Talk:Milton Keynes Dons F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Milton Keynes Dons F.C. article.
Article policies
WikiProject on Football
English football Portal
The article on Milton Keynes Dons F.C. is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the England task force.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Buckinghamshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.


This discussion is for constructive ideas about how to improve the main article, keeping it neutral and unemotional as far humanly possible.



Contents

[edit] Milton Keynes is *NOT* Wimbledon F.C

Please stop linking it to Wimbledon F.C.

Go start your own history if you can. You can buy our league status, but you can't buy our history.

I agree, do not merge Wimbledon and MK Dons articles. They are different clubs. Bababoum 15:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. There is no link between Milton Keynes and South London and there is nothing other than a tenuous financial link with Wimbledon.--Edchilvers 19:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is historic and was resolved in May 2006 with rejection of the Request to Merge. It is left here for archive reasons: please do not add to it. Any new comments should be added much further down this discussion page. --Concrete Cowboy 17:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] site needs to be factual

Your chairman decided (as was his legal right) to move the team and then rename them.

To include any history, therefore, before 2002 for MK Dons, is factually incorrect.

Many many many supporters will find the use of Wimbledon history of this page offensive. Please sort it out.

This comment refers to an early version of the page, prior to its split into a Wimbledon F.C. page and a Milton Keynes Dons F.C. page. It is retained for archival reasons. Please do not add to it. --Concrete Cowboy 17:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup needed

This article, IMHO needs cleanup, so I've added a notice. Among the issues I have with it are:

  • A Neutral Point of View - this means cutting all the references to how low attendnaces are compared to AFC Wimbledon, what AFC Wimbledon fans think of a particular result etc. A single paragraph about AFCW and how it was formed and could be put at some point during the history.
  • Some judicious editing - the section "Life in Coca Cola League 1" needs cutting down to one paragraph at most; a blow-by-blow account of every match MKD have played this season is to say the least tedious, and drowns out any useful information. It's ridiculous that this one season is so long compared to the rest of the club's long history.
  • The section entitled "Administration, then rescue" should follow on to the next one properly, at the moment the two don't fit at all.
  • The section entitled "A new ground and a new beginning?" needs trimming of irrelevant info, and copyediting.

I'd do a lot of this myself but I'm aware of how sensitive a topic this is to fans or former fans of the club, and the edit war that seems to continually rage around this page as a result. Qwghlm 21:12, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

With distance of time, that will become possible. Right now, it is still too sensitive. At least now the edit war has mostly settled down to "some say... others say..." instead of delete and substitution. But the continuing level of vandalism shows that it is still a hot issue. I think that another year is needed before there will be a consensus for pruning. --Concrete Cowboy 08:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
A year does seem rather a long time... alternatively, what could be done (which is usually the case with controversial pages needing a rewrite), is that a new version is written by someone at Milton Keynes Dons F.C./Temp and it's agreed on by all before being put up as the proper page. As a Gooner who's written plenty of football articles on WP, I'd like to think I'm fairly neutral on the matter, and I'd be happy to write a better version. Qwghlm 10:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
That's a reasonable suggestion since nobody from either camp is going to be accepted by the other. But be prepared for no consensus. If you think this is bad, take a look at the edit history for Malcolm Glazer! --Concrete Cowboy 13:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism or not?

As another neutral I feel the article seems very biased towards the MK Dons side of the argument. I am a footy fan but never made it to Ploughlane.--130.36.87.102 15:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Your vandalising edit doesn't read even remotely neutral. You just confirmed the point I made to Qwghlm. --Concrete Cowboy 15:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism is a bit strong just because I dont like the bias of the curent article, I sujest a neutral header then an article about the split then 2 factual discriptions of the new clubs.--130.36.87.103 16:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"Split" and "New clubs" are utterly erroneous terms - no split took place. There was no split. Milton Keynes Dons F.C. is technically the same club as Wimbledon F.C. - however much you might find that objectionable (and I can understand), it is a matter of fact. AFC Wimbledon is an entirely separate, new, club (and besides, it has its own page already). This article should be primarily about the entity that was Wimbledon F.C., which has recently moved and been renamed. Qwghlm
no, MKDFC holds the same 'league share' as WFC did but they are definately different clubs.
In the terms of Wikipedia (an Open source encylopedia), using inflamatory and non NPOV language is considered vandalsism. It is not consistent with the neutral tone that an encyclopedia should maintain. I agree that, as vandalism goes, it is not of the same scale as can be seen in the history page for Malcolm Glazer.
Controversial says that there was a major debate about it. Notorious is personal value judgement and it is perjorative. It is on the same scale as to have text that remarked without qualification that it was a "mere business transaction". That would be equally unacceptable.
But I can see that you are aiming to be constructive, so could I suggest that you get a login id and contribute some text for Qwghlm's rewrite that explains the PoV of traditional Wimbledon supporters - becuase that is certainly fact and certainly deserves to be recorded (perhaps in a supplementary article). Just hacking the main article is not constructive. (and there is an article about AFC Wimbledon) --Concrete Cowboy 17:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Separate pages idea

