Shengus Malengus
Well-Known Member
Just when I thought I was getting the hang of things, y'all go and fry my brain again.
Bury FC phoenix club
- Thread starter acousticblue
- Start date
It was a somewhat rhetorical question.
I don't get why, after everything Bury have been through, people are just blindly accepting that "Bury FC have been saved".
Surely you make sure absolutely every t is crossed and i dotted?
It should be straightforward enough, if Bury FC have been bought from Steve Dale and brought out of administration, have the applied for FA membership and sought to join a league, if not, why?
Perhaps one of the gentlemen who challenge your points can answer.
BuryGer
Well-Known Member
You should join the “uptheshakers.com” forum online, it’s worse but the “afc” version, there’s idiots on both sides and unfortunately they are stopping ”the original” club make any progress.
BuryGer
Well-Known Member
Because, and this isn’t strictly about Est 1885 (current ownership group), every rescue attempt that has gone to the FA for approval (I.E granted a league place) has been challenged by Bury AFC, this has been the 4th different group that has agreed and signed documents to be challenged by the AFC board members (not fans).
This is the second fan owned group and by far the furthest we’ve come.
I personally would rather they stopped getting involved and we go our separate ways and let things on the pitch decide who’s more successful.
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
This is an interesting stance, as i am not an AFC board member and you appear to have insider information.
From the start of our being expelled from the EFL, the FA rules have always been clear, and it seems you dont understand them. Apologies if you do, and this is not personal.
This is where i am coming from, the FA rules have to be met, and it is nothing to do with Bury AFC, no application has been made that could meet the rules.
Because steve dale, as the Chairman of Bury FC got us expelled, the FA rules state he can not own any football club or gain entry to any football league.
If at the point of our being expelled from the EFL, dale had let go of our club, our phoenix football team could have been entered in the football league only two divisions lower than we were expelled from, it is in the FA rules and there are clear time limits.
The problem is this, dale has no interest in football and didnt even know we had a football team until he got our club for £1.
Dale has not let go even today, he is still the owner of 93% shares of our Bury FC, which the Bury Football Club Supporters Society have just changed our club name to CCFB Realisations 2022 ltd. The Bury Football Club has not been bought out of administration, understandably as Peter Alexander stated.
This is still Bury FC under FA rules.
Somehow, dale's shares have been excluded from the administration process.
Given the above, dale lost our FA membership. A new FA application has to be made. If you look at the application form it asks questions. This is the problem that prevented any application being made to the FA by EST and BFCSS, who did not own the ground until now in 2022, great achievement by the way.
They also are not able to use the name Bury FC because Bury FC is still in administration.
This is the reality, still nothing to do with Bury AFC.
And where does Bury AFC fit in, well when we were expelled, and even back in 2019 it was thought the club would enter liquidation - still not happened, the Bury Football Club Supporters Society (Forever Bury) held a Town Hall meeting and had an agreed way forward, with the only successful option being the formation of the Bury FC fans football team by the FA deadline date of January 2020, now Bury AFC.
If Bury AFC had not been formed then, dale would have won his argument that there was no interest in Bury to need a football stadium and the planning application would have gone in. The guy is a serial asset stripper, look at his last 40 companies.
If Bury AFC did not exist today, it alters nothing other than they have just got into tier 9 of the football pyramid. Any new team created by EST / BFCSS will start in tier ten, as in the FA rules, so it would set us back and why do that?
That Bury Football Club Supporters Society now owns Gigg Lane but has forgotten the agreed way forward in 2022 is mind blowing to me.
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
If Bury AFC did not exist today, it does alter something, there would be no football team playing in 2022-23 season, with no prospect of a team called Bury FC playing at Gigg Lane
You'll need to explain this to me.
Bury FC founded in 1885 can't get a league place because of Bury AFC?
On what grounds can AFC stop another club from accessing league football?
A club that is supposedly free from Steve Dale, not in administration and has its own stadium?
I really don't understand how that is possible.
If, as you say, there have been 4 different groups trying to gain Bury FC a league place, does that mean they have all owned Bury FC at the time of application?
If not, on what basis were they actually able to apply to the FA?
