After more than 15 years it's the Franchise customers that still can't seem to let things go, deal with reality and move on. Now we have "Cityender", hereafter 'Townender', because Milton Keynes still isn't a city, natch. He's another one posting about me in places I'm not allowed to reply, so, as I'm bored, I'm posting his words here, with my replies, for my amusement.
Winkelman approached WFC in 2000, as documented by the FA Commission report. WFC did not approach Winkelman. Simple fact – and one that apparently Townender still can't accept. I, on the other hand, have never had a problem accepting that Rokke and Gjelsten tried to take WFC to Dublin. Plenty of guilt to go around, yet it's Townender trying to whitewash Winkelman, still.
They fit my narrative (the truth) fine – Hammam stitched up the Norwegians a treat, flogging them the club for £30m when it wasn't worth a fraction of that. They then lost many millions of pounds more chasing the fantasy of moving to Dublin and Milton Keynes. They thought both those moves would provide them with huge income and both were pipe dreams and cost them a lot of money. So what? They chose to run the club unsustainably, they chose to chase dreams of moving, they chose not to invest in a return to Wimbledon – it was entirely down to Rokke and Gjelsten as to how things panned out and they chose to abandon the fans and chase illusory promises of riches made by those proposing the Dublin move and then Winkelman and the MKSC proposing the MK move. I've been happy to discuss this always, and have put the facts on the blog many times, but I guess that doesn't suit Townender's narrative.
One small problem – I've never once claimed it was “mandatory”. See this is how the Franchise customers have lied themselves into believing their own lies. They've repeated crap like this so many times that they think it's true. Read everything I have ever written and you will not find me claiming the FA Commission made the move “mandatory”, because I never have. What it did was legally bind the FA, FL and club to its verdict, so that none of them could legally challenge the decision. As ever, I'm happy to deal in the facts and not the customers attempts to re-write history.
I speculated often on when the football club would become surplus to requirements for Winkelman. Initially the terms of the S106 agreement for the stadium made maintaining the football club essential. I'm unaware of the terms of the S106 being fully met, even now, because the stadium development still isn't completed, more than 10 years later. As for dumping “as soon as the new stadium was opened”, I never said it, as with everything else Townender claims. We'll be kind and blame his failing memory, rather than anything more malicious. And of course it was a property deal – a football club used as a makeweight, moved 60 miles, to get a supermarket built.
The true state of WFC's finances was never revealed to the FA Commission, the accounts remained unaudited. Published figures left out transfer income to make the situation look worse than it was. Was WFC in financial trouble? Absolutely, yes. But liquidation was far from inevitable. These facts are clear and accepted by all those who have studied the actual facts and not the Franchise customer attempts to hide them.
A campaign for the truth. And it is indeed water under the bridge, because the attempts to re-write history have and will continue to fail. The damage done to Franchise FC has been self-inflicted by refusing to acknowledge the truth and persisting in blaming Wimbledon fans while using the nicked-name of Wimbledon in the MK team name. If Franchise customers want to stop damaging their club, then it's entirely within their ability to do something about it. They choose to maintain the pretence of a connection to Wimbledon. Their choice. They can live and decline with it.
“Years ago I had hoped that BW would acknowledge the simple fact that (whatever PWs input as a guest in their boardroom or wherever) it was the directors of WFC that planned and sought permission for the move (and MK was not their first choice) It is now many a long year since I gave up on the hope that he/she would acknowledge that simple fact.”
Winkelman approached WFC in 2000, as documented by the FA Commission report. WFC did not approach Winkelman. Simple fact – and one that apparently Townender still can't accept. I, on the other hand, have never had a problem accepting that Rokke and Gjelsten tried to take WFC to Dublin. Plenty of guilt to go around, yet it's Townender trying to whitewash Winkelman, still.
“I remember that not only PW but the Norwegian owners also were characterised as profiteering, asset stripping individuals and that this was what led their decision making. I wonder if anyone has drawn up a balance sheet showing how much they put in to buying the club from Hammam and keeping it afloat in the intervening years as opposed to how much they took out when they put the club into administration. I'm sure BW will have a good grasp of these facts but never admit them 'in open court' because they simply do not fit his/her narrative.”
They fit my narrative (the truth) fine – Hammam stitched up the Norwegians a treat, flogging them the club for £30m when it wasn't worth a fraction of that. They then lost many millions of pounds more chasing the fantasy of moving to Dublin and Milton Keynes. They thought both those moves would provide them with huge income and both were pipe dreams and cost them a lot of money. So what? They chose to run the club unsustainably, they chose to chase dreams of moving, they chose not to invest in a return to Wimbledon – it was entirely down to Rokke and Gjelsten as to how things panned out and they chose to abandon the fans and chase illusory promises of riches made by those proposing the Dublin move and then Winkelman and the MKSC proposing the MK move. I've been happy to discuss this always, and have put the facts on the blog many times, but I guess that doesn't suit Townender's narrative.
“There are so many other examples of how facts had to be broken or bent to support the BW propaganda, for instance the assertion that the 3MC decision made the move mandatory when it did not,”
One small problem – I've never once claimed it was “mandatory”. See this is how the Franchise customers have lied themselves into believing their own lies. They've repeated crap like this so many times that they think it's true. Read everything I have ever written and you will not find me claiming the FA Commission made the move “mandatory”, because I never have. What it did was legally bind the FA, FL and club to its verdict, so that none of them could legally challenge the decision. As ever, I'm happy to deal in the facts and not the customers attempts to re-write history.
“or that PW would dump the club as soon as the new stadium was opened because it was all just a property deal.”
I speculated often on when the football club would become surplus to requirements for Winkelman. Initially the terms of the S106 agreement for the stadium made maintaining the football club essential. I'm unaware of the terms of the S106 being fully met, even now, because the stadium development still isn't completed, more than 10 years later. As for dumping “as soon as the new stadium was opened”, I never said it, as with everything else Townender claims. We'll be kind and blame his failing memory, rather than anything more malicious. And of course it was a property deal – a football club used as a makeweight, moved 60 miles, to get a supermarket built.
“And there were constant hints that all the professional consultants, creditors and court officials had been hoodwinked into thinking WFC were in dire financial straights and had somehow had the wool pulled over their eyes so the move could go ahead (even the Revenue !). BWs views on these things were so far fetched... and yet they were widely believed and accepted.”
The true state of WFC's finances was never revealed to the FA Commission, the accounts remained unaudited. Published figures left out transfer income to make the situation look worse than it was. Was WFC in financial trouble? Absolutely, yes. But liquidation was far from inevitable. These facts are clear and accepted by all those who have studied the actual facts and not the Franchise customer attempts to hide them.
“It is of course now all water under the bridge and we have survived the attempt to do us damage. But it was a real campaign against us and it should not be completely forgotten.”
A campaign for the truth. And it is indeed water under the bridge, because the attempts to re-write history have and will continue to fail. The damage done to Franchise FC has been self-inflicted by refusing to acknowledge the truth and persisting in blaming Wimbledon fans while using the nicked-name of Wimbledon in the MK team name. If Franchise customers want to stop damaging their club, then it's entirely within their ability to do something about it. They choose to maintain the pretence of a connection to Wimbledon. Their choice. They can live and decline with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment