Rich List" was published just over a week ago, seems as good a place to start as any. Personally I think the only realistic future for football is to return to the community rather than look for ever-increasing revenues to match ever-increasing wage bills.
kris (chair@wisa.org.uk)
London, - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 11:31:29 (PDT)
Martin a couple of points on your postings. Firstly your point about critising TRH if that was aimed at me, just because I state very unpalatable facts which he doesn't agree with why am I critising him? I admire his passion and although I haven't said it before I would question whether he lives in the real world.At least he is the only one who has come back and tried to answer my question as to why the Nogs should put their hands in their pockets just so we can get back to Plough Lane.In fact in your post you give the very reason why they won't.MK is simply a business venture. The football side is an irrelevance,your interpretation not mine.So how can Plough Lane compete with that? I assume they see a return on their investment in MK but not at Plough Lane.Painful but no doubt true.Hutch, your list of clubs, most of them have people in charge who have a true interest in the club, we don't.Thats why they have new grounds and we don't. And Peter Bowles you are right, and highlight another major issue cashflow,WFC pays out too much in wages i.e. expenditure exceeds income ( yes I know bundles have been wasted on PR companies etc but it's future income I'm worried about). But I'm sure if wages were brought down to the level of income then all we would be left with young reserves.Bad management or whatever that's where we are now and that's the future. Oh dear I've gone all pessimistic again. At the end of the day as I have said before as have others the only way WFC can maintain it's current status is to have new RICH owners and where are they going to come from.Yes I know replies will come back that WFC will reform and start at the bottom of the pyramid and who knows we could be the best supported team in the Rymans xxth division.
wiltshire don
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 11:15:07 (PDT)
its a very up and coming and desirable town.
martyn short (mshort@goplay.com)
norwich, england - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 11:13:10 (PDT)
Get yerself off to Milton Keynes lads, I hear its nice this time of year!
martyn short (mshort@goplay.com)
norwich, england - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 11:09:24 (PDT)
Paul, unfortunately for as long as this biz goes on and you continue with your misguided love affair with WFC Ltd, you will carry on being hassled about it.
Brighton Womble (brightonwomble@hotmailc.om)
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 11:07:01 (PDT)
Robert Paulson, three or four members of the staff of WFC Ltd being trust members doesn't mean jack. The club have made it clear to all players, for example, that they are to have no involvement in ANY supporter-organised events, unless official. the club refused to allow ANY memorabilia to be given to the trust for auction because of WISA's 'embargo' - even though WISA and the trust are, and HAVE to be on a legal basis (from the trust side), separate entities (WISA members being trust members is not the same as what the club are incinuating). The club have systematically tried to ruin supporters enjoyment of matches and being a supporter of the club, going as far as ensuring stewards treat us all like dodgy scum at every home match. The current impasse in entirely the creation of WFC Ltd and Mr Koppel because they don't want us involved in the club, they want us to eff off so they can trundle up to Milton Keynes.
Raplh, as for your examples of Wigan and, more appopriately, Leicester, Safeway opened its first ever supermarket in the 1960's in........WIMBLEDON! If that isn't a historical or relevant link, I don't know what is.
Brighton Womble (brightonwomble@hotmailc.om)
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 11:03:21 (PDT)
WISA NEWS UPDATED: Is Koppel Telling the Whole Truth? New evidence about extent of last year's 'aborted' QPR merger talks raises new questions about WFC Ltd's Chairman - http://www.wisa.org.uk
Brighton Womble
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 10:12:35 (PDT)
Yes we all know the name of the Wimbledon Fan who offered to pay Chris's salary etc etc. I try to post a bit of a laugh on here and ever it always goes back to the same old stuff.
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 09:24:52 (PDT)
Paul - why don't you ask Chris for the name of the Wimbledon fan who offered Mr. Draper the exact same salary that he is currently earning simply not to work for Koppel/Roekke/Gjelsten/Hauger. He could of sat on his arse and done nothing (and helped save WFC in the process).
In the know (a hidden name which no doubt will raise lots of flames)
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 09:10:50 (PDT)
Watch it Raymond.
