Please stop linking it to Wimbledon F.C.
Go start your own history if you can. You can buy our league status, but you can't buy our history.
I agree, do not merge Wimbledon and MK Dons articles. They are different clubs. Bababoum 15:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Your chairman decided (as was his legal right) to move the team and then rename them.
To include any history, therefore, before 2002 for MK Dons, is factually incorrect.
Many many many supporters will find the use of Wimbledon history of this page offensive. Please sort it out.
This comment refers to an early version of the page, prior to its split into a Wimbledon F.C. page and a Milton Keynes Dons F.C. page. It is retained for archival reasons. Please do not add to it. -- Concrete Cowboy 17:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This article, IMHO needs cleanup, so I've added a notice. Among the issues I have with it are:
I'd do a lot of this myself but I'm aware of how sensitive a topic this is to fans or former fans of the club, and the edit war that seems to continually rage around this page as a result. Qwghlm 21:12, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
As another neutral I feel the article seems very biased towards the MK Dons side of the argument. I am a footy fan but never made it to Ploughlane.-- 130.36.87.102 15:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism is a bit strong just because I dont like the bias of the curent article, I sujest a neutral header then an article about the split then 2 factual discriptions of the new clubs.-- 130.36.87.103 16:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Although moving to Milton Keynes certainly wasn't the clubs only option. Whoever decided to put that in needs to be aware of the facts. I think the best option is to have the clubs history pre 2002 on a seperate page. What do others think?
Comments? -- Concrete Cowboy 23:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
this is a continuation of Separate pages idea, restarted for convenience.
How about for the article Wimbledon F.C., at the very beginning we have:
That way continuity (both official and unofficial) is acknowledged from the very start. Thoughts? Qwghlm 09:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Surely any history for Wimbledon FC would cover the dates from 1889-2002 not until 2003.
OK. I decided to be bold and did it. The club's pre-move history is now at Wimbledon F.C. (including the move controversy) and the 2003 onwards history is here. Minor edits should be fine but any major changes, please discuss them here first. Qwghlm 11:42, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
As a follow-up, if we decide to keep this split then a lot of wikilinks that currently point at MKDFC [2] should be directed to WFC, if that is the club being referred to. Qwghlm 11:50, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Short edit because they did not have 10 points deducted in the 2003-2004 season. (I've deleted that whole sentance.) They did go into admin, but the rules of 10 points deducted did not apply until the 2004-2005 season.
Well I went an got an ID and you have taken up my split idea. It does seem less biased. Now as I am not a Winbledon fan I dont know but could the pre-split, change of name, moving away page have the original crest or at least the one last used at Selout Park.
--
Rekab Mit 22:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Changing names or Colurs is not the same as leaving your heartland. The only reason MK were alowed to stay in the leauge was because of money.
I have reverted these changes because they just bog down the article in detail.
If you wish to debate this reversion, please do so here. It is important that material on Wikipedia is fact, not opinion.
Number 57 made a substantial edit that looks to me like editorialising and conjecture. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it does not belong (as written) in the main article. However, it is copied here for others to comment. -- Concrete Cowboy 14:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Number 57 wrote on my talk page (this time without the editorialsing):
So how about this for an NPOV version: The history of the MK Dons begins in the late 1990s with Pete Winkelman, a music entrepreneur and avid promoter of Milton Keynes, who wanted top-class football in the city. The city already had a football team, Milton Keynes City F.C., who were playing in the Spartan South Midlands League, the eighth level of English football. Had Winkleman only been into bringing sporting glory to the area, he could have invested in the local team, as had Dr. Martens millionaire Max Griggs with nearby Rushden & Diamonds F.C.. However, Winkleman's saw an opportunity build a FIFA-compliant new stadium complex, as part of a large commercial development that included Asda and IKEA superstores, and near a mainline railway station. This was probably the last remaining site in the city that fitted the bill: if this opportunity were lost, there would not be another. It was unlikely he could persuade the backers to fund such a stadium for what was at the time a poorly-supported non-league team. Instead, he planned to bring in a professional club from another city.
Since 1998, Winkleman had been approaching other clubs that were struggling financially, including Barnet F.C., Luton Town F.C. and QPR, but all had rejected his advances. However, in the failing Wimbledon F.C., itself looking for a new home after years out of Wimbledon town, he found his perfect match. He persuaded the Directors that a move to Milton Keynes might give the club the new start it needed. But it was to be too late to save Wimbledon which, during the negotiations with the FA, went into administration with debts of more than £20 million.
