Graham Kelly: Wimbledon's case heralds new era of franchise football

Football turned up in the unlikely forum of the House of Lords late last Wednesday evening in the shape of a welcome if not earth-shifting debate on whether the Government had any proposals to make about the ownership of football clubs. My attention was drawn to the report by a Wimbledon supporter living in the United States, who had watched the debate by webcast, from which you may have gathered that this is again delving into the decision of the Football Association appointed independent commission to allow Wimbledon to move to Milton Keynes.

While the die-hard supporters in the Dons Trust have founded a new club which will play home matches at neighbouring Kingstonian in the Combined Counties League, the Wimbledon Independent Supporters Association (WISA) is calling on the Football Association and Football League clubs to repudiate the commission's decision as being against the best interests of the game.

Wimbledon – or Franchise FC as the supporters have dubbed them – have announced they are remaining at Selhurst Park next season, as the hockey stadium in Milton Keynes, their planned temporary home while the new stadium was being built, could not meet Football League criteria in time.

Time between World Cup matches afforded the opportunity which was not available earlier to scroll through the 60-page decision of the commission. These extracts make revealing reading.

The ruling approvingly quotes the decision of an earlier tribunal, comprising FA vice-chairman David Dein, then York City chairman Douglas Craig and chairman Charles Hollander QC: "It should be in the interests of football as a whole that major new stadia are encouraged where there is an untapped demand for major league football, such as in new towns. It is true that a route does exist through the pyramid structure to achieve this, but it is a somewhat tortuous one."

In paragraph 120: "The football authorities need to... take a flexible and progressive view of policy considerations and apply them to the current bleak financial world the clubs inhabit."

Despite the commission protesting at every turn that their decision is not the first step down the road to an American-style franchising system, the above extracts, coupled with the commission's endorsement of Milton Keynes as deserving of a suitable opportunity in its own right, clearly demonstrate that it ignored the inconvenient pyramid system which other aspiring clubs have to comply with. Did the commission think to ask Max Griggs, the chairman of Rushden & Diamonds, whether he had found the pyramid route tortuous?

The following extracts from the ruling are part of the case that Wimbledon advanced, which convinced the commission of the justification in allowing the club to be taken away from their small band of regular supporters:

"Wimbledon... is in a unique financial position. It is, according to Deloitte & Touche, who have submitted expert reports to this commission, estimated to be losing more than £20,000 per day, £150,000 per week, £8.2m per year. Its shareholders have put in £6.7m of funds during the course of last year to keep the club going. They have invested a further £3.8m this year. Losses for the season which has just ended and the next two seasons are expected to reach £33m. These are losses the shareholders cannot be expected to maintain or sustain. Further funds of £2.5m will be required until the end of the club's financial year (June 2002) if the club is to stave off insolvency. A combination of the ITV Digital collapse and Wimbledon's loss of Premier League parachute payments will result in a loss of revenue of £7m (a staggering two-thirds of the club's income for next season).

"Deloittes... say this places Wimbledon in a unique financial position, quite apart from its (enduring) lack of home ground. Wimbledon's 2000-2001 operating loss was greater, at £10.8m, than all but two of the other 91 professional clubs in England."

According to WISA, this £10.8m figure is also quoted in material issued to fans as "operating loss before player trading", but what supporters cannot understand is how the commission seemed to overlook the revenue from transfers of players. Carl Cort, Ben Thatcher, John Hartson, Jason Euell, and Marcus Gayle, all departed in the new millennium, must surely have made some impact on the finances.

The Wimbledon supporters are wasting their time lobbying the football authorities. Was their plight even mentioned at the annual conference of the Football Association last week? Their letters did not even get past the concierge at the League's annual general meeting in Kensington.

What it all boils down to is this. No one in football cares deeply about this principle. If they had, they would have sent a heavyweight along to that commission to argue: "No way. Over my dead body. The club's owners knew what they were buying from Sam Hamman." In truth, a franchise system might just suit a few people in football.

Tony Blair said we were all devastated when Brazil knocked England out of the World Cup. Wrong. Most England fans were extremely disappointed that our team did not reach their fullest potential. Devastated (and betrayed) will be something that a small band of loyal supporters feel when they see their club spirited off to a new home 60-odd miles away, where, according to the FA's commission, the consortium chairman's enthusiasm for the project is "almost infectious and obviously genuine". No doubt. No offence, but it sounds like it will be just like watching Japan.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who was the vice-chairman of the government's Football Task Force which recommended the establishment of the long-awaited Independent Football Commission, is an elected member of the Dons Trust and he told his colleagues in the Upper House the other night that the IFC was the one remaining hope.

I'm sorry, my lord, but the IFC is toothless and all appeal channels are exhausted. Wimbledon are dead. Long live Franchise FC.

grahamkelly@btinternet.com