I do wonder sometimes why it is that Franchise customers have to persist in repeating lies and misinformation that have long since been proved to be false? Do they think that by constantly repeating a lie enough times it will become the truth? It won't of course, particuarly when the things they are repeating are so easily disproved. Let's look at a few thrown up by the Wimbledon Guardian's 'Drop the Dons' campaign (http://www.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/dropthedons/)
All these quotes are taken from this thread: http://www.thefootballforum.net/index.php?/topic/209232-drop-the-dons-campaign/
Coining a name
"Regardless of whether Kris Stewart(who interesting first publically coined the phrase MK Dons)..."
Kris Stewart did not coin the phrase 'MK Dons', how could he when it had already been reserved as a domain name by Winkelman in 2000! This from Whois.com:
"Domain name:
mkdons.co.uk
Registrant:
Pete Winkelman
Trading as:
MK Dons FC
Registrant type:
Other UK Entity (e.g. clubs, associations, many universities)
Relevant dates:
Registered on: 23-Jun-2000
Renewal date: 23-Jun-2012
Last updated: 16-Jan-2012"
How can Kris Stewart 'coin' something in 2002 that Winkelman had already registered in 2000? He couldn't, obviously.
Put it in the Accord
"If they wanted it changed they should have put it in to the accord."
This one keeps coming up and it is utter nonsense. The Accord was an agreement that took considerable negotiation to achieve, it wasn't simply thrust in front of Franchise for them to sign. The fact is that the Accord could never have included a guarantee of Franchise dropping the 'Dons' because any name change requires approval by the football authorities. Unless one was party to the negotiations one has no idea of what was or wasn't put on the table for discussion. And regardless of that, simply because it wasn't agreed then does not stop the 'Dons' name being an issue or being subject to later scrutiny, because there's also nothing in the Accord that says the signing parties have no objection to the name 'Dons'. The club has to be listed as that in the Accord because it was their legal trading name at the time, but its use in the Accord does not confirm its acceptability to those signing, just an acceptance of it as the trading name at the time. If the company name had been 'Milton Keynes Cat-herders' would Franchise customers now be claiming that signing the Accord marked approval of that as their name? Absurd, of course, but that's the point.
What the Accord did say, as I've pointed out before, is this: "16. The FSF and WISA confirm that they do not expect MKDFC to implement the recommendations of the FA Appeal Commission relating to maintaining links with South London, and would support moves by the club to develop its identity as a new club within Milton Keynes." A clear indication that the signing parties support the club developing its NEW identity, not clinging on to an old one associated with Wimbledon. And don't forget the Accord also said this:
"17. In promoting the approval and acceptance of this accord all parties to it accept that there is no solution which will completely satisfy all concerned and that all parties have made some compromises to achieve this position which represents the best way forward in all the circumstances."
Again, a clear indication that the signing parties did not get everything they wanted and that things may change again in the future.
The clincher... If Franchise wanted an acceptance from others that they should remain using the 'Dons' nickname in their club's nicked name, then they should have put that in the Accord, right? Right.
Trading names
"The fact that many of them saw (and some still do) the moniker Dons "as a permanent reminder of the shameful way we came to be" was always their philosophy and that seems to have backfired somewhat when they've realised the commercial implications of their being two Dons in the football league. That's all this is about underneath all the emotive bluster."
This one really takes the biscuit for delusional. There is no way you can trademark 'Dons' in this capacity when it's used as a nickname by so many clubs (Aberdeen, Hendon, Wimbledon). It's entirely about the offence caused to Wimbledon fans having to hear 'Dons' associated with a franchise in Milton Keynes. It makes the blood of many Wimbledon fans boil - it is a constant and needless reminder of having the club stolen away from us in 2002. Why would a Franchise customer find that so hard to understand that they concoct this nonsense about non-existent commercial implications?
Embarrassment
"They seem to think we're embarrassed about our Wimbledon past when nothing could be further from the truth."
We don't think they're embarrassed. We think they SHOULD be embarrassed. The fact that some of them are not and revel in flaunting our nicked-name in front of us at every opportunity is what is really embarrassing. But some people have no shame.
Commission recommendations
"The FA recommended we retain the former identity of Wimbledon FC and MK Dons FC does just that."
What a horrendous re-writing of history that is! The Commission recommended the retaining of a large number of things, none of which were done and all of which were signed away by the Accord. Retaining one lousy nicked-name isn't 'retaining the identity of Wimbledon FC'. Need reminding of just how big a travesty it is to claim 'Dons' in that light? Here's what the Commission actually said:
And anyone is meant to accept that putting a nicked-name in the team name somehow satisfies all those expectations? Laughable.
The inaccuracies, lies and misinformation just keep on coming from the Franchise customers, getting worse all the time. And for what? To cling on to the absurd-sounding 'Dons' in their team name. Perhaps they really do deserve to be branded with it for life. It would serve many of them right for coming up with this sort of stuff.
All these quotes are taken from this thread: http://www.thefootballforum.net/index.php?/topic/209232-drop-the-dons-campaign/
Coining a name
"Regardless of whether Kris Stewart(who interesting first publically coined the phrase MK Dons)..."