Winkleman helped finance the National Hockey Stadium's conversion for football, and took the club over to save it from liquidation. It was taking a big risk that the FA would approve the move. However, many of the team's best players had been sold off by the administrators and, at the end of the 2002/2003 season, the club were relegated to League One (the new name for the Second Division). In the end, the FA approved and in September 2003, Wimbledon F.C. finally moved into the National Hockey Stadium in Milton Keynes.
Comments? -- Concrete Cowboy 11:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Thanks for the consideration --
Number 57
I don't think this should be '1889 (as Wimbledon Old Centrals FC)' - using the date on current MK badge would perhaps be better, seeing as it's debatable whether MK Dons is a continuation of Wimbledon FC.
Think you should use the date they were founded as Milton Keynes Dons instead, with the older history being on the Wimbledon FC entry etc.
Anybody else think that the away colours should be changed to all black since this seems to be the colour thy are using this season? It is also listed as the away shirt on the official club shop website.
There is a proposal to mege Franchise F.C. into Milton Keynes Dons F.C.
Since the consensus on Articles for Deletion was that the term should be kept, the next question is where is a sensible place for a redirect to point. Alternatively, the Request to Merge should be denied.
I've created a basic squad template for use on e.g. player pages. See Template:Milton_Keynes_Dons_F.C._Squad -- Zorro77 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following section: "Milton Keynes City moved into Wolverton AFC's ground after it became disused. Wolverton Association Football Club, often known simply as Wolverton, is an English football team representing the Town of Wolverton (and, for a time,) Milton Keynes (being the oldest football club in the area). The club motto is "In Omnia Paratus" (lit: "In all things prepared"). The club was wound up in 1992 but there is a current attempt to revive it. Until recently, it had the oldest (and almost certainly the first) football stand in the United Kingdom and also holds the record for having once the longest sport's team name in the English speaking world."
This text seems to be not about MK Dons but about Milton Keynes City and Wolverton AFC. Perhaps a link to pages on these clubs? -- mgaved 15:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Concrete Cowboy 18:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)==Legally the same==
I'd have to agree with MLD, legally its a different legal entity even though it bought the 'assets/liabilities' of the old company. However its not really a key point in the discussion but i'm of the view that company law (eg Companies Act 1985/1989) etc etc etc would say that legally the two companies are separate. The Newco may have also taken on the obligations of the Oldco but they are still two separate legal entities. Winding up doesnt always happen, there can be many reasons not to disolve the company at the end (such as protecting the company name). Glazer (i might not have this totally correct as i havent double checked) formed a NewCo which bought the shares of the plc though a series of loans etc using the shares in the plc as security. So Newco owned Oldco - again two separate companies - which is quite common in many corporate structures. I think, therefore, that the revised wording is clearer and technically more accurate, even though its quite a pedantic point. GazMan7 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous editor is repeatedly adding personal opinion and speculation to this section. These types of changes will be removed. Please remember that Wikipedia can only record verifiable material. It cannot speculate on what might happen, should happen or could happen. If you wish to discuss this, please use this Discussion page, not the main article. In addition, you are strongly encouraged to get personal log-on name. -- Concrete Cowboy 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
British English should be used for articles on Britain related topics. Likewise, American English should be used on articles pertaining to American topics. For a clearer example, please visit this sub-section on the differences between their usage. However, is" works better than "are" with the term club as it is a singular and not a plural noun. (Compare with the word team which is a plural noun) -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
An anon editor wrote "They currently are in 3rd place which is the last automatic spot for promotion to League One. The team's leading goal scorer, Izale Mcleod, is currently in second place among League Two goal scorers. On December 16, they won 3-1 over Wycombe Wanderers in front of 5,977 fans at the National Hockey Stadium in the first ever Buckinghamshire derby between the two teams. Izale McLeod scored twice in the match. MK Dons have the 2nd highest average attendance record in League Two behind Swindon Town F.C.".
