Jump to content

Talk:Wimbledon F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Wimbledon F.C)

Colours

[edit]

This article should have images of the team's home and away colours, at least for the last season they existed. The Gnome 09:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous players

[edit]
  • The famous players section was rubbish 'til I did the edits! Where were the best players? Hardly can say s***e Hartson was one of our most famous, other than be a complete failure.
(post was by 82.44.20.121 (talk) )

He might have been a failure in your opinion, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he was one of the more (and I'm not saying the most) well known players relative to other Wimbledon F.C. players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.56.120 (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the top players was Slovakian Juraj Janec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.91.8.200 (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he was deemed a failure, he was still their most expensive ever signing and is well known if only for that reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.203.165 (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur beginnings

[edit]
--Matt derry 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'now defunct club'

[edit]

Is that right? The club isn't defunct, it moved and changed names. Proto::► 10:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, it is not correct. The legal position is as you state. It probably hinges on the meaning of the word "defunct": there is club still in existence that calls itself "Wimbldon F.C.". --Concrete Cowboy 14:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, the article can't start with a statement that we know to be false. The club has never been disolved (wound up) so it is not defunct. It is only the name that is defunct. "Former name" seems better. --Concrete Cowboy 17:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are two different articles, MK Dons and this one I think it's been recognized that they aren't quite the same thing. There is no club that goes by the name Wimbledon F.C. anymore and that is why the club is defunct. If a football club moves location and changes its name, regardless of whether the staff stays the same -- it isn't the same club. Yonatanh 08:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue that "spirtually" it isn't the same, but legally nothing has changed apart from the ownership. Legally, it has never ceased to exist so it can't be defunct. --Concrete Cowboy 13:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles should be seperate because although Milton Keynes Dons is legally a continuation of Wimbledon F.C., after negotiation with the Wimbledon Independent Supporters' Association, mediated by the Football Supporters Federation, the club agreed to entrust the trophies and memorabilia of Wimbledon F.C. to the London Borough of Merton, and to make no claims on the history of Wimbledon F.C. thereafter. Therefore reading about Wimbledon FC is not the same as reading about the MK Dons, and notably the agreement to make no claims on the history of Wimbledon F.C. --AmitRaithatha 13:44, 01 August 2009 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitraithatha (talk • contribs)

Legally, Milton Keynes Dons is very precisely NOT legally a continuation of Wimbledon F.C. - it is a completely separate entity to which the assets of Wimbledon F.C. were transferred upon its liquidation. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04787003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.54.164 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"only football club to win both the FA Cup and FA Amateur Cup"

[edit]

Old Carthusians did that too in 1881 and 1894/1897 respectively. Only club to do it in the 20th Century? Only professional club to do it? One of only two clubs to ever do it? Some clarification required. Open to suggestions before I make an edit. Trikeabout 13:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an edit. In fact Old Carthusians played Wimbledon shortly after the latter did the double, to celebrate this. The Wimbledon side was mostly made up of youth players, and although they won, the Carthusians held their own for much of the game. Millbanks (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Financial status of club just before and then after the Norwegians took over

[edit]

An anon editor has added some opinion about the motivation of the owners when they started casting about for a new ground (this started before the Norwegians took over). I don't want to get into an edit war, but such a claim absolutely must be supported by citation. We have to do better than "it is well known". --John Maynard Friedman 12:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crazy Gang

[edit]

