The K's In Point
Newest article: Today
by supahoops7Today 20:05Today at 20:05:36
4 peopleview thread
Oldest article: Horsham
by Southampton K22/11/2023 18:17Wed Nov 22 18:17:55 2023 2 peopleview thread
Next thread: Southall & Guernsey at home by KsOllie5/2 21:07Wed Feb 5 21:07:27 2025view thread
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1353
0n or off?
Official club site says game may still be on and not
opening the turmstiles until 2.15 to give ref more time.
Fucking ridiculous.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1341
Triumph of optimism over experience I think. It is a shame as now we have had three games in a row postponed.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1258
What an absolute load of bollerks
Everyone else cancelling at 10.30/11 but, oh no, if we can create a six part melodrama (was it on Tik Tok?) of "how we are trying to get a game on that inevitably will be off" it will happen.
Surely realism is better than false hope?
"It might be on. It really, really might be on. Ohh, it's off"
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1298
I don't think it was false optimism. I think the pitch was entirely playable. The referee seems to be the only person who thought otherwise.
Anyway, a lot of people are to be thanked for their efforts in trying to get the game on. And 90 minutes notice doesn't seem too unreasonable for a team less an hour down the A3.
Edited by reximus at 15:42:15 on 4th January 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
7 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1217
A triumph of referee's over-caution over the players (of both teams) willingness to play. Everybody trudged off the pitch, shaking their heads in dismay.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1286
Another one bites the MUD.
Lost revenue mounting up with the very real
possibility of more postponements to come.
I would guess that the attendance now for the
midweek game will be something like 50% lower.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1109
I appreciate the Club can’t control the decision of the referee to call a game off, but if the game against Leatherhead goes ahead then it will be our first home game in seven weeks. Aside from the cash flow implications, I’m not sure how the Club can build it’s fan base, or more realistically stop it’s existing fans continuing to drifting away from the Club, when it plays at home so infrequently.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1181
Why cannot the ground staff dig out the pot hole fill with gravel cover with top soil and a piece of grass stapled down, job done.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1184
Lost revenue mounting up with the very real
possibility of more postponements to come
Let's hope the board's response isn't to dip even further into the AFC Wimbledon money.
reply to this article | return to the front page
8 people
All honesty
Views: 1165
Was anyone really surprised this game was called off
Even londn weather it's cold and we all knew it was coming
Come on guys wake up and smell the coffee as they say
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1143
I don’t know how many more times we have to explain this but the club can no longer dip into the AFC Wimbledon money for playing costs or other running costs. I do personally agree that it was unwise to have done so in previous seasons, but it is simply not permissible anymore.
From the beginning of last season the money could only be used for costs directly associated with ground sharing or a new ground. If the directors are forced to dipping into anything, it will be our own pockets.
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1099
John is right. He shouldn't have to keep explaining this.
Ks fans should face the fact that the Board is incapable of financing the Club adequately. Their contributions fund the playing budget, whilst they continue to draw down what little remains of the remaining AFC Wimbledon money to pay for the ground costs.
A very large part of the reason for this is Yioryos. Yes, personally. Most Ks fans simply will not sponsor, donate to, or invest in the Club whilst he is Chairman. He has to step aside.
SACK THE BOARD
reply to this article | return to the front page
8 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1112
To say the least, the club doesn't have a good track record of clear and consistent communication about this. So I was concerned there might be some sort of clause allowing for it to be used for 'unforseen circumstances' or something like that, so good to know this isn't the case.
Hopefully next season we won't even use it for rent either.
reply to this article | return to the front page
6 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1087
Okay - fair enough - but I can confirm that there is no such clause .
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1128
From the beginning of last season the money could only be used for costs directly associated with ground sharing or a new ground
so funds can be taken from the escrow account to pay for rent, while money from gate receipts / sponsorship that might have had to otherwise cover rent can be spent on playing budget?
is that right?
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1081
Well , yes that is obviously so. What I was responding to was a question about whether short falls in revenue budgets during the season can be charged up to the escrow account and they cannot
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 874
So the seasons change in access to the escrow account coincides with the resignation of Anderson and Fenwick as directors and Winwright as a shareholder,it doesn't take a genius to think where the money was going before they left the club in the hands of the present inept yahoos.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people 1 person
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1094
Sorry, I for one didn’t realise it was so obvious that we can use the Wimbledon money for year on year rent, and have no reason to balance the books.
I thought those days were over
shame
Edited by jon tolley at 18:57:01 on 4th January 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1085
John
To clear things up does the contract say we can use the money for groundsharihg etc
Again surley if it is wrong. Afc wimbledon have to sign this off as well
So it cannot be wrong then what the club is doing
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1086
It's definitely immoral to be spending any of the Womble money on ground sharing. That money should have been ringfenced for a new ground only. Unfortunately, some of the current board were involved as hundreds of thousands of pounds were frittered away on journeymen like Banton, Louie, and whoever else you can think of from the Dynan and Bird days.