Kris Stewart did not coin the phrase 'MK Dons', how could he when it had already been reserved as a domain name by Winkelman in 2000! This from Whois.com:
"Domain name:
mkdons.co.uk
Registrant:
Pete Winkelman
Trading as:
MK Dons FC
Registrant type:
Other UK Entity (e.g. clubs, associations, many universities)
Relevant dates:
Registered on: 23-Jun-2000
Renewal date: 23-Jun-2012
Last updated: 16-Jan-2012"
How can Kris Stewart 'coin' something in 2002 that Winkelman had already registered in 2000? He couldn't, obviously.
Put it in the Accord
"If they wanted it changed they should have put it in to the accord."
This one keeps coming up and it is utter nonsense. The Accord was an agreement that took considerable negotiation to achieve, it wasn't simply thrust in front of Franchise for them to sign. The fact is that the Accord could never have included a guarantee of Franchise dropping the 'Dons' because any name change requires approval by the football authorities. Unless one was party to the negotiations one has no idea of what was or wasn't put on the table for discussion. And regardless of that, simply because it wasn't agreed then does not stop the 'Dons' name being an issue or being subject to later scrutiny, because there's also nothing in the Accord that says the signing parties have no objection to the name 'Dons'. The club has to be listed as that in the Accord because it was their legal trading name at the time, but its use in the Accord does not confirm its acceptability to those signing, just an acceptance of it as the trading name at the time. If the company name had been 'Milton Keynes Cat-herders' would Franchise customers now be claiming that signing the Accord marked approval of that as their name? Absurd, of course, but that's the point.
What the Accord did say, as I've pointed out before, is this: "16. The FSF and WISA confirm that they do not expect MKDFC to implement the recommendations of the FA Appeal Commission relating to maintaining links with South London, and would support moves by the club to develop its identity as a new club within Milton Keynes." A clear indication that the signing parties support the club developing its NEW identity, not clinging on to an old one associated with Wimbledon. And don't forget the Accord also said this:
"17. In promoting the approval and acceptance of this accord all parties to it accept that there is no solution which will completely satisfy all concerned and that all parties have made some compromises to achieve this position which represents the best way forward in all the circumstances."
Again, a clear indication that the signing parties did not get everything they wanted and that things may change again in the future.
The clincher... If Franchise wanted an acceptance from others that they should remain using the 'Dons' nickname in their club's nicked name, then they should have put that in the Accord, right? Right.
Trading names
"The fact that many of them saw (and some still do) the moniker Dons "as a permanent reminder of the shameful way we came to be" was always their philosophy and that seems to have backfired somewhat when they've realised the commercial implications of their being two Dons in the football league. That's all this is about underneath all the emotive bluster."
This one really takes the biscuit for delusional. There is no way you can trademark 'Dons' in this capacity when it's used as a nickname by so many clubs (Aberdeen, Hendon, Wimbledon). It's entirely about the offence caused to Wimbledon fans having to hear 'Dons' associated with a franchise in Milton Keynes. It makes the blood of many Wimbledon fans boil - it is a constant and needless reminder of having the club stolen away from us in 2002. Why would a Franchise customer find that so hard to understand that they concoct this nonsense about non-existent commercial implications?
Embarrassment
"They seem to think we're embarrassed about our Wimbledon past when nothing could be further from the truth."
We don't think they're embarrassed. We think they SHOULD be embarrassed. The fact that some of them are not and revel in flaunting our nicked-name in front of us at every opportunity is what is really embarrassing. But some people have no shame.
Commission recommendations
"The FA recommended we retain the former identity of Wimbledon FC and MK Dons FC does just that."
What a horrendous re-writing of history that is! The Commission recommended the retaining of a large number of things, none of which were done and all of which were signed away by the Accord. Retaining one lousy nicked-name isn't 'retaining the identity of Wimbledon FC'. Need reminding of just how big a travesty it is to claim 'Dons' in that light? Here's what the Commission actually said:
"113. These measures would cover, in no particular order, and without being
prescriptive, (and these are essentially matters for the Football League rather than
ourselves) matters relating to:
* Continuity of:
· Club name and nickname
· Club logo
· Club colours
· Club playing strip and other merchandise
· Players
· Staff
· Shareholders
· Directors
· Academy
· Community schemes
· Club website(s)
· Club shop in Wimbledon;
* Subsidised/free travel to matches between Wimbledon and Milton Keynes (we
are told that trains can be chartered by the Club: the journey time is
approximately one hour);
* Discounted tickets for existing fans at the new stadium in Milton Keynes;
* A ticket outlet in Merton;
* Continued communication with existing fans;
* Local press (Merton) coverage of WFC and its results;
* Promotional material regarding maintenance of identity as WFC;
* Club museum at the new stadium in Milton Keynes;
* Stadium branding at the new stadium in Milton Keynes; and
* Re-naming of local areas/streets in Milton Keynes to associate with WFC.
114. We consider these measures vital to ensuring WFC’s identity and they should
be agreed to and put in place as soon as possible. The Football League will then be
able to monitor and approve the process of maintaining links."
And anyone is meant to accept that putting a nicked-name in the team name somehow satisfies all those expectations? Laughable.
The inaccuracies, lies and misinformation just keep on coming from the Franchise customers, getting worse all the time. And for what? To cling on to the absurd-sounding 'Dons' in their team name. Perhaps they really do deserve to be branded with it for life. It would serve many of them right for coming up with this sort of stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment