Jump to content

Talk:Milton Keynes Dons F.C./Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Need to change the name of the stadium article

For info, there is a discussion on the best title to give the stadium article, now that the stadium is no longer called stadium:mk. Please contribute at talk:stadium:mk#Need to change the name of the article now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Brendan/Brendon Galloway

A user changed the name from Brendan to Brendon. Soccerbase at http://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=63197 uses the spelling 'Brendan'. Unless someone can produce very convincing evidence that it is wrong, it should syay as Brendan. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

'Took Wimbledon FC's place' or 'Continued from Wimbledon FC's place'

The text recently read that MK Dons 'took Wimbledon FC's place'. This is not correct. What actually happened, according to the rules of the FA and English law, that Wimbledon FC was renamed and continued on unchanged in all other respects – same manager, same players, same staff. The term 'took Wimbledon's place' is just a marginally less undiplomatice way of claiming that MK Dons 'stole' the place, which is POV.

The fact that MK Dons has represented ('spun') the story that it is a new club, to keep everybody happy. It isn't really, but lets just pretend it is. MK Dons didn't apear from nowhere and steal the place: the club continued on from where it was in the League. Now I realise that most people would prefer to forget what happened, but we simply can't have a text that is clearly false. MK Dons did not take the place, they continued on from it. The text should read 'Continued from Wimbledon's place'. I won't revert twice but a CN and Dubious tag are certainly merited. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think potentially you're over-reading what is intended by this phrase - remember that different words imply different things to different people (a potentially vacuous statement I know, but a true one!). I certainly don't think a 'citation needed' tag is of any value on a verb. Most importantly, the paragraph above this sentence sets out quite clearly the situation. The easiest way to solve this is simply to reword the sentence so that it doesn't have to mention whether the place was taken, continued, stolen, bought, sold, or anything else! --Pretty Green (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
John is right. MK Dons is the same club as Wimbledon FC. The club changed its name in 2004, having moved to Milton Keynes nine months previously. This article is wrong. Mooretwin (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That was correct until 2007, but MK Dons now say they consider their founding date as 2004, with no history before that and no links to Wimbledon FC. The company history of course cannot be changed, but the two sporting histories are now split. This should be made clear. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
They can say what they want (and only did so in order to have a boycott lifted by AFCW supporters and the FSF), but MKD is the same club as WFC. And MKD is a primary source here. This is a rewriting of history. Mooretwin (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The stance currently taken by Wikipedia makes clear that the two clubs are legally the same, but also explains the consensus which came about in 2007 (which you are right was essentially forced upon MKD by the FSF, but some would say they deserved it). A rewriting of history would be to say MKD was founded in 2004, then giving no explanation of what happened beforehand. That's not what we're doing here. The lead explains briefly how the club was formed, gives a short explanation of the conflict with the FSF, and concludes that "despite remaining a legal continuation of the original Wimbledon club, MK Dons have maintained since 2007 that it is a new team, founded in 2004." The infobox gives a wikilink here beneath the word "2004", and the prose says "the first season for the club as MK Dons was the 2004–05 season." A rewriting of history would perhaps be to omit the words "as MK Dons", but again that's not what we've got here. I think the present solution we have is adequate and more neutral than any other alternative we could have. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for tighter lede.

The current lede reads:

which to me reads as long-winded and weasel-worded.
I propose this, which I think better summarises the content of the article:

I think this is better because (a) what part of Milton Keynes it was that WFC ended up is just a detail, (b) 'from Crystal Palace' is another detail - both of these are early in the text. (c) It is critical that the lede doesn't weasel its way out of the fact that the business that operated WFC went into administration, was bought out, and renamed. It's all in the text: the lede is supposed to summarise the text.

Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good; all I can see that I don't like is the capitalisation of the "B" at the start of "board". —Cliftonian (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Community

I've added a new section about the club's work in the community, since this has always been an important activity of the club (highlighted recently at the award of the honorary doctorate to Pete Winkelman). I'm sure it could be improved and there's more that could be said. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

'Creation' section : could someone please check that I've done the "copied" template correctly

I replaced a questionably selected copy of material from the 'relocation' article with copied material that provides a fuller back-story and is more honest about what happened and who led it. I've used the 'copied' template to give attribution to the source. I've not used this before so I'm not convinced that I've understood how to derive 'diff' correctly. Would someone please check and correct if need be. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


Ben Reeves Nationality

Should his nationality be Northern Irish even though he has never played for Northern Ireland? Someone who knows more than me help? TauntingElf (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Academy

Could someone who knows more about it than me (not hard!) write a section about the Academy. There's a nice sentence in the intro quoting the Mail praising the Academy coach. But really anything there should only summarise a section in the body. So we need one. The risk is that it'll get filled with hard luck stories common to every club when academy graduates don't get senior contracts. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a lawyer in the house? For rather a long time, the article (well, the footnote to 'Founded' in the infobox) has reported that 'Legally speaking, MK Dons is a continuation of WFC'. However a recent edit asserts that Milton Keynes Dons Ltd bought the assets of WFC Ltd from the administrator, end of WFC. Is this actually correct (in fact as well as in law)? If so then every business that has been in and out of administration is a new business. That can't be right, surely! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fanciful. Administration isn't liquidation. I've restored the original footnote as the editor provided no source to support his claims. Any proposed change ought to be discussed here first. Mooretwin (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I apologise for not outright reversing the change previously. When it was made I tried to find a middle way between the two. However on reflection I must say the assertion that the club is different because the assets were transferred to a different company is somewhat dubious to me. Luton Town went into administration during the 2007–08 season, then came out just in time for the 2008–09 season (the one with the 30-point deduction) with the assets under a new company, Luton Town Football Club 2020 Ltd—but I don't imagine anyone would say this was the end of Luton Town and the start of a new one. This is just one example I used because I'm familiar with it; there are many, many others, such as Middlesbrough in the late 1980s and Rangers a couple years ago. Hope this helps —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a confusing area, and a particularly charged one in respect of MK Dons. Mooretwin (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The assertion is correct - a business coming out of administration via a CVA is establishing a new company to which assets are transferred. All legal actions are ceased and the new company is not legally liable for the previous company's debts or other legal encumbrances. It is very precisely NOT a legal continuation because the point of the CVA is to provide legal separation between the two companies. Whatever it is, Milton Keynes Dons is not a "legal continuation" of Wimbledon FC - no company going through the CVA process should be described that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.79.133 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Continuity