Mailsort
Active Member
Once Again I state that Steve Dale does Not own anything to do with Bury FC, we are Not in administration. Earlier this year AFC asked to rent Gigg Lane for next season & were given a firm NO as Bury FC were expecting to be given a league placing but since then AFC officials have blocked everything.
AFC directors are frightened of having a vote of their members on amalgamation because Bury FC fans have told them (the directors) they are not welcome.
The local council have promised £450,000 to Bury FC to get things going again but that seems to depend on amalgamation.
My understanding is that the FA will not allow two Bury teams , & that is what is holding things up at the moment.
This is a bit rambling but to put things straight may I quote part of a statement from Forever Bury one of the groups that now own the club:
STATEMENT
"We are delighted to announce that today we closed on the purchase of Gigg Lane from the Administrator & it is now a community asset, free of debt or liabilities. We have also acquired the trading name, history & memorabilia of Bury FC. In this process we have attracted funding from the UK Government (around £1 million from Michael Gove from the community assets fund), America & a number of other local benefactors, none of whom expect any more return from their support than the satisfaction of seeing football return to the ground & it's expanded use for community sports & wellbeing"
Friday 18th February 2022.
AFC directors are frightened of having a vote of their members on amalgamation because Bury FC fans have told them (the directors) they are not welcome.
The local council have promised £450,000 to Bury FC to get things going again but that seems to depend on amalgamation.
My understanding is that the FA will not allow two Bury teams , & that is what is holding things up at the moment.
This is a bit rambling but to put things straight may I quote part of a statement from Forever Bury one of the groups that now own the club:
STATEMENT
"We are delighted to announce that today we closed on the purchase of Gigg Lane from the Administrator & it is now a community asset, free of debt or liabilities. We have also acquired the trading name, history & memorabilia of Bury FC. In this process we have attracted funding from the UK Government (around £1 million from Michael Gove from the community assets fund), America & a number of other local benefactors, none of whom expect any more return from their support than the satisfaction of seeing football return to the ground & it's expanded use for community sports & wellbeing"
Friday 18th February 2022.
acousticblue
Well-Known Member
Surely if this is the case would it not make sense to include the afc directors who are obviously running a good ship just now and being successful, would an amalgamation not be more likely if all were included, the above statement reads like you only want an amalgamation on your own terms.
I'm not privy to whats happening down there, but I would be apprehensive to agree with a club that basically needs the already established club onside, but only on the terms they want
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
If only this was so, what would be the issue if Bury FC was out of administration?
Peter Alexander has stated he could not afford to buy Bury FC out of administration, look it up, and EST and BFCSS have no funds to buy Bury FC out of administration.
I am sorry but you are being mislead.
BFCSS have managed to change the name of Bury FC to CCFB Realisations 2022 ltd. This is still Bury FC and the directors are still steve dale and his son, this is our club with the debts, hence why any new team by EST can not be called Bury FC under FA rules
Please sort your information out, you may not like what i say and you have already called me a liar, but i can back up my information whereas you can not.
Find out for yourself
And when you talk about EST, they are not the Bury FC in administration, they want to be a new club
And your understanding of the FA is incorrect too
Last edited:
"It's all AFCs fault" yet in a matter of seconds I found this in the Bury Times regarding Bury FCs failed application to join the league pyramid in 2020.
An FA statement read: "The FA can confirm that Bury FC's application to join the National League System (NLS) for the 2020-21 season has not been accepted.
"The Alliance Leagues Committee's decision not to accept the application was based on several different factors, including in relation to the club's financial resources, ownership and insolvency status."
"The FA left the door open for the club to rejoin in the future if their financial issues are addressed, acknowledging their 'history and standing', and added: "The Alliance Leagues Committee would welcome an application from the club to join the NLS for the 2021-22 season."
Now given that Bury AFC were formed in 2020 and had already joined a league, this utterly destroys the idea that the FA won't allow 2 Bury teams, it's right there that they are inviting another application.
An FA statement read: "The FA can confirm that Bury FC's application to join the National League System (NLS) for the 2020-21 season has not been accepted.
"The Alliance Leagues Committee's decision not to accept the application was based on several different factors, including in relation to the club's financial resources, ownership and insolvency status."
"The FA left the door open for the club to rejoin in the future if their financial issues are addressed, acknowledging their 'history and standing', and added: "The Alliance Leagues Committee would welcome an application from the club to join the NLS for the 2021-22 season."
