Talk:Phoenix club (sports)

Claim that MK Dons are a phoenix club

The present revision of the article (as of 1 January 2015, permanent link here) includes the claim that Milton Keynes Dons F.C. are a phoenix club of Wimbledon F.C.. I tagged this as requiring sources to back it up and references were added—however, although the links in question illustrate the connection between Wimbledon FC and MK Dons in terms of League registration and so forth (as described amply in our Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes article), not one of them uses "phoenix club" or any similar term to refer to MK Dons (a few of the links provided to back up the claim do include the phrase, but only in reference to AFC Wimbledon). I can't help thinking that in the absence of reliable sources directly backing up this article's description of MK Dons as a phoenix club, our inclusion of it is original research. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've made a post at Wikiproject Football to try to garner more opinions. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

"MK Dons are the true Dons" "MK Dons and Wimbledon F.C. are the same thing" even the picture of the man with the scarf saying founded 1889, re-born 2004 is pretty clear evidence of MK Dons identifying with Wimbledon F.C. I fail to see how this is in any way controversial. Look at the South Korean teams- the one's that relocated have direct redirect links e.g. Anyang LG Cheetahs redirects to FC Seoul. The very name MK "DONS" is so for 1 clear reason - to continue the legacy of Wimbledon F.C. Also here's an excerpt - We are the real Dons and the real Wimbledon, end of story (...) Even now maintains links to the old Wimbledon side (...) In fact, while the Accord recognised ‘the hurt which was caused’ by the move to MK and gave over the ‘physical patrimony’ of the club including the 1988 FA Cup replica, it stopped short of making any such claim Abcmaxx (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand all of that. I don't want to get into a detailed argument about this—my concern here is the sourcing and as things stand the claim is unsupported. But I will just say one thing: surely the argument that they "are the same thing" actually goes against the claim that they're a phoenix club? A "phoenix club" is by definition a completely new legal entity with the same/similar colours, name, fanbase etc as an older, legally unrelated, entity. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

MK Dons is definitely not a phoenix club, as they are essentially the same club as Wimbledon FC; they just moved to Milton Keynes. The only phoenix club associated with Wimbledon FC is AFC Wimbledon. – PeeJay 17:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If by own admission it is the "same club" but founded in 2004 - the only logical explanation for the link between MK Dons and WFC is being a phoenix club - it was founded in 2004 as a continuation of WFC. Otherwise it would be a re-named relocated club founded in 1889 surely Abcmaxx (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Either you have completely misunderstood the meaning of the term "phoenix club", or you don't know anything about the history of MK Dons. Officially, MK Dons is a different club from Wimbledon FC, but anyone who followed the move of Wimbledon FC to Milton Keynes will know that it is essentially the same club, they just have a different name and were forced to stop claiming the history of Wimbledon FC as their own. – PeeJay 18:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix clubs - refer to a club that is set up to replace a football club's parent company but that wants to run the club and keep the team in competition In some cases, phoenix clubs will retain the name of the club which they replaced, implying a continuation from the former team. In other cases, name changes occur, many of them due to proprietorial ownership existing on the old club's name

Everything you described is contradictory in itself.

Which bit of this MK DONS do not fit?

• Did it replace WFC - yes.
• Implying a continuation from the former team - yes.
• name changes occur, many of them due to proprietorial ownership existing on the old club's name - yes.
• Fans identify with WFC - yes.
• Are MKD and WFC exact same club? - in most people's eyes no. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