I'm opening a new thread for this and posting a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to try to get more views, hopefully so we can sort this out for good. The issue: until 7 February 2015 the infobox had a footnote inside in which it was said, inter alia, that "Legally speaking, Milton Keynes Dons F.C. is the continuation of Wimbledon F.C.". The IP editor 165.120.79.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) altered this, arguing that "legally speaking" is incorrect wording as the club came out of administration in 2004 under a newco, Milton Keynes Dons Ltd, and Wimbledon Football Club Ltd was wound up in 2009. 165.120.79.133 and the user John Maynard Friedman reverted each other a few times, and 165.120.79.133 also reverted me when I attempted to compromise by substituting "technically" for "legally speaking". John Maynard Friedman had the page semi-protected for a week and 165.120.79.133 left an explanation on my talk page. I replied, proposed to try to thrash out the issue here and now here we are.

In short: on reflection I agree with 165.120.79.133 that "legally speaking" was the incorrect wording, but I still think it is necessary to make clear that in a totally clinical, non-emotional context the "club" is the same, despite the different name, location, colours and badge, hence it playing in League One from 2004–05. I put "technically" for now, but perhaps this is too vague. What do you guys think? Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not the same club though - there's no definition available by which it is the same football club, certainly not legally. The 2004 CVA guarantees that. Legal analysis of exiting administration through a CVA is clear - it establishes a NewCo, ceases all legal action, transfers assets to the NewCo and provides legal separation between the OldCo and the NewCo. That is the precise opposite of a legal continuation. If you want there to be 'continuation', you have to find a different definition for what a 'football club' actually is.165.120.79.133 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Then surely Luton Town F.C. was founded in 2008, not 1885, and the club that played as Luton Town before 2008 was something else? The old Luton Town company's League share was transferred to a Luton Town newco, but from the perspective of football statistics and so forth, it's still Luton Town. It's the same here, except in this case the newco that received Wimbledon F.C.'s League share concurrently changed the club's name and branding. (This is actually relatively similar to the conversation we had at Talk:Phoenix club (sports) last month.) —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, from a legal standpoint, Luton Town was founded in 2008. That's if you define a football club as the legal entity that controls its affairs. If you think a football club is defined by other factors, that's fine - I certainly do - but what we are dealing with here is claims of "legal continuation" or "legally speaking" or "technically". Now, I'm sure you think Luton Town (2008 version) is the same football club formed in 1885, and I'd agree, but technically and legally it isn't. It's the same football club for other reasons - location, strip, badge and, most importantly, fans. This is why some from Milton Keynes have started this "legal continuation" lie, because they are seeking a way to legitimise their club and all other factors have changed. The trouble is, as I'm growing tired of explaining after 10 years, it isn't true. The CVA process and establishment of a NewCo mean the legal separation of Wimbledon FC and Milton Keynes Dons. It does not require WFC to have been liquidated, the legal situation is very clear and a lawyer will tell you what I have, exactly as they told me.

It's important to note that the Football League agreeing to transfer the 'golden share' from one company to another (as it has with Wimbledon, Luton and many others) is simply the FL granting a company the right to compete in its competition, it is not a legal decision, nor a confirmation of any form of continuation.165.120.79.133 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

NB If you think Milton Keynes Dons is "legally speaking" the continuation of Wimbledon FC, then you try suing Wimbledon FC on any basis. You won't be able to. That's what the 2004 CVA guarantees. Milton Keynes Dons Ltd isn't legally liable for anything done by Wimbledon FC - not one thing. So how then can it possibly be described as a "legal continuation"? The answer is obvious, it isn't.165.120.79.133 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So what is the link between WFC and MKD? I argued that if MKD is not continuation of WFC then it is therefore a phoenix club - Talk:phoenix club (sports). Of course I got absolutely shouted down by the 'AFC Kingston admirers bandwagon fan-club' they argued "it's the same club". Clearly there is a link between WFC and MKD and that cannot be denied, but if it's not a legal continuation, and not a phoenix club, and not 2 complete separate entities with no relevance to each other, then what would you define it as? Abcmaxx (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If I were trying to describe the mess that the club and authorities have left us with, I would say that "Milton Keynes Dons is a new club, created in July 2004, which took Wimbledon FC's place in the football pyramid." How you then account for the period between 28/5/02 and 7/04 is all personal opinion about exactly when Wimbledon FC ceased to exist or represent Wimbledon - and that's a whole other can of worms that there is no answer for. I'm just trying to resolve this one small matter of the spurious "legal continuation" claim. If one gets sucked into other issues there will be no end to it. I urge you all to search 'legal continuation' and see what it is usually applied to in its correct form - country jurisdiction, not companies. Everyone has been duped for years by one individual cooking up this 'legal continuation' mcguffin. I'm genuinely surprised it has taken this long for intelligent people to realise what a fabrication it is. Whoever cooked it up will have been laughing their head off all this time.165.120.79.133 (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Clearly it's not so ridiculous given the fact the overwhelming majority of MKD fans who are old enough to remember WFC were WFC fans and see the MKD as the sole successor to MKD, forced to changed its name due to a team from Kingston hijacking the Wimbledon heritage and blackmailing the rest of the country, whipping up a nice media-bias and bandwagon to jump on. MKD isn't a new club who took WFC's place because the fans were the same (yes most defected but that does not mean all the fans did) and how do you explain someone like Dean Lewington, a WFC academy player who rose through the ranks to the WFC squad and is now the captain of MKD (and a club legend)? Also they didn't really take WFC's place because they merely changed their name and badge, but didn't drop the history claim until years after years of AFC trying to obtain the old WFC stuff - "the right or license granted by a company to an individual or group to market its products or services in a specific territory" (you guessed it that is the definition of franchising - claiming to be something that you weren't before aka AFC trying to be WFC). Is Newton Heath F.C. the same club as Manchester United after relocating (twice in fact) and changing their name kit and badge in 1902? Abcmaxx (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Abcmaxx, none of your post deals with the matter at hand, which is whether Milton Keynes Dons is legally or technically a continuation of Wimbledon FC. Frankly, it's whining nonsense - please try to stay on topic. Couple of relevant points - Dean Lewington, along with other assets of WFC, had his contract transferred from the OldCo (Wimbledon FC Ltd) to the NewCo (Milton Keynes Dons Ltd) in July 2004. Wimbledon FC was not simply renamed - the existing business (Wimbledon FC Ltd) continued in administration until it was wound up in 2009. How can Milton Keynes Dons Ltd be a legal continuation of Wimbledon FC Ltd when Wimbledon FC Ltd continued to exist? Can anyone commenting on this please make some effort to understand the process of exiting administration through a CVA, because it is crucial and is being misunderstood. This was not a simple renaming or rebranding, this was establishing an entirely new company that acquired the assets of another company, which continued to exist. Remember, we are not talking about AFC Wimbledon here, they are not a "legal continuation" of Wimbledon FC either.165.120.79.133 (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

MK Dons are clearly a continuation of Wimbledon – otherwise they would have not retained the Football League share owned by the club. Plenty of other clubs have had gone through administration and come out as a new "company", but are treated as a single, continuous club (e.g. Middlesbrough and Leicester to name just two). Number 57 10:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No, Number57, you are wrong. The golden share was transferred from Wimbledon FC Ltd to Milton Keynes Dons Ltd in July 2004. The Football League gave permission for this to happen, it has to whenever a golden share is transferred from one legal entity to another. The fact that the FL had to give permission is what tells you that it is not a continuation. If it was a continuation the FL would not have had to give permission for the transfer because there wouldn't have been any transfer. You, like many others, are simply under a misapprehension about the process of exiting administration.194.74.66.242 (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And for the sake of clarity - no club exiting administration via a CVA is a "legal continuation" of the previous club. Rangers, Middlesbrough, Leeds, Portsmouth, etc, etc are all technically and legally speaking new clubs and are not "legal continuations" of the previous club. They are considered to be continuations on a different basis - location, strip, badge, fans, etc.194.74.66.242 (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not wrong, and I think you've missed the point by some margin. We treat the likes of Middlesbrough, Leeds etc as a single continuous club, and we should do so too with Wimbledon and MK Dons. The FL would not have transferred the share from one legal entity to another unless they were happy that it was effectively a continuation of the previous organisation. Number 57 14:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is about "legal" continuation, not "continuation in a Football League place". The FL does not have legal jurisdiction. Even its granting of the golden share to MK does not confirm continuation, it just tells us that the FL were happy for "Milton Keynes Dons" to replace "Wimbledon FC" in the Football League and to fulfil the fixtures that would otherwise have been played by Wimbledon FC. Stop confusing the matter with other definitions of 'continuation', those are not at issue, it is about whether it is "legal continuation". I'd be happy for Milton Keynes Dons to be defined as "a Football League place continuation" or "a Dean Lewington playing career continuation" (until he leaves of course), but it is not a "legal continuation" and it's only a "technical continuation" if you consider transferring an FL golden share from one company to another the continuation of something, which I don't. What is continuing in that circumstance? Nothing as far as I can see. The Football League place would exist regardless and if another club filled it by being promoted from the division below we wouldn't call then a continuation, now would we?165.120.79.133 (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're resorting to straw man arguments like your final sentence (there's a clear difference between a club promoted to the Football League getting the share of a relegated/expelled club, and the share being passed between two companies that are for all intents and purposes the same club), then I don't really see any point in continuing to debate with you. I think I've made my opinion here clear enough, and will leave the closer of the debate to evaluate the points made. Number 57 15:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And there's your problem, it's not about opinion, it's about the facts. Provable facts. No one has shown any basis for the "legal continuation", "legally speaking" or "technically speaking" descriptions to be applied. Whereas it is clear that the 2004 CVA provided legal separation between Wimbledon FC and Milton Keynes Dons - those facts have been long since established. The onus is now on someone to provide an accurate definition of what Milton Keynes Dons is a continuation of, if they want it to be anything other than a new club formed in 2004. The best I can do is that "Milton Keynes Dons is the Football-League-place continuation of Wimbledon FC". Unwieldy, but accurate. My flippant suggestion above about Dean Lewington rather demonstrates the ludicrous nature of trying to prove a 'continuation', but if that's what Milton Keynes contributors want, then you've got to come up with something better and something that's actually true.165.120.79.133 (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Special:Contributions/165.120.79.133 - I'll repeat my question: Is Newton Heath F.C. the same club as Manchester United after relocating (twice in fact) and changing their name kit and badge in 1902? Because Man Utd's official founding date is 1878. Rangers are NOT considered a new club by the SFA, in England neither are Middlesbrough, Rotherham, Luton and countless others. My "ramblings" were to prove the point that WFC and MKD are not completely separate entities and it's ridiculous to claim so. If they are separate in legal terms and there is no continuity, why would MKD not be considered a phoenix club of WFC? Abcmaxx (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, you said "two companies that are for all intents and purposes the same club", as if you thought it was a fact, but it isn't. In May 2002, most of the fans changed. In September 2003, the town changed. In July 2004, the company, team name and strip changed. During that time the badge also changed. What possible meaningful definition of 'football club' are you using to determine that it's the same? Dean Lewington really does not cut it for that purpose. You cannot change your definition of what a football club is to suit different times. If it's defined by the legal entity, the breakpoint is July 2004, as it is if you think it's the name. If it's the place it plays, then the breakpoint is either September 2003 (leaves London) or 1991 (leaves Wimbledon). If it's the fans, the breakpoint is June 2002 (no dispute that vast majority of fans went with AFC Wimbledon as the continuation). There is no definition of 'football club' that provides Milton Keynes Dons with any reasonable possibility of being the 'same club'.165.120.79.133 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Abcmaxx - what part of limiting this to the "legal" aspect are you struggling with? Legally, Rangers are not the same club. Legally, all those other clubs you listed are not the same club. Any club that has gone through a liquidation or a CVA to exit administration is legally not the same club. You cannot sue Luton for anything that happened prior to 2008. Same with Rangers NewCo, same with every football club that has come out of administration by establishing a NewCo and acquiring the assets of the old football club. I implore you to ask a lawyer what the point of a CVA is so that you might have a chance of understanding.165.120.79.133 (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So how come Rangers FC founding date 1874? Btw someone (i.e. not me and no idea who) added this: The SFA has a different interpretation from the FA with regard to phoenix clubs. Therefore Rangers FC is not regarded as a phoenix club despite a new company having bought the assets of the The Rangers Football Club plc in 2012 after a failure to agree a CVA with creditors, whereas Darlington 1883 is regarded as a phoenix club in England having gone through similar circumstances.