Odd Don
:), - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 08:48:00 (PDT)
Pete - If the club cant afford to pay me what I get for working in the shop it is in major trouble. And I reckon that Chris Draper is well overpaid :)
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 08:43:36 (PDT)
Peter Bowles - exactly! Koppell knew who was on high wages when we went down, why has it taken him 2 years to get rid of (or try to get rid of) top earners like Hughes and Ainsworth? and why have some of TB's signings been sold - Cooper, Nielsen? these are the players who should have been on wages that fitted in with our new lower wage structure aren't they? why has TB been allowed to sign, Nowland, Shipperly, Darlington, Connolly, Cooper, Nielsen, Mild in the last 14 months? high wage bills and massive squads do not creep up on football clubs and if your squad is too big or your players are on high wages you have to do something about it - why has it taken 2 years?
Hutch
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 08:23:40 (PDT)
Paul, you are correct, slip of the old typing keys oooops!!!
Wibbly Don
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 07:46:48 (PDT)
Paul, you missed the point. Koppel has run WFC into the ground. What happened to the three year plan? Knowing that some players are on long contracts means that Koppel has even less excuse.... He knew that he'd have to pay them, so it's his duty (IMO) to make sure that the money is there. There isn't enough because he's over spent on other things. This sounds harsh, but if WFC can't afford two club shops, it shouldn't have two club shops. If WFC can't afford to employ Kevin Cooper, David Nielsen, Graham Thorley, David Connoly, Mark Williams, Hakkan Mild, Brunswick, Dan Tench, Chris Draper, Paul Raymond, etc, then they shouldn't have.
Naturally, Koppel's argument is that we can, but only if the club gets a new home ASAP. Closely followed by 'Oh, look, a stadium in Milton Keynes'. That in no way is meant to be an attack on the people employed by Koppel, it just shows that he's either a very bad business man, or that he's been keeping the 'we're broke' argument in his back pocket all along, just incase the Football League told him where to go. He benefits from running WFC into the ground.
peter bowles (peter@wisa.org.uk)
Wimbledon, Wimbledon Wimbledon - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 07:35:23 (PDT)
WD - I presume you mean Martin D and not Stuart D :) - Pete - Regarding CK spending more money than we have and he can controll it thats not true on some of the players wages that were put on largish wages while SH was in charge there are a number of fringe players that are going this year that wages are down to SH. You cant just stop playing players you have to pay their contracts up.
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 07:15:51 (PDT)
The point made about PL and whether you want an FC to support in 5 years time is irrelevant. We have been living on sand for the last decade without a discernable home of our own and a pretence that as long as on-field matters are OK the rest will sort itself out. To continue this line of though for another 5 years WILL kill the club and IS just as bad as Milton Keynes. Yeah, PL is basically shit or bust now, but that's due to WFC not being interested one bit in places like Beddington Lane and Tolworth. Also, as for "sugar daddy", haven't we supposedly got one of those already in Roekke?
REPD (repd@repd.net)
SM4 for now, - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 06:28:34 (PDT)
a few points - I agree with what TRH is saying, if WISA, DT, MC think that WFC can go back to Plough Lane we have to believe it is possible and do whatever we can to make this possible. Why are we losing money? if it is because we got relegated to div 1 who was in charge when we went down? the Nogs. if it is because we are a div 1 club with a massive wage bill who is to blame for that? we have been a div 1 club for 2 years now, 2 years the Nogs have had to establish a div 1 set up with the considerable help of Sky parachute money, and ITV money which the likes of WBA, Norwich, Preston, Burnley, Gillingham, Sheff U, etc have not had! oh "but they get bigger crowds than us" I hear you cry well take Norwich for example ave gate 18000 about 10000 more than us, £15 a ticket they make £150k a match (on tickets alone) more than us, this equates to about £3.2m a season, Euell £4.5m? herman £5m? Thatcher £4.5m? + parachute money. Sunderland, Middlesborough, Derby, Leicester, Southampton, Millwall, Stoke, Reading, Wigan, Darlington, Northampton and soon Arsenal, Man City, Oxford will all be in new stadiums - why can nearly a fifth of the clubs in the top 4 divisions get it right and we can't? I know some have big money owners but IMO our club has been so badly mis-managed especially since relegation I just find it hard to believe that some people on here choose to think that the club can do know wrong and won't question the owners' ability to run a football club
Hutch
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 06:27:10 (PDT)
RP, as Stuart D stated did you read and understand his posting, if you want a football team to support in 5 years who will it be because as most of us know and Koppell has stated he has 1 aim and ONLY1 aim in life and that is MK so where will that leave WFC and again I ask who will you be supporting in 5 years
Wibbly Don
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 05:05:47 (PDT)
Ralph, two things, both rather pedantic but the first is well worth remembering. " but we are allegedy losing more than we have budgeted for". Surely that should be "Koppel is spending more than we have budgeted for". It's not asif he has no control on what the club spends money on. Secondly, it should be French Connection UKed.