Were the five teams mentioned all in existence at one point in time - I suppose at the time the MK Dons move was being considered? My understanding is that three of the team were in existence but Milton Keynes City F.C. and Wolverton AFC's existence at the time fluctuated. - 14:43, 17 January 2007 82.133.79.7
The front page has said "..but most of that club's original fans no longer support it", with a request for citation, as long as I can remember. Can we either get a citation or remove that part of that sentence? It's beginning to get boring seeing it... preceding unsigned edit by anonymous user at 137.108.145.11.
MK Dons OS and Wikipedia show diffrent information about the squad. But who is true? -- TheDonsBG 16:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I copyedited and updated the intro. An anon editor has reverted wuthout explanation, so I have reinstated. It is not legitimate to use the UNDO feature to revert edits that are not clearly vandalism. If you don't like the new intro, please explain here. -- Concrete Cowboy 16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that original supporters of Wimbledon FC continue to follow the rebranded team in MK is an extraordinary one. I have never seen any evidence that there are any such supporters.
A claim that there are no such supporters in not extraordinary; it is both logically likely and backed up by attendances at the new Wimbledon team's games that almost match their attendances in the old football league.
If you have evidence that the more likely of the two scenarios is not true, state it. -- Lingvo9 ( talk) 18:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
In the article the line: "The history of Milton Keynes Dons (MK Dons) begins in the late 1990s" seems silly. It didn't. It started in the 2004-2005 season, when they played their first match under the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.252.64 ( talk) 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Therefore I have deleted this comment. The comment is simply untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.252.64 ( talk) 23:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well there wasn't a team called MK Dons that existed in the 1990s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.252.64 ( talk) 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Now the Dons were formed in 2004, but its not practical to list EVERY former player. I mean Shola Oyedele? Come on. 91.107.78.220 ( talk) 22:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
New to this so please bear with me... the current squad lists Sean O'Hanlon as English. Further down, in Notable Players he is shown as Irish.
Following on from that, Notable Players is actually titled "Notable Former Players" but it includes 3 current players... this is referenced in the notes in italics and they are signified in bold. But would it not be simpler to change the title? Or is the format set?
81.146.60.114 ( talk) 14:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a template for the new (ISC) kits? The infobox is dispaying the 09-10 (Nike) kits as current. Krytenia ( talk) 01:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Please stop linking it to Wimbledon F.C.
Go start your own history if you can. You can buy our league status, but you can't buy our history.
I agree, do not merge Wimbledon and MK Dons articles. They are different clubs. Bababoum 15:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Your chairman decided (as was his legal right) to move the team and then rename them.
To include any history, therefore, before 2002 for MK Dons, is factually incorrect.
Many many many supporters will find the use of Wimbledon history of this page offensive. Please sort it out.
This comment refers to an early version of the page, prior to its split into a Wimbledon F.C. page and a Milton Keynes Dons F.C. page. It is retained for archival reasons. Please do not add to it. -- Concrete Cowboy 17:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This article, IMHO needs cleanup, so I've added a notice. Among the issues I have with it are:
I'd do a lot of this myself but I'm aware of how sensitive a topic this is to fans or former fans of the club, and the edit war that seems to continually rage around this page as a result. Qwghlm 21:12, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
As another neutral I feel the article seems very biased towards the MK Dons side of the argument. I am a footy fan but never made it to Ploughlane.-- 130.36.87.102 15:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism is a bit strong just because I dont like the bias of the curent article, I sujest a neutral header then an article about the split then 2 factual discriptions of the new clubs.-- 130.36.87.103 16:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Although moving to Milton Keynes certainly wasn't the clubs only option. Whoever decided to put that in needs to be aware of the facts. I think the best option is to have the clubs history pre 2002 on a seperate page. What do others think?
Comments? -- Concrete Cowboy 23:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
this is a continuation of Separate pages idea, restarted for convenience.
How about for the article Wimbledon F.C., at the very beginning we have:
That way continuity (both official and unofficial) is acknowledged from the very start. Thoughts? Qwghlm 09:38, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Surely any history for Wimbledon FC would cover the dates from 1889-2002 not until 2003.
OK. I decided to be bold and did it. The club's pre-move history is now at Wimbledon F.C. (including the move controversy) and the 2003 onwards history is here. Minor edits should be fine but any major changes, please discuss them here first. Qwghlm 11:42, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
As a follow-up, if we decide to keep this split then a lot of wikilinks that currently point at MKDFC [2] should be directed to WFC, if that is the club being referred to. Qwghlm 11:50, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Short edit because they did not have 10 points deducted in the 2003-2004 season. (I've deleted that whole sentance.) They did go into admin, but the rules of 10 points deducted did not apply until the 2004-2005 season.