If it's the fans, the breakpoint is June 2002 - no it certainly isn't, only to those who defected to AFC, because according to the WFC fans still attending stadium:mk there is no breakpoint (majority does not equal everyone - besides Enfield Town never claimed to be a continuation of Enfield F.C. and their circumstances were similar to AFC) Your definition of what a football club is - a club that plays football surely.
Also why is Newton Heath and Man Utd considered the same uninterrupted continuation? Why does Anyang Cheetahs redirect to FC Seoul and Bucheon SK to Jeju United? Anyone remember Meadowbank Thistle? Abcmaxx (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Abcmaxx - none of your post is relevant to the discussion on whether it's a "legal" or "technical" or any other kind of continuation. Rangers can claim anything they like about founding date, the fact of their NewCo status doesn't alter. I really don't think you understand the crux of this matter. It is not about whether a club can claim continuation, it is about the accuracy of the basis it claims continuation. AFC Wimbledon claims continuation on the basis of the fans and spirit of Wimbledon FC, which many disagree with, but is not factually incorrect, it's just an opinion. Some are claiming Milton Keynes Dons as a "legal continuation" and that is factually incorrect, regardless of one's opinion.165.120.79.133 (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well it is relevant because you seems to be in the minority seeing as all the other Wikipedia articles on clubs with a parallel history seem to disagree with you: Anyang Cheetahs-FC Seoul, Bucheon SK-Jeju United, Meadowbank Thistle-Livingston F.C. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Abcmaxx, on the Companies House WebCHeck service (go here and put a company name in the box) you can look up Livingston Football Club Ltd and see that it is actually legally the same company as Meadowbank Thistle Football Club Ltd, just renamed. In fact the Companies House records show that the company merely traded as Livingston F.C. for years while retaining the legal name Meadowbank Thistle F.C.—the company's legal name was changed only in 2002. Meadowbank Thistle/Livingston is therefore not germane to this conversation about Wimbledon/Milton Keynes Dons. Clubs in South Korea etc are similarly irrelevant here as they don't operate under UK company law (link). —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Getting back to the point - The facts of the 2004 CVA are clear and indisputable - a new company (Milton Keynes Dons Ltd) acquires the assets of Wimbledon FC Ltd, which does not exit administration, but continues until it is wound up in 2009. In these circumstances, the onus of proof surely lies with those wanting to claim a "legal continuation", because the facts as laid out show there isn't one. Unless someone can clearly show some justification for this "legal continuation" claim, then there's simply no discussion to be had here. "Legally speaking", Milton Keynes Dons is not the continuation of Wimbledon FC - and I have yet to see any satisfactory explanation as to why it should be described as a "continuation" at all. Where are the cold, hard facts that counter what I've stated?165.120.79.133 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be a legal continuation to be a continuation of a kind. I have yet to see any satisfactory explanation as to why it should be described as a "continuation" at all - because the overwhelming majority of MK Dons fans deem it so, and even if it the club was forced (/blackmailed into) to "officially" renounce pre-2004 history, it doesn't really mean it's not considered a continuation [1] [2] Abcmaxx (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
And what part of this discussion being about whether it is a "legal continuation" are you STILL missing? And 'because you say so' isn't going to convince anyone. The club willingly declared itself a new club in 2004 - it's on the badge and no one made them put that there.165.120.79.133 (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have yet to see any satisfactory explanation as to why it should be described as a "continuation" at all - so it's not a legal continuation, but it's still a continuation of a kind Abcmaxx (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So we have a consensus that the terms "legal continuation" and "legally speaking" are wrong then, good. As to what sort of 'continuation' it is, if any, I have suggested the best I can above - "Milton Keynes Dons is the Football-League-place continuation of Wimbledon FC" - if you think you can do better, then please do.165.120.79.133 (talk) 08:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, the problem there is that MK Dons could potentially get relegated (or promoted) out of the Football League at some point in the future. It furthermore doesn't deal with the fact that MK Dons started on the base of Wimbledon F.C.'s footballing assets (like Dean Lewington!). All right—perhaps the following wording for the footnote:
"In terms of its footballing assets and place in the English football league structure, Milton Keynes Dons F.C. is the continuation of Wimbledon F.C., which was formed in south London in 1889 and relocated to Milton Keynes in 2003. The club was brought out of administration in 2004 as a new company, Milton Keynes Dons Ltd, which purchased the assets of The Wimbledon Football Club Ltd and received the team's place in Football League One. The Wimbledon Football Club Ltd legally endured until 2009. Since 2006 MK Dons has officially considered itself a new club, formed in 2004—it no longer claims any history before then, despite retaining Wimbledon F.C.'s "Dons" nickname."
Is this okay with everybody? —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Acceptable to me. Silence for the last few days from Mr Friedman tends to suggest he has accepted the legal situation, but it would be good to have his confirmation so that he doesn't revert you.165.120.79.133 (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Cliftonian's edit sounds ok to me too, as it reflects it's more than just a simple league continuation Abcmaxx (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, great; I'm glad we have been able to come to something we all find acceptable. With both of your approval I would like to leave this open for a few more days however so others have the chance to comment as well. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, no comments for six days so I am implementing the above proposal per approval from 165.120.79.133 and Abcmaxx, with citations. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lest silence be seen as something not golden, I've been too tied up at work to risk getting involved. [ Expletive deleted ] deadlines! :-( But apart from WP:I just don't like it, I don't have a good reason to disagree with the consensus reached. But I do look forward to the entries for half the clubs in the league being revised to match. Any volunteers? No? I thought not. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