peter bowles (peter@wisa.org.uk)
Wimbledon, Wimbledon Wimbledon - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 05:00:33 (PDT)
TRH - you have answered yourself. People budget for the money coming in but we are allegedy losing more than we have budgeted for. This club needs a sugar daddy or we are French Connectioned UK!!!!!
Ralph Malph
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 04:48:56 (PDT)
TRH - Agreeded that a club couldn't say we are not playing you the amount we agreeded or the club could just take the player back but for example say we had sold a player to a club for £5 million and they expected to go up but missed out at the last minute next year they may be hit by the lack of tv money and forced into administration or something I supose we could get the player back and re-sell him but I think it's safe to say in football terms nothing is guaranteed anymore.
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 03:23:47 (PDT)
Paul- yes, i suppose that is true. But do you believe the same might happen with transfer fees? we are guaranteed £24 million in transfer money,but I dont think there would ever be a situation where clubs suddenly say 'no, we are not paying you how mcuh we agreed to'.
The Real Hash
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 03:10:32 (PDT)
TRH - your comment about money we can plan for Guaranted income isint that exactly what the clubs have done with the ITV digital money?
Paul Raymond (webmaster@itmustbedons.com)
Tooting, London England - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 03:01:51 (PDT)
Ralph- it doesnt matter is transfers are not given in one full payment. It is still money which we are guaranteed and so we can plan forward knowing for a fact that we will get it. Other people keep calling me blinkered without saying why. OK I missed out some running costs such as reserve etc but i wasnt talking about costs at the time, I was talking about money in, and we have had over £30 million IN in the last 2 years.
The Real Hash
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 02:44:31 (PDT)
Err, Robert, have you actuall read the whole of my (long) post?
Martin D
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 02:42:05 (PDT)
Martin D - so with that attitude you say that unless it's Plough Lane, there is no future. As I said to TRH, sort it out. THAT is a blinkered view, sod all the finance stuff below. What I want is a FC to support in five years.
Robert Paulson
AND NO THAT DOESN'T MEAN I WANT MILTON KEYNES, - Monday, April 15, 2002 at 02:40:09 (PDT)
Nige - WRONG! I know that three or four members of WFC staff are Dons Trust members. Yet again, spouting before investigating. The Real Hash - sort it out fella, whilst PL is everyones "ideal-world" choice, this ain't, I'm afraid to say, an ideal world. Football as a whole is about money these days. The days of old when it was about community are all but dead (though it saddens me to say). Also, your calculations regarding moneies in/out seem to convieniently disregard things like FITC, Academy, reserves, kids teams, womens' teams, running costs etc. It ain't all transfer money/ticket sales in, wages out you know.