Although moving to Milton Keynes certainly wasn't the clubs only option. Whoever decided to put that in needs to be aware of the facts. I think the best option is to have the clubs history pre 2002 on a seperate page. What do others think?

I suspect that this is the only way out of this mess. I suggest
  • Wimbledon FC disambiguation -> Wimbledon FC (1999-2002), MK Dons FC, AFC Wimbledon, "The rise and fall of Wimbledon FC"
  • Wimbledon FC (1999-2002) gives the first section of the present article, ending with Koppel's increasingly frantic schemes to stay in business, ending in Adminstration.
  • MK Dons FC picks up story from point that Winkelman puts his hand deep in his own pocket to bail Wimbledon FC Ltd out of adminstration, saving it from liquidation. His business plan says it needs to become fully MK's own and gives it the new name. This article has to be straight facts with no editorialising - leave that to the fourth article.
  • AFC Wimbledon picks up from the point that Wimbledon people realise that they "don't know what you've got till it's gone" and put together a new club.
  • Provide somewhere for disgruntled Wombles to say why it never shudda happened. The main article of any of the three incarnations is not the place for it. Maybe it should be a broader article about the culture clash between football clubs as PLCs versus as being local amenities. See letter from top people in football and editoria in Guardian about it.

Comments? --Concrete Cowboy 23:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, as the "two clubs" of Wimbledon F.C. and Milton Keynes are the one and same entity; it would also misrepresent the phased transition that the club went through - the move came first, then the name change; splitting the article would split the narrative of how the change came about.
But if you are going to do a page split then:
  • By rights Wimbledon F.C. should be about the club of that name and its history between 1889 and 2003, with no disambiguating dates added to the title. As it is the only club (to my knowledge) called Wimbledon F.C. then that's what the page about it should be called.
  • I don't think a disambig page such as Wimbledon F.C. (disambiguation) is strictly necessary, as both articles will link to each other and it will be fairly obvious which one is about which.
  • Milton Keynes Dons F.C. would be a page referring to the club that currently exists, framed in slightly more neutral language than the tone of your proposal.
  • As this case is unique (and totally different from the saga at Man U), reasons for fans' opposition should be rolled in to the end of the Wimbledon F.C. page, whilst being mindful that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
The above comments are not an endorsement of your idea, I still think it's a bad one. Qwghlm 00:48, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
I think it is a bad idea too! but I think it is the only way to move on. Maybe in five years time someone will pull it all back together, but it is clearly not possible now.
a) The AFC Wimbledon fans will argue that there may be one company but there are/were three clubs (WFC, MKDFC and AFCW). They might even argue that that, if there are only two clubs, then they are WFC/AFCW v MKDFC. (But maybe I should leave them to argue that.)
b) Again you are being logical, but take a look at AFC Wimbledon - it claims WFC's history as AFCW's history. So the idea to have disambiguation page (and a dedicated WFC(1889-2003) page) is to try to separate the issues. A disambiguation page allows for alternate world-views.
c) I thought my MKDFC proposal was neutral. What did you find non-NPOV about it?
d) If you look at the partisan comments inserted into this MKDFC page and pretty well all of the AFCW page, I don't see much respect for the Wikipedia is not a soapbox principle!
.
You don't have to endorse, you just have to come up with a better solution. I believe that we are going to have to choose the least worst idea rather than the best idea. --Concrete Cowboy 22:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Re: that addition to AFC Wimbledon Oh no... it only happened a few days ago, though, last time I looked about it, it was about the new club only - see [1]. That text should be deleted. Maybe a split is the least-worst option, then. I still strongly affirm that the page about the 1889-2003 club should be plain old Wimbledon F.C. though.
As for the NPOV - I don't think your portrayal of Winkelman as a white knight "dipping deep in his pocket" is entirely neutral language; the man had been angling for MKDFC for ages, in fact he'd been angling for any club to move to MK - he tried tempting QPR to move over a few years ago as well. He's a businessman, not a philanthropist. Qwghlm 23:36, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe History of Wimbledon F.C (1889 - 2003) would be better? To have a Wimbledon F.C. without connection to MKDFC is simply inaccurate. Legally and in terms of staff and players, they are the same.
Well Winkelman is a bit of a Delia Smith too, but yes I see what you mean. Locally, there is some bitterness that he didn't put his money behind Milton Keynes City F.C. (R.I.P.) instead.
  • discussion continues with new heading to manage the indenting

