As ever, we can thank the MKSA's lies-by-omission for this particular piece of digital excrement:
It's to be noted that by putting this biased collection of propaganda, which omits so much of the truth, in the public domain the MKSA in fact worsens the position of Franchise FC and its customers, because they fail to account for the fact that hundreds of people do know the truth and are not afraid to repeat it. To Bull*******... I'll take his interview piece by piece...
"WHY DIDN’T MERTON COUNCIL DO MORE TO HELP WIMBLEDON FC?
It was a question of finances.
During my time on Merton Council I was invited by the British Embassy in Berlin to attend a reception given by the Ambassador for a German school class who had visited Merton the year before and experienced that some of their boys got beaten up. Together with a teacher who had made this public I followed up that case and represented the Council at the Embassy, relaying the Mayor's apologies to the boys and the school.
There was no money to pay for my trip. The Mayor told me that she couldn't even get funding for travelling to France for visiting Merton's partner town there. So I went to Berlin at my own expense. Needless to say, the British Embassy didn't offer any help with my travel costs either. The school also had to fund their bus journey of about 500-km themselves."
Two paragraphs of irrelevant ego-trip. So Merton wouldn't pay for his jolly to Germany, and? We already know the kind of man we are dealing with from this. He's more bothered about himself and his freebie trip than anything else. This isn't about Merton's finances - it's him whining about his expense account!
"Merton was - and presumably still is - in dire straits."
Whoa. A London borough council is in "dire straits"?! And he presumes it still is?! We are three paragraphs in and already this is total generalisation and supposition. What good are the presumptions of a man who is now in Thailand and has no idea of the current state of play? If he is prepared to make this kind of wild, sweeping presumption, then how much else is he wildly presuming? When this crops up so early, you have to wonder about the reliability of what's to follow...
"They had to crank up the parking fees and fines to a level which must by now be among the highest in the country. If all car drivers in Merton suddenly left their cars at home or - if using them - obeyed the parking regulations, the Council would have to increase the Council Tax even further."
Errr... Horst... hello? The question was about Merton helping Wimbledon FC. Focus love...
"Apart from the financial malaise, one has to say that the then Labour Council was not too keen anyway on helping Wimbledon FC, as Labour didn't win a single Council seat in Wimbledon itself."
What?! Hold the f****** phone. Is he seriously suggesting that Labour not winning a seat in Wimbledon was grounds for snubbing the town's football club? What kind of mad suggestion is that? Since when did a football club have any bearing whatsoever on the outcome of council elections? Even the Charlton candidates didn't get in - and that was a whole different situation. This man is asking us to believe a Council wouldn't help a football club because it didn't win seats in the main town. His credibility was damaged already and now it's pretty much shot.
"Merton is an artificially created borough, throwing together three areas. Wimbledon (which had a Council on its own before the other two joined), Morden and Mitcham. These areas have not much in common and in the case of Mitcham, nothing at all.
When the Tories took over Merton in 2006 on a shaky majority the train had left the station, but they would neither have been able nor willing to finance a move of Wimbledon FC back into the Borough or anywhere near it. There were just not enough votes to be won by supporting the football club, rather the opposite."
Hold it. Who ever suggested that the local council should finance Wimbledon FC moving back to the borough? Where does a bonkers notion like that come from? It was never about the council funding a move, it was only ever about the council helping find a site and then granting planning permission for it. So why on earth is Bull******* on about the council financing it? Either he's party to some outrageous behind-the-scenes bargaining he doesn't tell us about or he's once again demonstrating a complete lack of understanding for the actual facts.
"I know of a Tory councillor candidate who stood in an election in the ward that includes Plough Lane and who was a staunch WFC supporter. He had no chance to win a seat there at the time, but he tried his best by pretending to support the residents in their campaign against a return. In fairness to him, he was well aware of all the facts, especially the Council's financial blight. But this action signalled quite clearly that by then the discussion about Plough Lane was at best an academic one."