Robert Paulson
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 02:36:38 (PDT)
Several points: 1) I don't want the Nogs to cough up £30m+, I want them to FUCK OFF! Roekke is not a supporter and absolutely does not understand the history and culture of WFC and never will. There is no future ANYWHERE with him as owner. 2) You say they won't spend £30m+ up front on a stadium, just who do you think will pay for the one in Milton Keynes? Oh yes, Winkleman's "consortium", don't you think it might just be possible that Koppel, Roekke and Gjelsten are part of that consortium - if not providing the massive bulk of the funding behind it? I bet Roekke's construction companies might *just* get some of the contracts too? What do you think? The whole thing is a glorified property development deal with a football league club delivered as a sweetener to MK council and its locals. 3) The crisis in football finance (ITV Digital collapse etc.) is the strongest argument FOR a return to PL/anywhere in Merton as without money clubs will HAVE to rely more on their existing customer base, and that is where ours is. 4) To all the pessimists on here (and those who know me know I am one too) I would say this: Do you think a consortium of Merton Council/Safeway/WFC/WISA/Trust/fans/community COULD make this work? I'm not saying it would be easy as it would be incredibly difficult. But it is hardly helpful to criticise people like TRH for being blinkered when he has correctly identified the only real long-term option for WFC. *IF* we could get the PL site back, we would not need a massive state-of-the-art stadium, just a very basic single all-seater stand meeting league regulations would do. This would not cost much more than a £4-5m million IME, i.e. possibly what we will get from Villa for Kelvin. And even without PL, just look what Brighton have achieved with just a glorified school playing field? The ONLY partner who absolutely WILL NOT get involved in this ATM is WFC. WFC's current management are chasing a lucrative property deal that has nothing to do with WFC or even football. Until we get rid of them there is no future for WFC ANYWHERE!
Martin D
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 02:35:39 (PDT)
Real Hash - Sir I feel you may be on mind altering substances. Your maths simply do not add up. On this board in previous months we have discussed the transfer cash. It is not like Championship Manager where the money appears straight away, it is paid over the peiod of the contracts so it doesn't come in all at once. As for Wigan and Leicester being commercially attractive - Wigan is owned by JJB Sports and Leicester are backed by a national company who are besed in the town. These are things WFC don't have.
Ralph Malph
- Monday, April 15, 2002 at 01:17:24 (PDT)
Paul - the Dons Trust have tried to work with WFC, but they don't want to know. Apart from condescending to allow a page in the Official Programme (as long as it doesn't include an application form) they have done squat for us. They have not given us one item of merchandise or memorabilia for fundraising and they prohibit club employees from becoming involved with those activities. Why should we have to prostate ourselves in front of these carpet-baggers?
Nige (nigehiggs@yahoo.co.uk)
Wimbledon, - Sunday, April 14, 2002 at 15:07:15 (PDT)
wiltshire Don- you ARE being pessimistic. The simple fact that you reckon lifetime naming rights AND lifetime stand sponsorship AND the consortium with financial backers will only be able to raise £1 million proves that you are pessimistic. That is just the sort of thing Koppel would say. All people like you ever do is go on about why we cant go back. You should go on about how we can overcome the barriers. Discuss ways in which we can raise funds etc The amount of money the Nogs will have to put in is nowhere near the £35 million mark(more like £15 million, even some of that can be picked up from lottery money or long term loans) but it will ofcoarse require at least some kind of a financial commitment from them. Why should they do that? Well why does any chairman invest money in the club they run? Why is Al Fayed taking tens of millions out of his own pocket to develop Craven Cottage? Why did BRG say a year or two back 'we have £25 million in the bank for a new stadium'? I accept that to them, wimbledon is nothing more than a bussiness. But what do you do with a bussiness? You dont just buy it and then hang around doing nothing, hoping that everything is handed to you on a plate. You invest and develop the bussiness. But I accept that they wont do that. Because they bought into the club hoping for dublin, which isnt gonna happen. So under the current ownership, I accept that we will probably never go back, but under ANY new ownership, we WILL go back, because Plough Lane IS viable.
The Real Hash
- Sunday, April 14, 2002 at 14:41:48 (PDT)
Real Hash your latest postings confirm everything I have been saying. I and others are not been pessimistic and poring cold water on things, preaching Koppel's wording, all I am stating is cold hard facts and I'm sorry you have to get insulting because you don't like them.I would love to get back to PL but face it football outside the Premium League is in dire straits unless something really drastic happens so money is tight just about everywhere. So I go back to my original question which you forgot/chose not to answer why should the Norgewians cough up any more money so we can get back to PL?If you can come up with a good reason then put it to them and we might get some progress.If you can't then you accept the reality of the problems we are facing.Not pessimism just cold hard facts.
wiltshire don
- Sunday, April 14, 2002 at 14:19:44 (PDT)
on planet earth- shame u cant post who you actually are because then I might be able to take u seriously. But anyway, unfortunately it is YOU who should get back to reality. Yes, we have had an income of over £30 million in the last 2 years. We have received £24 million in transfer money and if you add on top of that the sponsorship (from Tiny and Maximuscle), the parachute money, the TV money (from sky for last year and we did receive ITVs for this year), the season tickets which amount to 7400 over the two years (3700 each season), the match day tickets and the merchandise sales (which will ofcoarse be considerable lower this year) then it does come up over £30 million. So get your head out of koppels back side, stop preaching the koppel gospel and wake up.