Can we please change the lead section? It's seems to repeat a lot about the move, I think there's a lot more to the MK Dons other than its origins and I kind of object to using the word product, plus it's making out to be like it has no connection at all with WFC, it's very biased lead section. It's also meant to be a lead section, anyone who wants to get to the crux of the move can read the whole separate article. I don't want an edit war so I'm proposing here:

"... about 56 miles (90 km) north of London. The product of Wimbledon F.C.'s relocation to Milton Keynes from south London in September 2003, the club officially considers itself to have been founded in 2004, when it adopted its present name, badge and home colours. As of the 2014–15 season its first team plays in Football League One, the third tier of English football.
The name Milton Keynes Dons was registered in June 2004 after Wimbledon F.C., formed in 1889, had been based at the National Hockey Stadium in Milton Keynes for nine months. The club kept its place in the English league structure after changing its name, kit and logo, competing as MK Dons from the start of the 2004–05 season. The club abandoned its claim to any history before 2004 in October 2006 as part of an agreement with the Football Supporters' Federation, which had previously boycotted the team and its supporters' groups. Under this deal MK Dons transferred Wimbledon F.C.'s trophies and other patrimony to Merton Council in south London in 2007."

I propose this instead:

"... As of the 2014–15 season its first team plays in Football League One, the third tier of English football.
Wimbledon F.C., formed in 1889, controversially relocated to the National Hockey Stadium in Milton Keynes in 2003 from Selhurst Park. The name Milton Keynes Dons was registered in June 2004, and the club competed from then onwards under this name with a new badge. Officially, the club formally abandoned its claim to any history before 2004 in October 2006 as part of an agreement with the Football Supporters' Federation, which had previously boycotted the team and its supporters' groups. Under this deal MK Dons transferred Wimbledon F.C.'s trophies and other patrimony to Merton Council in south London in 2007."

Might also be worth mentioning the MK Dons won the JPT trophy in 2008.Abcmaxx (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Abcmaxx—I don't really understand how you find the lead to be "very biased" against MK Dons. How does it make out that there is "no connection at all" with the former Wimbledon F.C.? As the lead stands at the moment Wimbledon F.C. is mentioned by name three times. We say MK Dons is the result of Wimbledon's move and that "The club kept its place in the English league structure after changing its name, kit and logo, competing as MK Dons from the start of the 2004–05 season". I'm sorry but to me it sounds like we are saying there is very much a connection, albeit one the club itself no longer claims.
Regarding your other points:
  • I intended the word "product" in the sense that it was the thing we have now following a certain process, but I see it could be perceived in a corporate sense so I have restored it to what we had before, "result".
  • We do mention MK Dons won the Football League Trophy in 2008, in the third paragraph. ("Under the management of Paul Ince, the club won the 2007–08 League Two title, thereby gaining promotion back to League One, and the Football League Trophy during the same year.")
  • A lot of people may not know that Selhurst Park was in south London, or they may assume from this wording that it was the permanent/traditional home of Wimbledon, which it wasn't. Besides the pertinent thing here is that Wimbledon left south London, not that they left Selhurst Park specifically. This change would likely make people need to look at another article to understand, something you said to hope to avoid.
Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Out three paragraphs 2 are about the move. I just feel that the lead section shouldn't focus solely on the move, the club has moved a lot since then, it's no longer really the defining feature about it. I'd really trim it down, I mean the origins section is as big as the history section already, never mind the separate article, there's really no need for anything more than a summary of what happened.

And yes they left London but the fact Selhurst wasn't their traditional home was a key factor in why the moved anyway it sounds like we are saying there is very much a connection, albeit one the club itself no longer claims - the point is that's the aim, I know the club was forced into officially relinquishing the trophies but the vast majority of MKD fans and staff the club is a continuation of WFC (whether rightly or wrongly is a different matter). The club kept its place in the English league structure well of course it did that's obvious, initially the club was considered the same thing, it was only later on a diversion occurred. It's very much what I argued in the "continuity" discussion - there is a continuation, more so than just a league place Abcmaxx (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A continuation of what though? You still haven't dealt with that. A few football club assets continued to occupy a Football League place, but that's really not much to base a 'continuation' claim on. You really have to engage with the aspect of defining what a 'football club' is, because if it's a 'club of people that play football' then as soon as just one of those people leaves it's no longer the same football club. In order for there to be any notion of 'continuation' at all, you have to have something more permanent that you can point to as defining the essence of a 'football club'. For legal purposes it is the limited company/PLC/trust controlling the club's affairs, but we've already established that that can change and people still potentially view a club as being the same. The example of Wimbledon FC gave us everything over the course of 13 years - changed ground, changed town, changed company, changed name, changed strip, changed badge, changed players, changed fans. So what is it that defines a 'football club'? As I stated in an earlier post, you cannot change your definition to suit different times, you've got to have one that works at all times.
And one other thing... While the team continues to be called the MK Dons, it will continue to be totally justified to highlight that at every opportunity. If Milton Keynes wants to move away from references to the past and the move, then it would need to start the ball rolling by dropping the 'Dons' part of the name. If MK Dons are so intent on reminding everyone of the Dons, then it's not realistic to expect anyone else not to focus on that both now and in the future.165.120.79.133 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