Now given that Bury AFC were formed in 2020 and had already joined a league, this utterly destroys the idea that the FA won't allow 2 Bury teams, it's right there that they are inviting another application.
A quick look at the company history shows that Bury FC changed to CCFB Realisations 2022 on April 7th this year.
Given that the incorporation date is July 9th 1897, there can be no doubt this company is the original Bury FC.
According to companies house, it is in administration and has 3 directors.
Jill Neville, Courtney Dale and Steven Derek Dale.
find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk
Given that the incorporation date is July 9th 1897, there can be no doubt this company is the original Bury FC.
According to companies house, it is in administration and has 3 directors.
Jill Neville, Courtney Dale and Steven Derek Dale.
CCFB REALISATIONS 2022 LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK
CCFB REALISATIONS 2022 LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
Back to the footballing news, the Bury AFC season tickets are ready for the new season and news of the players is filtering through.
After tremendous service, the GOAT, Tom Greaves has departed along with Chippy Chippendale, both players going nearer to their homes to play for Thackley next season.
Good news is that Jack is staying in goal after being goalkeeper of the season
nwcfl.com
After tremendous service, the GOAT, Tom Greaves has departed along with Chippy Chippendale, both players going nearer to their homes to play for Thackley next season.
Good news is that Jack is staying in goal after being goalkeeper of the season
First Division North Reusch Goalkeeper of the Year
Bury AFC shot-stopper Jack Atkinson collects deserved award
nwcfl.com
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
Futher good news is that Lewis Gilboy has signed a new contract and also staying are Jono Hunt, Matty Williams and Jimmy Moore
buryafc.uk
Contract Signed…Lewis Gilboy – Bury AFC
buryafc.uk
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
Looks like Jake Kenny is staying too, keeping our defensive line up pretty good
RFC80UK
Well-Known Member
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
That is a great question! We are all Bury FC fans but Bury FC got expelled from the English Football League in 2019 and the club is still in administration.
The Forever Bury (Bury Football Club Supporters Society) agreed way forward was with the Bury FC fans setting up the phoenix club to meet the FA deadline date of January 2020, now called Bury AFC (because the name Bury FC already exists with the club in administration.) This is the 100% fan owned club, one member one vote, and is the only football team with an FA membership and league place.
In 2022 the ground has been aquired out of administration by a group called EST and the Bury Football Club Supporters Society, and they claim they have saved Bury FC, but the club Bury FC is still in administration, and EST have no football team, no FA membership and no football league placing. They appear to want to set up a new club with 49%/51% ownership and their new team can not be called Bury FC, if it is started, because Bury FC is still in administration
So Bury AFC is the only football team, but has to groundshare
The EST new club own Gigg Lane and have no football team
The only football team for the last two seasons and next is Bury AFC
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
Should have mentioned the Bury AFC manager Andy Welsh got Manager of the Year
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
The talks between the two groups continue
Out today
The same message has been given by both Bury AFC and the Bury Football Club Supporters Society
Update on Gigg Lane Discussions – Bury AFC
Update on Gigg Lane Discussions
Admin-June 10, 2022-News-2 CommentsThe Gigg Lane Working Group led by Bury Council has been working through the necessary steps to bring forward proposals that supporters can be consulted on.
The Memorandum of Understanding that the working group parties have signed provides a framework for the next stage of the process. The immediate task is to agree a business plan that the working group parties believe can support the twin ambitions of a viable operational plan for Gigg Lane as a community venue, and a home fit for the return of professional football to Bury.
The intention is for the business plan to be shared with supporters and the wider community before the end of the month to obtain feedback. This input is critical to the success of any plans for Gigg Lane and football in Bury.
The business plan will be a key element in the proposed merger of Bury Football Club Supporters’ Society Ltd and Shakers Community Society Ltd. Further details on the process and timetable for merger will be announced before the end of the close season.
Rescuing Gigg Lane from years of neglect by the previous owners is a considerable task and a lot of work has been done already by Bury Football Club Supporters’ Society and volunteers to allow the stadium to be partially reopened. To take this work to the next stage will require supporters and the community to come together to provide additional investment of time and funds. The discussions between supporter groups, the progress made to date at the ground, and the promotion of Bury AFC has provided a momentum that gives hope for a return of professional football to Bury.
acousticblue
Well-Known Member
Greaves will be a miss for you, hopefully they'll bring in somebody else who knows where the goal isBack to the footballing news, the Bury AFC season tickets are ready for the new season and news of the players is filtering through.