If the board does not have the funds or know-how to raise funds for a budget and groundshares, they should relinquish control and allow people with the funds and skills to take the club forward.
reply to this article | return to the front page
8 people 1 person
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1110
Isn’t it time to just accept that we now have nowhere near enough money left in the bank to finance a new ground? I just had a look on Rightmove and a two bed terraced house in Kingston now costs over £700k, with a three bed semi close to £800k. Land prices have shot up since we left Kingsmeadow. I don’t know how much of the Wombles money we now have left but it is less than these sums. In addition, there is the problem of finding a suitable site etc.
I appreciate we upset the Casuals a few years back by discussing if we could effectively take them over. I do wonder if, in a few more years, we may need to swallow our pride, be a bit more humble, and approach a few sides who own their own ground with the view to a formal merger. Many teams in non-league have taken such an approach e.g. Hayes & Yeading, and several e.g. Gravesend & Northfleet (now renamed Ebbsfleet) gone on to prosper. The alternative to me seems to be a long, slow death for the Ks over the next decade, moving to a different ground in Surrey or South London every few years.
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people 1 person
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1078
Have Hayes and Yeading really prospered though? They play a couple of divisions below what Hayes were and with lower crowds than the original Hayes.
I can only think of maybe Dagenham and Solihull who have merged successfully.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1083
Well don’t forget that RPV were formed from a merger of Raynes Park and Malden Vale in 1995. They were in the Combined Counties League then and have progressed since then. And whilst you question if Hayes & Yeading have prospered since they merged, would both Hayes and Yeading both still exist as separate entities if they hadn’t merged? Club mergers are rarely popular with fan bases but are sometimes the only way for one or both clubs to survive in the long term.
I don’t think some people have woken up to just how far we have declined. It was only 2000 when I saw us batter Sutton in the FA Trophy semi and then win at Wembley. Look at Sutton now. I work with a number of Sutton fans and they used to regard Ks as local rivals. Now they just ridicule us as a joke club who play at a level only just above pub football. And be under no illusions, things can and probably will get worse, particularly with Yioryos in charge. We have no ground of our own and are living beyond our means, spending more than we earn every season. At some point that has to end and the Ks will fold. I’m only suggesting we proactively consider approaching sides about a merger whilst we still have something to bring to the party (what is left of the Wombles money) and not waiting until we are desperate and need a merger to just survive another season.
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people 3 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 941
I just think trying to merge with someone smaller will come across more as a hostile takeover and would offer nothing to someone like Hampton.
Maybe there needs to be some realism that we are not going to afford a new ground in the borough for the foreseeable future if it was ever possible with the amount of money we had in the first place.
Then maybe we could see if we could do something smarter with the money so that it doesn't deplete but also pays for the majority of a ground share.
Maybe Cray Wanderers are the example to follow having a long term groundshare and having a strong youth set up so that we are able to take the opportunity of a new ground when it comes along
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1054
Can we necessarily assume that any merged club woukd still have access to whatever was left in the escrow account? Could the agreement become void as the club with which the agreeement was signed are deemed contractually to no longer exist under its terms and conditions.
Just a thought.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1099
Good point I don’t think it would be available as a merged club would be a different legal entity .
In any case I wouldn’t be at all keen to see 139 years of history diluted or even lost through a merger
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 970
But it wou!d be 139 years lost forever if
The club folded so amalgamation would
not be bad if it meant a long term future .
Our support together with our partner
would double overnight and more than
likely grow.
It should certainly be thought of as a way
of getting us out of the dire predicament
The club presently finds itself in.
The new ground will not happen it's not
a priority for the council and anyway would
be several years away.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 999
With the many issues facing local authorities I would hope and expect spending time/ resources on a football club who are masters of their own downfall is down at the bottom of the list.
It's up to Ks to approach them with a viable well funded plan.
It's incredible that a club that were tenants
of a club comttited to the return to Merton and in receipt of a large donation towards finding a new home have ended up in the situation their are in.
Ksuals
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 938
I wonder if now is the time for the Supporter’s Club act and to start to contact the likes of Hampton & Richmond, Colliers Wood United, Mosley, Chessington etc. to see if there might be any interest at all in the future in merging. The K’s Board is clearly happy to just continue on the current path to oblivion, depleting the Wombles money each season on ground sharing costs until it is all gone, when they will probably just walk away.
I appreciate we have no power as fans to force the Club into a merger, but I feel we need to be proactive and do something and not just stand ideally by. We all know the K’s are slowly dying and most of us have no faith in the current Board to save the Club.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 972
Re a merger
Firstly, I have no idea what we would bring to the table. Why would anyone want to merge with us?!
Secondly, over my dead body will the great Kingstonian Football Club merge with anyone else. If we eventually need to start a new Kingston football club in order to get football back in Kingston, then sadly that is a path we may have to take. But a merger? My goodness me, no thank you.
reply to this article | return to the front page
9 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 950
Alistair, football has in no way left the borough.
A badly run football club has though.
Ksuals
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1004
The team of Kingston and senior team of the borough have (thanks Ando). The only remaining team from the borough is Chessington & Hook United. Casuals are a nomadic team that struck it lucky with the demise of Tolworth FC and Colliers Wood are a Merton team playing in the Royal Borough.
The sooner we get fan ownership, the sooner we can try and get a community run club back in the town of Kingston.