In most people's eyes, maybe not, but technically, they are the same club. People may not like it, and the "official" history of MK Dons might not reflect that, but MK Dons and Wimbledon FC are the same club. Therefore, MK Dons cannot have been set up to replace Wimbledon FC, since there was nothing to replace, they simply changed their name and then had their history stripped. – PeeJay 18:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3 is correct. MK Dons cannot be described a phoenix club – and I can't understand how anyone who understands football could possibly think they are. They are the same club as the original Wimbledon FC, merely renamed and moved to Milton Keynes – they are not a newly-formed club, which is what they would have to be to qualify as a phoenix club. Number 57 18:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Then why is the founding date 2004 and not 1889? Why are the trophies now with Merton Council not the real WFC? why are there 2 seperate articles in this case Wimbledon F.C. and MK Dons? Abcmaxx (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If those are the criteria by which you judge a phoenix club, you need to re-evaluate those criteria. – PeeJay 18:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Many clubs claim a foundation date that is not the actual correct one (usually because they want to claim a longer history). The club were not founded in 2004, otherwise they could not have suddenly appeared in the Football League – they are a continuation of Wimbledon FC, merely with a name change. There should be one article covering both clubs, but unfortunately there is too much emotional baggage for some editors to think straight on the matter. The trophies are with the council because the club's move was incredibly controversial. I'm sorry to ask, but do you actually have any knowledge of the whole situation, as these questions should be fairly easy to answer if you are familiar with what happened. Number 57 18:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah they were forced to give back their trophies, but the MK Dons legally are not allowed to refer to any history before 2004 as themselves. Also I fail to see why Wellington Phoenix are a phoenix club of New Zealand Knights FC but MK Dons aren't of WFC.Abcmaxx (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Because Wellington Phoenix and New Zealand Knights are completely different clubs, with Wellington Phoenix set up specifically to replace New Zealand Knights in the A-League. The difference is that Wimbledon FC and MK Dons ARE THE SAME CLUB. – PeeJay 18:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've re-examined the situation with Wellington Phoenix, and I don't believe they are a phoenix club after all. They call themselves Phoenix, but that's about it. They don't claim to be the same club as New Zealand Knights, nor do New Zealand Knights claim to be the same club as Football Kingz, and both of those should be removed from the list. – PeeJay 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

So if i were to put foundation date "1889 (as Wimbledon Old Central Football Club)" on the MK Dons page that would be ok? Because otherwise 2004 would have little significance as a date in that case and MKD would still be allowed to refer its glorious/un-glorious past Abcmaxx (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

We're going off topic now, but I'll reply anyway: I think the argument that 2004 has no significance to MK Dons is kind of blown out of the water by the fact that when they changed the team's badge, colours, name etc they put "MMIV" ("2004") on the new badge. And this was even before they dropped the claim to the pre-2004 history. I really do think what we have at the MK Dons page at the moment ("2004" with a footnote explaining the situation and a wikilink to the relocation page) is the best solution to this separate problem. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Abcmaxx's post that "MK Dons legally are not allowed to refer to any history before 2004 as themselves"—this is incorrect. They are not legally obliged to do anything. They agreed with the Football Supporters' Federation that they would stop claiming history before 2004 and give the trophies to Merton Council, and in return the FSF would stop boycotting them and let MK Dons fans be FSF members. Since 2007 both sides have honoured this agreement. If MK Dons were to revise their stance and start claiming the history before 2004 again it would be a breach of this agreement with the FSF and a lot of people would be very angry, but it would not be breaking the law per se. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That was exactly my point. I still fail to see how they are not a phoenix club, seeing as like you say, the 2004 date is of significant relevance. It may not be a "traditional" phoenix club but it still satisfies all the criteria Abcmaxx (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Now we're back where we started essentially—the point is not what I think or what you think but whether or not we have a reliable source making this claim. So far as I see we do not. The claim is therefore, as I said at the start of the discussion, unsupported original research. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• MK Dons are not a phoenix club, and I'm pretty sure no reliable source claims that they are. Whether it satisfies the criteria or not is irrelevant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• What do you mean it doesn't matter if it satisfy criteria or not? Yes it does! Not every "phoenix club" has the attention of the media/article about them. The links I gave only show the link between MKD and WFC and how everyone at MKD feels they are WFC's successors Abcmaxx (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's extremely simple; that is original research. AFC Wimbledon are far more of a phoenix club than MK Dons are. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Your last sentence is the most POV statement I've heard so far - AFC Wimbledon are far more of a phoenix club than MK Dons are. that's original research too fed by your own biased emotions. In what way AFC are more or less a phoenix than let's say Enfield Town? Or 1874 Northwich? And showing that MKD fans think they are WFC's continuators is a FACT hence why it's backed up by reliable sources - whether you like it, agree with it or makes your blood boil or not, it's a stone-cold hard-faced fact Abcmaxx (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Under no circumstances are MK Dons a "Phoenix Club", they are Wimbledon F.C. who relocated to Milton Keynes and changed their name to reflect this but they are still the same club. If someone wants to suggest that MK Dons are a "Phoenix Club", can they please produce some sources/ references which state this. IJA (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Exactly. It is not "bias"; I support Birmingham City, and don't care at all about Wimbledon FC, AFC Wimbledon or MK Dons. MK Dons and Wimbledon FC are the same club, just under a different name. MK Dons relinquished all history prior to 2004, so no, their fans do not necessarily think they are Wimbledon FC's "continuators" (which isn't a word anyway). Oh, and the first bloody hit for "AFC Wimbledon phoenix club" is [1] - oh look, it describes AFC Wimbledon as a phoenix club, and not MK Dons. As do [2][3][4], which all came from "MK Dons phoenix club" being searched for - all supporting AFC as the phoenix club. Stop wasting our time, Abcmaxx, because this is beyond disruptive now; you're now pushing something that is not only original research, it is blatant bollocks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the examples given in the article, Leeds U and G Rangers and comparing: WFC went into administration but not formally bankrupt [though the taxman wrote off their debts], InterMK bought the business as a more-or-less going concern and relaunched albeit with a modified (but not totally different) name. The badge had to be changed anyway because of the College of Arms ruling and to recognise its new base. If it had happened a year later, they'd have had at least the 15 point deduction. If the rescue had happened in West London rather than MK, nobody would be arguing - be honest, its another proxy for the relocation argument. MKD Ltd is the lawful successor of WFC Ltd, as much as are GR and LU: the 2004 break is simply a fiction that was created pragmatically to end the boycott. So MKD certainly fits the definition of a Pheonix club - no way is it bollocks. However there remains the problem of lack of an external source to cite. To my mind, that is the only obstacle to its being listed - and if people start adding every other club that has been in and out of administration then absolutly MKD should be there too. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