changed fans - no the fans are THE SAME, which is why the Dons will never be dropped, the only new fans are the ones who are too young to remember/care. So are some of the players (Dave Martin, Dean Lewington, lots more retired by now). Justifiably? That's AFC's version of events that they furiously spout everywhere in order to justify and validate their otherwise meaningless existence. If AFC never left the original WFC in 2002, MK Dons would still be WFC. Whatever the legal paperwork says doesn't really matter, because apart from lawyers no-one really delves into that. then it's not realistic to expect anyone else not to focus on that both now and in the future that's your POV, because in the eyes of MK Dons MKD = WFC always will and will be, whether everyone agrees with it or not, and you focusing on the negative aspects of its formation, which by now quite frankly you should've really got over seeing how there is a ton of other teams which have had similar circumstances in the UK]. I don't see Manchester United article harping on about how they moved, same with Arsenal, New Brighton FC or if you find them be of a different era then even Livingston FC only has one sentence about it's pretty much equal scenario. [3] - at 0.40mins Abcmaxx (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. What defines a 'football club' in a meaningful way that can be applied to Milton Keynes Dons to show it being the same club as Wimbledon FC? And "same fans"?! You ARE joking, right? The vast majority of Wimbledon fans support Wimbledon. Only a small minority are now Milton Keynes fans - that is accepted fact. If you want to argue continuation based on fans, then there's only one answer. As for wanting to reduce references to the move and the MK Dons origins, I've simply pointed out to you that the naming of the club is the prime factor in maintaining the focus on those events. Changing the page to try to avoid it is to try to tackle the problem from the wrong end of things. The page reflects the reality, the facts and the history. If you want to change the page you'll have to change the reality of 'MK Dons'. And, this isn't supposed to be a discussion forum, so I'm done discussing things that aren't about this page.165.120.79.133 (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of MKD fans who are old enough to remember WFC were WFC fans, and just because they were a minority doesn't mean they don't exist (sorry AFC-lovers I know it's hard to take not everyone abandoned their club in 2002). And the vast majority of Wimbledon fans supported (past-tense) Wimbledon because Wimbledon doesn't exist any more, if anything they support a separate team created in 2002, called AFC Wimbledon who are based in Kingston. Let's reiterate: vast majority does not equal all.

I was merely pointing out the lead section is not really a lead section on the club itself - it's simply reiterating how it came to be. Seeing as there is more than enough on the subject I don't really see that as a fitting lead section, especially as it's repetitive:

" about 56 miles (90 km) north of London. The product of Wimbledon F.C.'s relocation to Milton Keynes from south London in September 2003, the club officially considers itself to have been founded in 2004, when it adopted its present name, badge and home colours."

Followed by

"The name Milton Keynes Dons was registered in June 2004 after Wimbledon F.C., formed in 1889, had been based at the National Hockey Stadium in Milton Keynes for nine months. The club kept its place in the English league structure after changing its name, kit and logo, competing as MK Dons from the start of the 2004–05 season."

That's essentially saying the same thing.

You're making it sound like I was trying to cut all of this out, or maybe you thought that God-forbid I'll write something that's more neutral than negative. I was simply suggesting to edit it so it's a bit more concise. That's it. I put it on here because I know the anti-Dons brigade will revert any edit even if it's putting in a full-stop. I'm not proposing erasing any history, sources or anything else controversial, simply a lead section should reflect the the article. So far it reflects the relocation article. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it better now? —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, much, much better! Thank you Abcmaxx (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Great to hear. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Para 3

I hate to spoil the party but I really think that the current para 3 of the lede ("MK Dons abandoned its claim to any history before 2004 ...") is wp:undue here [because the lede should summarise the most important elements of the body and in effect it just repeats para two]. It belongs and should be moved to the end of #Origins. It is only at this stage that it is clear what history it is that we are talking about. Then we can start to add more summary material. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Support - you're much more eloquent at this than me Abcmaxx (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The third paragraph of the lead summarises information already in the body under "Supporters' club recognition". It isn't necessary at the end of the Origins section. I'm fairly indifferent on this one frankly—we already say in the first paragraph that the club considers itself to be formed in 2004. Perhaps the third paragraph can be converted into a footnote and put in the first paragraph after "2004, when it adopted its present name, badge and home colours."? I'll just go ahead and do this now so you can both see exactly what I mean. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! That hits the spot! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Lekker —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Attendance stats & Kit

It'll be nice if someone could help out expand the "kit history" section, someone has been updating the strip each year in the infobox so it might be worth putting in the old ones in and some goalie kits too to expand the article.

Also any idea what is the Dons record league away attendance (i.e. record number of away Dons fans who travelled for an away league game)? Abcmaxx (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Willy Gueret's goal

Under 'notable players' it says the goal counts are for 'league games only', but does that include the league play-offs? I ask because Willy Gueret scored a goal in the home leg of the 2009 play-off semifinal penalty shoot out, so I was wondering whether that should appear in the table? Daveofthenewcity (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Play-off games generally don't count in league statistics in my experience (they are usually counted in the "other" column). If this was in a penalty shoot-out it wouldn't count anyway. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, that's a shame. Would have been nice to have Willy's goal in there. Thanks. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Milton Keynes Dons F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Nickname

Is the nickname in the info box supposed an "offical" nickname or how it is known by some in the football comunity?Dja1979 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay no-one has answered. But should we add The Franchise or Franchise FC to the nickname section as these names seem to be added by different people everyother month or so. So it seems MKDons are know by these names, but not normally by people associated with the club.Dja1979 (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
No, that nickname is only used pejoratively and/or to delegitimise the team. The people who add it every month or so are vandals. Their fans do sometimes ironically reclaim the term in chants ("you're getting beat by a franchise") but the club itself would never use it in an official capacity. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
By that logic we would have to add "AFC Kingston", "Chelski", "Pottyboro", "ManUre", "The Arse", "Man Shitty" etc. etc. which are just as widely used Abcmaxx (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Milton Keynes Dons 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Milton Keynes Dons 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Dele Alli under Other notable players

Hi, although he did not make 100 appearances and rightly not in the first section, he should be in the "other notable players" due to fame now at Tottenham and England. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapour27 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Date funny on 21 Jan game v Northampton

The table was displaying some random date for the 21 Jan match. {{Start date|2017|21|01|df=y}} should display 21 January 2017, instead it is displaying 1 September 2017! Even more weird, all the other uses of Start Date are displaying correctly. When I changed it to {{Start date|2017|01|21|df=y}} it displays the correct date, when actually it should throw up an error (invalid month). The wrong format works here too: 21 January 2017 (2017-01-21)! Before I go to template talk, can anyone see what I'm missing? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the date goes YYYY/MM/DD. So for 21 January you'd want 2017|01|21. Does that work? —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

Milton Keynes Dons F.C. → Milton Keynes Wanderers F.C.

