Could someone please explain to this ignorant yank why the term "franchise" is being used in such a negative way all over this thread? I simply don't understand how a pro team can "not" be considered a franchise, as don't all the teams have to be sanctioned in some way by the league they play in? I'm sorry I just don't understand where you guys are coming from.
Franchising (as in the league awarding spots to geographical locations) as occurs in the US is not well-regarded in the UK. Over here pretty much anybody can set up their own team and affiliate to their local league providing they meet any requirements required by that league. League places are not awarded by the league, but are earnt.
But what about the situation for Wimbledon? MK can add a team, okay, but how does Wimbledon survive in light of the market in London being over saturated? BTW - How different was Wimbledon's move in terms of people's ability to move around today versus Arse's move to Highbury when that was built?
Arsenal mvoed within a city. Plenty of teams have done that. Wimbledon moved 60 miles away to an area with which it has no community connections. It sets a bad precedent for the introduction of American-style franchising into English football.
They could miss each other at the start of season 2007/08, when if AFC W get promoted each season they'll reach the Conference, while if W FC get relegated each season they'll reach the Conference South!
So what was a 15 mile move in 1915 (it was 30s when the stadium was built) from south london to north london doesn't count because it was in the same "city"? So any club is free to move about as long as they're in the same city? What about the communities within that city, Woolrich and Plumstead in this case, that loose their communitie's team? What if Watford decided to move to Wimbledon? Or what if Fulham were to move to Charlton? Those are ok? With modern transporation and wealth, how different would it be for fans to travel the 50 odd miles from Wimbledon to Milton than making a 15 mile trek from Woolrich to Highbury?
It's the principle of the matter. For better or worse, Arsenal remained within the London area, with which they had footballing connections. There are very few teams that still play at the exact same spot they began at. My own team no longer acyually plays in the district of Everton but in Walton. But it's still in the same city. Wimbledon do not and never have had any connection with Milton Keynes. Moving within London, while sad, would be acceptable. But allowing teams to just up sticks and move to another completely different area whenever its financially convenient is not something I'm willing to support. Football in the UK has traditionally been between teams representing the community, with most teams today evolving from a works or church team for example. Wimbledon has no connection with Milton Keynes.
Yeah, was very pleased to hear about that. This is what football is truly about. Playing for the sake of it, rather than making money.
at the time it would have been a very significant move. It's unlikely that many of their fans who watched them in Woolwich would have made the journey to Highbury, and almost none of the fans who started watching them at Highbury would have supported them before the move. Woolwich Arsenal were certainly not a big club. It may only be 15 miles, but back then it might as well have been the other side of the country. The distance isn't really the issue, more that the team represents somebody else. Arsenal also "franchised" another way. The are the only team to have been voted into the top division since the introduction of promotion. The top division expanded by two teams at the end of the first world war and Arsenal were voted in, despite not finishing in the top two in the last (pre-war) season. Chelsea, who finished 19th, were reprieved, but Spurs, who were 20th, were placed arbitrarily by Arsenal.
Is London oversaturated? There a lot of pro teams, obviously, but there's a huge population to support them. Their culmulative attendances are actually going up as well. Also note that Wimbledon were getting pretty reasonable crowds in their last few seasons in the Premiership. It was only after they annouced their intention to move to MK that their attendances fell completely apart. As for MK, there's nothing to stop anyone starting a team down the pyramid and working their way up, just as Rushden & Diamonds did.
Exactly. That's the way they should have done it. Pretty ironic that they might well do exactly the opposite - start with an established team and work their way downwards. Your point about London is also well taken. Whole lotta football fans, and a team that's competitive will draw supporters.
The whole thing's a disgrace, and I hope MK go out of business. Congratulations to (the real) Wimbledon on their promotion, and I hope we see them back in the league some day. Going back to the shirt/colours debate: Apparently, AFC Wimbledon were actually legally banned by MK from using the same colours. Thats why the AFCW shirt is a lighter blue than the traditional Wimbledon one. Just more evidence of the mentality of the people running the Franchise club.
There must have been more to it than just the colour. Loads of teams play in the same colours. There isn't any legal way at all you can hold the rights to a colour. I can only imagine it looked enough like the existing kit in total design to have breached the overall copyright, in that it looked like Wimbledon FC's actual shirt. If an amatuer team in Leeds, for example, set themselves up as Leeds FC, playing in white shirts, there's nothing Leeds could do about it, but if they made the kit look like a replica of Leeds United's kit, to the extent that people might buy it thinking it wasa genuine Leeds United shirt, then they'd be in breach of copyright.
I think you can hold legal rights to a colour, if it is part of a registered trademark. I used to work for Barclays Bank and can say that that horrible blue colour of theirs is trademarked. If a division of Barclays was sold, the purchaser had to promise not to use the same shade of blue in advertising, logos etc. The colour was defined in the legal documentation in terms of the light waves that produce that colour. I would be surprised at a football club going to such lengths as registering their shirt colours as a trademark, however.