So you've recognised that Wimbledon FC was never wound up, they were bought out by the guys who moved them to Milton Keynes and then changed their name. The club continued to exist. It has continued to exist ever since Wimbledon FC was first founded. Since the club was never wound up, there was nothing to replace, therefore Milton Keynes Dons cannot be considered a phoenix club. That would be like saying Manchester United is a phoenix club of Newton Heath FC after the club approached bankruptcy in 1902 and then moved to Trafford in 1910; it's absolute bollocks. – PeeJay 20:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

As noted below, we seem to have a very flexible definition of how dead a club has to be to qualify for rebirth (see my comments in next section below). IMO, administration isn't death. So WFC didn't die, it went on living and emerged from intensive care in a new strip. Yes, of course I recognise that WFC was never wound up: the 2004 date is just a professional foul. But it remains the fact that WFC went bust [ignoring the legal niceties] and MKD emerged from the ashes. The name change just muddies the waters: there are lots of clubs that went bust as eg Melchester Rovers FC and re-emerged as Melchester Rangers or the like, to keep the creditors at bay [predating modern insolvency law]. Are they phoenix clubs? Who is to say? If is we who say, then its OR unless we can produce a solid definition of a phoenix club and then can categorise bust clubs fairly against it. Otherwise, as I've said below, we have to accept the opinion of the media. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• We always accept the opinion of the media; verifiability, not truth comes into it, as does OR. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have to accept the facts presented to us in the media. As Lukeno94 says, the policy is verifiability. But when has anyone in the media ever referred to Milton Keynes Dons as a phoenix club? The only time I see the term "phoenix club" mentioned in relation to Milton Keynes Dons is when AFC Wimbledon are being mentioned as the phoenix club that replaced Wimbledon after they became MK Dons. If you can show me solid evidence that MK Dons are considered a phoenix club, other than the synthesis of ideas given by User:Abcmaxx above, I'll gladly defer to those sources, but until then, I remain unconvinced. – PeeJay 22:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

But, since we agree that WFC didn't go bust, how can AFCW be a phoenix club? It was even founded long before WFC was insolvent.

If we agree that a club has to be formally wound up as e.g. Hereford for any successor to be called a phoenix club, then MKD is not a phoenix club - but it has a far more convincing case to be listed than does AFCW. Just because some sloppy sports journalist at the beeb says that it is one does not make it true. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that although Wimbledon F.C. was never formally wound up as a business entity, in May–June 2002, the period in question, the people who broke away to form AFC Wimbledon regarded Wimbledon F.C. as "dead" in a kind of immaterial sense because it had publicly committed itself to leaving London and received permission to do so. With hindsight we know Wimbledon F.C.'s move was repeatedly delayed and they didn't actually get to Milton Keynes until September 2003, but at the time Koppel was saying the club was moving right away and it seemed that they would be starting 2002–03 in Milton Keynes. The implication the breakaway fans were making wasn't so much that Wimbledon F.C. was literally "dead" as a football club but more that it was in their view dead inasmuch as it was *Wimbledon* Football Club. They no longer perceived it as representing what they supported. Therefore they set up something else that did.