[edit] New Article proposal: Wimbledon F.C.

this is a continuation of Separate pages idea, restarted for convenience.

How about for the article Wimbledon F.C., at the very beginning we have:

This article is about the football club known as Wimbledon F.C. between 1889 and 2003. For the continuation of that club since, see Milton Keynes Dons F.C.. For the club founded by Wimbledon fans in response, see AFC Wimbledon.

That way continuity (both official and unofficial) is acknowledged from the very start. Thoughts? Qwghlm 09:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Agree that there should be a separate page, titled Wimbledon F.C., for the club from 1889-2003. Then both AFCW and MKDFC can state their link to WFC in their articles, without provoking the debate over who 'owns' WFC's history. Jess Cully 07:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I can accept that. It might also remove the sniping from AFCW fans that MKDFC is stealing "their" history.
It will need a level 1 heading at the end, where the debate about "franchising" can go. A large chunk of the present MKDFC can be cut/paste over to it unchanged, making a good start to the clean-up you proposed earlier. (The MKDFC article will need to begin with for information that explains the controversy around the creation of MKDFC, see main article WFC). --Concrete Cowboy 11:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Surely any history for Wimbledon FC would cover the dates from 1889-2002 not until 2003.

The consensus seems to be not to give dates in the title, but the unambiguous end point is the change of name. --Concrete Cowboy 16:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I would argue that the move to Milton Keynes (which happened in 2003) and the name change in 2004 should be put in the article Wimbledon F.C., else it'll look a little odd, suddenly cut off at the end. The Milton Keynes Dons F.C. page would thus start with the start of the 2004-05 season.
Further to your comment on my talk page - I'll wait a few more days for any further comments then have a go at writing the cleaned-up versions. Qwghlm 22:00, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that (end of season break) is what I had in mind.
Whatever you like, but my advice is that further comment, to be useful, needs a first draft to focus minds. --Concrete Cowboy 10:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite and split

OK. I decided to be bold and did it. The club's pre-move history is now at Wimbledon F.C. (including the move controversy) and the 2003 onwards history is here. Minor edits should be fine but any major changes, please discuss them here first. Qwghlm 11:42, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

As a follow-up, if we decide to keep this split then a lot of wikilinks that currently point at MKDFC [2] should be directed to WFC, if that is the club being referred to. Qwghlm 11:50, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Short edit because they did not have 10 points deducted in the 2003-2004 season. (I've deleted that whole sentance.) They did go into admin, but the rules of 10 points deducted did not apply until the 2004-2005 season.


Well I went an got an ID and you have taken up my split idea. It does seem less biased. Now as I am not a Winbledon fan I dont know but could the pre-split, change of name, moving away page have the original crest or at least the one last used at Selout Park. --Rekab Mit 22:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

yes, if you do it :) --Concrete Cowboy 23:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I personally don't think there should be a split in the articles. I'm not a Wimbledon football fan, but the fact is that MK Dons and Wimbledon FC are one and the same team, but with a new name. For the supporters who claim that they are two seperate teams, changing names and colours have happened before, what about Arsenal (Dial Square, Royal Arsenal, Woolwich Arsenal)? Man Utd (Newton Heath LYR F.C)? They were both known as something different till the early 20th Century. Should they be considered seperate teams as well? So if MK Dons are a different team, then how did they get into Div 1 right from the beginning, after all, all new teams have to start from the bottom, like AFC? The split is done, but for consistency (and sense), both Wimbledon FC and MK Dons FC should point to the same article, MK Dons FC, with the history broken down as usual, just like every other football club article out there. --Smoothy 13:25, 15 Jun 2005 (BST)
Yes, that is completely logical and, in 50 years time, maybe it will become possible to merge them back into one. Unfortunately, logic has not been persuasive and this has proven to be the only way to avoid repeated vandalism of all three articles. --Concrete Cowboy 13:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changing names or Colurs is not the same as leaving your heartland. The only reason MK were alowed to stay in the leauge was because of money.