The Real Hash
- Sunday, April 14, 2002 at 11:43:22 (PDT)
what are you goin on about real hash??!?!? INCOME OF £30 MILLION? YOU ON PLANET EARTH? OR ARE YOU ON MARS? income of 50p more like
ON PLANET EARTH
- Sunday, April 14, 2002 at 10:00:19 (PDT)
WFC ltd's income over the last 2 years or so has been well over £30 million. FACT. How much have we spent? £5 million in transfers. Bout £20 million in wages (at £10 million per year). What else?
The Real Hash
- Sunday, April 14, 2002 at 08:01:52 (PDT)
How sad you all are. The simple truth is that none of you care about the club - you only care about yourselves. The club is leaking money and all you want is for it to leak even more. Please help the club stay in Wimbledon, by prving that people want to come and support them - not scaring them away by making kids cry when you attack the club shop. Let Wimbledonians think it is a place to come -even if its in Shithurst the moment. Get your freinds to come next Sunday and support the team next sunday, and make them feel the club is actually wanted.
Simple Simon (Anolddon.com)
- Sunday, April 14, 2002 at 07:45:34 (PDT)
exactly! now is not the time for negativity and pessimism. If we all had the attitude of Wiltshire Don, we would wend up playing at Selhurst Park for ever. What we need now is for all of us to have a vision, to rise up to the challenge and work towards the goal of bringing the Dons home. Instead of constantly playing up all the barriers on the way (as a lot of people who post on this site seem to do for some strange reason), play up ways in which we can overcome these barriers. Only then will we be able to return home.
The Real Hash
- Saturday, April 13, 2002 at 13:52:38 (PDT)
Going on from what TRH has been saying, be positive with respects to obtaining funding FFS, there are some big team players interested in PL but us little guys can do the little things with major financial returns, buy a brick in your new stadium, buy a seat, buy 5 years membership, buy the merchandise and so on and so on, FFS cut out the negativity and the pessimism and start to look at opportunities to get this club back to where it belongs
Wunderin Don
- Saturday, April 13, 2002 at 11:50:05 (PDT)
sorry for flooding, but your figures are just plain stupid. Do you seriously think that Lifetime naming rights, lifetime stand sponsorship as well as the consortium with financial backers will all together raise a total of £1 million? Preaching the Koppel gospel or what!!!!
The Real Hash
- Saturday, April 13, 2002 at 11:40:29 (PDT)
and also, do you see Wigan and Leicester as attractie commercial propositions? no? didnt think so.
The Real Hash
- Saturday, April 13, 2002 at 03:11:56 (PDT)
I am genuinly perplexed as to how you can possibly say it only comes to £4 million. £2.8 million from the gov football trust, 200k MINIMUM (we have already raised 70k ffs)from the Dons Trut, if shirt sponsorship for one year i worth 500k, then stand sponsorshop for lifetime is gonna be worth slightly more than that mate. I'll say for the sake of argument, about £2 million, LIFETIME naming rights (please note that leicester only did it for 10 years) will be worth around £2.5 -£3 million and the consortium you reckon will only raise £1? Seriously, how do you think the consortium/financial backers/partners would raise? You are just being pessimistic, pouring cold water on everything and not looking at the facts. To say that they would only raise £4 million i just plain silly.
