Bury FC phoenix club

@jimmy5141 Hi mate, silly question but did you check spam folder?

The email directs you to AFC Web page which has all the details and links to other relevant documents. No need to sign in.

If you dm me with email address, I can forward you a copy.

As for the vote, a test vote will be done to check every member has correct email address on our system. When sent out, it'll be posted so people can check if received and then sort if not.

There are some people that believe Bury FC has been saved but only IP I can see proof of is the twitter account. Many have asked BFCSS for full details but never forthcoming. I must say, nice seeing independent research backing up what GT and myself have posted.

For those unaware. The original Bury FC women's team was disbanded by Stuart Day to save money. The foundation have done a brilliant job starting a new women's team but they are completely separate.

You may have also seen, bfcss to get an FA affiliation, have somehow persuaded a vets team to allow use of theirs. Guess playing at Gigg and changing name from Radcliffe (ironic I know) vets to Bury vets will make them more Bury fc than AFC could be.

I fear that if the merger fails then the writing is on the wall for Gigg.
 
Wozza74 said:
@jimmy5141 Hi mate, silly question but did you check spam folder?

The email directs you to AFC Web page which has all the details and links to other relevant documents. No need to sign in.

If you dm me with email address, I can forward you a copy.

As for the vote, a test vote will be done to check every member has correct email address on our system. When sent out, it'll be posted so people can check if received and then sort if not.

There are some people that believe Bury FC has been saved but only IP I can see proof of is the twitter account. Many have asked BFCSS for full details but never forthcoming. I must say, nice seeing independent research backing up what GT and myself have posted.

For those unaware. The original Bury FC women's team was disbanded by Stuart Day to save money. The foundation have done a brilliant job starting a new women's team but they are completely separate.

You may have also seen, bfcss to get an FA affiliation, have somehow persuaded a vets team to allow use of theirs. Guess playing at Gigg and changing name from Radcliffe (ironic I know) vets to Bury vets will make them more Bury fc than AFC could be.

I fear that if the merger fails then the writing is on the wall for Gigg.
Click to expand...
I've been clear all along, Bury isn't my club even though I am a member.
It belongs to the people who've followed all their days, who have actually been to Gigg Lane, who wore those horrendous away shirts with the Birthdays sponsors in the 90s.

As long as Dale's name appears on a Companies House listing associated with any group involved in this potential merger though, I will be 100% against it.

Bury might not be my club, but shafting people who just want to follow their club isn't in my make up.

I've asked a few posts back, and a few months back for a response on why Dale's name is still involved.
The silence says it all at this moment.
 
The most vociferous against AFC are those that shouted down those question Day.

The flares, indiscriminately thrown into the ground during our FA Cup game was a new low. Hopefully the culprits be found after hitting a child and one of the squad players
 
My view is simple
I just do not trust FB/SS they lie through their teeth and blame anybody but the total toerags responsible for the collapse of FC
I simply will not stand next to the utterly deranged FTP contingent
Many thanks for your support Rangers it means a lot in confusing timed
 
Keithh said:
My view is simple
I just do not trust FB/SS they lie through their teeth and blame anybody but the total toerags responsible for the collapse of FC
I simply will not stand next to the utterly deranged FTP contingent
Many thanks for your support Rangers it means a lot in confusing timed
Click to expand...
It's pretty evident from the hit and run posts I'm replying to that there is no pretence of debate.

I could simply be dismissed with evidence that scumbag Dale is no longer involved, but that hasn't happened.

I could be easily swatted aside with proof that the Football Association rejected the supposed 4 applications from FC to join the football pyramid. Again, that hasn't happened.

We're now being told that AFC are rats, and that DaleCo don't need them as they have an FA number and can join the league set up next season. So why don't they just do that?
They don't need AFC, its officials, its fans, its place in the NWCFL.

They're telling us they own Bury FC, Gigg Lane and are able to join the league next season.

What's stopping them?
 
GazzaG said:
Where are you regarding the vote?

