AFC Wimbledon - Lead Us Home campaign

12346»

Comments

  • ForeverAddickted
    ForeverAddickted Posts: 101,857
    Its certainly an interesting design!!... Notice they're copying Brentford with the multi coloured seating
  • Rothko
    Rothko Posts: 19,575
    9,300 is plenty big enough for them, I believe there is the ability to go up to 15,000, but the chances of them needing it is pretty low, unless Nick Robinson (who's helping them fund this) buys them outright, which again is unlikely with their ownership model. 

  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 73,516
    Rothko said:
    9,300 is plenty big enough for them, I believe there is the ability to go up to 15,000, but the chances of them needing it is pretty low, unless Nick Robinson (who's helping them fund this) buys them outright, which again is unlikely with their ownership model. 

    Yes, one permanent stand with all the facilities which can be extended around the other 3 sides to replace the semi-permanent stands
  • Croydon
    Croydon Posts: 13,741
    No.1 in South London said:

    And that's meant to be ready by October?


  • Croydon
    Croydon Posts: 13,741
    Covered End said:
    Todds_right_hook said:
    I really don’t get the bitchiness towards them on here. They got royally shafted by the efl but they are who gets who didn’t fight for their club. Happens to us and we are the best fans ever.

    the stadium seems okay to my, not sure why there are negative comments on here. 

    They had a go at Robinson, so what. People saying that the banner was out of order, do they know what Robinson said when he was Milton Keynes manager to provoke that reaction?
    Their fans caused a lot of problems when they were non league.
    And then came unstuck against some of the larger clubs when they couldn't act bully boys.
  • jimmymelrose
    jimmymelrose Posts: 10,565
    Leeds_Addick said:
    Off_it said:
    I love it when this thread resurrects itself from time to time.

    FWIW, my view is that whether MK Dons is "the same" club as the old Wimbledon FC is a bit of a moot point. I can see the argument either way and can't really say I'm that bothered what the true answer is.

    However, what is crystal clear is that AFC Wimbledon has no direct connection to Wimbledon FC/MK Dons and is not the same club. AFC Wimbledon didn't win the FA Cup and they can't be going "back" to Plough Lane as they have never played there. Ever. The fans may see it as their "spiritual home", which is up to them, but it's not (yet) their actual home and never has been. Ever.

    I hope that clears things up for you all.
    :-)
    This is the way I see it and I find the entitlement of some AFC fans weird.
    I think that you and Golfie might see it differently if it were Charlton.

    Try to see it from their fans' point of view. It should be easier for Charlton fans than for fans of any other club.
  • sammy391
    sammy391 Posts: 4,255
    Soon to be taken over by a Ryan Bertrand led consortium! 
    “£87m to be invested across 5 years” 
  • Weegie Addick
    Weegie Addick Posts: 17,828
    Not taken over - it’s a minority share 
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 73,516
    I can't say I understand this deal, and why the group want to pump so much money into a loss making football club, without getting control from the start. This X thread has more details from the meeting.

    https://x.com/MisterGLS/status/2112968367598698554

    What does SSC owning 90% of the economic value actually mean? 


  • Notts_Addick
    Notts_Addick Posts: 426
    killerandflash said:
    I can't say I understand this deal, and why the group want to pump so much money into a loss making football club, without getting control from the start. This X thread has more details from the meeting.

    https://x.com/MisterGLS/status/2112968367598698554

    What does SSC owning 90% of the economic value actually mean? 


    There is a very interesting article on the BBC which states the trust will retain control of the stadium, badge, colours, ground and constitution and still hold veto rights. If the consortium miss one payment control would revert back to the trust and if the consortium wish to sell the trust retain first refusal and can block any investors they seem 'unsuitable'.

    You would assume the trust has done their due diligence and wouldn't be recommending this for a vote unless they were fully confident in the proposals. But one has to ask what is in it for the consortium? Why not just buy any other club where they would have full control as opposed to jumping through all these hoops? There are countless other clubs for sale and as much as I like AFC Wimbledon what commercial value do they have which everyone else seems to have missed? 

  • Sponsored links:



  • shirty5
    shirty5 Posts: 20,216
    AFC Wimbledon will present an option to members that will aim to secure the long-term financial future of the club:
    - Club remains majoritively Trust-owned (50.01%)
    - Investor Omar Mir will invest £87m over five years
    - Trust keeps control of stadium freehold
  • MarcusH26
    MarcusH26 Posts: 11,252
    killerandflash said:
    I can't say I understand this deal, and why the group want to pump so much money into a loss making football club, without getting control from the start. This X thread has more details from the meeting.

    https://x.com/MisterGLS/status/2112968367598698554

    What does SSC owning 90% of the economic value actually mean? 


    I genuinely don't understand this deal at all? The consortium will never be majority shareholders in the club but will be funding everything. 

    Surely there's any number of L1/2 clubs you could buy where you'd own the whole thing?

Categories