The Real Hash
- Saturday, April 13, 2002 at 03:10:19 (PDT)
Real Hash, I admire your passion and committment but I'm sorry it is you who should open your eyes.Your figures total about £4 million.That's a few million short. Can't see why Safeway's would want to cough up anything as they are a commerical outfit and want to see a return on their money and I'm afraid WFC are just an not attractive commercial proposition.The only hope with Safeway's is if they see it as a community venture rather than a commerical one.So back to the Nogs and can you really see them putting their hands in their pockets? We can only hope. As for MC what a nice position to be in, come out with all the right noises we want to hear without costing them anything as someone else will be providing the finance.I'm sorry if I'm saying all the wrong things but that is my view and it pains me to say it.
wiltshire don
- Saturday, April 13, 2002 at 03:01:33 (PDT)
Ralphy me old mate, I think that you have to look closely at the involvement by MC, I have been to a couple of meetings and they really are saying all the right things, (they are politicians I hear you say) they are behind Wimbledon all the way, I am sure that WISA and MC have many plans in mind and like you I would love to know all the details, but as we know once Koppell gets a sniff of anything he does his darndest to scuttle any positive moves, that is why im sure that WISA and MC are keeping most of the details quite and I for one trust them to do the best for Wimbleodn FC and our band of supporters, secondly we probably wont get 18K but FFS we will get lots more than the 5 and 6 we are at present and finally a joint venture with a hotelier, London Broncos. who by the way play their games in the summer so the pitch could be maintained to a respectable measure throughout our season, Sainsbury's and Wimbledon FC would not be a costly venture, Koppell has 1 and only 1 aim in life MK end of story, so I will back WISA and anyone else who are fighting fo our club, everything is not perfect and it probably never will be but FFS get behind the good guys and offer your support rather than sarcasm and criticism and instead of using this site to always slag the good guys off why not write to WISA or Y&B to air your negative views or do you just like the limelight
Wibbly Don
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 11:18:50 (PDT)
WD- the owners will not have to fork out £35 million (£35 million is the figure that Koppel has used for Plough Lane). There are many ways to raise money: The gov football trust will provide £2.8 million, the Dons Trust has already raised £70k and we can surely raise at least 200k for that, Safeway can be given some sort of lifetime sponsorship (for example, a stand can be called The Safeway End)which would be worth a lot of money, lifetime naming rights can be given to another company as Leicester, Wigan, Huddersfield, Bolton etc have done, and there are ofcoarse other financial backers in the form of the consortium that Merton council and WISA are putting together. It isnt rocket science mate. To say that the Nogs are going to have to trump up all the money is just plain stupid. Nobody asked them to ever do that. Remember a while back. WISA put Koppel in touch with a company that was interested in building a stadium in London. Koppel, surprise surprise, didnt follow it up. Whats happening now? That same company is spending £200 million on a stadium on the Millenium Dome site. So just open your eyes.
The Real Hash
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 11:15:59 (PDT)
WISA NEWS UPDATED: Over the Top, Supporters bid to Buy Plough Lane
http://www.wisa.org.uk
Brighton Womble
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 10:45:07 (PDT)
Brighton, why did you say Ralph pours cold water on everything?He is stating facts that noone is really prepared to listen to.I have asked the question on numerous occasions and never got an answer namely The owners are business men with no passion/love for the club so can someone tell me why they should fork out £40 let alone £40 million to build a stadium in Merton and get no return on their investment, which is what it is. I am afraid that is a basic fact.However, if anyone can convince them back in Merton we will be playing in front of 18,000 fans every home game I'm sure that will put a different light on things.As has been pointed out before unless someone who is mega rich and loves WFC buys the club we are up the river without a... you know what.Sorry but that's the way I see it and no I'm not buying a season ticket and no I wouldn't go to MK.I have been a supporter for close on 40 years and I never believed I would be saying to myself that I would question my support of the club. Very sad.
wiltshire don
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 10:42:23 (PDT)
Martin D - in response to your earlier post about whether I'd be happy if Merton stung me for an extra £100 in my council tax, I would say that as tax seems to go up every year anyway I doubt if it'll make much difference. Kingstonian would be good on a temporary basis but probably not longer, especially if Merton remains an option. I note that there are council elections coming up - cynical?