Well I went an got an ID and you have taken up my split idea. It does seem less biased. Now as I am not a Winbledon fan I dont know but could the pre-split, change of name, moving away page have the original crest or at least the one last used at Selout Park.
--
Rekab Mit 22:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Changing names or Colurs is not the same as leaving your heartland. The only reason MK were alowed to stay in the leauge was because of money.
I have reverted these changes because they just bog down the article in detail.
If you wish to debate this reversion, please do so here. It is important that material on Wikipedia is fact, not opinion.
Number 57 made a substantial edit that looks to me like editorialising and conjecture. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it does not belong (as written) in the main article. However, it is copied here for others to comment. -- Concrete Cowboy 14:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Number 57 wrote on my talk page (this time without the editorialsing):
So how about this for an NPOV version: The history of the MK Dons begins in the late 1990s with Pete Winkelman, a music entrepreneur and avid promoter of Milton Keynes, who wanted top-class football in the city. The city already had a football team, Milton Keynes City F.C., who were playing in the Spartan South Midlands League, the eighth level of English football. Had Winkleman only been into bringing sporting glory to the area, he could have invested in the local team, as had Dr. Martens millionaire Max Griggs with nearby Rushden & Diamonds F.C.. However, Winkleman's saw an opportunity build a FIFA-compliant new stadium complex, as part of a large commercial development that included Asda and IKEA superstores, and near a mainline railway station. This was probably the last remaining site in the city that fitted the bill: if this opportunity were lost, there would not be another. It was unlikely he could persuade the backers to fund such a stadium for what was at the time a poorly-supported non-league team. Instead, he planned to bring in a professional club from another city.
Since 1998, Winkleman had been approaching other clubs that were struggling financially, including Barnet F.C., Luton Town F.C. and QPR, but all had rejected his advances. However, in the failing Wimbledon F.C., itself looking for a new home after years out of Wimbledon town, he found his perfect match. He persuaded the Directors that a move to Milton Keynes might give the club the new start it needed. But it was to be too late to save Wimbledon which, during the negotiations with the FA, went into administration with debts of more than £20 million.
Winkleman helped finance the National Hockey Stadium's conversion for football, and took the club over to save it from liquidation. It was taking a big risk that the FA would approve the move. However, many of the team's best players had been sold off by the administrators and, at the end of the 2002/2003 season, the club were relegated to League One (the new name for the Second Division). In the end, the FA approved and in September 2003, Wimbledon F.C. finally moved into the National Hockey Stadium in Milton Keynes.
Comments? -- Concrete Cowboy 11:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Looks good to me! Thanks for the consideration --
Number 57
I don't think this should be '1889 (as Wimbledon Old Centrals FC)' - using the date on current MK badge would perhaps be better, seeing as it's debatable whether MK Dons is a continuation of Wimbledon FC.
Think you should use the date they were founded as Milton Keynes Dons instead, with the older history being on the Wimbledon FC entry etc.
Anybody else think that the away colours should be changed to all black since this seems to be the colour thy are using this season? It is also listed as the away shirt on the official club shop website.
There is a proposal to mege Franchise F.C. into Milton Keynes Dons F.C.
Since the consensus on Articles for Deletion was that the term should be kept, the next question is where is a sensible place for a redirect to point. Alternatively, the Request to Merge should be denied.
I've created a basic squad template for use on e.g. player pages. See Template:Milton_Keynes_Dons_F.C._Squad -- Zorro77 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following section: "Milton Keynes City moved into Wolverton AFC's ground after it became disused. Wolverton Association Football Club, often known simply as Wolverton, is an English football team representing the Town of Wolverton (and, for a time,) Milton Keynes (being the oldest football club in the area). The club motto is "In Omnia Paratus" (lit: "In all things prepared"). The club was wound up in 1992 but there is a current attempt to revive it. Until recently, it had the oldest (and almost certainly the first) football stand in the United Kingdom and also holds the record for having once the longest sport's team name in the English speaking world."