Let me say it again in words of one syllable. At the end of the day, a club needs cash to run. You have to pay the players and the staff. You have to pay rates and tax. No cash, no club. WFC did not earn enough cash to pay its bills. The owners had to find a way to bridge the gap. In the end, they failed. The club was bankrupt. So of course its about money, at some level.
So what do you want? To close the club down and everyone lose their jobs? The League could easily have filled the gap from below. If it is just about money to them, then one club is pretty much like any other - they come, they go. But the sentimental slobs decided to throw WFC a lifeline and let it stay. So it is not about money at that level.
WFC had already left "its heartland" (had been forced out because its home town wouldn't find a way or make a way to solve the planning issues) to go to somebody else's ground at Selhurst Park. The break was made: another 50 miles just makes it obvious. --Concrete Cowboy 10:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Plenty of other teams have moved "from their heartland" (Arsenal, anyone? In fact, several times, as they will move, yet again, at the end of the 2005-2006 season). Doesn't mean it's a different team, WFC and MK Dons are still one and the same team. --Smoothy 18:30, 10 July 2005 (BST)

[edit] Anon edit of 4th July

I have reverted these changes because they just bog down the article in detail.

  • an enabling project, to build a supermarket in the new town of Milton Keynes . This is a misunderstanding. What is actually happening is that a large area of land is being developed and includes a commercial developmnet and a stadium. The commercial side has two 'lead' attractions (ASDA and IKEA) and a number of smaller outlets. It's a total package. It is just as true to say that the stadium enabled the commercial development as the other way round.
  • on advise, by an "independent" panel The FA Board is fully responsible for its decisions. Everything they do is based on advice: they have sub-committees for everything. They debated this question long and hard,so it was not made lightly. They don't have to accept the advice that they are given. So the only point in your edit seems to be to question the independence of that advice. If you want to sound off, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox

If you wish to debate this reversion, please do so here. It is important that material on Wikipedia is fact, not opinion.

To anonymous writer of the above:
The point is that construction of the supermarket on that site was against established development policy that forbade new exurban megastores in order to protect established business districts.Using the stadium as a pretext for waiving this policy was the intent,and in turn a Football League team had to be lured to Milton Keynes to justify building the stadium.The fact that no League club had ever moved to this extent (all "precedents" being to adjoining towns or within a metropolis) notwithstanding.Winkelman tried with Luton,Queens Park Rangers,and Brentford,and hit pay dirt with Wimbledon.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate view of the History

User:Jamespeterwilson made a substantial edit that looks to me like editorialising and conjecture. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it does not belong (as written) in the main article. However, it is copied here for others to comment. --Concrete Cowboy 14:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The history of the MK Dons begins in the late 1990s with Pete Winkelman, a music entrepreneur and avid promoter of Milton Keynes, who began to talk about bringing top-class football to the city. It soon became apparent that Winkleman's objectives were not entirely sporting. After all, the city already had a football team, Milton Keynes City, who were playing in the Spartan South Midlands League, the eighth level of English football. Had Winkleman really been into bringing sporting glory to the area, he could have invested in the local team, as had Dr. Martens millionaire Max Griggs with nearby Rushden & Diamonds. However, Winkleman's real plan was to build a new stadium complex as a way of getting planning permission for a large Asda superstore. It was unlikely he could build such a stadium for what was at the time a poorly-supported Non-league team. Instead, he planned to bring in a professional club from another city.
Since 1998, Winkleman had been approaching other clubs that were struggling financially, including Barnet, Luton Town and QPR, but all had rejected his advances. However, in the dying carcass of Wimbledon F.C. (which was now in administration with debts of more than £20 million), he found his perfect target.
Winkleman helped finance the National Hockey Stadium's conversion for football, and agreed to take the club over and save it from liquidation. However, many of the team's best players had been sold off by the administrators, and before the club arrived in Milton Keynes, the club were relegated to League One (the new name for the Second Division). In September 2003, Wimbledon F.C. finally moved into the National Hockey Stadium in Milton Keynes.