REPD (repd@repd.net)
Home, - Friday, April 12, 2002 at 07:56:34 (PDT)
Paul, just read the news re Robinson - why would we sign a player for a lot of money (a lot for WFC) and only have him on a 2 year deal - seems silly to me but no surprising
Hutch
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 06:02:21 (PDT)
How do you know that Kingsmeadow ISN'T one of the other options you keep criticising WISA for not having? BTW The major problems there are that the ground isn't currently suitable for league football and the local council (Kingston) don't want it expanded and certainly don't want to help us move there. Of course I am completely wrong to trust in MC, but (as you conveniently ignored my main point) they ARE more committed to returning WFC to Merton than WFC are!
Martin D
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 05:47:20 (PDT)
Hey Ralph - that wasn't too difficult was it! I think that some kind of joint venture with Kingstonian is a decent idea. How about WFC meeting the cost of improved facilities there (ie extra seats) in exchange for us using their ground for games whilst pursuing a return to Merton, the extra income they would generate could possibly see league football for the Ks within a few years and a good breeding ground for our youngsters to learn their trade. WISA have other options but at the moment the focus is on PL because it is the right place and with a bit of luck and a lot of work it is possible
Hutch
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 05:17:49 (PDT)
Ralf, Kingstonian is definetly (IMO) an option, but for me it could only be temporary, and never at the expence of another football club. It's far closer than Selhurst, one bus is all you need, and would generally be great. But only in the short term. WFC needs to return to Merton at the least, and Wimbledon if at all possible.
Peter Bowles (peter@wisa.org.uk)
Wimbledon, Wimbledon Wimbledon - Friday, April 12, 2002 at 05:09:49 (PDT)
To me there is a solution waiting for us and it ain't MK. This probably won't be probable and I will be shouted doem but what abot Kingstonian? I know it only holds 6k but lets face it we don't need more than 12-15k, and it could be developed. Please don't come back with the ICM 18k piece because I don't beleive initially that would happen. Better to have the ground full signs out IMO. Besides they are shagged and need our help. It's a damn site closer to home as well. Seriously if you think it isn't possible I'd like to know. If you don't like it let me know, because i think it is folly to put all our eggs in to the PL basket as nice as it could be.
Ralph Malph
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 05:04:18 (PDT)
Ralph - as I posted yesterday I understand you scepticism BUT what do you think is the solution? you are ready to pour water whenever there are positive thought's but I don't hear any ideas, suggestions, what could be done to make it happen etc comments coming from you
Hutch
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 04:19:59 (PDT)
MD - your trust in MC is laughable as is everyone elses. Merton council represents the borough of Merton and the councillors are only people using it a step into politics and for their own self importance - much like Brighton Womble does with all these boards. They do not give 2 hoots about this football club. it is easy for them to say they do but they don't. Genie Saunders is quoted as saying they are continuing to look to see if it is viable to build a stadium at PL. That's a bit of a turn because before MC COULD build a stadium. Please wake up and see the picture, MC is not the answer to our problems.
Ralph Malph
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 04:13:03 (PDT)
Rob, councils can help in these things. But I would have thought that you (as a Merton council taxpayer) would take a dim view of your council tax going up by £100 to actually buy the land (which is what it would take IMO) MC's role is to attract developers and create a consortium - which is EXACTLY what they are doing AFAIK.
Martin D
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 02:41:00 (PDT)
Hutch, I agree with you. But it is Koppel that is using the cost argument all the time. I can't believe that journos accept it, after all it will cost roughly the same to build the MK stadium.
Martin D
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 02:38:43 (PDT)
Hutch, to a degree I agree with you, but there are two very good reasons why we need to look at the cost of building a stadium at Plough Lane. 1) so we can show koppel's lies. 2) so we know what we've got to get together to build one.
Peter Bowles (peter@wisa.org.uk)
Wimbledon, Wimbledon Wimbledon - Friday, April 12, 2002 at 02:35:52 (PDT)
Martin - did you hear in yesterday's Wimbledon Post that there have been three potential suitors for a stadium on PL - one football club, one rugby union club and one rugby league club. Now, given you said "because they *know* its value to WFC as a football stadium?" and it's not WFC (apparently) who are after PL, maybe that will reduce the price. Also, didn't it get mentioned in Parliament that councils can now take some sort of financial involvement in these sort of things?