Ask Mr Winkelman then—changing the name of the team is nothing to do with us, sorry. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Milton Keynes Dons 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) 16:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Milton Keynes Dons 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) 22:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

1997 - Winkelman first proposes stadium

Apparently controversial so - at the request of other editors - I am posting the full material from the Milton Keynes Citizen article that is cited to allow judgment to be made without viewing the link:

A stadium in Milton Keynes had initially been planned at the National Bowl. Winkelman was part of a plan to build a sports facility at the concert venue back in 1997 but plans were scuppered, and Denbigh North was chosen instead.

“I was very lucky, because the city had been looking for a stadium since 1973,” said the Dons chairman.

“When I got involved in 1997 when the Bowl came on the market, I got together with a bunch of property designers to see what could be done there.

“The concept was simple - concerts in the summer, football in the winter.

“But that was much harder to deliver because the Bowl is sat in a large residential area, and while people there much accept three concerts a year, they wouldn’t accept 30-odd football matches a year.

“So after another test, we chose Denbigh North.” Clonewormblademr (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

This quotation does not support the change you made to the article. It says clearly that 1997 is about putting a stadium on the National Bowl site. It is not remarkable, there have been indicative plans for a 25000 stadium in MK since the early 70s, this was just another iteration. Thus the original date of 2000 for Denbigh was correct and I am now reinstating the original version. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The article now - incorrectly - says that:

“Starting in 2000,[16] a consortium led by music promoter Pete Winkelman and supported by Asda (a Walmart subsidiary) and IKEA proposed a large retail development in Milton Keynes including a Football League-standard stadium“

Yet this proposal started in 1997. Peter Winkelman says this himself in an interview in the local paper. And Milton Keynes Council papers also back Winkelman up in showing that it was the same consortium in 1997 as it was in 2000: Winkelman, Abbeygate Developments and Asda.

If you consider the switch of the proposed site to 1 mile away in Denbigh North to be important, perhaps the article better reflect that as well as when Winkelman’s consortium first proposed a stadium in Milton Keynes in 1997.

Signed: Clonewormblademr

Category:Milton Keynes Dons F.C.

Because this article has its own category the article itself does not need to be in the county category. Rathfelder (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Milton Keynes Council and Wimbledon FC relocation

As present, this article completely ignores the integral role played by Milton Keynes Council in the relocation of Wimbledon FC.

The key driver for the relocation of Wimbledon FC was the desire of Asda to create a hypermarket on a site (Denbigh North) which was not allocated for such development in the Milton Keynes local plan. Milton Keynes Council eventually agreed to the development conditional on it being delivered alongside an international standard football stadium plus a league football team being moved from elsewhere in England to play in the stadium.

It is impossible to understand how Milton Keynes Dons came about without the context that the only reason it exists is because of the actions of Milton Keynes Council.

I suggest that the article is amended to capture:

1. The original unsuccessful Winkelman consortium proposal of 1997 and the October 1998 decision of MK Council to reject this due to the retail aspect being inconsistent with local planning policies.

2. The February 2000 decision by Milton Keynes Council to introduce a new local planning policy in order to facilitate the Winkelman consortium proposal.

3. The March 2000 decision by Milton Keynes Council to enter into a preliminary contract with Inter MK on the land at Denbigh North to help Winkelman progress his proposal for a stadium at the site. The official report supporting this decision highlighted Milton Keynes Council’s view that any stadium proposal would need to include relocation of a major sporting club, with the Winkelman consortium being favoured because he had the contacts to make this happen.

4. The February 2001 decision of Milton Keynes Council to provide Inter MK a legal option to purchase the Denbigh North site to further the stadium proposals. The official report supporting this decision states that Winkelman was in a position to meet Milton Keynes Council’s conditions, having secured both funding for the stadium and willingness of a First Division club to move to MK if the stadium is delivered. Clonewormblademr (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I tried to add this but it was removed by an administrator (MattyTheWhite) who I assume interpreted this as vandalism.

All of the above is factually accurate and based on official Milton Keynes Council papers that have been released under Freedom of Information (see my amendments of 22:44 BST 4 May that have been deleted for full references to this). The decision is whether or not the integral role of Milton Keynes Council in the relocation of Wimbledon FC is relevant to Milton Keynes Dons’ history or not. Clonewormblademr (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Clonewormblademr:, the most likely reason for reverting your material is that you tried to put it in the wrong article. Wikipedia works by dividing over-long articles into separate topics or sub-topics. The relevant article is Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes and the material is already there. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing towards the more detailed article.

However, the material is not there: there is nothing relating to the Milton Keynes Council conditions on the retail development that forced Winkelman’s consortium to both build a stadium and relocate a league club from elsewhere. I will look to amend that article (perhaps replicating this question on the talk page there first). Clonewormblademr (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Was MK Council's role significant enough to go in the relocation summary?