Personally, I'm against it.
Click to expand...
I am between a rock and a hard place with this question still

In an ideal world, for a host of reasons, i dont want anything to do with the Bury Football Club Supporters Society BFCSS, who now own Gigg Lane but have no football team. Having been a member of BFCSS in 2019, I have not re-joined them.

Bury FC is still in administration, but BFCSS changed our club name to CCFB Realisations and have proceeded to pretend they have saved Bury FC, when they have not. This is why, if there is no merger of the two Community Benefit Societies ( CBS ) any new club BFCSS wish to form can not be called Bury FC as it is still in administration.

At the BFCSS (called Forever Bury in 2019) public Bury Town Hall meeting for the way forward, the only successful agreed option was for the Bury FC fans to establish a football team to meet the FA deadline date of January 2020. This was achieved and is now Bury AFC ( Bury Football Club 2019)
BFCSS now ignore their agreed way forward

Bury AFC is 100% fan ownership, one member one vote, has elected management and financial transparency and sustainable, but does not own a ground. It does have both men and women football teams and a community Establishment.

The Bury AFC leadership are asking for their membership to vote yes to the merger of the two CBS.

IF there is a Yes vote, a new CBS will be created to replace the two existing CBS, and the new elected CBS with the Bury FC Benefactors will co control both Gigg Lane and the football team - Bury AFC, all under a Bury Football Club Company Ltd 2022

This gives 49% of the club to the Bury FC Benefactors
This makes Gigg Lane the football ground

A whole set of new issues and concerns arise, but that is another matter.

I have not mentioned the political arena, it has not been touched yet. But in a nutshell the Bury AFC leadership need to be seen to proactively support the merger of the two CBS.

Part 2 will follow later
 
GTshaker1903 said:
I am between a rock and a hard place with this question still

In an ideal world, for a host of reasons, i dont want anything to do with the Bury Football Club Supporters Society BFCSS, who now own Gigg Lane but have no football team. Having been a member of BFCSS in 2019, I have not re-joined them.

Bury FC is still in administration, but BFCSS changed our club name to CCFB Realisations and have proceeded to pretend they have saved Bury FC, when they have not. This is why, if there is no merger of the two Community Benefit Societies ( CBS ) any new club BFCSS wish to form can not be called Bury FC as it is still in administration.

At the BFCSS (called Forever Bury in 2019) public Bury Town Hall meeting for the way forward, the only successful agreed option was for the Bury FC fans to establish a football team to meet the FA deadline date of January 2020. This was achieved and is now Bury AFC ( Bury Football Club 2019)
BFCSS now ignore their agreed way forward

Bury AFC is 100% fan ownership, one member one vote, has elected management and financial transparency and sustainable, but does not own a ground. It does have both men and women football teams and a community Establishment.

The Bury AFC leadership are asking for their membership to vote yes to the merger of the two CBS.

IF there is a Yes vote, a new CBS will be created to replace the two existing CBS, and the new elected CBS with the Bury FC Benefactors will co control both Gigg Lane and the football team - Bury AFC, all under a Bury Football Club Company Ltd 2022

This gives 49% of the club to the Bury FC Benefactors
This makes Gigg Lane the football ground

A whole set of new issues and concerns arise, but that is another matter.

I have not mentioned the political arena, it has not been touched yet. But in a nutshell the Bury AFC leadership need to be seen to proactively support the merger of the two CBS.

Part 2 will follow later
Click to expand...
Until someone gives an honest answer as to why Dale's name is still there as an active officer for the company, it's a no from me.

It's that simple.
 
GazzaG said:
Until someone gives an honest answer as to why Dale's name is still there as an active officer for the company, it's a no from me.

It's that simple.
Click to expand...
The answer to this is because Bury FC is still in administration, Bury FC has not been liquidated, and dale is still the 93% share holder

That BFCSS and EST have aquired Gigg Lane out of administration, they have not saved Bury FC but want to start their own new club, even though that was not the agreed way forward from the BFCSS public meeting in 2019
 
Wazza said:
Can that round be though or is just the live stream on the fa website? It would be first pick in the first round proper I’d have thought.
Click to expand...
Probably just the live stream
One more win away from the first round proper. What an achievement so far and how big would that be. But York City will be a different challenge first, we will need to be at our very best and hope they have an off day travelling across to Lancashire, might make them a bit queasy.
 