REPD (repd@repd.net)
Using his real life initials, - Friday, April 12, 2002 at 02:34:40 (PDT)
Martin D - agree with your sentiments although I can't see anyone building flats in SW19 and selling them for as little as £150k, however this is not an issue. If Merton Council and Safeways went to CK today with planning permission for a football stadium and the land for free should they name it the Safeway stadium he would still look for a way out, that is what we are up against. Remember CK is backed by one of the richest men in Europe whether it costs £1m or £30m it would have no real effect on his bank balance so all these discussions on how much it would cost are not worth the effort
Hutch
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 02:32:12 (PDT)
All this rubbish about MC not "helping", please tell me what they're supposed to do? They can no more buy a £6m plot of land for a private business than they could buy you a mansion. Yes, they can enter a consortium and work together with a football club (as has happened elsewhere in this country) but that does rather depend on the club working with them - something they have completely failed to do. For all of you who happily blame MC for everything, look at the facts. MC are hardly going anywhere are they? They are obviously committed to Wimbledon and Merton by their very nature. They want to promote local sport and publicise their borough through its famous team. Conversely, WFC don't give a shit about the area. They would go anywhere for their property deal. Ask yourself who you trust more to deliver a local solution to WFC's problem?
Martin D (Does your local council buy you a house?)
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 02:25:49 (PDT)
To "You wish", so WISA is self-important eh? I would think any arrogance on their part is justified by their effective protests and pales into insignificance when compared with many people who work for or own WFC.
Martin D (Hiding behind made up names is pathetic)
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 02:20:15 (PDT)
And when it comes to stadium cost, ask yourself *why* our owners are perfectly happy to shell out £30-60m on a stadium in MK and not Merton. And who do you think is in Winkleman's consortium? And who do you think owns the potential construction company? And why we need a massive stadium anyway when just one 6,000 seater stand would do ATM to meet Div 1/Leage standards. The whole MK deal has NOTHING TO DO WITH FOOTBALL! It is a big retail and hotel development venture in MK that needs a sweetener (a league club) for the local council and people.
Martin D (Just think about it will you)
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 02:18:18 (PDT)
Lads, the PL site is NOT worth £15m. The new planning permission is a request to build @176 houses/flats on the site. Due to the size of the site and the need for many of these being "affordable" homes, I would suggest that their *average* cost would be £150k. Therefore 176 x 150k = £26m. Take away the largest cost (construction), other fees and the developer's profit and you get a land value for housing of somewhere between £5-8m. safeway may ask for £15m but they won't get it - simple as. Maybe Safeway are asking for a higher figure because they *know* its value to WFC as a football stadium? Just a thought.
Martin D (Not buying an ST again until we have our own ground in SW London)
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 02:14:04 (PDT)
"This comes less than a week after PUMA pulled the plug halfway through a four year deal with the club apparently in the light of the WISA-lead boycott of official merchandise and the continued uncertainty over Charles Koppel's proposal to move the club to Milton Keynes."
You Wish (Selfimportancegetsyounowhere@wisa.com)
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 01:44:27 (PDT)
Surely that should be 'Safeway to apply for Housnig Planning permission at Plough Lane' Since safeway build supermarkets and not housing estates.
Peter Bowles (peter@wisa.org.uk)
Wimbledon, Wimbledon Wimbledon - Friday, April 12, 2002 at 01:38:15 (PDT)
Whoops. Safeway to put housing up and MC said to be "disappointed". I think you'll find now that this is make or break for Merton Council, don't you? (source : Wimbledon News)
Secret Agent
- Friday, April 12, 2002 at 01:34:53 (PDT)
Paul, re the price of Plough Lane. The value of the land is nothing more than what the highest bidder is willing to pay. Previously we had been led to believe (by people in whose interest it is to have us believe it) that people were going to be clamouring to get their hands on the land. But no property developers have bought it because it doesn't have the planning permission which they want. To Wimbledon fans, I think you'd agree that the land is absolutely priceless. To a property developer it's worth whatever they can get for selling houses on it.
Peter Bowles (peter@wisa.org.uk)
Wimbledon, Wimbledon Wimbledon - Friday, April 12, 2002 at 00:04:00 (PDT)
|