After tremendous service, the GOAT, Tom Greaves has departed along with Chippy Chippendale, both players going nearer to their homes to play for Thackley next season.
Good news is that Jack is staying in goal after being goalkeeper of the season
First Division North Reusch Goalkeeper of the Year
Bury AFC shot-stopper Jack Atkinson collects deserved award
Firstly, I'm not going to knock the achievement of obtaining the ground via private investment and public funding, ie the government grant.
However, to clarify, BFCSS/Est1885 have bought the trading name, ie Bury Football Club Company and not the football club. The word trading keeps getting dropped but is important when explaining what has and hasn't been bought from the administrators. Once the trading name was purchased, the company that owns/owned Bury FC was renamed to CCFB Realisations 2022 Ltd. For info CCFB is Bury Football Club Company reversed. Having taken ownership of the trading name, BFCSS then renamed Gigg Lane Stadium Ltd to The Bury Football Club Company Limited. This company has the government grant as a charge assigned to it so in theory will protect it from being sold.
There is currently no FA registered team called Bury FC with either the Lancashire or Manchester FAs and from my understanding only Ccfb could use that name if they come out of administration. The administration period got extended to May 2023 so could be up to 11 months until liquidated. Once liquidated, a club can apply for the original name but only after it has been in existence for at least 5 years.
Lastly, as for AFC blocking FC from returning, it's all based on hearsay, no-one ever showing proof. Even at the recent Q&A, BFCSS said AFC had not prevented this. One of the daftest arguments I heard was the FA won't allow 2 teams from the same town! I'll leave you all to think about that one
However, to clarify, BFCSS/Est1885 have bought the trading name, ie Bury Football Club Company and not the football club. The word trading keeps getting dropped but is important when explaining what has and hasn't been bought from the administrators. Once the trading name was purchased, the company that owns/owned Bury FC was renamed to CCFB Realisations 2022 Ltd. For info CCFB is Bury Football Club Company reversed. Having taken ownership of the trading name, BFCSS then renamed Gigg Lane Stadium Ltd to The Bury Football Club Company Limited. This company has the government grant as a charge assigned to it so in theory will protect it from being sold.
There is currently no FA registered team called Bury FC with either the Lancashire or Manchester FAs and from my understanding only Ccfb could use that name if they come out of administration. The administration period got extended to May 2023 so could be up to 11 months until liquidated. Once liquidated, a club can apply for the original name but only after it has been in existence for at least 5 years.
Lastly, as for AFC blocking FC from returning, it's all based on hearsay, no-one ever showing proof. Even at the recent Q&A, BFCSS said AFC had not prevented this. One of the daftest arguments I heard was the FA won't allow 2 teams from the same town! I'll leave you all to think about that one
9pm tonight, announcement of a new striker.
So far 9 players, I think have been retained.
Forgot to add, the above mentioned plan has been sent to GMCA (Greater Manchester Combined Authorities) which is made up of the 11/12 local councils such as Manchester, Stockport etc, Bury Council and Bury AFC. As far as I am aware none of these parties have signed off on the plan.
Last edited:
Mailsort
Active Member
As Wozza74 should know, nothing can move forward until AFC members have had a vote on amalgamation. Why have they not had that vote yet? What are they frightened of? Probably because back in March (22) they were told that they would not be allowed to rent Gigg Lane for this coming season.
AFC officials think that they can just walk in to Gigg & take over, having done the square root of F all to save the club & that ain't gonna happen!
All this has nothing to do with the GMCA, just Manchester City Council.
STATEMENT:
"Bury AFC's management team have suggested in a public statement that they could rent Gigg Lane for next season & delay. putting any voters a merger to a later date whilst discussions about the potential merger continue. There has been no agreement on this. We do not believe that such a rental arrangement would be a positive solution for a variety of reasons.
A working group has been formed with Bury AFC, Bury Council, Manchester City Council. The Football Supporters Association & Central Government Community Funding Team to try & find a proposal that can be supported by a majority of members from both societies.
