Move or die: 'A whole raft of us believe it is better to live, even if somewhere else'

Charles Koppel Interview: Relocation, relocation, relocation. The Wimbledon chairman tells Ronald Atkin why survival depends on Milton Keynes

For someone whose face has been plastered on posters and printed on T-shirts above the stark message, "Wanted for the murder of a football club", Charles Koppel turns out to be younger, more handsome and nicer than imagined. Especially nicer.

Breezing into his offices just off Berkeley Square, apologising for being a mite tardy, the 36-year-old chairman of Wimbledon is tieless but otherwise fastidiously turned out in various shades of dark blue, a bit like Al Pacino in one of his menace-lite roles. He proffers a selection of tea bags, dunks the chosen one briefly in a cup and apologises: "I'm not very good at making tea."

The thousands of supporters who have turned their backs on Wimbledon of late clearly feel Koppel should be apologising for a lot more than that. But even they might agree that what their chairman is very good at is withstanding the vilification, from the bellowed verbal sort to the human excrement he has received through the post. And all, he says, because he wants to help the club survive.

The trouble is, survival in Koppel's terms involves relocating this gypsy outfit from their "temporary" home of the past 12 years at Selhurst Park to Milton Keynes, some 60 miles further away. It's that, he insists, or die.

Citing an insidious first in English football, but a commonplace in American sport, the sale of a franchise, the fans deserted in droves to found their own club, AFC Wimbledon. With every impression of sincerity, Koppel says: "I wish AFC every success, I really do," though he does not disguise an opinion that the absent ones are misguided.

Seeing his face on those "Wanted" posters was very distressing, he added. "But the most distressing thing is the fact that there are people who believe the club would be better off dying than relocating. The emotional side of it is understandable. I have a lot of sympathy, but in effect, by their actions, Wisa [Wimbledon Independent Supporters' Association] are saying the club should have closed. It's not about moving to Milton Keynes, because without Milton Keynes the club would have closed. Myself and a whole raft of us are saying we believe it is better to live, even if it is somewhere else.

"What I have been determined to do is find a solution. I never came into this thinking, 'Milton Keynes, nice place to go, why don't we move the club there?' I came in on the basis that we were in desperate trouble after relegation from the Premier League and needed to address the real issues. Through that process one suddenly realised that a large portion of our problem is our tenancy at Selhurst Park. The franchise argument is being used in order to keep the Wimbledon issue in the spotlight. But everyone who has been part of the decision-making process over the last year feels that is not the case.

"When Wimbledon left Plough Lane 12 years ago there was no requirement on them to return to the Borough of Merton or find another solution. They went and ground-shared in the conurbation of another club. At the ground of that club they did so as a second-class tenant, with no right to exploit any revenue opportunity from the stadium.

"Wimbledon's tenancy at Selhurst has cost the club tens of millions of pounds in lost revenue. We can sell an executive box but are not allowed to put the company's name on it. You can understand how we never managed to get corporate partners. The losses the club were incurring could not be sustained, and there wasn't a realistic way out of the hole by staying. The revenue average of other First Division clubs is £3m to 4m a year. For us it was zero."

For the many who advocate a return to a modernised version of dear old Plough Lane, Koppel wishes to point out that he tried, he really tried. "We spent a long time with Merton Council looking at sites in the borough. We eventually got down to two, the greyhound stadium and Plough Lane. The greyhound site is owned by the Greyhound Racing Association and there were differences over how to accommodate both sports on the same day.

"It was a very successful business for the GRA. They did not want to close down, rebuild, refurbish. Where would they go in the interim? If we had built a £60m stadium they would not have suddenly attracted three times the number of people. All the parties agreed it was not going to work.

"So we then looked at Plough Lane and commissioned one of the top planning experts to do a feasibility study, which was exceptionally pessimistic. It was financially unviable and from a planning perspective remote in the extreme. There was a 10 or 15 per cent chance that in six years' time you might be able to do something with it. But the club would not have survived another six years on the chance that something may happen.

"The supporters' organisation have shown that a new stadium could fit at Plough Lane, with the provision of some additional land. The issue was, would you be allowed to and could you afford to? When you look at the constraints of the site it is difficult to see where proposals like a hotel and a health club would fit."

After Wimbledon went into administration last January, there were complaints that Wimbledon's feasibility study had not been sufficiently independent. So another one was commissioned by the Football League. "That report came back with more or less the same conclusion," said Koppel. "But the minute it came out some people said they didn't agree with the conclusions. But what are you supposed to do, rely on goodwill and hearsay or on the experts to give you a professional opinion?"

