User talk:JMF/Archives/2015/February

Colours and badge

Hello again John. This is a non-Wikipedia question I just wanted to ask you out of personal interest (it's original research): when Inter MK changed the name and the badge in 2004, what motivated them to also change the colours from dark blue and yellow to all white?

I ask because in my work on this topic I have often tried to put myself in the shoes of the various parties to try to understand their respective actions so I can better comprehend and represent the different points of view. But this is one action I am having real trouble trying to understand. Was it simply done to mark "a fresh start"? Like the placing of "MMIV" on the new badge, it seems to jar horribly with the stated intention at the time to maintain continuity and keep elements of the past. So far as I can see there was no reason to do it; nobody was telling them to change colours (the same goes for the name, incidentally—why MK Dons and not "Wimbledon-MK" or "MK Wimbledon"?). In my opinion had the club kept on playing in blue and yellow it would be widely perceived as having much stronger links to the old Wimbledon team than what we have now. Do you have any idea who took this decision, and why, and when? What was the reaction to the wholesale change of colours?

I remember noticing a while ago (and have found again) the strip that Wimbledon FC wore against Crystal Palace in March 2003, and announced for release a while after (link). White shirts, white shorts, white socks, all with navy trim. They didn't actually end up using this white strip during 2003–04, probably because there wasn't money to produce them, and it may have no connection, but as you can see in the picture it does seem strikingly similar to what MK Dons ended up wearing. I find it hard to think this is a total coincidence. (As you may know, Wimbledon FC wore all white with yellow and blue trim at home from 1976 to 1978, but I don't think this is related. Link)

Regarding the badge: I understand that the College of Arms letter in 2002 meant that they couldn't use the double-headed eagle anymore. Indeed they had already announced that badge with a single eagle head with the word "MK" on it in 2003, which didn't actually end up getting used. The thing I cannot understand is why they put "MMIV" on it if their intention was to go on claiming the history before then. Oh and one thing I noticed myself: superimpose the MK Dons badge over the old Wimbledon badge and you may be surprised. Link. This is surely deliberate?

I hope you're well and look forward to hearing what you think. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

By all means say that some people consider Milton Keynes Dons to be the continuation of Wimbledon FC, but it is categorically wrong to state that as being on a 'legal' basis - it simply isn't. The 2004 CVA established a new legal entity (Milton Keynes Dons Ltd) and the old one (Wimbledon FC Ltd) continued in administration until it was wound up in 2009. In legal terms a new club was formed with the CVA. Any attempt to claim "legal continuation" is simply not factually correct. Assets were transferred from one company to another - that is not a "legal continuation". Describe what actually occurred and stop falling prey to the revisionism that is being attempted by some in Milton Keynes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.79.133 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You are simply wrong about the business being legally the same entity after a CVA. I did ask a lawyer and that's what they told me. It's of no consequence whether half the Football League is under a misapprehension, the fact is that every time a NewCo is established and a company exits administration by transferring assets to that NewCo, it is establishing a separate legal entity and means that "legally speaking" it is not the same company and therefore not the same football club. If you want to describe it some other way you can, but both legally and technically it is a new legal entity and a new football club. There is no way around this, it is a matter of fact, not opinion, and I am right about it. If the Milton Keynes Dons want to claim to be "the club that continued in Wimbledon FC's league position", then that's fine, but they are not the "legal continuation" of Wimbledon FC or any other definition that cites "legal", other than if one were making the point that they aren't illegal. Now, I'm not going to pay a solicitor money to send you a letter backing this up, nor am I going to walk you through the administration process to help you understand the legal implications of it (Ive done enough of that already) - I'm sure you and the others can do that for yourselves. I'm not going to let the matter drop because it is a fundamental matter of fact and I will not allow Wikipedia to keep supporting this revision of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.79.133 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Buckinghamshire

Hello John, Have replied to your comment on my Talk page. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)