This really is the crux of the thing, in my opinion—whether or not it's a "phoenix club" is basically about a common set of supporters, shared heritage, community and so on, and of course whether or not they claim to be a phoenix club. The timing and to what degree the original club "went bust" (if at all) are secondary. It's just not that simple. Trying to devise some "set of criteria" for phoenix clubs among ourselves is a pointless exercise, both on Wikipedia and off—I don't personally believe it is something so black and white that set rules can be laid out, and even if it were whatever we decided here would be original research. The discussion we are having here really comes down to this—do the reliable sources say X and Y are phoenix clubs? Yes? Then they go in the article. Do they say Z is a phoenix club? No? Then it doesn't. That's it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

So I'm guessing MK DONS fans opinion doesn't count again, what do they think? They are a common set supporters too. As long as AFC think WFC and themselves are that and the other and a newspaper quotes them, all is hunky dory and the world should think and do whatever they say. Also interesting to see that everyone putting in so much effort into MK Dons NOT being in this article, but I could put in a load of random clubs from other countries completely make them up to be phoenix club and no-one would give a shit. The AFC crusade and hijack continues, and everyone else is following them like blind sheep. No-one cared when I put New Brighton A.F.C. in here nor Jeju United nor FC Seoul in here but MK Dons God forbid if ever there was anything objective or any suggestion that AFC aren't what they say they are. I wonder how many newspapers specifically call Rotherham Town F.C. (1899) a phoenix club of Rotherham Town F.C. (1878) Abcmaxx (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither the term nor the concept of a "phoenix club" existed in 1899, so almost certainly none. Meaning that's equally original research unsupported by sources. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I also find it rather amusing that you accuse other people of being biased, Abcmaxx, when they have reliable sources to back up their position, whilst you post far more biased tosh that you appear to be basically the only person to think is actually true. Heck, even Chesterfield F.C. consider AFC Wimbledon to be the phoenix club, see [5]... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course Chesterfield do, because they are regurgitating the self-started myth of AFC = WFC, (and that aside, seeing from their dirty tactics in the FA Cup this year I doubt they are a club which would be advised to look to for any sort of guidance). So what would you consider a phoenix club other than AFC then? How many articles do you think there are on "phoenix clubs"? It's not a popular phrase anyway. My point still stands, as long as the sainthood of AFC is preserved no-one really gives a toss about the other clubs. No-one seemed to be interested in this article at all until the Dons were mentioned. A dictionary definition of a phoenix is a person or thing that has become renewed or restored after suffering calamity or apparent annihilation. WFC has certainly been anhillated, and the MK Dons certainly restored and renewed order. I don't see why a some AFC-sympathising columnist in the Guardian or another newspaper is a reliable source but actual facts and the opinions of thousands of Dons fans are invalid. Moreover the concept of refounding a club under the same or similar name to continue a defunct clubs traditions has always existed - it just wasn't named as such Abcmaxx (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• You keep blathering on about bias, yet your own bias is so blinding that you can't even see that nothing backs up your position whatsoever. I haven't seen so much as a single MK Dons fansite claim they are a phoenix club, you've never made any attempt at doing so, so even unreliable sources don't back you up. Thousands of bytes of talkpage space wasted all because you are simply incapable of understanding Wikipedia's policies, or that you're wrong. AFC Wimbledon were set up by the fans, and as such are a textbook phoenix club; MK Dons are a rebranded Wimbledon FC. Don't see how it can be any clearer than that, because those are the cold hard facts. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me put my cards on the table. IMO, MK Dons are not a phoenix club for the simple reason that WFC didn't die. But absolutely WFC are not a phoenix club either, they are a cuckoo club. It is only by someone's recent redefinition [see end next section] that they've been shoehorned, backed by sloppy journalism that wouldn't last 10 seconds in a Wikipedia article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Such sloppy journalism that pretty much every single reliable source seems to regularly refer to them as a phoenix club, and have done for years... I'm not buying your argument either, and you seem just as heavily biased in favour of MK Dons and against AFC Wimbledon as Abcmaxx does. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I read in the Daily Mail that shopping at Lidl causes cancer and from UKIP that my Romanian neighbour is the reason why my Subway costs £4 and not 50p. Both reliable sources and therefore it must be true. Political beliefs aside, there's a reason Liverpool boycott The Sun, and a lot of Scots hold a grudge against the BBC Abcmaxx (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for anything bar perhaps themselves; ditto The Sun. UKIP are only a reliable source for their own policies (as is the way with every political party ever). Stop trolling and go and do something else, and for pity's sake, go and read up on Wikipedia's policies, since you appear to lack the slightest bit of knowledge about them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition of a phoenix club