Hopefully this group will be able to drive forwards towards a fan vote, but this needs to happen in a reasonable time frame to still give us time to build a team for next season if it is declined."
From Bury Football Club Supporters Society
15th March 2022.
That was back in mid March, AFC are still stalling on having a vote, Why?
Regarding the future of the Bury FC name, the same statement says:
"Buying the stadium, intellectual property & Memorabilia out of Administration meant that football creditors to the old regime have not been paid. Whilst some may feel this is unfair, it is not a legal requirement to settle outstanding liabilities when buying just these items out of administration. This means there are currently FA restrictions on when we can use the Bury FC name. We are seeing there can be a negotiated resolution on this or whether we will have to play under a new name until the day the team can once again compete as Bury FC."
AFC officials think that they can just walk in to Gigg & take over, having done the square root of F all to save the club & that ain't gonna happen!
All this has nothing to do with the GMCA, just Manchester City Council.
STATEMENT:
"Bury AFC's management team have suggested in a public statement that they could rent Gigg Lane for next season & delay. putting any voters a merger to a later date whilst discussions about the potential merger continue. There has been no agreement on this. We do not believe that such a rental arrangement would be a positive solution for a variety of reasons.
A working group has been formed with Bury AFC, Bury Council, Manchester City Council. The Football Supporters Association & Central Government Community Funding Team to try & find a proposal that can be supported by a majority of members from both societies.
Hopefully this group will be able to drive forwards towards a fan vote, but this needs to happen in a reasonable time frame to still give us time to build a team for next season if it is declined."
From Bury Football Club Supporters Society
15th March 2022.
That was back in mid March, AFC are still stalling on having a vote, Why?
Regarding the future of the Bury FC name, the same statement says:
"Buying the stadium, intellectual property & Memorabilia out of Administration meant that football creditors to the old regime have not been paid. Whilst some may feel this is unfair, it is not a legal requirement to settle outstanding liabilities when buying just these items out of administration. This means there are currently FA restrictions on when we can use the Bury FC name. We are seeing there can be a negotiated resolution on this or whether we will have to play under a new name until the day the team can once again compete as Bury FC."
As
Whilst AFC members need to vote so do BFCSS members which you should know.
In order to vote properly, members will need to be given all the pertinent information. This would apply to members of both societies.
What you're conveniently forgetting is that AFC had to get legal confirmation that its CBS could sign the NDA that BFCSS requested they sign before supplying the sustainability plan. The legal confirmation due to the fact AFC is 100% fan owned ie, by all its members so had to check excluding the fans from seeing the plan didn't break their constitution.
Lastly, talks are progressing but as GMCA, Bury Council and AFC haven't signed off the sustainability plan, how can it be presented to the fans for a fair vote?
To use a simple comparison, would you buy a house without getting a survey done?
Last edited:
The FA won't allow two Bury teams, based on what?
There's FCUM, there's an AFC Blackpool, AFC Liverpool.
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
Back to playing football
Absolute garbage.
I've shown that the FA have invited Bury FC to reapply to join the league set up in 2020 AFTER they admitted Bury AFC.
I've shown that in spite of claims that Bury FC have been saved/nothing to do with Dale the company incorporated in 1897 are still in administration and still have Dale as a director.
In post #1408, you use an article dated February 18th 2022 as proof that everything is fine, yet the latest filings with Companies House are from April 7th and again, show 2 of the 3 directors are named Dale with the company still in administration.
But, and I want to be perfectly clear on this, I am a Rangers fan. I got involved in this simply because I recognised the plight of Bury from my own bad experience and I just wanted to help with what little I could.
I am still 100% in favour of Bury FC playing at Gigg Lane if it can be achieved.
So please, show me how AFC directors have blocked Bury FC from admittance to the league, in fact show me that an application even existed.
I've supplied my proof of the FA rejection in 2020, complete with statement on the reasons why and the invitation to try again.
I'm open to being convinced, the floor is yours.
Surely the English FA have acknowledged the application or Bury FC have proof of its rejection?
Shengus Malengus
Well-Known Member
You certainly win the acronym battle, Wozza.
Imagine how long my reply would have been if I'd no acronyms?!You certainly win the acronym battle, Wozza.