This text seems to be not about MK Dons but about Milton Keynes City and Wolverton AFC. Perhaps a link to pages on these clubs? -- mgaved 15:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
-- Concrete Cowboy 18:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)==Legally the same==
I'd have to agree with MLD, legally its a different legal entity even though it bought the 'assets/liabilities' of the old company. However its not really a key point in the discussion but i'm of the view that company law (eg Companies Act 1985/1989) etc etc etc would say that legally the two companies are separate. The Newco may have also taken on the obligations of the Oldco but they are still two separate legal entities. Winding up doesnt always happen, there can be many reasons not to disolve the company at the end (such as protecting the company name). Glazer (i might not have this totally correct as i havent double checked) formed a NewCo which bought the shares of the plc though a series of loans etc using the shares in the plc as security. So Newco owned Oldco - again two separate companies - which is quite common in many corporate structures. I think, therefore, that the revised wording is clearer and technically more accurate, even though its quite a pedantic point. GazMan7 17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous editor is repeatedly adding personal opinion and speculation to this section. These types of changes will be removed. Please remember that Wikipedia can only record verifiable material. It cannot speculate on what might happen, should happen or could happen. If you wish to discuss this, please use this Discussion page, not the main article. In addition, you are strongly encouraged to get personal log-on name. -- Concrete Cowboy 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
British English should be used for articles on Britain related topics. Likewise, American English should be used on articles pertaining to American topics. For a clearer example, please visit this sub-section on the differences between their usage. However, is" works better than "are" with the term club as it is a singular and not a plural noun. (Compare with the word team which is a plural noun) -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
An anon editor wrote "They currently are in 3rd place which is the last automatic spot for promotion to League One. The team's leading goal scorer, Izale Mcleod, is currently in second place among League Two goal scorers. On December 16, they won 3-1 over Wycombe Wanderers in front of 5,977 fans at the National Hockey Stadium in the first ever Buckinghamshire derby between the two teams. Izale McLeod scored twice in the match. MK Dons have the 2nd highest average attendance record in League Two behind Swindon Town F.C.".
Were the five teams mentioned all in existence at one point in time - I suppose at the time the MK Dons move was being considered? My understanding is that three of the team were in existence but Milton Keynes City F.C. and Wolverton AFC's existence at the time fluctuated. - 14:43, 17 January 2007 82.133.79.7
The front page has said "..but most of that club's original fans no longer support it", with a request for citation, as long as I can remember. Can we either get a citation or remove that part of that sentence? It's beginning to get boring seeing it... preceding unsigned edit by anonymous user at 137.108.145.11.
MK Dons OS and Wikipedia show diffrent information about the squad. But who is true? -- TheDonsBG 16:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I copyedited and updated the intro. An anon editor has reverted wuthout explanation, so I have reinstated. It is not legitimate to use the UNDO feature to revert edits that are not clearly vandalism. If you don't like the new intro, please explain here. -- Concrete Cowboy 16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim that original supporters of Wimbledon FC continue to follow the rebranded team in MK is an extraordinary one. I have never seen any evidence that there are any such supporters.
A claim that there are no such supporters in not extraordinary; it is both logically likely and backed up by attendances at the new Wimbledon team's games that almost match their attendances in the old football league.
If you have evidence that the more likely of the two scenarios is not true, state it. -- Lingvo9 ( talk) 18:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
In the article the line: "The history of Milton Keynes Dons (MK Dons) begins in the late 1990s" seems silly. It didn't. It started in the 2004-2005 season, when they played their first match under the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.252.64 ( talk) 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Therefore I have deleted this comment. The comment is simply untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.252.64 ( talk) 23:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well there wasn't a team called MK Dons that existed in the 1990s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.252.64 ( talk) 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Now the Dons were formed in 2004, but its not practical to list EVERY former player. I mean Shola Oyedele? Come on. 91.107.78.220 ( talk) 22:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
New to this so please bear with me... the current squad lists Sean O'Hanlon as English. Further down, in Notable Players he is shown as Irish.
Following on from that, Notable Players is actually titled "Notable Former Players" but it includes 3 current players... this is referenced in the notes in italics and they are signified in bold. But would it not be simpler to change the title? Or is the format set?
81.146.60.114 ( talk) 14:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a template for the new (ISC) kits? The infobox is dispaying the 09-10 (Nike) kits as current. Krytenia ( talk) 01:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)