User:Jamespeterwilson wrote on my talk page (this time without the editorialsing):

  • Winkleman plans to use the stadium development to get planning permission for an Asda store amons others (the backers of which provided the cash for the whole project)
No, he didn't actually need it for that. The site was largely vacant and already zoned for development, some commercial, some leisure. (Take a look at the aerial photograph on MKWEB). But he did want a big stadium for "major league" football but the backers wouldn't be convinced without a major league club "on the table". The only planning permission issue was the detailed configuration of the site. But yes, there is no getting away from the fact that he needed to persuade an existing successful club to move to MK, because MK City F.C. would convince no-one. A more accurate statement (IMO) is Winkleman used a large commercial development as a lever to fund construction of a new stadium for at least Championship football. To convince the developers to buy in, he needed a club at that level. Milton Keynes didn't have one, so he decided to persuade another club to move.
  • Winkleman approached several other clubs (Barnet, Luton, QPR) with a view to moving to the city before getting Wimbledon
Fact.
  • Milton Keynes City FC already existed but Winkleman needed a League Club
Fact. MK City FC was a basket case at that stage (same as Wimbledon FC, but without the players or staff). It went bust at about the same time. He might have built that up, but he didn't have time. The opportunity was with this development not far from a main-line station; if he missed out, there is no other site and it might never happen.
  • In addition, the part of the history where it says "Pete Winkelman, who had previously helped finance the Hockey Stadium's conversion for football, agreed to take the club over and save it from liquidation;" is inaccurate. Winkleman only helped finance the conversion after he had agreed to take over the club. Otherwise the conversion would have been pointless.
"Agreed" is naive (I didn't write that!), but your version is also wrong. The reality is Winkleman only helped to finance the conversion after WFC's Directors had decided to move it. Administration came next and then he bought it out of administration. --Concrete Cowboy 11:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A consensus version?

So how about this for an NPOV version: The history of the MK Dons begins in the late 1990s with Pete Winkelman, a music entrepreneur and avid promoter of Milton Keynes, who wanted top-class football in the city. The city already had a football team, Milton Keynes City F.C., who were playing in the Spartan South Midlands League, the eighth level of English football. Had Winkleman only been into bringing sporting glory to the area, he could have invested in the local team, as had Dr. Martens millionaire Max Griggs with nearby Rushden & Diamonds F.C.. However, Winkleman's saw an opportunity build a FIFA-compliant new stadium complex, as part of a large commercial development that included Asda and IKEA superstores, and near a mainline railway station. This was probably the last remaining site in the city that fitted the bill: if this opportunity were lost, there would not be another. It was unlikely he could persuade the backers to fund such a stadium for what was at the time a poorly-supported non-league team. Instead, he planned to bring in a professional club from another city.

Since 1998, Winkleman had been approaching other clubs that were struggling financially, including Barnet F.C., Luton Town F.C. and QPR, but all had rejected his advances. However, in the failing Wimbledon F.C., itself looking for a new home after years out of Wimbledon town, he found his perfect match. He persuaded the Directors that a move to Milton Keynes might give the club the new start it needed. But it was to be too late to save Wimbledon which, during the negotiations with the FA, went into administration with debts of more than £20 million.

Winkleman helped finance the National Hockey Stadium's conversion for football, and took the club over to save it from liquidation. It was taking a big risk that the FA would approve the move. However, many of the team's best players had been sold off by the administrators and, at the end of the 2002/2003 season, the club were relegated to League One (the new name for the Second Division). In the end, the FA approved and in September 2003, Wimbledon F.C. finally moved into the National Hockey Stadium in Milton Keynes.

Comments? --Concrete Cowboy 11:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


Looks good to me! Thanks for the consideration -- User:Jamespeterwilson

Change made. Thanks for the consideration likewise. --Concrete Cowboy 17:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
sorry to say but that version was a load of cr*p, Winkelman didn't spend a penny on converting the NHS in Milton Keynes until AFTER the FA's 3 man commission shamelessly approved the move. Also, the move was not about saving Wimbledon but about getting Milton Keynes a place in the football league, without having to bother building up a local club and gaining promotion. In doing so, not only Wimbledon FC but also Milton Keynes City FC were destroyed. --Marcel1975 17:58:08, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

[edit] Club founded

I don't think this should be '1889 (as Wimbledon Old Centrals FC)' - using the date on current MK badge would perhaps be better, seeing as it's debatable whether MK Dons is a continuation of Wimbledon FC.

Think you should use the date they were founded as Milton Keynes Dons instead, with the older history being on the Wimbledon FC entry etc.