(I have inserted a new subsection header to facilitate discussion). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, this page summarises that content and is missing any reference to Milton Keynes Council’s driving role as per the March 2000 agreement with Inter MK. It therefore isn’t a good summary of what happened Clonewormblademr (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

MK Council did not have a driving role, but only an enabling one. Although MKC probably had a strategic interest (for marketing reasons) in there being a professional football team and stadium, it was not willing to spend any money to make it happen. (Compare with Stevenage F.C. where the council did just that, and Northampton Town F.C. where the council made a soft loan of £10M. Compare also with Merton Council that had a disabling role that provided the push for Wimbledon to leave). The key consideration for this article is whether MKC's role was one of the most important factors. I don't believe it was but let's see if there is consensus in favour or against. This is not new information and no-one has considered it important before. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. Winkelman’s consortium would not have proposed a stadium or sought to relocate a team into it were it not for Milton Keynes Council making this a condition of the Asda/Ikea stores or directing that the Section 106 monies be used to fund the cost of building the stadium (which is, in effect, public money).
This is clearly illustrated in papers from Milton Keynes Council. This is not the passive role you asset for them - if they’d have just given Asda the planning permission or not required a league football club to play in any stadium, Wimbledon FC would not have been relocated.
Let’s see other’s views on this though as “importance” is inevitably a subjective concept Clonewormblademr (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I misunderstood. I didn't spot that the category MK Dons is in turn a subcat of Bucks. Excessive paranoia born of bitter experience. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for significant improvements to this article

As a keen editor of both this article and associated Milton Keynes Dons' player articles, the club's records and achievements article and one or two others, I propose a signficant edit to this article - the removal of several sub-sections and also shortening several sub-sections, namely:

Removal of the following sub-sections:

  • Notable supporters - most of this is unsourced and speculative and not a feature of more prominent club's main pages
  • Player of the year, club captains and top scorers (table) - this was a table I created a while back, it is entirely unsourced and not necessarily 100% accurate.
  • Notable coaches - not a common feature of more prominent club's main pages and includes several unsourced mentions

Shorten the following sub-sections:

  • Rivalries - shortened to a more concise paragraph detailing the main local rivals. I intend to create a detailed AFC Wimbledon - MK Dons rivalry page which I will link to as a further reading page at a later date. This sub-section includes head to head win/loss/draw stats for each rival - I created this originally myself several years ago but it is too excessive and not a common feature of more prominent club's wiki pages.
  • Club records and achievements - Include the further reading page link to the List of Milton Keynes Dons F.C. records and statistics page, replace the remainder with a paragraph detailing sourced, select records and achievements (in line with many other club's equivalent sections).
  • Youth academy - Shorten to a more concise, sourced single paragraph.


The overall aim of these suggested changes is to de-clutter and make the overall article a clearer and more concise read in line with other club pages.

If there are no objections, I will go ahead with these changes. A few of these sections as mentioned above were actually created by myself in the first place.FilthyDon (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

MK Dons' founding & FSF dispute

Sorry it's well-worn territory, but this needs a slightly longer explanation in the intro, which seems to contradict itself. ("founded"/"adopted", etc)

The key information is only in the footnotes or in the fairly nondescript sections down the page. I'm sure it can be summed up very briefly.

As Cliftonian quoted here in 2012, this was the version then:

"despite remaining a legal continuation of the original Wimbledon club, MK Dons have maintained since 2007 that it is a new team, founded in 2004."

The last remnant of Cliftonian's quote was deleted with no reason given in December 2017.

As discussed above, the word "legal" is disputed, so is best omitted.
Would suggest adding a modified version:

"despite replacing the original Wimbledon club in the Football League, MK Dons made an agreement in 2007 that it was a new club, founded in 2004."

The title could also be clearer in the 5th section – "Supporters' club recognition" – as it is mainly about one situation with the FSF, not about its general relationships with any other supporter groups. "Supporters' club" is also a little different from its official name. I would use the title MK Dons Supporters Association dispute, or Football Supporters' Federation dispute.

Thanks,
- Demokra (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Player Listing in MK Dons FC page

I have come across an edit on the player listing which has #36 Lewis Johnson listed, Johnson is not on Professional terms and as I had seen stated on the players list only professionals should be listed and not academy players.

I feel insulted this listing has been allowed - and my edits were scrubbed out weeks prior due to the names not being listed as professionals. It makes no sense, like making up listing rules as you go, especially as I had previously listed Johnson's squad number and name on the first team list. MK10 DON (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2021

Please can you update the club logo - thanks 86.177.148.178 (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please clarify exactly what needs to change and if a new logo/image is needed please provide a suitable file. Also, if appropriate, please provide a reliable source to support the change. Thanks J850NK (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The Club Logo is fine as it is. Does not need updating as it has not been changed. Masterplan 1979 (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page has been vandalised and not all of it reverted. For example the squad section and some of the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.83.172 (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I have reverted out all of today's edits which appear to be vandalism (apart from the last which partially fixed the vandalism). Hopefully that will fix it for now. Keith D (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The page is being edited by FilthyDon and they are not updating the "correct as of" date when editing the squad details. Masterplan 1979 (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, the legal name of the club is as this article has always been: Milton Keynes Dons Football Club, abbreviated to MK Dons F.C. Today, CoatbridgeChancellor changed the full name to the abbreviated name without leaving an edit summary or indeed any explanation for such a major change. So I reverted. But I decided to have a look for evidence either way.

So I'm none the wiser. Citation needed! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024

Please can you update our MK Dons Club Crest on the wiki logo section to our Official Crest

thumb|Official MK Dons Club Crest MK Dons Marketing (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What's the source of the image, for purposes of attributing the upload? (Found the new logo at https://www.mkdons.com/; the change in colour is verified. Just waiting to double-check the new license terms.) —C.Fred (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC) updated 12:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@MK Dons Marketing: Also, where can we verify that the club is releasing the new crest into the public domain, where it can be commercially reused without attribution or other licensing? —C.Fred (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@MK Dons Marketing: to be clear "commercially reused" means modified, adapted, even used to brand clothing that competes with your merchandising. At least if it is uploaded to en.Wikipedia at low resolution, you can make it impractical. But first we would need a formal waiver of rights clearly given on behalf of the club. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 Note: Request is on hold, to determine whether the new crest needs moved to en.wiki as non-free content or is truly in the public domain. The new version is at commons:MK_DONS_OFFICIAL_CREST.png; I do have the file on my local machine for the purpose of downscaling and uploading it if it, as I suspect, is not a free image. —C.Fred (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@C.Fred: It would appear, unsurprisingly, that you were correct. Tollens (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 Note: I have marked this request as answered, as the requester has not recently responded & the request appears to have reached a conclusion. Should it need to re-open, please change the "answered" parameter to 'yes' Irltoad (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milton_Keynes_Dons_F.C./Archive_2&oldid=1246524499"