I think we've got the definition of a phoenix club wrong. Surely a phoenix club is one set up after a previous club is forced into closure, rather than any club that simply replaces another? Taking the case of Football Kingz FC's disestablishment and the formation of New Zealand Knights FC, the latter makes no attempt to carry on the "spirit" of the old club, they simply carried on with a similar group of executives in charge and took Football Kingz FC's place in the Australian National Soccer League. AFC Wimbledon, however, is a phoenix club because they were set up to replace Wimbledon FC and carry on their "spirit" after they moved to Milton Keynes and became the Milton Keynes Dons; they've even got a similar badge. Obviously this definition would need to be backed up by reliable sources, since I'm really just spitballing ideas, but it seems to me that User:Abcmaxx is adding clubs to this list under a misguided idea of what a phoenix club actually is. – PeeJay 20:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll find most MKD fans feel they are carrying the spirit WFC and AFC are a completely new identity nothing to do with WFC other than usurping them. If you disagree with any phoenix clubs feel free to remove them, but just because one journalist decides is a new spirit shouldn't be the only factor deciding what is and what isn't. I don't know any Football Kingz FC fans or if they even had any - but they dissloved a club so they could re-found a new one which represents the same city Abcmaxx (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you've just proved my point. AFC Wimbledon is a new club formed to carry on the identity of Wimbledon FC, hence they are Wimbledon FC reborn – rising from the ashes of the old club, if you will, akin to (you'll love this) a phoenix! Milton Keynes Dons may have taken some Wimbledon FC fans with them, but I highly doubt anyone actually believes they are a true continuation of Wimbledon FC; in fact, they actively don't claim any of Wimbledon FC's history. Technically, they're the same club, but that's exactly what doesn't make them a phoenix club. FC United of Manchester are considered a phoenix club because they represent the club that was born from the "ashes" of Manchester United, which they believe died when the Glazer family took over. Chester FC is considered a phoenix club because they continue the spirit of Chester City FC after they were closed down; they even play in the same stadium as the old club. But instead of responding to my examples, why don't you try providing a viable definition for a phoenix club? – PeeJay 21:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong. Every MKD fan believes they are the one and only true continuation of WFC and MKD fans chant WFC songs at almost every game. The club doesn't clim any of the history due to the FSF's blackmail. How can FCUM be a phoenix club? They are not continuing MUFC because they still exist, no rising from any ashes here. They also don't believe they are the true MUFC, merely an alternative. What's more are Enfield Town a phoenix club? A protest club yes, but the original Enfield club lasted a fair few years after their establishment. I think a definition is if their is historical continuation, and evidence of mention of previous clubs - both are present MKD's case in abundance, hence why around a huge % of MKD fans wear WFC shirts or scarves at games Abcmaxx (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you are contradicting yourself. First you said MKD can't be a phoenix club because it is WFC, now you're saying there is nothing linking them. Btw AFC didn't rise from the ashes of WFC because WFC disbanded 2 years after AFC was formed Abcmaxx (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WFC were never disbanded, they were renamed. It's still the same legal entity. PeeJay isn't contradicting himself either – he said "Technically, they're the same club". Number 57 22:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

but I highly doubt anyone actually believes they are a true continuation of Wimbledon FC - well if they're the same thing how can you possibly doubt it?! Also doesn't seem much consistency in what would be and what wouldn't be a phoenix club Abcmaxx (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how I've contradicted myself. The fact is, Wimbledon FC was never disbanded, they were just moved and renamed; MK Dons can't be a phoenix club if they're a LITERAL continuation of another club, and since they don't claim to share the old club's history, that further weakens your claim. – PeeJay 23:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You just did it again! I feel like I'm going insane! If they are a literal continuation they cannot not claim to share the old club's history. How can you be a continuation of something you can't claim to be? Abcmaxx (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• That isn't what PeeJay2K3 stated. They said the two things separately; that MK Dons are a continuation of the Wimbledon FC club, and that they have renounced their claim to the Wimbledon FC club's heritage/history. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• But they renounced WFC's history only, not MKD's history right? So if they were truly the same club, they could not have done that, otherwise they would have "kept" the year WFC played in Milton Keynes. AFC didn't coin the term phoenix club, nor are they the standard bearer or in scientific terms "the control" is what is a continuation and what isn't Abcmaxx (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. All of the history prior to 2004 was abandoned by MK Dons; so, yes, they did abandon the history (at least, 3 months or so of it) of Wimbledon FC in Milton Keynes. However they are still the same club as Wimbledon FC, and the history shows that. It is all academic anyway; there is no evidence in reliable sources that MK Dons are a phoenix club; none whatsoever. All you're doing now is wasting our time, and your time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There's evidence of reliable sources of MKD assuming continuity of WFC and them not being the same club. It's pretty simple really. I know that AFC are holier than thou and can do no wrong and are the phoenix club of all phoenix club's but you still haven't done a single thing to what would be any legitimate criteria for establishing a phoenix club other than "if it's not like AFC, it's not a phoenix club" Abcmaxx (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