I don't think they want any comparison with the new club. If they could prevent them from using "Wimbledon," they probably would....
Lay off the complaining about MK Dons. There isn't much moving room for teams in England it seems. Unless one wants to havemore teams outside of England (ie. the talk of moving Wimbledon to Dublin). Britain isn't North America.
Well when your coming at it from merely a size of country angle - then you're obviously going to fail to grasp what's at the heart of the issue here. Football teams are more than just sporting entities - they are the local community. You've got a favourite bar you've used for years upon years and a new landlord takes over, the landlord then decides that he wants to move the pub to the town next door. What do you do? You've been going to that pub since you could walk - with your father, grandfather etc. Do you happily accept that the extra 80 mile round trip to the pub is fine? Or do you fvck the old pub off and find somewhere local again in light of the fact that the new landlord clearly doesn't give two hoots about his clientele? The Wimbledon supporters feel they've been right-royally shafted by this. And they've got more than a point. You're right it's not North America - things have soul here. And the idea of simply moving a team to somewhere else in the country is just awful. I used to watch gridiron when it was on channel4 over here and every so often the teams would move. Suddenly the LA Rams were now the St Louis Rams - WTF!! What about all those LA people who supported the team? And how can all these St Louis people suddenly get so worked up about a team that have just been plonked in their city. Bizarre. Same thing with the Brooklyn/LA Dodgers. That's from one side of the country to the other! Even more bizarre. The franchise system can stay where it is as far as I'm concerned.
/applauds Similar-ish situation to Bristol City Council & Redrow's proposed move of both City AND Rovers to a 30,000 stadium in Easter Compton which is considerably outside Bristol's city (and county) borders. Aside from the project getting canned due to geographical problems (near unsafe coast and a nuclear power plant nearby), it is also far too much to ask for the CLUBS, who cannot feasibly fill 30k on a regular match day (possibly if they fought eachother), and for the FANS, both sets of whom would have to a) put up with eachother's coexistence, and b) have to travel several miles out of Bristol on risible public transport just to reach the "home" stadium. What was Redrow going to do- suddenly click their fingers and produce enough houses to convince 60k+ of fans to move to somewhere just north of Parts Unknown and Dudleyville? (wrestling joke btw)
Okay, but I thought the shade of blue used by AFC Wimbledon is considered to be Wimbledon's traditional color scheme. I'm looking for some photos... Then... http://www.afcwimbledon.com/media/index.html http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/TheFACup/History/Postings/2003/11/48793.htm The 90's... http://www.nigerianplayers.com/player.asp?pID=240 http://www.soccerage.com/en/04/06966.html
Good point about how a club is part of the soul of community. Question - Why is it anymore bizzare for a club to pick up and move to St. Louis and have people in St. Louis suddenly loving it than it is for someone who grew up in Brighton to continue to support The Seagulls even though they moved to Watford? Surely with the Immigration to the south and to London, the place is full of people still cheering for Newcastle, Plymouth, Preston, and other clubs every weekend. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to be fans of the teams in their community, not where they grew up? I think what is or isn't bizzare in this case is in the eye of the beholder.
Taking each one of those three in turn.... I can fully understand why people in a town can start supporting a franchise dropped on their doorstep. It does happen here. Wimbledon's fans are not travelling from Wimbledon. Fans of Livingston presumably supported somebody else before Meadowbank Thistle were dropped into their town. The people of Cumbernauld were almost certainly not fans of the Clyde FC that played in Glasgow, and although not a franchise, I doubt many of the the 4500 that watch Rushden & Diamonds ever gave much of a thought to rushden town or Irthlingborough Diamonds when those two clubs were playing regional football in front on 100 people. Similarly, the 8000 people who pop along to the Madejski in Reading to watch London Irish rugby club, are predominantly from the Reading area, rather than being Irish people from London. It seems the uncommitted and the young are more than happy to support a new team. Indeed, when a club gets promotion they suddenly gain a lot more fans. Some of those will be latent fans, who went to the odd game but now go more often, but a great deal will be new fans. The thing about people who have moved away is that by the time the do so they are generally dyed-in-the-wool fans who'll have a deep affinity to their club and town. Moving away won't stop that. Just as if you moved from the US to live in England, you wouldn't start supporting the English team. Some will inevitably go along to watch their new local club, especially if they have kids who want to go, but they'll always feel very strong ties to their home club. The other point I just can't understand in a million years. I cannot see how anyone could be expected to cheer their team in some distant town, playing in a community that they have no links with. If Brighton upped sticks and moved to Watford, then they'd represent Watford, not Brighton. The link between club and town wouldn't just be severed, it'd be deleted. There were many (often sports journalist who often have trouble understanding why anyone would support a club not involved in the title race) who said that Wimbledon fans should have been happy that the club lived on, even if playing somewhere else, but to me that's a bit like saying that it's better for your girlfriend to leave you to live happily with some other bloke than it is for her to just leave you.