So 2 plus 2 equals 89? A prospective councillor lying to his electorate somehow means the discussion about Plough Lane is academic? Never mind the allegation of lying that Bull******* includes here (and I wonder how easily identified this councillor might be and therefore the legal action Mr Bull******* might find himself on the end of), all this signals is that one person may have thought opposing a football club would curry favour in his ward.
"He is to this day a great friend of mine..."
Curious then that you should accuse him of blatantly lying to his electorate.
"...and I readily forgave him his hypocrisy. After all being born and bred in Yorkshire didn't stop him from being a life time supporter of Manchester United, which must be the pinnacle of hypocrisy, or 'treason' as the Yorkshire folk would call it. He did however come with me regularly to MK for the first season there and he doesn't support AFC Wimbledon."
Wait... what? A staunch WFC supporter who's also a life long Man Utd supporter and who then regularly went to Franchise? Is anyone else open-mouthed at this point? Bull******* trots out this person as an example of why Wimbledon FC didn't receive more council support... and then basically slaughters him as a liar, a hypocrite and a follower of multiple football clubs, not really a "staunch WFC supporter" then, eh?
Now remember, Bull******* was asked why Wimbledon FC didn't get more support from Merton council, and if you look at what he actually says, it boils down to the fact that councillors (of which he was one), couldn't be trusted. There's some financial smokescreen in there too, but it's just that, smokescreen, because the council wouldn't have been paying for the ground, the club would.
I confess that by this point I have already made up my mind about Bull*******'s opinion of things and what it is worth - and I suspect anyone who's not a Franchise customer will have too, but I'll press on through the worse things that are to come.
"WHY DIDN’T THE PEOPLE OF WIMBLEDON GET BEHIND THE FOOTBALL CLUB?"
Any Wimbledon fan, right now, after reading that question is swearing like a sailor. I know I did... a lot. The question itself is just wrong. Who is the questioner to determine what does and doesn't constitute a town getting behind its football club? And a stupid question inevitably gets a very stupid answer...
"The Wimbledon public is lukewarm about football."
Complete and total nonsense. He might as well have said 'The Wakefield public is lukewarm about tennis' or the 'Exeter public is lukewarm about hockey'. It's generalised, it has no facts to back it up, it's insulting to the Wimbledon public that was anything but lukewarm about football... and it's just plain wrong.
I'm overcome by the urge to stop at this point, because this idiot is taking us for idiots, but complete nonsense like this cannot be allowed to stand, so we progress...
"I shall never be able to understand where ca. 30,000 supporters came from in 1988 at the Wembley cup final. The majority of them seemed to come from nowhere and disappeared after the next day’s celebrations without trace."
Same place 30,000 'fans' came out of the woodwork for Franchise's visit to Wembley in the JPT - same place any club's attendances come from for a big cup game. A large bunch of gloryhunters appearing for one day does not make the committed fanbase of several thousand who turned out every week suddenly disappear from sight or from consideration.
"When I walked through Wimbledon Village on the Sunday morning, together with a lot of others on my way to the celebration at the town hall, I overheard two elderly ladies sitting outside a café. One of the old dears asked the other: "Do you know what on earth is going on here?" That is Wimbledon for you."
Well **** me... two old dears didn't pay attention to the football and that means Wimbledon as a place didn't care?! Sorry, but that is simply bull****. It's an anecdote I wouldn't bother bringing out at after-dinner parties Horst - and as a reasoning for saying an entire town doesn't like football it's complete and utter crap.
"AFC Wimbledon can try as hard as they like, they will not be able to create a climate for football in that part of London. Also don't forget the close proximity of clubs like Chelsea and Fulham."
Whoops. Guess you got that one wrong. By now, I expect even tucked away in Thailand he'll have heard of just how well we are doing and just how great the appetite is for football in this part of the world, despite the proximity of Chelsea and Fulham.
I'll leave it there, because I for one can't stomach any more of Bull*******'s bull**** for one day, but you can rest assured I'll be back to the rest of this in due course... next up is his very unwise slating of WISA. Watch this space...