... and we're back where where we started. Again. Abcmaxx, will you please acknowledge that there is no reliable source directly backing your MK Dons-phoenix theory, thereby making it original research and synthesis? —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Abcmaxx: There is zero evidence of them not being the same club. In fact, all the evidence says they are the same club except MK Dons agreed to give up their claim to the pre-2004 history of the club that preceded their name change. They didn't just "assume continuity" of Wimbledon FC, they are the same club with a doctored past. – PeeJay 12:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

But MKD came out of the 'ashes' of an administration. So how burnt does the original club have to be? Does the previous incarnation have to be entirely wound up? And what's a decent interval before restarting? And by what measure do AFCW or Fans United get to be phoenix clubs? OK, I know we have WP:verifiability not truth, but are we saying in effect that the 'only' criterion is that if the gutter press say a club is a PhC, then it is - other wise it isn't? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• What? Since when were the BBC and The Guardian "gutter press"? Portsmouth and Leeds United have been in administration as well, but they aren't phoenix teams. Wimbledon never went under, after all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Define 'went under'? Went into administration or was entirely wound up? Have a look at the long list of clubs in Administration (British football)#List of clubs that have entered administration and tell me which reincarnations were from the dead and which were merely resting.

Ok, my 'gutter press' was sloppy but it doesn't change the fact that we seem to be in a position that there is no objective definition of a pheonix club, that it is no more and no less what the medja say it is. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would consider going under "entirely wound up" (Hereford United, Fiorentina, etc), or made into a NewCo a-la Rangers. I would agree that there isn't much of an objective definition of a phoenix club; it seems to be a term that is widely used and definitely notable, and yet, no one seems to have written many news stories on phoenix clubs generally. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Rangers aren't a phoenix club - quoting someone else's addition from the article Note 2: The SFA has a different interpretation from the FA with regard to phoenix clubs. Therefore Rangers FC is not regarded as a phoenix club despite a new company having bought the assets of the The Rangers Football Club plc in 2012 after a failure to agree a CVA with creditors, whereas Darlington 1883 is regarded as a phoenix club in England having gone through similar circumstances. I did try and summarise the definition of what everyone is happy what a phoenix club is in the main body.Abcmaxx (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I never called Rangers a phoenix club; I said that I would consider them to have gone under. Big difference there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it interesting, is it not, that 250 edits ago this article began with the simple clear statement The term "phoenix club" is given to football clubs that are created following the demise of an existing club. It is usual for the phoenix club to be created and supported by the supporters of the club which has ended.. In the meantime, however, the lede has been munged so that it now reads (in summary) "a phoenix club 'means whatever I want it to mean, no more and no less'" (Alice in Wonderland) but specifically framed such that AFCW is to be included but MKD is to be excluded. Bias, what bias? So let's see: does anybody object if I reinstate the original, NPOV, text? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The above is the most prefect and spot on comment I have ever seen or will ever see. 100% agree, I have nothing to add Abcmaxx (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you would, since you're both sharing the exact same bias. Everyone else, who doesn't support or care that much about either team, has strongly disagreed with you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't see how User:John Maynard Friedman's comment supports you, User:Abcmaxx. You've contributed most of the 250 edits he spoke of, and you're the one campaigning for MK Dons to be considered a phoenix club. You're so deep in your own bullshit that you don't seem to know what position you actually hold any more! – PeeJay 02:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess the voice MK Dons fans is irrelevant again then I take it. Just because the majority of fans bum-lick AFC and consider them the holiest and the most tragically hard done-by victims ever to have suffered in the history of football in this life and the next, thanks to evil spawn of satan that are the MK fans who "robbed", "slaughtered", "massacred" their beloved Wimbledon F.C. where millions of fans flocked to week in week out in the holy circle known as the "acceptable 20-mile radius" around the clubs namesake region of London (Merton being synonymous with Wimbledon) does not make it balanced point of view. Abcmaxx (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your colourful language makes it clear that you are not exactly clear-headed on this matter. You should probably step aside and let the grown-ups hash things out. We'll let you know what happens when you're less cranky after your nap. – PeeJay 02:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced content

