Graham Kelly: Wimbledon move creates unfair competition

"The Football Association has a responsibility to lead the debate about the future of the game." So said the FA's chief executive, Adam Crozier, on the publication of a recent Mori report into football entitled "State of the Nation".

Unarguable, one would suppose, and it was hardly earth-shattering when this somewhat bland document revealed that people involved in the game had reached the conclusion that too much money was going to top players and clubs. Curiously, in the rush to spend the FA's "six-figure fee" earlier this year, apparently no one thought to pose any questions about franchise football.

For in one small part of this fair land, franchising is unquestionably the way forward. I refer, of course, to the city of Milton Keynes, where they have eschewed the so-called tortuous pyramid route to the top and the chairman of the Milton Keynes Stadium Consortium, one Pete Winkelman, is immensely proud of his role as the founding father of franchise football in England, as the arrival of Franchise FC, formerly known as Wimbledon Football Club, draws inexorably closer.

Last week the board of the Football League deferred Wimbledon's application to move from Selhurst Park to a temporary home at the International Bowl in Milton Keynes, calling for additional details from the club and refusing any further comment. Wimbledon feel they need to get away from Selhurst Park and establish themselves in their new locale, pending construction of a permanent new stadium, as soon as possible, because attendances have shrunk in the face of hostility from supporters.

After the League meeting, the Wimbledon chairman, Charles Koppel, stated that the temporary move was still on schedule for this season. It is little surprise that Koppel is bullish. The League will no doubt feel under renewed pressure, for their clubs had to meet heavy legal costs the last time their board stood up to Koppel. Since then, he has attempted to win election to the same board.

One man who was instrumental in resisting the original application to relocate, the Football League chief executive, David Burns, is no longer in office, having been forced out, along with his chairman, Keith Harris, by the First Division clubs, over the failed attempt to sue ITV Digital.

Surely it is unfair and distorts the First Division competition for a club to be allowed to move in the middle of the season? Why should Gillingham, for example, enjoy the advantage of playing a dispirited Wimbledon at a near-deserted Selhurst Park, while, say, Reading may, if Winkelman's efforts bear fruit, be obliged to enter a veritable cauldron of passionate new Dons fans?

This presupposes that by the turn of the year Wimbledon, under whatever name they might then be trading, have obtained not only the consent of the Football League, but also the necessary safety clearances from the Football Licensing Authority for the 12,000-seater stadium to be built at the Bowl, a former waste-infill site and latterly a music venue hosting David Bowie, Michael Jackson and, last year, Robbie Williams.

Indeed, it assumes, too, that they are still trading at all, even though the opportunity to tap into a new market in a new town is one which is unlikely to be afforded to any other club grappling with the vicious realities of Nationwide life after the ITV Digital collapse.

On the eve of the League board meeting, the Wimbledon co-owner, Bjorn Gjelsten, angered supporters by warning in Norway that he and his fellow owner, Kjell Inge Rokke, could pull the plug on the club if they did not have a stadium in place by 2004. "Enough is enough," he said. He stated that, while such a move would be tragic, it might be the only option. Sceptical fans saw the comments as simply crocodile tears designed to step up the pressure on the League, although the club's latest auditors' report is qualified as to the continuing support of the majority shareholder.

The independent commission, appointed by the FA, which sanctioned Wimbledon's move last May really didn't seem to know whether they were or were not approving the principle of franchised football.

Rather than being patently affected by Winkelman's "almost infectious enthusiasm" for the project, they should have asked some searching questions about the constitution of his consortium and the long-term commitment of all concerned.

They accepted, apparently without question, that planning permission for a permanent stadium in the Denbigh area of Milton Keynes would "probably" be granted, but surely the fact that Asda are now involved will entail a public inquiry?

Now the FA wants compensation from Sunderland for Howard Wilkinson. Descending into the compensation culture, which the FA should be above, is a much less worthy subject for discussion than franchising, which to date has been so studiously ignored.

grahamkelly@btinternet.com