Fair enough but personally I reckon MK would have taken on a cult atmosphere like Fulham.
Also think the players would have played more like at WHL as it actually looks very similar, and not a red seat in sight.
The waiting list issue could have been resolved another way. There was absolutely no reason to force people to sign up for Wembley in order to but one at the new WHL. Should have simply prioritized loyalty and made the rest first come first served.
I get that financially it suits the chairman, but far from propelling us into the world stage, teams are just coming there and taking the piss out of our fans. There were chants of "your grounds too big for you" yesterday, from Bournemouth fans ffs!
We can take 80k and all we will get is talk about the 10k empties anyway.
Also I don't buy the talk of STs missing out at MK and it being unfair. People saying the STs are no shows at Wembley.....so...
Not gonna go through it all again, but if Wembley holds us back on the pitch it can't be the right choice. Corporate and financial reasons are not my reasons.
I'm not at all convinced that we would have done better at MK Dons.
The only advantages would be the pitch size and the crowd being closer. And the seat colours.
No guarantee that the atmosphere would have been better. The acoustics may be better there (never been there, missed our 5-1 win a few years back) but it was a very unpopular option among fans for reasons we've already discussed, which in itself would have made the atmosphere worse. If there had been a ST amnesty I can imagine a fair few of our vocal fans choosing not to go, which would have also made the atmosphere worse.
There is a lot true of both Wembley and MK. Opposition fans would have still taken the piss out of us (for different reasons). It's still a different dressing room, pitch, journey etc for the players. Still different sight lines from WHL. It would be more of a journey for them, being in a different city, which I think is a negative. We would have had to make the decision whether or not to stay in a hotel in MK beforehand. If not, there's an energy sapping journey, if so players would be away from wife, kids, home etc. Neither option would have been good.
Opposition players would not raise their game there, in the same way as Wembley, I'll give you that.
From a personal point of view I would not want to justify their existence as a club by sharing their ground with them. I know you can say we did the Delle Alli transfer so there's double standards, but I feel there's a difference between signing a player and ground sharing with a club.
But even putting that aside, I don't think it's guaranteed we would have performed better at MK. Or that if we did, it would have made more than one or two points difference- I think you can agree it would not have been WHL.
Unfortunately we needed to have a year away from Tottenham and there were no perfect options.