@Abcmaxx: Do you intend to add sources to any of the clubs you have added to this list? At the minute, it seems like you're just adding any old club that seems to fit your interpretation of what a phoenix club is. This being Wikipedia, where the policy is verifiability, you should probably add some sources that say the clubs you've added are actually considered phoenix clubs, because your opinion of what constitutes a phoenix club is not sufficient. Without those sources, this article may need to be gutted. – PeeJay 11:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I just copied and pasted from the Wikipedia articles themselves (which I didn't write). Which one of those clubs I added are not phoenix clubs? Let me guess, cut all those which aren't called AFC Wimbledon? Abcmaxx (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Footnote style change

Per wp:be bold, I have changed the section footnote style from numbers to letters. I did this to better distinguish footnotes from citations. I believe this is an improvement but felt I should note it here in case anyone wishes to debate it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced / Questionable content

After seeing some discussions around this page on several users talk pages, it was quite clear that this list was in a mess, full of unreferenced and questionable "Phoenix Clubs". I have gone through the list and made the following changes:

1. Where references existed in either / any of the relevant clubs' articles I have added them in.
2. Where reference was made in a club's article but this was unreferenced but seemed plausible, I have added a {{citation needed}} template. There is an awful lot of these which show the list up for what it currently is. I would propose that if no reference is added in the next two weeks that the link should be removed as WP:OR.
3. Where there is no reference to the notion of a "phoenix club" in either of the club articles (bearing in mind that one club ceasing to play in one area and another starting up at a different time does not always mean a phoenix club)
4. Where there are vague claims of succession but the time scale or other factors make this seem highly unlikely to be a deliberate phoenix club I have removed these completely. Such examples are:

• 30 years passed between the folding of the original and the foundation of the "successor" Arsenal Kiev club.
• Nacka FF clearly states that club was formed from the merger of two completely separate clubs 10 years after the original Nacka folded.
• Lwow - A 70 year gap between folding and reestablishment in no way constitutes a phoenix club.
• Wilno - A 61 year gap between folding and reestablishment in no way constitutes a phoenix club.
• Katowice. the restarting of a club after a 62 year gap and changing the club from mens to womens teams is in no way a phoenix club.

I could go on... I think it would be best if in future, regardless of the level of citation provided in the club articles, that no additions are made to this list without also adding a clear reference. I have performed most of these edits individually so it should be easy to review the history for specific ones (which should be listed in reverse alphabetical order geographically) and revert if a reference can be provided. Fenix down (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This article has become a joke

If someone cannot see that e.g. FC Chernomorets Burgas and PSFC Chernomorets Burgas, which are almost identical in every way and one was founded after the other by its fans; or HNK Dubrovnik 1919 and HNK Dubrovnik; or FK Bashkimi (1947–2008) and FK Bashkimi (2011), who even have the exact same name; or my favourite, seeing as most the "editors" are English Salisbury City F.C. and Salisbury F.C.; are phoenix clubs, or even better FC Etar 1924 Veliko Tarnovo and OFC Etar Veliko Tarnovo are phoneix clubs but the 1 other reincarnation isn't;, then I have serious questions as to what kind of ridiculous set of principles is applied here. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

As has been rpeatedly pointed out to you and is also obvious from my points in the previous thread, the fact that a club shares a name does not make them necessarily a phoenix club. The article requires that any claims are supported by reliable sources per WP:V. Fenix down (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix or otherwise ?

Surely AFC Wimbledon should be categorised as a "replacement" club. They were established to tap the small remaining market of a club which saw better commercial opportunities elsewhere and continues to exist in its rebranded form. 2.220.161.220 (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Some sound observations have been made here. It's probably also worth noting that they have never played in the area they purport to represent and the prospect of doing so appears fairly remote. 2.223.192.2 (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

On a much larger scale, I don't think anyone ever suggested that the 1961 Washington Senators were a phoenix club although the circumstances seem uncannily similar. 2.125.14.100 (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that question the phoenix club nature of AFC Wimbledon, then they deserve mention in this article, but there are also reliable sources that use the term. Fenix down (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently "reliable" counts only when it agrees with your view and can stifle the overwhelming majority of observations. 2.216.66.254 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, all I want to do is stifle opinion on whether AFC Wimbledon are a phoenix club. It doesn't matter that the sources provided are the BBC, the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian, it's just me p.o.v. pushing. There's no need for pointless ad hominem, you have three choices:

