Jump to content

Talk:Kingsmeadow, Kingston upon Thames

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Needs a photo!

Szczels 08:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not NPOV?

[edit]

I don't know enough about the subject actually mark the article as not being NPOV, but it definately seems to me to be very biased against Kholsa. --Sterio 17:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biased against Khosla? Is that possible? You find me one person with a good word to say about Khosla and I'll buy you a pint in the Kingsmeadow Bar!! Prince Philip of Greece 11:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

property developers

[edit]

The lease on Kingsmeadow required that the Borough's senior football team played their home matches there. I have always understood that property development at Kingsmeadow was as good as impossible... Prince Philip of Greece 11:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to a point however Plough Lane also had a covenant precluding its redevelopment - eventually lifted by the council which subsequently granted permission for a housing scheme. (Must also remember that while it is the most lucrative, property isn't the sole form of re-development which is profitable for developers to undertake). Moral of the story? For a healthy football club dont remove ground ownership from the club - it's a club's only long term asset. (Therefore better for Kingstonian F.C. that AFC Wimbledon own Kingsmeadow than some business man of dubious repute, n'est pas?)Matt derry 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that not a circular argument? Yes, it was Khosla who separated the Ks from its ground, but I'd argue that it was the Kingston Dons who cemented that. £2.5 million pounds, fercrissakes? AFCW's eagerness made it blind.
And I cannot accept lectures on morality from a club that sold its soul to buy our ground. Prince Philip of Greece 08:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the pejorative term "Kingston Dons" makes clear your position so not sure why I'm continuing with reasoned argument, nevertheless...
The simple point I'm making is this - who would make a better custodian for a club's ground? a) another football club (esp an "upwardly mobile" one which starts to make improvements to the stadium straight away) or b) a disinterested third party developer (who may at one time have played at being a chairman) who could sell on or submit a planning application for 500 homes at any point?? And I don't see how the price paid for it has any relevance in that choice.
Since it's our club we're talking about, our opinion has plenty of merit, wouldn't you say? Many of us were content to fight Khosla for the club/ground and many of us believe that we were well on our way to winning it back. But - and this is the key point - without a buyer, he couldn't have sold it. You guys came along and gave him a massive get-out. He could've submitted a planning application for a dog kennel or a luxury hotel for all I care - it wouldn't have been granted (and, yes, we do have evidence for that).Prince Philip of Greece 16:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I never suggested your opinions had no merit (I did state that I don't understand how the price makes any difference to who you would prefer to own it). Of K's fight in regaining ownership of the ground I have honestly heard little - (perhaps if you have much knowledge on this subject you may consider including it in this article?). Yes, obviously without a buyer Khosla couldn't sell KM, but he was happy to pick up two clubs-worth of rent per season for now and then in the future...? As for evidence for refusing future planning applications, I think it would be naive to assume that an alternative application would never be accepted - as I mentioned, Dons fans know this from bitter experience that deals can be done behind closed doors, etc. Matt derry 16:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, didn't think there were any "lectures on morality" in my comments. Not quite sure how AFC Wimbledon "sold its soul to buy your ground", but that's just it, it wasn't your ground - since you'd already sold it! Sheesh!
Matt derry 14:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You told me the moral of the story in your posting. (Perhaps you were being 'paternalistic'..!) The gorund morally belonged to Ks - not to Khosla.Prince Philip of Greece 16:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see - poor choice of phrase perhaps. Should have gone with "in summary..." or something similar. (As I mentioned the "Paternalistic" comment was not mine and was one I removed as I felt it to be patronising to K's. Perhaps you would suggest I do not remove these comments, such as the revision as of 10:55, 23 August 2006, which says "The act of purchasing the ground safeguarded the future of both clubs."?!)
Of all the sets of supporters to talk about "morally owning something" without actually owning it, Wimbledon supporters know this situation well! Unfortunately what's morally right doesn't mean a lot in football these days - anyway, K's fans could've mobilised themselves to buy back the ground from Khosla if they'd wanted and even to buy-up 50% of AFCW Stadium Limited now and I dare say such a move would be welcomed by AFC Wimbledon!
I've often heard AFCW's purchase of Kingsmeadow described as a "great bit of business". Call me naive, but I thought AFCW sought to stand somewhat above/against such business? I wrote a huge article on this debate for the Wombleultras fanzine - SSC Edition, I think - let me know if you wanna see it! :) Prince Philip of Greece 11:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, in 10 years time when Wimbledon are back in the league, having financed, built and moved into a new stadium in Merton - I'm sure that ownership of Kingsmeadow will have been passed on to Kingstonian or vested into the K's Trust and everyone will live happily ever after! Matt derry 16:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen - although the whole "back to Merton" thing is beginning to look like a second marriage ("a triumph of optimism over experience"!). I'll offer you a bet: a pint says you're still at Kingsmeadow in 2015?Prince Philip of Greece 11:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Monsieur Prince Philip of Greece, I'm glad we are coming to understand each other!  :-)
Actually, yes I would be interested in reading your article re the land deal, as I'm of the opinion that it was fairly sound business - £2.5m for quite a large site in Greater London isn't bad value (the fact that Khosla only paid around £3/4m for it is slightly irrelevant - since he was asset stripping).
Re the comment " I thought AFCW sought to stand somewhat above/against such business". I don't see why - fans clubbing together to buy-out a businessman thus ensuring that the fan-owned club has secured a fan-owned stadium - pretty fundamental to the AFCW concept, imo!
The point you raise re the prominence of the "back to Merton" objective is actually one which is being much debated within the club at the moment (i.e. what's most important to AFC Wimbledon supporters - club ownership / control, returning to Merton, regaining "League" status, etc?). Personally, it's pretty high on my list (perhaps equal with ownership / control to ensure that any move to Merton is permanent!).
--Matt derry 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics / "Tempest End"

[edit]
Have reverted this edit as the southern stand is formally refered to by the club as the "Tempest End" for commercial reasons.
--Matt derry 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have reverted the Revision as of 15:41, 21 September 2006;by 20.133.1.2 (talk) on the grounds stated above, namely that the stand is formally refered to by the club as the "Tempest End" (I'll show you the diagram on my season ticket if you need this proven!) - this is not "a move on behalf of some AFC Wimbeldon fans to call this the Tempest end", this is a commercial sponsorship deal (I notice that the "John Smiths' Stand" hasn't been changed in name and yet this is a similar corporate sponsorship deal - albeit one arranged when the ground was in Kingstonian's ownership).
--MLD 17:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Developments?

[edit]

This article has not been updated for a long time. Is anyone actively maintaining this page? Many thanks. Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kingsmeadow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingsmeadow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingsmeadow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingsmeadow,_Kingston_upon_Thames&oldid=1207986619"