I think the Crazy Gang article should be merged into the Wimbledon F.C. article, possibly as part of the Club identity section, as the article is entirely about the use of the nickname in relation to Wimbledon and its players (even the reference to Clyde FC is based on a connection to Wimbledon). Michaelfool (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but let's wait for a bit of consensus before we do anything about it. Cliftonian • talk 13:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea to merge into the Wimbledon FC page, as one section of the club history.Frankie goh (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. They are sufficiently noteworthy a phenomenon to merit their own article, albeit that the personnel and their antics were all at Wimbledon FC, but that is not sufficient to say that all at Wimbledon during that period of time could have been classed as members of "The Crazy Gang". There should be a proper differentiation page for the clash with the Forties comedians, yes.Jatrius (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be more differention between the article for "Crazy Gang" and the article for "The Crazy Gang". Despite the former linking to the latter, they are much too similar in title and should have should some form of disambiguation to prevent users only interested in the 1940s comedy group wondering why they are being told about Wimbledon FC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.203.165 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proper disambiguation given. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 11:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it is quite a notible team. It is hardly a nonsense article and is quite a worthwhile topic The C of E (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against, i'm no Wimbledon fan but this is a very often referenced team in British football, so deserves its own article like the Busby Babes or West Ham Academy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mankytoes (talk • contribs) 22:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8 months is long enough time for discussion, and no consensus to merge has been reached, so I've removed the merge tags. 149.254.225.179 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

League Standings

[edit]

Would be very useful if someone created a table of League standings year on year. This particularly applies to the meteoric rise in football of an amateur club to it's end status, in order to visualise quite how phenominal it really was. I know there is a diagram, but it doesn't show the actual position accurately. we need a table with Year, League, Final position, highest/lowest position. --AmitRaithatha 13:52, 01 August 2009 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitraithatha (talk • contribs)

"Stadium:mk was needed to enable ASDA development, which was the primary reason" - justify please

[edit]

The article says The football stadium was included in the blueprint due to Government regulations pertaining to out-of-town retail;[citation needed] including a 30,000-capacity stadium would enable the developers to utilise a loophole that would allow them to bypass planning rules.[citation needed] [I have replaced the assertions in the WISA report with a request for primary sources, not assertions). First of all, there is a basic error due to a misunderstanding of Milton Keynes: whoever wrote that thinks that MK is like anywhere else: it isn't. It is polycentric and distributed. Almost all the hypermarkets are distributed - 'out of town' (see Tesco in Kingston, Morrisons in Westcroft). The primary motivation was to get a stadium: the retail development [ASDA, IKEA] provided the 'planning gain' that made it possible. The sentence as written seems POV without clear primary citations, and should not be allowed to stand without them. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2003 badge

[edit]

I may have opened up the proverbial can of worms on this one people. I uploaded this crest (File:Wimbledon FC logo (2003).png) last night, and since then, various sources have emerged to make me think twice. This source comes from the official WFC website, and was subsequently moved to the MK Dons site, presumably on the 17th November '04, the date given at the top (the actual article date was 15th April '03). The logo is also used here This article suggests that the 2003 logo would be used on the new kits for that year, a point that this article about their new away kit, from 29th May '03, also mentions. However, despite what that article states, no further mention is made of the kit shown, and WFC retained their kits from the previous year, complete with old crest, as seen here (home - 18th August '03) and here - (away - 16th October '03). By the 27th May '04, the old logo was back, and used again on the 21st of June, with the MK Dons logo announced on the 5th of July. What this shows is that the logo wasn't used on the shirts, and hardly used on the site itself. Perhaps this should be mentioned on the page, but I have no idea how to write it in a consise and encyclopaedic manner. Help would be appreciated. It's Malpass93! (drop me a ___) 16:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In terms of reporting all of this in an encyclopedic manner, I would recommend you simply write in something like "However, the use of this new badge was inconsistent, with the municipal badge continuing to appear on the club's kits and official literature right up until the end of the season." I think that's all you need to say; then for the sourcing put a few of the links you've just given. I hope this helps. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insight, I have taken your idea on board - what do you make of the result? Also, the similarity between the MK Dons first kit and the prototype '03 away kit is interesting, however to wirte about it in the article would sadly be original research and unverifiable. To think I wouldn't have found this out had I not remembered an odd-looking WFC logo from playing FIFA 2004 as a youngster! It's Malpass93! (drop me a ___) 15:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't proposing to put that in the article, just thought it was funny. I've smoothed it out a bit, have a look to see now. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That looks much better. It's Malpass93! (drop me a ___) 16:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zvakanaka. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Wimbledon F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article with MK Dons