1. add a note at the bottom of the table including reliably sourced prose indicating where the notion of the club as a phoenix club is discussed,
2. if you can find a greater number of reliable sources noting they aren't a phoenix club, then remove them from the listing and add a note at the bottom of the table clearly stating that some reliable sources consider them a phoenix club while more do not,
3. start an RfC to get the BBC, the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian

Simple as that really, if you really do have an overwhelming majority of observations from reliable sources, I'm not sure what is stopping you editing. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There are more contributions on this talk page opposing your view than in support and you are conveniently using the mass media's modus operandi of making a story appeal to the lowest common denominator. Senators/Twins/Rangers or Great Wakering CC, take your pick. 2.216.66.254 (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

And yet you present no sources. If you remove reliably sourced material again I will protect the page from editing by non-autoconfirmed editors. Fenix down (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The facts are all there; even the AFC Wimbledon says "considers itself" which suggests hope rather than expectation. You should probably get that blind eye examined. 2.216.66.254 (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not what "considers itself" means at all. It means they "understand themselves to be..." and the term is used in all three sources. You have still not produced any reliable sources indicating that the current sourced content is either wrong or in the minority. I have now protected the page so only autoconfirmed users can edit it because of your continued disruptive editing. Fenix down (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What could be more reliable than the facts ? Remarkably, you've managed to agree with and contradict yourself without realising - I'm sure the other Wikicrats will award a prize for such devotion once they've pulled their pants back up !! 2.216.66.254 (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Rangers

Going by the description of what a "Phoenix Club" is then Rangers must be surely ? The oldco Rangers club where liquidated, end of - no argument The assets where sold to a newco -again - no argument The newco began life at the bottom of Scottish football - no argument All players of the oldco could leave or opt to continue with newco.. You cannot get away from the definition of what is a new club and what is not simply because they where a massive instituation, I fully understand and sympathise with Rangers fans, I get its very very difficult for them to accept, but the legal aspect has been clearly lost now I expect smoke n mirrors and arguments to sway away from the truth, but any person who looks objectively at the situation from a non biased pov knows Rangers are a Pheonix club, theres no doubt about it whatsoever, unless your blind to the facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.47.70.250 (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Is North Ferriby F.C. the phoenix club of North Ferriby United A.F.C.?

North Ferriby F.C. has been added to the page but then removed many times. Some people claim that only the town name is the same but the club themselves and the supporters claim that it is a phoenix club. It is a recognised club by the FA and all sources confirm that it is a phoenix club. The new club is replacing the former club, it is continuing on with the same traditions, the logos are similar, they are playing at the same ground, many former people involved with the club are also involved with the new club and the playing uniforms are remaining similar. North Ferriby F.C. should be added onto this page and it should stay there.Baileymorecroft (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The only thing in common is town's name. If you have a source that its recognized as a phoenix club by the FA because the only source was added Monday and is a blog and clearly unreliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Baileymorecroft: This edit is not how we do things. In the earlier version it read that the FA recognized the club as a phoenix club but in removing the error rather than <s>striking it</s>, it makes my reply to your incorrect statement appear incorrect. I am commenting to make it clear what transpired and in an effort to have you not repeat the action. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

List article?

Is this not now a list article? Govvy (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Wimbledon redux

Humour me. The edit warring anon from Ilford has elected to discuss the Wimbledon issue everywhere but not here, so what's the underlying issue? Is there any merit to the argument the editor is making: the original Wimbledon club still operates as MK Dons? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The anon editor's argument is based on fact: WFC did relocate to MK, was bought out of administration as a going concern and renamed. Apart from the name change, the position is no different from that of Bolton Wanderers F.C. this week. The problem is that multiple sources describe AFCW as a Phoenix club so we apply wp:Verifiability, not truth. Lots more at Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes.

BTW, where does the FA recognise phoenix clubs per your remarks re North Ferriby F.C. above? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Montreal soccer clubs?

Would the Montreal Impact (1992–2011) and CF Montréal teams be considered phoenix clubs of the Montreal Supra? RedBlueGreen93 (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Montreal Impact/CF Montreal

How exactly is this a Phoenix club? The impact were effectively promoted up to MLS from USL. The badge reads 1993 for god’s sake. 70.54.116.29 (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

MLS doesn't have promotion or relegation. In order for Montreal to acquire an MLS team, they had to set up a new legal entity. The MLS franchise was founded in 2010, however, they hold the rights of the predecessor club's name and history, which is why they are able to use the 1993 date in their brand. This was the case for all expansion teams around that time such as the Seattle Sounders FC, Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps FC and Minnesota United FC. RedBlueGreen93 16:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)