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 480
Yup
It’s just over the border
By the way there’s still the old rugby ground - Old Bevonians (?) in the Vale almost opposite CWFC that’s been derelict for years. Or great to get there by public transport but fine for cycling/scootering/driving
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 426
Is protected land for bats so no go re development.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 904
Just so, football hasn't left the borough as you point out Suom
Ksuals
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 901
Anyone remember the poll that landed us ground sharing at Leatherhead that completely shat on Yorkie when the club ignored his results of being in the borough being the priority?
------------------------------------
It's the Organs or the Craic, you can only serve one master
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1004
And yet the current chairman seems happy for those 139 years of history to go to waste so long as he's in charge? Never mind having the funds to sustain the club, or scuppering any groundshares or new ground developments. It's all about him and his ego and not what's best for this club.
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people 1 person
Re: Match OFF
Views: 991
have to agree
walking away from Kingston seems a funny way of thinking our history means anything
reply to this article | return to the front page
5 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 949
Unpopular opinion but why does the history of Kingstonian Football Club actually mean anything anyway? Like, other than nostalgia & feelings does it do anything tangible for the football club?
Our history doesn't guarantee us any right to be a good football club just like a lack of history doesn't guarantee the opposite. For one example we were formed in 1885 & Dorking Wanderers in 1999, if history meant anything in this regard we wouldn't be playing two levels below them having had over 100 year head start.
I'd argue that our history isn't even a significant factor in marketability either if we are being honest here. How many FA Trophy or Isthmian League winners medals have Hashtag United got? Surely if this facet of our history was relevant we wouldn't be playing one level below a team named after a function on a social media website who have a ridiculously larger footprint in comparison to us.
More to the point discussed above in the thread if Kingstonian disappeared & a new entity formed without inheriting the club history (which any new entity probably would take it on anyway making it all a moot point) it wouldn't really be any less worse off or better off than if it did inherit the club history. History (ironically) tells us that even if Kingstonian still existed & a breakaway club was formed, that breakaway club has every chance of being more successful than the original entity.
I don't think our history means much in the grand scheme of things & if that's all we've got going for us then we don't really have anything at all really.
reply to this article | return to the front page
4 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 940
I don't necessarily disagree, other than families and latent support.
The biggest asset the club has/had was being Kingston's football club.
I think the time has long passed for the formation of a new club. But I realise I'm in the minority and need to wait until things get so bad that there's a tipping point.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people 1 person
Re: Match OFF
Views: 926
The time for a new club is upon us. Lets not forget that we were invited to do so by the clown running the club into the ground.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people 1 person
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1129
Hi
As has been explained repeatedly, the money can only now be used for ground sharing costs or helping fund a new ground. As from the beginning of last season, the club are precluded from using the money for playing or general running costs. Yes, the money does have to be signed off by AFC Wimbledon. This means we literally cannot use the money to subsidise playing or other running costs, even if we wanted to (which we don’t).
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Match OFF
Views: 886
So we the supporters start a new club and where
do we call our home ground .
Obviously THE FAIRFIELD .
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 1002
Thank you, John, for your continued and informed updates on this forum. At least one member of the board can meaningfully communicate with supporters and other interested observers.
reply to this article | return to the front page
8 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 874
I know there are different views on here bout Kingsmeadow Athletic Ground,but was ever considered an option by the club?
Could it have been a an opportunity to approach the council and say we have the AFCW donation to invest in the stadium and also make it suitable for non league football.
Maybe even approach CFC for a grant so they could claim to invest in a community facility where some of their football is based?
If it's correct we knew the date our tenancy was due to end before we received AFCW money work might've been completed before we started paying for ground share?
Maybe all of this was looked into at the nd for very good reasons found to be unworkable
Ksuals
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Match OFF
Views: 837
(I only know until 2022 when) no significant conversations were had with the council about Kingsmeadow, and it's been said that there would have been a feeling of embarrassment walking past what was once our ground.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Match OFF
Views: 898
One of the main reasons it was never considered was the directors at the time (Anderson Fenwick and Yorgis ) were focused on selling the last 7 years of KS playing arrangement with AFCW back to them for a six figure sum,(150,000) pounds as quietly as possible instead of enforcing our right to play alongside CFC until the end of our agreement ,the chairman of AFCW had offered to negotiate that point with CFC but had been turned down by the directors of the KS.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person 2 people
Re: Match OFF
Views: 809
Korky,I think it was you who said Ks had the ground new or shared money coming before Ks left early.
I would have hoped that from the moment that was agreed the board put as much effort as possible into finding a permanent solution, if that was the case wouldn't the early termination not be a factor?
Ksuals
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 816
Talking of the FAIRFIELD we may have got
more games played on it.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 811
If you're going to repeatedly tell this story, at least get basic facts right. Yiorg wasn't a director at the time.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Match OFF
Views: 823
Yeah - he was still sat in the stand abusing managers at this stage!
reply to this article | return to the front page
9 people
Previous thread: Match OFF (Badshot Lea) by Ks Supporters Club8/2 09:29Sat Feb 8 09:29:23 2025view thread