[edit] 05-06 Away Colours

Anybody else think that the away colours should be changed to all black since this seems to be the colour thy are using this season? It is also listed as the away shirt on the official club shop website.

Yes, agreed. I'll have a go at doing it. --Concrete Cowboy 10:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Franchise FC

There is a proposal to mege Franchise F.C. into Milton Keynes Dons F.C.

  • IMO, "Franchise FC" needs to retain its own page as the term is commonly used by football fans throughout the land as a term of mockery towards MK Dons. --User:Superbfc 23:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Opposemerger - obviously. It is a term of abuse about Wimbledon when it moved. Most people have moved on. Demanding to include it in this article is blatant PoV pushing. --Concrete Cowboy 00:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Qwghlm's argument below is a good one, so I withdraw my objection. The absence of anything on Google would suggest that the reference to MU is not notable. --Concrete Cowboy 18:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Qwlghlm's proposal failed, so re-instate opposition
  • Franchise FC is in continued contemporary usage, see reference to Glazer Family takeover of Man United in Franchise FC article, and thus needs to have a stand alone listing. --User:Superbfc 00:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Send Franchise F.C. to AfD and delete - it's a useless weaselly-worded stub. Should not become a redirect as the term is mildly pejorative and thus breaches NPOV guidelines. However I have nothing against including a sentence about it in this article: the fact MKD are called Franchise FC by some fans is perfectly fine to include in this article, as long as it is worded neutrally and backed up with references. Qwghlm 16:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Since Franchise FC is a nickname given to Milton Keynes Dons i think it would be right to at least mention that in this article. My opinion is that a part of the Milton Keynes Dons article should be called "Franchise FC" and then add the text from the Franchise F.C. article. Franchise F.C. should then be redirected to the Milton Keynes Dons article. Then pople can read in THIS article why MK Dons by some is called "Franchise FC". Arnemann 22:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Slayergutten19 16:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect?

Since the consensus on Articles for Deletion was that the term should be kept, the next question is where is a sensible place for a redirect to point. Alternatively, the Request to Merge should be denied.

  • If the intention is to be abusive, the redirect should be to Milton Keynes Dons F.C.
    • Strongly oppose --Concrete Cowboy 18:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Support Not to be abuse, but because Franchise F.C. is a nickname given to MK Dons. Information about why MK Dons has been given this nickname (by some people) should be included in the MK Dons article. Arnemann 21:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment Then that is the etymology - see next. Exactly that point is mentioned in the Wimbledon FC article. Originally it was all one article, but the consensus was that the article should be split. Alternatively, leaving the Franchise F.C. article stand (as per last option) allows the reference to be put there. Lots of clubs have rude nicknames applied by other clubs' fans. Are you suggesting that every club article should have these added to their articles? --Concrete Cowboy 13:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Support I would prefer deletion, but as the average fan equates "Franchise FC" and MK Dons together this is the most natural choice if the article is to be kept. Qwghlm 14:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Support Slayergutten19 16:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose This is like having 'Scummers' redirect to Southampton F.C. Have a Franchise FC page explaining that this is a pejorative nickname for MKDFC. Jess Cully 00:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If the intention is to provide the etymology, the redirection is to the point of first use. That is Wimbledon F.C.#Move to Milton Keynes.
    • Oppose --Concrete Cowboy 18:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose Arnemann 21:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose as it is MK Dons, not Wimbledon FC who are currently associated with the name 'Franchise FC' Qwghlm 14:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose Slayergutten19 16:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If the intention is to be encyclopedic, the redirect should be to sports franchising, since that article that provides a proper context.
    • Support --Concrete Cowboy 18:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose Arnemann 21:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose, since the term refers to a specific club not the practice in general. Qwghlm 14:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose Slayergutten19 16:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Abandon request to merge, leave as free-standing article.
    • Support --Concrete Cowboy 20:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Support --superbfc 20:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose Arnemann 21:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose, as it can never be more than a couple of lines long. Qwghlm 14:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose Slayergutten19 16:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Squad template

I've created a basic squad template for use on e.g. player pages. See Template:Milton_Keynes_Dons_F.C._Squad --Zorro77 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Other clubs in MK

I removed the following section: "Milton Keynes City moved into Wolverton AFC's ground after it became disused. Wolverton Association Football Club, often known simply as Wolverton, is an English football team representing the Town of Wolverton (and, for a time,) Milton Keynes (being the oldest football club in the area). The club motto is "In Omnia Paratus" (lit: "In all things prepared"). The club was wound up in 1992 but there is a current attempt to revive it. Until recently, it had the oldest (and almost certainly the first) football stand in the United Kingdom and also holds the record for having once the longest sport's team name in the English speaking world."