[edit]

Wimbledon was bought by a consortium and then moved to Milton Keynes playing in the town under that name initially. The name was changed after the 1st season from Wimbledon to MK Dons. Wimbledon F.C. and Mk Dons are the same club. This article should be merged with the MK Dons article. 94.5.29.135 (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose any attempt at merging, given MK Dons' renunciation of previous history and honours. Personally, I think the article explains the chain of events quite clearly, but I've raised this at WT:FOOTY for further comment. Nzd (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would wholeheartedly agree with NZD, MK Dons have renounced any claim to Wimbledon's honours and history. If they themselves state that they have no claim on the previous club then I believe it's pretty clear cut that they are separate entities. Kosack (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the IP; they're the same club and the Wimbledon period is part of the MK Dons history. Number 57 09:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate please. Don't think of this like a traditional football club changing names, it's more political - hence why we have separate articles on West Germany and Germany... GiantSnowman 10:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Team formally 'gave up' their history. Odd way of doing things and relatively novel in modern football, but has precedence. Should be two articles. Koncorde (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MK Dons formally gave up any connection in 2006 and said they considered themselves a new club, formed in 2004. Statistics are separate now in reliable sources, which in my experience mostly separate Wimbledon and MK Dons as well (while explaining the background etc as we do here). I see no reason why we should do differently. Moreover, between our two articles and the relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes article I created, the whole thing is explained very thoroughly indeed (in my humble opinion; I did write most of it). Merging this article into the MK Dons one would seem to me a move in the wrong direction, particularly as this debate has been done to death already on here for years and this consensus on separate articles has stood for a decade or so without any challenge I can remember. I hope this helps. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, what club has to say about itself is the most impotant argument in such cases? I didn't get this impression when non-englih clubs were in question (for instance Cherno More Varna or Dinamo Zagreb). Hm. It would be great if we could establish some kinf od rule.Linhart (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon FC is the former name of MK Dons - FACT

[edit]

This article is attempting to make out Wimbledon FC does not exist. It does, it just changed its name to MK Dons relocating to Milton Keynes. This sort of 'propaganda' is not welcome on wikipedia. 2.123.248.9 (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. It was liquidated in 2009. Milton Keynes Dons is an entirely separate entity to which the assets of Wimbledon were transferred in 2004. This is not propaganda, it's cold hard facts.

https://companycheck.co.uk/company/00811820/WIMBLEDON-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITEDTHE/companies-house-data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.138.248 (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, this sort of propaganda is just following reliable sources. Roxy, the Prod. wooF 16:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing paragraph

[edit]

Under Wimbledon_F.C.#Relocation,_dissolution,_and_foundation_of_AFC_Wimbledon, in the last paragraph, the phrase "golden share" appears twice in the same sentence, but when I try to edit it that paragraph doesn't show in the edit pane. 194.28.124.55 (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase doesn't appear anywhere in the article, let alone twice in that paragraph? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It did (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wimbledon_F.C.&oldid=948537299), for some reason the server I was using was showing this version as the article but not in the edit pane, even though it had been reverted an hour later (by you), despite me looking at it 12 hours later. All sorted now though.194.28.124.55 (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I even looked back a month and a year. My first guess was a cache problem but couldn't see how it would arise. I concluded that you had accidentally used the wrong talk page for your request. Some you win, some you lose. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Continuity' myth

[edit]

The article at present contains inaccuracies, perpetuating the myth that Wimbledon 'became' Milton Keynes Dons in 2004.

In 2004, the assets of The Wimbledon Football Club Limited were transferred to Milton Keynes Dons Limited - a completely separate legal entity - including, crucially, the Golden Share in the EFL. Thus, in season 2014-15, Milton Keynes Dons took Wimbledon's place in the EFL. Wimbledon continued in administration until 2009 when it was liquidated while Milton Keynes Dons existed concurrently - the former did not 'become' the latter.

