Why the League are right over Wimbledon
Well, this is a weird one. I'm going to
have to take this slowly. Deep breath. Okay. Here goes. The. Football. League. Have. Got.
It. Right. Phew. There. I've said it.
The Football League have got it right in
refusing the 'owners' of Wimbledon permission to move the club to Milton Keynes. Simply,
this was a move which could not be allowed to happen. If the move had taken place, it
would have had implications not just for Wimbledon, but for football as a whole. If
Wimbledon had been allowed to up sticks and relocate to Milton Keynes, a precedent would
have been set. If it happened once, what would stop it happening again?
It always seemed clear to me that what was being
offered to Wimbledon supporters was not the survival of their club, but its extinction. If
Wimbledon play in Milton Keynes, they surely cease to be Wimbledon. Explicit in the
proposal was the hope of attracting a new set of fans to watch the team play, in a new
stadium in a new town. (Doubtless after a short period it would have been proposed that
the name Wimbledon was an inappropriate one for a club based in Milton Keynes,
and the name too would change.) Wimbledon would have ceased to exist. Their place in the
league would have been occupied by a Milton Keynes club, which would, in effect, have
bought that place. In other words, welcome to the wonderful world of franchising.
In support of the move, we were told that Milton
Keynes is the largest town in the country without a football league club. But doesnt
that tell us something? There exists a system for rectifying such an omission:
footballs pyramid, which enables teams to rise from the non league. If there is a
demand for a football team in the town, why hasnt a non league club used this system
to meet it? If there are supporters out there, if there are people with money, if
theres a scheme to build a new football ground, why hasnt a Milton Keynes team
come close to even the top level of non league football?
In fact, attempts to encourage football clubs in
the area have failed. Bletchley Town, now defunct, once played as high as the Ryman
League. Im not a non league expert, but as far as I can ascertain from my research,
Milton Keynes does not currently boast a football club at this level. The Ryman League
contains clubs such Chalfont St Peter, Leyton Pennant and the Metropolitan Police. A trawl
through a comprehensive Milton Keynes website [www.mkweb.co.uk]
reveals two clubs: Bletchley United, of the North Bucks Football League, and Wolverton
Tiger Moths, a youth football club. This is not in any way to patronise, or denigrate the
efforts of these clubs. Grassroots football is a vital part of our game, and those who
sustain it deserve credit. But if there is demand in the town, why hasnt anyone made
a go of it yet?
I suspect the answer is that Milton Keynes
residents, many of whom come from other places, have existing loyalties. Those who have an
interest in football will already have a club they support. The MK MU fan is a beast well
known to us. Those loyalties endure, and Id suggest that people would have little
interest in switching historical support to a new club. Are Burnley supporters based in
Milton Keynes about to stop supporting Burnley? Of course not.
Nevertheless, if Milton Keynes entrepreneurs and
politicians want to have a league football club in the town, and believe it will be
successful, they are entitled to that opinion. They must simply do it in the same way as
anyone else: they should form a non league club, work their way up through the non leagues
and seek eventual promotion into the third division. Because, in the rules, thats
how its done. You cant simply buy a place in the league. Clearly, those
involved in Milton Keynes dont have the patience for this long and slow process to
be followed. They dont want to sit around for years spending money and risking
failure. They want a short cut. In denying them this, the Football League has served the
game well. To have allowed them to do so would have been to insult all those non league
clubs currently striving for a place in a league, and those who have reached the league
and established themselves, like Wycombe, Macclesfield and Wimbledon.
Not, naturally, that this was the way the move
was packaged. Its said that Wimbledon, ten years without a home ground, cannot find
a permanent home within South West London. I find this hard to believe. Arsenal seem to
have found somewhere to build a new ground in an intensely populated part of North London,
suggesting that, while it isnt easy, it can be done. Theirs will be the second new
ground built in London since the Taylor Report. I cannot believe that somewhere in South
West London there is not a patch of land which, with will and persistence, could not be
put to use for a new ground. I can only assume that will and persistence have been
lacking, either on the part of those running the football club or local political
authorities.
Wimbledons argument was weakened because
they do not currently occupy their own ground. This points to another problem: when a
football club moves out of its area, it seems to become awfully difficult to move back.
Brentford, proposing a ground share with Woking, also gave cause for concern. The Football
League is also right in not allowing this to happen. The only circumstance in which a club
should be allowed to move away from its community is on a temporary basis while a new home
ground is actually being built. Vague promises count for nothing; once Brentford were in
Woking, they would have had a hell of a job to return to West London. Weve been here
before, and others have beaten the odds. Fulham, when near bankrupt, might have left
Craven Cottage. I bet theyre glad they didnt now.
I would say that, if a drastic move is the only
way to keep a club alive, that club has already died. A move to another town or city does
not represent survival; it is the replacement of one club by another. In such
circumstances, clubs that can't carry on, having exhausted all possibilities, should be
replaced through the normal processes of promotion from the non-league. At the very least,
no club should move without the consent of its supporters. Such consent is unlikely to be
forthcoming.
There are also historical cases of clubs moving
about particularly in London, where Arsenal migrated from south of the river, while
Millwall did it the other way round. So it could be argued, Wimbledon do not play in
Wimbledon, the ties with their area have been broken, so whats to stop another move?
For a start, theres no precedent in recent
history for a club moving a long distance away from its support. Even the examples given
above involve moving from one part of a town or city to another. This was common enough in
the games infancy, and has enjoyed a late revival because of ground changes. But I
cannot think of an example where a football club has upped sticks and shifted to another
part of the country entirely. Secondly, it isnt right that Wimbledon play at
Selhurst Park. But surely the aim should be to move them back as close to Wimbledon as
possible. What they have now is not ideal, but the solution is to take them back, not move
further away. A second, bigger wrong doesnt make a right.
As exiles, we have moved away from our football
club, and have found it makes the bond stronger. But it would be somewhat different if
your club moved away from you. Many would decide it was time to give up the dream, the
dream having died. Others would find the effort too much to sustain.
Football clubs cannot be considered a business
like any other. Can you think of any business where the customers would keep coming back
after years of disappointment with the product? The only thing that makes football clubs
unique is the supporters. In a world where players, managers, boards and even grounds
change, they are the only source of continuity. Moral ownership of a football club rests
with its supporters, and so football clubs must be based within the community of their
home supporters.
A club that tries to change its supporters
really is something else.
Thank heavens, then, that the Football League
has blocked this move. A wrong precedent would have been set had they allowed it, and in
preventing this, they have made a clear and unanimous stance. Football clubs belong when
they belong. Not everything is for sale, and even in this money mad game, not every feast
is moveable. I never thought I'd say this, but hats off to the Football League.
Firmo
17 August 2001