This text seems to be not about MK Dons but about Milton Keynes City and Wolverton AFC. Perhaps a link to pages on these clubs? --mgaved 15:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

--MLD 16:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

--Concrete Cowboy 18:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)==Legally the same==

  • Also, I have edited the 2nd sentance of the 2nd para from "It is legally the continuation of Wimbledon F.C." to "It is officially recognised by The FA as the continuation of Wimbledon F.C.".
I appreciate that there is an official view (from the FA) that Wimbledon FC = MK Dons FC, however to say that they are legally the same thing is factually incorrect. The legal entity that was Wimbledon FC was registerred as Wimbledon FC Ltd. This is a company that is in administration and has been since 2004. A new legal entity was formed (Milton Keynes Dons F.C. Ltd) which purchased from the administrators in charge of WFC Ltd many of its assets (including a number of copyrights, old trophies and, most importantly, the Wimbledon FC League share). In actual fact AFAIK, the legal entity that is WFC Ltd still exists (as in, it hasn't formally been wound up by the administrators).
I hope therefore that the revised wording is acceptable to all? Comments welcome.
--MLD 16:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any probs with your wording as such (because it reads better), but actually the "legally" is also true. It is just as true as to say that Man U is still legally Man U after Glazer bought it acting as Red Football Ltd, no matter how many people don't like it. At the time that the Administrator sold WFC ltd, the creditors owned it - the A was just acting as their agent. "Winding up" only happens when the A decides that there is no hope of selling as a "going concern" and so he gives everyone their P45 and sells the furniture. That didn't happen in this case - Winkelman bought it as a going concern still playing every week. How is that any different from what Abramovich or Glazer did? I don't see why you think that "legally the same" is factually incorrect? --Concrete Cowboy 20:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with MLD, legally its a different legal entity even though it bought the 'assets/liabilities' of the old company. However its not really a key point in the discussion but i'm of the view that company law (eg Companies Act 1985/1989) etc etc etc would say that legally the two companies are separate. The Newco may have also taken on the obligations of the Oldco but they are still two separate legal entities. Winding up doesnt always happen, there can be many reasons not to disolve the company at the end (such as protecting the company name). Glazer (i might not have this totally correct as i havent double checked) formed a NewCo which bought the shares of the plc though a series of loans etc using the shares in the plc as security. So Newco owned Oldco - again two separate companies - which is quite common in many corporate structures. I think, therefore, that the revised wording is clearer and technically more accurate, even though its quite a pedantic point. GazMan7 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Glazer's ShellCo bought sufficient shares in ManU plc to take a controlling interest. It is still ManU plc. But I don't understand Leveraged buyouts! In the case of the Dons, I think NewCo bought TradingCo Ltd from OldCo - not being a plc, the rules are probably different. But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. --Concrete Cowboy 18:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to "Supporters club recognition"

An anonymous editor is repeatedly adding personal opinion and speculation to this section. These types of changes will be removed. Please remember that Wikipedia can only record verifiable material. It cannot speculate on what might happen, should happen or could happen. If you wish to discuss this, please use this Discussion page, not the main article. In addition, you are strongly encouraged to get personal log-on name. --Concrete Cowboy 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note on British English

British English should be used for articles on Britain related topics. Likewise, American English should be used on articles pertaining to American topics. For a clearer example, please visit this sub-section on the differences between their usage. However, is" works better than "are" with the term club as it is a singular and not a plural noun. (Compare with the word team which is a plural noun) --Siva1979Talk to me 15:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Week-by-week reports

An anon editor wrote "They currently are in 3rd place which is the last automatic spot for promotion to League One. The team's leading goal scorer, Izale Mcleod, is currently in second place among League Two goal scorers. On December 16, they won 3-1 over Wycombe Wanderers in front of 5,977 fans at the National Hockey Stadium in the first ever Buckinghamshire derby between the two teams. Izale McLeod scored twice in the match. MK Dons have the 2nd highest average attendance record in League Two behind Swindon Town F.C.".

