The flooding that hit AFC Wimbledon's football stadium was "entirely predictable", according to local activists. Could ignoring warnings have contributed to the devastation the club is now facing?

Flooding at Cherry Red Records Stadium

On the night of 22-23 September, heavy rainfall led to severe damage at Cherry Red Records Stadium, which is the home of AFC Wimbledon Football Club. More than 100,000 litres of water were pumped out of the venue, after drains became clogged. The situation forced the club to postpone two home matches, including a League Cup game against Newcastle United.

The postponement of the matches was unfortunately unavoidable. What is also inevitable is the desire to find alternative entertainment on hand. When looking for bookmaker offers, fans often choose Tips.gg, where they can find the best hints for betting on football matches, or increase their winning bets.

Despite efforts to drain the pitch, which collapsed after the recent flooding, the problem proved to be much deeper than a one-off incident. According to many, this disaster was only a matter of time.

© The Ball is Round

It was bound to happen

Michael Burnage, a representative of campaign group Save Wimbledon Stadium Action Group, spoke of the predictable nature of the tragedy. We all knew that it was just a matter of time, he said in an interview with the BBC. The question in our mind was not if there would be a flood on the site, but when it would happen.

The history of the area where the new stadium is being built has been fraught with incidents of flooding. The previous stadium, which had been in operation since 1928, had faced similar problems on more than one occasion. According to Burnage, the site has flooded repeatedly over the decades, and warnings to developers, the city council and the Environment Agency have gone unanswered.

Responses from local authorities and developers

Despite the long history of flooding in the area, the decision to build a new stadium on this particular site was approved by the local authority. The Environment Agency said that responsibility for planning decisions rested with the local council. Merton Council, which gave its approval for the new project, said it regretted the damage caused.

A spokesman for Merton Council acknowledged that the area on which the stadium was built was historically prone to flooding. Given this risk, and the increase in flash flooding caused by our changing climate, the planning proposal was, like all proposals, examined rigorously. - he said. The council has worked with the Environment Agency and AFC Wimbledon to reduce the risk of future disasters and improve flood management processes.

© The Ball is Round

Club, fans and local community facing losses

Despite assurances from the authorities, the impact of the flooding was devastating. AFC Wimbledon, which is a supporter-owned club, raised more than £120,000 for repairs and support for the club. Newcastle United were also involved in the campaign itself, donating £15,000 towards repairs to the stadium. The club's board has said it will be exploring what steps can be taken to better secure the stadium for the future. Investment in improved infrastructure and more sophisticated rainwater management systems are being considered.

However, all these measures are being received with some scepticism by those who have been warning of the danger for years. Jon Stevens, curator of the Dons Den museum, which holds artefacts from the old stadium's former glory days, said that the area had historically, it's always flooded. Speaking to the BBC, he stressed that Regarding building a brand-new stadium and it still flooding, I guess maybe something’s been overlooked.

© The Ball is Round

Why was disaster not avoided?

The question of responsibility for the current situation is difficult to resolve conclusively. The Environment Agency admitted that it had originally objected to the stadium due to insufficient information on flood risk management. Only after additional documents were provided did the agency drop its objection, imposing certain conditions on the developers.

Despite these precautions, the new stadium - built on a brownfield site in a high flood risk zone - proved vulnerable to such events. Whether the measures taken were sufficient remains an open question.