I can provide a glossary next time
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
Wow, the first batch of fixtures for are new season are out today
Start with a home game, always good
Hoping this is the link to show the list
Start with a home game, always good
Hoping this is the link to show the list
jimmy5141
Well-Known Member
No dates for Isle of Man away yet?Wow, the first batch of fixtures for are new season are out today
Start with a home game, always good
Hoping this is the link to show the list
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
Not been issued yet
Kendal away is Tuesday 9th August
jimmy5141
Well-Known Member
I have never been to the Isle of Man so it would be an opportunity to have a few days there and go to the football.
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
Just into July and the preseason has started up already
First friendly was yesterday, away at Stockport Town, on a sunny day too
Plenty of triallist players
Hope this will link to the goals highlights
t.co
First friendly was yesterday, away at Stockport Town, on a sunny day too
Plenty of triallist players
Hope this will link to the goals highlights
VS Stockport Town FC (A) 2 July 2022 | Match Highlights | Bury AFC
Thank you for your continued support of the club. Bury AFC is a community, fan-owned football club competing in the North West Counties Football League Prem...
t.co
acousticblue
Well-Known Member
Some nice goalsJust into July and the preseason has started up already
First friendly was yesterday, away at Stockport Town, on a sunny day too
Plenty of triallist players
Hope this will link to the goals highlights
VS Stockport Town FC (A) 2 July 2022 | Match Highlights | Bury AFC
Thank you for your continued support of the club. Bury AFC is a community, fan-owned football club competing in the North West Counties Football League Prem...
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
Yes, it was a promising work out
Next game on 5th July away at Atherton Collieries AFC
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
Todays news on the proposed merger
Details in the link
Details in the link
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
Atherton 3 - 1 Bury
Two lots of 11 players given a run out
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
Todays news on the proposed merger
Details in the link
Merger Consultation and Process
Introduction
When Bury Football Club was expelled from the EFL in 2019 there was no clear way of returning football to Gigg Lane in that name. It has taken decades for many other clubs in similar circumstances to rebuild and return to their own ground. In 2022, we now have the opportunity to bring elite football back to Gigg Lane under the name Bury Football Club, which is an extraordinary achievement in such a short space of time.
In a reversal of recent history, this has been achieved by genuine football supporters, who through help, hard work and perseverance have acquired the Gigg Lane Stadium, created a successful and financially sustainable football team, and generated both the income and capital necessary to develop the club and ground for the benefit of future generations.
This seemed impossible in 2019. That this has been achieved under ‘fan ownership’ has restored dignity and self-belief to a community stripped of it in the events culminating in the EFL expulsion.
We have a shared long-term vision of restoring professional football to Bury. We know the club must be run in a financially responsible and sustainable way. We believe that the best way to achieve this is under the historic name of Bury Football Club, and by improving and enhancing Gigg Lane as the spiritual home of football in Bury.
This paper, and the process which follows, sets out what we believe is the way to achieve this. What has become absolutely apparent from the work undertaken so far is that this vision is only possible by combining what we have today into a united organisation which can give us what we need going forward.
On behalf of the Gigg Lane Steering Group
Executive Summary
The Shakers Community Society Limited board and the Bury Football Club Supporters Society Limited are recommending member approval for the following motions:
- Adoption of the Gigg Lane Stadium as the home playing venue (‘the choice of stadium’).
- Adoption of Bury Football Club as the playing name, subject to the approval of the Football Association. (‘the choice of name’).
- To enable motions 1 and 2, a statutory amalgamation of Shakers Community Society Limited with Bury Football Club Supporters’ Society Limited which will see both societies (the ‘Societies’) fold and transfer their assets into a new Community Benefit Society which will maintain a majority vote on the board of The Bury Football Club Company Limited in both Bury Football Club (2019) Ltd trading as Bury AFC, the Gigg Lane Stadium, and the Intellectual Property Rights purchased with the Gigg Lane Stadium (‘the merger);
The motion for the choice of name and the choice of stadium requires 51% approval from both Societies members.
The motion for the merger requires approval from eligible voters from both Societies, where each Society will hold two Extraordinary General Meetings, the second EGM being held between 14 days and one month after the first.
The votes will be done electronically, using a secure online system with independent oversight as part of the Extraordinary General Meeting’s called separately by each Society.
