I didn't see BFCSS as being trustworthy and willing to work as an equal partner.
The fact they took a neutral stance on the previous vote vindicated that opinion for me.
Encouraging a Yes vote alongside in a joint statement with BAFC is what should have happened before.
Thankfully, the rabble rousers would seem to have been weeded out.
I don't see the vote failing to pass a second time.
And you were correct about BFCSS Board not being trustworthy as they celebrated not merging and it turned out they had secretly aquired a football team called the Radcliffe Veterans playing in the Bolton Sports Federation Over 35 Veteran Football League and the BFCSS renamed them as Bury Community United Football Club. They did not announce any of this before the vote for the merger.
This is the BFCSS attempt to have their own football team pretending that it is the saved Bury FC, whilst Bury FC is still in administration with the changed name of CCFB Realisations as you know, which BFCSS changed our club name to.
This attempt to create a new club has had the application to join the football pyramid rejected and the loss of funding with their actions has forced BFCSS to need the second vote and on social media the BFCSS still promote to vote No whilst the statement says they now support the merger
Still very concerning
However, Bury AFC are now forced to revisit this issue of merging. The Chairman explains:-
here lies the dilemma in simple terms. If we deliberately go against the will of our supporters combined with stakeholders including those in influential positions, we will lose credibility, influence, access to funding and any chance of ever having a ground of our own. This will adversely impact our ability to generate income, which in turn will impact negatively our on field success. We are well aware of the fickleness of football fans and how this can negatively impact crowds. Football teams in Bury are far from immune from this syndrome.
We can talk about the vagaries of business, the desire for credible business plans and the requirements for certainty but the only assurance that can be provided is that Bury AFC will find life much more difficult under the circumstances stated above than is currently the case.
The irony of the debate for me is that a significant level of scrutiny is being applied to the financial plans of a combined group following amalgamation yet none to the business plans of AFC should a merger not occur. This seems not be important in this whole debate, which appears to be focussed solely on the sustainability of Gigg Lane.
Whilst there are uncertainties a plenty about Gigg Lane, they pale into insignificance versus those of a no vote. Always happy to provide reasoned debate but balance is required across the board, which should also include a high level of scrutiny of what will happen should we deliberately vote no. As you can imagine, the picture likely to be painted is far from pretty.
Back to my view
The outcome will be that Bury AFC will do as requested by the Board and vote Yes
How BFCSS will vote is unpredictable