Some people have clung to this illusion that Milton Keynes Dons is a 'legal continuation' of Wimbledon whereas in reality, they are explicitly and provably legal separate entities - this is not my opinion, it is a fact, and can be proven, irrespective of one's feelings on the rights or wrongs of the relocation:

Wimbledon - https://opencorporates.com/companies/gb/00811820

Milton Keynes Dons - https://opencorporates.com/companies/gb/04787003

On the main page, Red King posed the question, "Many clubs have gone bust and restarted, are they all to be restated according to the Companies Act?" Well, from a purely legal standpoint, they are separate legal entities. However, if you look at other cases of clubs having gone bust and restarted, there are other aspects of continuity. In the case of Luton Town, for example, the legal entity changed in 2008 - but the team name, strip colours, stadium and fans remained the same. What possible semblance of continuity is there between Wimbledon and Milton Keynes Dons? The legal entity changed. The team name changed. The strip colours changed. The majority of the fans changed. The city in which Wimbledon had played football throughout the overwhelming majority of its existence changed. (Suggesting that an eight month tenancy at the National Hockey Stadium between September 2003 and May 2004 is valid grounds for continuity would be tenuous at best.) Therefore I would pose the question to those who disagree - on what possible grounds did Wimbledon 'become' Milton Keynes Dons? User: 82.42.138.248 09:52, 21 April 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]

There are many former Wimbledon fans who didn't abandon the club in its time of need who follow the MK Dons. According AFC fans they don't exist, but there's lots of them, and no spin or propaganda will ever change that, and a "majority" does not equal "all", because Wimbledon fans form a significant minority of MK Dons fans. The "MK Dons" was the nickname of Wimbledon F.C. in Milton Keynes. AFC is a new club formed in 2002 in Kingston, usurping the history of Wimbledon F.C., who bought a non-league club's ground and then kicked them to the kerb in favour of financial gain and to appease Chelsea. What link does it have to Wimbledon F.C.? None at all, other than their "fans" opinion. You seem to forget that the years 2002-2004 did exist. Of course this is all highly POV and un-encyclopaedic, but then so is your diatribe above and therefore has no place in Wikipedia either way; two can play at that game. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that some fans who supported Wimbledon went on to support Milton Keynes Dons - hence I wrote that the majority of the fans changed as opposed to all of them. I don't know why you're bringing AFC Wimbledon to the table as the discussion is about the fabled 'continuity' between Wimbledon FC and Milton Keynes Dons; AFC Wimbledon are a different, separate entity. Your closing remarks are strange. Firstly, I mentioned the period between September 2003 and May 2004 when Wimbledon played at the National Hockey Stadium prior to their dissolution - so I'm not sure how I'm supposed to have "forgotten" this period. Finally, I'm not approaching this from a biased point of view - I don't support any of these clubs, I have nothing against MK Dons and have never gone around labelling them with the clichéd 'Franchise' or 'plastic' jibes - I just take issue with the fact that this notion of Wimbledon 'becoming' Milton Keynes Dons is erroneously presented as factual information when it can be quite explicitly proven otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.240.201 (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Large majority of fans"

[edit]

The article says in three places, "to which the large majority of Wimbledon fans immediately switched allegiance", "despite opposition from the majority of Wimbledon fans", and again "to which a majority of Wimbledon F.C. fans switched their allegiance." These are all referenced, but the refs do not say or show that it was a majority of fans (or a large majority), or that they "immediately" switched allegiance. I am taking those words out and leaving it as "Wimbledon fans" in the second instance, and "many Wimbledon fans" in the other two, which is referenced. This will not make the meaning any less clear. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:7D35:C868:7C13:4368 (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wimbledon_F.C.&oldid=1245320950"