To ensure voting remains in line with the Societies rules, voters participating in the electronic vote will proxy their vote to the Chair of each meeting whilst indicating their preference for each motion.
An eligible voting member of both Societies may participate in the vote for both Societies, which will open and close for each at the same times.
The merger, the choice of name, and the choice of stadium are subject to approval by the relevant authorities, including the Financial Conduct Authority, the Leagues and the FA so the vote is to approve these matters now and enact them as soon as is reasonably possible. They cannot happen immediately.
Process
To support the recommendation, identical information will be presented to members of both Societies. This will be issued before the end of business on Friday 8th July. There will be a consultation process from this date where questions can be asked by email during this period and, where possible, the questions will be addressed in a publicly available FAQ document. Information on how to ask questions will be included in the documentation issued.
The key documents which will be provided are an outline of the future ownership and governance model and a financial business plan with accompanying notes.
There will be a joint online meeting for members of both Societies with a representative from each board and Matt Barker, a Director of The Bury Football Club Company Limited, which owns the Gigg Lane stadium. The purpose of this meeting is to address further questions on the structure and business plan if they have not been dealt with by FAQ and provide an alternative method to communicate information to those who prefer this format.
The consultation process is expected to complete on Friday 5th August. The consultation process is an opportunity for each board to assess if the recommendation and the format of the vote remains appropriate or requires modification.
The formal 28-day notice for the EGMs will be issued after the end of the consultation process unless it is possible that it can be issued earlier. Electronic voting papers will be issued a minimum of 14 days in advance of the EGM’s, with the votes closing before, and results announced at, each EGM.
If the vote is approved, a second confirmatory motion will be issued. This will simply seek confirmation that the motions voted on should pass and again will be conducted electronically.
There are a small number of remaining confirmatory diligence items required before the merger completes, if approved. Some of these may be undertaken before the vote completes and some, such as the provision of any funding which is contingent on a merger, will be undertaken after the vote.
The exact wording used for the vote may change to satisfy the formal legal requirements for this process, and we will take legal advice on this matter.
On behalf of Shakers Community Society Limited and Bury Football Club Supporters’ Society.
Statement from the Shakers Community Society Limited Board
Based on the information we have we are recommending to members that these motions are carried.
We believe that the new structure gives members and elected board members almost unfettered discretion and authority over its decision making, in the same way as the club operates at present. The decision to change or continue with current processes and practices in future sits with the members and the elected board.
All business plans contain strengths, weaknesses, risk, and unexpected opportunities. This is no different. In arriving at our conclusion, we could see that owning a stadium gives us greater long term opportunity to progress than a groundshare, something we have stated previously. In assessing the risks, we believe that this merger is a lower risk option than choosing not to merge.
Statement from Bury Football Club Supporters Society Limited
We have worked together as a group to deliver the proposed structure with all the supporting facts and figures to enable our members to make a fully informed choice.
We believe this proposal gives members a great opportunity to vote towards the future of football within the town. The proposal of the amalgamations enables the two societies and its volunteer groups to pool resources, whilst securing additional funding to ensure that Bury Football Club is built on rock-solid foundations.
Together we have a great opportunity to build a successful future for football in Bury which will become a lasting legacy and protect the future of professional football in Bury for years to come.
The proposed structure ensures that the members and their elected board have the authority to make and carry out decisions in the best interest of the supporters and the longevity of their community owned football club.
GTshaker1903
Well-Known Member
Hi Jimmy
Yes it is all confusing and more detail is due to be given out
Basically, there are currently two Community Benefit Society groups
One for the Bury Football Club Supporters Society, BFCSS, formerly called Forever Bury
One for the Bury AFC
BFCSS aquired Gigg Lane and got the £1M grant from the govt
Bury AFC have the football team with FA membership and a place in the football pyramid, newly promoted to Tier 9
Both are now recomending to combine into a new Community Benefit Society
Then it all gets complicated, as usual, as how this will work and who loses what or gains what
Hopefully we will be provided with information to make a decision
So then a vote will happen
Wish us luck
cannonball3
New Member
are they sponsored by pheonix nights?
jimmy5141
Well-Known Member
Stupid comment.
Shengus Malengus
Well-Known Member
Do I detect a mellowing in your stance, GT?
