LifestyleMemories

A decade on from the moment Plough Lane mark II was thought to be non-starter, it hosts AFC Wimbledon once more

This weekend, AFC Wimbledon will welcome Bradford City to their Plough Lane home for a League Two fixture hoping for a win that keeps them on the promotion trail. 

They will do so with hearts still swelling with pride at being able to host matches at their new ground – and we can still call it a new ground even if it is now four-and-half years old, having staged its first competitive game a few seasons ago. 

The immediate novelty of a return to their spiritual home in a 9,000-capacity stadium may have faded a little, but the feeling of sheer delight remains.  

How we reported it in 2015. The South London Press from January 30th that year.

The club that rose from the ashes of the old Wimbledon, to play in exile at venues such as Kingsmeadow in nearby Kingston, had achieved the dream of somehow making their way back to the very area where they first rose to prominence as a top flight team which improbably won the FA Cup in 1988. 

And yet, and yet…. 

It’s hard to believe it now. But 10 years ago, the prospect of AFC Wimbledon returning to Plough Lane really did seem more of a pipe-dream than a realistic prospect. 

Just look at the story put out in the South London Press on January 30, 2015. We reported that resident groups and government bodies were so strongly opposed that it seemed it could never come to pass. 

An English League Division One match at Plough Lane in February 1988, featuring Newcastle’s Paul Gascoigne and the Dons’ John Fashanu (Picture: Alamy)

Both the Wimbledon Society and Wimbledon Park Residents’ Association were vehemently against the creation of a new stadium at the site of what was a still-existing dog track.  

The Environmental Agency thought the location on the River Wandle flood plain made it too hazardous to have new flats and a stadium at that location. 

Iain Parkinson, chairman of the residents’ association, said: “It is a very dense development with little amenity space. The developer is trying to put as many homes on it as it can. 

The old greyhound stadium, left (Picture: Alamy) and the AFC Wimbledon home built on the site (Picture: @YTJourno)

“This development is not subject to a popular vote; it’s not a referendum. As it stands, I think the stadium will be rejected.” 

Five-and-a half-years later, in November 2020, it was open for business for the first time, albeit without an audience at first because it coincided with Covid lockdown.

The original Plough Lane was very much a non-league ground, and was abandoned in 1991, with the Dons ground-sharing with Crystal Palace at Selhurst Park. 

It was much-loved because it had been home for 81 years but was not really fit for purpose in an evolving football world that was about to see the revolution of the sport with the advent of the Premier League. 

Its crumbling terracing offered poor sight lines for spectators, and amenities were basic – to say the least. But it felt like home. 

As it looks today (Picture: @YTJourno)

In 2002, when the new Wimbledon came into existence – the old club having been shamefully hived off to new owners relocating to Milton Keynes – the stated aim was always to return to Merton at some stage, but it always felt miraculous that such a dream could come to pass. 

Seemingly against all the odds, plans for a new stadium just 200 yards from where the old stadium had been were unanimously approved by Merton council in December 2015 – 12 months on from the prophets of doom making their forecast of rejection, with central government misgivings put to bed. 

Clearance of the site began in March 2018, and the rest is history, as they say. 

Pictured top: The old ground as it used to be in the mid-1990s. Wimbledon had already fled the ship by then as Plough Lane was no longer up to the task of hosting top flight football (Picture: Alamy)

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.