Though he does not shy away from using the word "franchise", Koppel prefers "relocate". Nor does he see what's wrong with the distance supporters would be required to travel from south London for home games. "Sixty miles today in transport terms is probably less of a distance than when Arsenal moved in 1915. It's also a hell of a lot closer than Dublin, which for many years was the proposed solution to Wimbledon's problems. Milton Keynes is more difficult to get to than Selhurst, but at least it gives the club a chance to survive. Not a guarantee, a chance. But since Milton Keynes was more believable than Dublin, it evoked a much greater number of complaints."

Thus was the Johannesburg-born Koppel pitched into something he had never imagined happening to him. He had first come to England as a 13-year-old to go to school. "I played football in South Africa as a kid but when I came here I got cornered by the rowing coach on my second day at school. I was slightly taller than others of my age because I had grown up in the sun. So I became a rower and competed in the eights for England in a tournament in France."

Since those days, says Koppel, he has been "backwards and forwards between the two countries". His business dealings brought him into contact with the Norwegian owners of Wimbledon and they suggested he become involved in the club. He is a part-owner and, rather to his surprise, stepped up to chairman in January 2001. "I wasn't a long-standing Wimbledon supporter when I got involved, but over the last year I have done very little work other than Wimbledon. If you had asked me five years ago if something like that could happen I would never have believed it. If you talk to my old school friends they would tell you I am the last person they ever expected to be in that position."

Asked if involvement has been financially expensive, Koppel managed a smile. "Given what has happened to the markets, you would turn round and say things have been going down anyway, but you can't look at it that way. I don't go home and wonder about what else I might have done because I am very committed to trying to take the club forward. It's an exciting time to be preparing to play in a stadium we actually own, branded in our own colours. There is a lot of sentiment attached to Plough Lane, but it was never a ground that would allow the club to be successful."

Koppel insists that, despite the collapse in attendances, Wimbledon are losing less than they did last season. "Our reduced gates mean we have reduced costs associated with hosting a game. Last year we had significant protests and on many occasions we had to have additional policing, stewarding and security. I know we have very small numbers now [last Tuesday brought a record low of 664 for the Worthington Cup game with Rotherham]. But for our last home League game against Norwich the support had gone up from about 450 at the start of the season to 1,000. There are also the neutrals who didn't go with the AFC people but who haven't been part of our season so far. Maybe some of those might come back. We will have to see whether or not they continue to follow the club after the move to Milton Keynes."

Ah yes, Milton Keynes. The original plans to set up home there in time for a post-Christmas derby game with Watford have been dropped. Now, says Koppel: "We are looking to move during the course of this season. It would be inappropriate of me to mention a date at the moment. It is a momentous task, we are trying to build a 12,000-seat stadium in probably a shorter space of time than anyone else has done, certainly at this level of football.

"When we announce the date, we want it to be definitive, because this is not going to be a temporary thing. For better or worse, once we are there, Milton Keynes is where we will stay. Some people have asked what will happen if it doesn't work. Well, we don't have a God-given right to be successful. That will require a significant amount of work, it's not going to happen overnight. But at least we will be doing it on a level playing field with the others."

The name of Wimbledon will not be sacrificed, he insists. "Why change the name? On that basis we should have changed our name 12 years ago, because we haven't played anywhere near Wimbledon in that time. I don't agree that Wimbledon can't remain Wimbledon. It has been around for a hundred years. We wanted to preserve our history and tradition at Selhurst and we still want to do it today."

The vilification because of Milton Keynes became, he admits, very personal. "There were many instances of receiving human excrement through the post and at the office. We have had a lot of very unfortunate situations. There have been abusive phone calls and there was an incident in the middle of the night at my home which was clearly identifiable as being related to Wimbledon. There have been some very unpleasant incidents but it comes down to recognising that there is a possibility of confrontation and trying to avoid it.

"Some people have asked why I don't just walk away from it. There are some days when you wonder why you do it. But a good night's sleep and you start off fresh again. One of the reasons I like to spend a lot of time down at the training ground is to see how well the team are holding up under the pressure. There's a great spirit and they are working hard in very trying circumstances. When you see all that enthusiasm it puts you back on track very quickly. You can't think of letting them down."

Biography: Charles Richard Koppel

Born: 8 October 1966 in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Lives: London.

Background: Arrived in England at age 13; had played football in South Africa, but started rowing and represented England in eights competition in France.

Career: Established his name as a sports administrator in the world of international offshore powerboat racing. Took a place on the board of Wimbledon FC in 2000 and was appointed chairman in 2001. Is currently registered at Companies House as a director of 10 different companies. And also: Has presided over Wimbledon's proposed controversial move from south London to Milton Keynes.