I think it's perfectly sensible for Wimbledon to be going full-time, with their crowds.
Negated apparently by the cost of the stadium but I always think there's a bit of smoke and mirrors going on. Crowds wise I agree, you need at least 2,000 average to consider it and they've got the fan base. I'm just questioning whether it's worth doing it on the cheap. You'll just end up with players who aren't good enough, young or old.
They have been full time for a while now anyway despite what Terry Brown comes out with.
Yes, I'd assumed they must be most of the way towards being full-time already - I'd guess they're about where Burton Albion were when they were still officially 'part-time'.
Don't know how much it costs them to use Kingsmeadow but I'd be surprised if it's so prohbitive that they couldn't operate along the lines of, say, Kidderminster and then you get into the question of whether it's better to be one of the best-paying part-time clubs or one of the worst-paying full-time clubs. Given how much we make of the disadvantage of being part-time, I'd be inclined to agree that turning full-time would be advantageous for any club that can afford it.