Graham Kelly: Franchise football is not in the interests of genuine fans

When Wimbledon Football Club convened an extraordinary general meeting for midday last Friday in order to increase their authorised share capital from a modest ?160,000 to ?15m, all the unanswered questions came flooding back. Yet the football disgrace of modern times, the Milton Keynes fiasco, seems to me, at its heart, to be based upon a property deal.

The Football Association commission was persuaded last May to give approval for the move on the grounds that the club were in a unique position, potentially homeless and losing money at a rate impossible otherwise to stem. Notwithstanding the Norwegian owners' statements that when they purchased the club they possessed funding for a new stadium, chairman Charles Koppel repeatedly staked his claim to move to Milton Keynes by threatening that the club's death was imminent. Yet they survive against all odds: relegation, derisory attendances and an apparent lack of cash infusion.

The FA commission was told that shareholders had put in ?6.7m to keep the club afloat, but was it aware that the club paid ?7.5m to other group companies? In other words, the owners and their companies took more out of the club that year than they put in.

Wimbledon's proposed long-term home at North Denbigh is large enough to house many other commercial outlets. But I cannot see that planning permission would be given without the local benefits of a stadium complex hosting a professional sporting club. This would legitimise an otherwise unacceptable edge-of-town retail development.

Originally it seemed that revenue derived from these sites would finance the club's stadium. Now it appears to be the other way round. Wimbledon would enable the other commercial outlets to generate income for the stadium consortium.

The proposed site at Milton Keynes has attracted the interest of, among others, Asda/Walmart. The presence of such large retail outlets makes it likely, in the light of government policy on out-of-town retail complexes, that this plan will be the subject of a planning enquiry which would take up to two years – at a time when the club is supposedly desperate to move.

I do not believe that Koppel has ever gone close to substantiating his claims that Wimbledon made genuine efforts to find a suitable ground in Merton or adjoining boroughs. Indeed, he even offered backing to Plough Lane residents on the grounds that football supporters were undesirable neighbours.

Inconsistencies abound when the decision of the FA commission, based largely on financial grounds, is examined alongside Koppel's own published comments. Koppel said he intended to reduce the playing staff "dramatically". Nevertheless, the results which accounting firm Deloitte and Touche reported to the FA commission – "Wimbledon's operating losses could be in excess of ?33m over the three seasons 2001/-02 to 2003-04" – must have been based on assumptions which flew in the face of Koppel's public pronouncements that they would be cutting their spending on players.

The FA commission approved a plan for the club to relocate to a permanent stadium in North Denbigh in 2004. The stadium would initially have 28,000 seats with capacity to expand.

Since the commission, Wimbledon have been searching for a temporary home with a view to moving mid-season. Negotiations have crystallised on the National Hockey Stadium over a deal which could give the club match-day access only for a period up to 2005.

What is now under consideration is a plan involving a temporary stadium (which might be needed for four years or more) which will hold a maximum of 9,000 spectators, which is unlikely to be financially viable.

There are now suggestions that the Denbigh Stadium should realistically be looking at an opening capacity of 18,000 seats. It appears that the plans are being scaled down gradually. Maybe confidence in the project, which was key to gaining approval of the FA commission, is waning.

Koppel and the FA commission argued black was white by claiming that the Milton Keynes decision did not represent football's first franchise case, contrary to the chairman of the Milton Keynes stadium consortium, Pete Winkelman, who proudly adopted the mantle of the father of franchising. Franchising is usually a naked financial exercise, as the history of United States sports has shown, and any benefit to supporters is purely incidental.

Already, Chester City chairman Stephen Vaughan has eyed Tranmere Rovers' prime assets on the Wirral and Tony Kleanthous has cited the Milton Keynes case as a precedent in attempting to move Barnet in with Leyton Orient, despite the FA commission trying to say that no precedent was set.

When Koppel shrugs aside the questions raised about the validity of the notice of Friday's somewhat heated EGM (company secretary Peter Lloyd–Cooper found the date too inconvenient to attend), the Wimbledon board might attempt a straight conversion of debt to equity, which would further dilute minority shareholdings. Having cleaned up the balance sheet, the way would then be clear for a transfer of assets into another company such as MK Dons which would make good commercial sense, but would be in flagrant breach of the FA commission's forlorn recommendations about the preservation of Wimbledon's identity.

The Wimbledon case is the latest to demonstrate that, as long as clubs have the resources to undertake expensive litigation to fight established rules and procedures, there is nothing which can be done to protect the interests of the genuine, loyal fans, who are left behind to plough their lone furrow. The founders of the newly-formed AFC Wimbledon, currently flying high in the Combined Counties League, are now awaiting the outcome of their own planning application for the innovative community-based sharing scheme, with Tooting and Mitcham United, which takes the club back into the borough of Merton next season.

Unless, of course, someone finds some residents to oppose the move.

grahamkelly@btinternet.com