JonesyOAFC Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Basically demand and supply. So applying the same logic to Mk Dongs, the ground move makes complete sense. No one would complain if you were to close down a failing music venue and re-open somewhere else, why's it different for football teams? I er... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobOAFC Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Basically demand and supply. So applying the same logic to Mk Dongs, the ground move makes complete sense. No one would complain if you were to close down a failing music venue and re-open somewhere else, why's it different for football teams? So there was no demand at Wimbledon for football? You would be fine in Latics upped sticks and moved to say Stoke which is around 60 miles away because there was more demand there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 So there was no demand at Wimbledon for football? You would be fine in Latics upped sticks and moved to say Stoke which is around 60 miles away because there was more demand there? He probably wouldnt when its his club. THATS also part of whats wrong with football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) So there was no demand at Wimbledon for football? You would be fine in Latics upped sticks and moved to say Stoke which is around 60 miles away because there was more demand there? Following on consistently from Jones's point regarding market forces and players wages, there was a strong argument to suggest that there wasn't enough demand in Wimbledon to sustain a football club at that time. Therefore the club was moved to MK where there was a percieved market i.e. biggest town in the UK without a pro club. The same market forces are the reason why players get paid so much, so if its ok for the players to get paid so much, why it is not ok for Wenkelman to move the club to MK? I personally don't like it but I think that such points should be considered consistantly and to agree with zorrro, their are bigger evils in the game than MK. The fact that MK moved for example, could have been stopped by the FA or FL had they decided to, they didn't and so it happened. I was under the impression that current regulations wouldn't allow this to happen agai, but hey ho, West Ham "were" going to move into the Olympic stadium to the detriment of Leyton Orient. I haven't heard many people having a go at West Ham, but that would have been much more worse than MK. That's fallen apart now though so what next, I would imagine Spurs will move into it which makes even more sense. And to answer your question re. moving to stoke, that wouldn't make any sense as there are two professional football clubs already there. Personally I was thinking of Warrington, now the biggest town in England without a pro club. Edited October 11, 2011 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I er... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haribo_man Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 <br />Following on consistently from Jones's point regarding market forces and players wages, there was a strong argument to suggest that there wasn't enough demand in Wimbledon to sustain a football club at that time. Therefore the club was moved to MK where there was a percieved market i.e. biggest town in the UK without a pro club.<br /><br />The same market forces are the reason why players get paid so much, so if its ok for the players to get paid so much, why it is not ok for Wenkelman to move the club to MK?<br /><br />I personally don't like it but I think that such points should be considered consistantly and to agree with zorrro, their are bigger evils in the game than MK. The fact that MK moved for example, could have been stopped by the FA or FL had they decided to, they didn't and so it happened. <br /><br />I was under the impression that current regulations wouldn't allow this to happen agai, but hey ho, West Ham "were" going to move into the Olympic stadium to the detriment of Leyton Orient. I haven't heard many people having a go at West Ham, but that would have been much more worse than MK. That's fallen apart now though so what next, I would imagine Spurs will move into it which makes even more sense.<br /><br />And to answer your question re. moving to stoke, that wouldn't make any sense as there are two professional football clubs already there. Personally I was thinking of Warrington, now the biggest town in England without a pro club.<br /><br /><br /><br /> On a similar note look at just how many clubs on the continent have changed or merged over the years and a large number also going out of existence. Not just teams which make up the numbers either some which were playing in European competitions. It appears that we are a lot more emotionally attached over here and such things would be considered sacrilege. I'm not a fan of MK by any stretch of the imagination but on the face of it the move seems to be a correct one. They have their own ground and have grown and are growing. It wasn't great for the fans at the time and they had a decision to make. On the flip side it can also be argued that those who wanted to remain loyal to Wimbledon have more than they did pror to the move to the National Hockey Stadium. Although they are still without their own ground the journey has been incredible. Wimbledon as they were were in a mess and Winkleman had no obligation to bankroll them. Whilst I'd love to see MK slip into oblivion I'd bet that the AFC fans are happier now than they had been for a while before Winkleman took them up the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Entertainment industry. Everytime they play, there's millions of people watching them. Actors and musicians their age earn similar amounts, but nobody ever complains about that. Why's it different for footballers? We all talk about how much money footballers earn and how bad it is. Really they are just working class lads done good. The people paying their wages are the ones you want to watch out for. The people taking their best man on official business trips to broker deals for huge profits. The kids who are born into an amazing job because their dad tugged someone off at Private school. All the talk is about how much money people earn yet the people making the real big money slip under the radar. I'm all for footballers being paid well. I just don't believe that the fans should have to fork out for it. If some yank believes that by paying Wayne Rooney £200k a week he will be able to get rich from it fair enough. Just pay for it yourself and don't make Tommy the bricklayer from Moston Lane pay over the odds for it. Supply and demand is the basis of a capitalist society. While there is the demand there will be the supply Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.