Graham Kelly: Dons' move will leave a stain on FA's record

This column has debated, or rather, fulminated about, Wimbledon's move to Milton Keynes several times. Only once, so far, have I made reference to the club's chairman, Charles Koppel, when I wondered whether, in view of the poor attendance figures, his wealthy backers would maintain their funding throughout another disastrous financial season.

This prompted a letter from Mr Koppel in which he accused me of making "rather unpleasant personal attacks" on him. Now, given the precarious nature of the club's finances as outlined to the independent commission in May, I did not believe my gentle query was unduly Keanesque, but the letter jogged my memory about something in the commission's lengthy report.

And it gave a clue as to how the club might have managed to have so much extraneous comment introduced into the judgment. There it was in paragraph 55: "Mr Koppel has been subjected to some unpleasant personal abuse." There may have been some vivid testimony behind those closed doors in Fleet Street.

He did not use the Letters Column to enter into any detailed explanation as to why the year 2000-2001 financial evidence submitted to the independent commission was so confusing to supporters who were baffled as to where the transfer income had gone. Nor did he re-state the case (if he could) for Wimbledon, the club which had freely rendered itself homeless, to be treated more favourably than Derby, Bradford, or any one of a host of other clubs facing financial meltdown. Instead, the bruised Mr Koppel chose to point out to readers that in 1983, when secretary of the Football League, I wrote a letter indicating that Luton Town might be permitted to move to Milton Keynes.

True. But Luton is far from Wimbledon and, as the commission also noted, so did Peter Leaver, then chief executive of the Premier League, write a letter, couched in caveats, to the Dons' owner Sam Hammam in 1997, giving consent for a move to Dublin, which later had to be blocked by the Football Association because of international considerations.

It had been largely assumed by the FA that, like Luton's talks with Milton Keynes, Hammam's discussions in Ireland were mainly a ploy designed to exert pressure on an uncooperative local council.

There is still no news from the Independent Football Commission, which is waiting for observations from the Football League before replying to the complaint made by the Wimbledon Independent Supporters' Association in June.

The FA commission's ruling started out on a hollow note by suggesting "some important steps to protect the identity and integrity of Wimbledon" and making reference to the "cherished principles of promotion on sporting criteria alone", principles which it then proceeded to rip to shreds in its 40-odd pages of conclusions, apparently desperately worried by Mr Koppel's threat to liquidate the club, which, it assumed, would have been replaced in the First Division by Brentford.

The irony of the decision, described by Football Association chief executive Adam Crozier as "appalling", was breathtaking. It is as well that the FA is looking into it, because it could have been almost any other club and the insult to the game's traditions, the feeling that the game's heritage has somehow been violated, would not have been so acute.

But Wimbledon! The club whose very name, as the commission well recognised, before tossing it onto the scrapheap, was synonymous with cup giant-killing. Wimbledon, June Whitfield's club, the team for whom, legend has it, bandleader Billy Cotton turned out as striker in the non-League days in the 1930s. The club which, by its progress from bottom to top of English football, had the authenticity of the pyramid system indelibly stamped on every page of its 113-year history.

WISA has complained in its submission to the IFC that the commission unjustifiably picked holes in evidence for a return to Merton, whereas that given by and on behalf of the Milton Keynes Stadium Consortium was accepted virtually at face value untested.

So are there any steps left whereby Franchise FC can be prevented from turning out in Buckinghamshire, bearing the crest of a London borough some 70 miles distant? The IFC, set up by New Labour to protect supporters' interests, has admitted that it has no statutory powers and will only be able to make recommendations after the fact.

The Football League has been defeated on appeal, although its board did the right thing originally. It is the Football League's procedures that have been exhausted, but maybe the FA can, at the 11th hour, take steps to reclaim the game in the face of this abomination. After all, the Dublin move was halted, albeit belatedly.

The FA's Memorandum of Association obliges it to "protect the game from abuses and improper practices". The governing body will have a nasty stain on its record if this one gets away.

grahamkelly@btinternet.com