This is all true, but it is not really practical (or encyclopedic) to give week-by-week reports. It is far too early in the season to be talking about automatic promotion slots. They are two points from being second, but they are are also two points from being seventh. So at this stage, only a very general comment can be written. At the half way point (all teams played each other once) maybe there is some more to be said, but the season has to end for any worthwhile report. --Concrete Cowboy 22:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "The town had five non-League football teams"

Were the five teams mentioned all in existence at one point in time - I suppose at the time the MK Dons move was being considered? My understanding is that three of the team were in existence but Milton Keynes City F.C. and Wolverton AFC's existence at the time fluctuated. - 14:43, 17 January 2007 82.133.79.7

Good point. City was still in existence (just) but AFC went bust in the early 90s. So it should read "four teams" (Stony, New Bradwell, Newport and City). Wonder why Bletchley Town never came to anything? --Concrete Cowboy 18:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thanks Concrete Cowboy. I guess the fairest thing to do would be to pick a date when we say Pete Winkleman was looking at the options, and then indicate how many teams were in existence at that point: seems like you've done a good job of that. I wonder what would have happened if Pete W. had paid one of the teams to move into the Hockey Stadium and chucked money at them, if people in MK would have got behind them, or whether the existing teams were seen as too grounded in a particular part of the town, maybe folks in Bletchley wouldn't support what they saw as being a Stony team, or vice versa? --mgaved 16:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. Stony Stratford, New Bradwell, Wolverton/'City' and Newport Pagnell are all on the northern edge (north of A422). Bletchley Town had gone bust a few years before (currently reincarnated in the Sunday League). So between local rivalries and 75% of areas unrepresented at this level, I can't see how it could happen - the Rushden and Diamonds example is fine in theory but way off the wall. These are all amateur clubs that (I think) are happy to do well in regional leagues but don't have the desire to go professional. But this is only a part of the problem: it is trying to apply a conventional town solution to a very unconventional town. 80% of the population was born somewhere else, most of them London. (Which is why - being totally Vulcan about it - relocating a London club to follow them, seemed to make a lot of sense. It's what a great many conventional businesses have done.) So people tend to follow their 'native' team. MK is well capable of supporting a Championship side: Winkelman's theory is that it just needs a convincing local professional club and serious local stadium to rally round and support (at least as an alternative team and venue for home matches). --Concrete Cowboy 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support of former fans

The front page has said "..but most of that club's original fans no longer support it", with a request for citation, as long as I can remember. Can we either get a citation or remove that part of that sentence? It's beginning to get boring seeing it... preceding unsigned edit by anonymous user at 137.108.145.11.

I doubt that it can ever be supported by citation. All of these blanket assertions on wikipedia are immediately tagged like this. I'll try changing to "many" but I expect it will be edit warred. --Concrete Cowboy 12:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The squad

MK Dons OS and Wikipedia show diffrent information about the squad. But who is true? --TheDonsBG 16:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

People should rely on breaking news, and they do tend to update Wikipedia a lot faster than the official site. But I think maybe some people jump the gun: for example Platty hasn't actually signed for Colchester yet, but someone has taken him out of the squad (the fee is announced and he has done the medical, so it is all over bar the photoshoot. The MK Dons official site also has to be more careful of the legal side. They'll want to see the money in the bank first! --Concrete Cowboy 19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revised intro

I copyedited and updated the intro. An anon editor has reverted wuthout explanation, so I have reinstated. It is not legitimate to use the UNDO feature to revert edits that are not clearly vandalism. If you don't like the new intro, please explain here. --Concrete Cowboy 16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Few vs none

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that original supporters of Wimbledon FC continue to follow the rebranded team in MK is an extraordinary one. I have never seen any evidence that there are any such supporters.

A claim that there are no such supporters in not extraordinary; it is both logically likely and backed up by attendances at the new Wimbledon team's games that almost match their attendances in the old football league.

If you have evidence that the more likely of the two scenarios is not true, state it. --Lingvo9 (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'Official matchday magazine' has a feature called 'Fanzone' in which they interview a fan. One of the questions they ask is 'why do you support the Dons'. Several of the interviewees this season have said they are Wimbledon fans who have followed the club up to MK. Eg, 21st December, Graham and Andrew Ellwood, "... we were Wimbledon fans and came to MK because we agreed that is where the future lay!" Admittedly it sounds almost 'too good to be true' and conspiracy theorists might be suspicious, but its there as evidence. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
"None" (or even "very few") is a precise term that needs precise evidence. (So does 'all' or 'nearly all'). Without a detailed census, that evidence can't be provided so the precise term can't be used. This is true all over Wikipedia - there is no reason why this article should be any different. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)