GTshaker1903 said:
Probably just the live stream
One more win away from the first round proper. What an achievement so far and how big would that be. But York City will be a different challenge first, we will need to be at our very best and hope they have an off day travelling across to Lancashire, might make them a bit queasy.
Click to expand...

Yeah big step up now, enjoy it mate.
 
GazzaG said:
Until someone gives an honest answer as to why Dale's name is still there as an active officer for the company, it's a no from me.

It's that simple.
Click to expand...
The FSA, football supporters association, have issued their statement on the issues.
I am still trying to sort it out.
Here it is,

Statement from the Football Supporters' Association
​

The Proposals and Q&As supplied to date have focused on the reasons why we are recommending a merger, and a return to Gigg Lane.

We are very clearly backing a merger, and our efforts have gone into describing the positives of that outcome.

We know there have been questions, aimed predominantly at Bury FC Supporters’ Society but copied into to us also, about what would happen if a merger did not happen and how feasible it would be for Bury FC Supporters’ Society to operate without merging with Bury AFC.

The Football Supporters’ Association (FSA) have also been asked the same question, and this came up again during our online Q&A on Monday night. The FSA have supplied the following statement on this, as their standard response to these questions.

It independently corroborates a number of our own previous statements and those contained within the Q&As. In particular, a vote against the merger will most likely result in the loss of:
  1. Around £2m in external funding, which is critical to delivery of the business plan presented. There is no evidence this could be sourced elsewhere. We believe it is a once in a lifetime opportunity to access this capital. The non-delivery of the community usage which the £1m of government matched funding was predicated on also puts that funding at risk and the terms would need to be renegotiated.
  2. The potential opportunity to use the playing name Bury Football Club.
This would be sacrificed to pursue an application for a new club which is extremely unlikely to obtain a position in the National League System, and as a result unlikely to drive sufficient revenue to maintain Gigg Lane.

This puts the future of Gigg Lane at risk and we have seen no rational argument why these opportunities should be overlooked in favour of an alternative plan. You can also read the benefactors statement here and the Bury Council statement here. The full set of paperwork can be found here.

FSA Statement

The FSA believes that the best route to restoring senior men’s football playing at Gigg Lane is for the members of BFCSS and Shakers Community Society to vote for a merger between the two organisations.

The FSA is a joint signatory to a memorandum of understanding, which pledges to bring professional football back to Bury by uniting and growing the fan base. This agreement has also been signed by BFCSS, Shakers Community Society, the private benefactors and Bury council.

BFCSS have recently published a statement that sought to give assurance that an alternative to merger existed. The FSA respects the right of the BFCSS board to explore options should the merger not be approved but we have yet to see what we believe to be a viable and sustainable alternative to merger.

Without a merger the project to re-establish Bury FC will take a backward step. The council offer of £450k of funding will be lost and additional future funding restricted or threatened. Without a merger Bury AFC will continue to play at Radcliffe FC and Gigg Lane will be left without a senior men’s team. Should BFCSS decide to create a men’s team playing football at Gigg Lane next season (2023-24) a new club will need to be set up. It is the FSA’s understanding that a new club would not immediately be eligible to apply for the Bury Football Club playing name and would begin life outside of the National League System in a county league.

Bury FC supporters in BFCSS and Shakers Community Society have shown the football world a determination to re-establish their club following the ruinous ownership of Stewart Day and Steve Dale. Having obtained the financial support from private benefactors and central government BFCSS have secured the purchase of Gigg Lane. Whilst Bury supporters in Shakers Community Society have established a successful football club in Bury AFC. A merger of the two societies will see Bury AFC apply to the FA to change their name to Bury FC. If this name change application is approved by the FA, then Bury Football Club will once again be able to play home games at Gigg Lane.


I cant see the FA allowing the name change yet as Bury FC is still in administration.
But what do i know?
 
GTshaker1903 said:
Highlights of FA Cup game
Clitheroe v Bury 1 - 1

t.co

VS Clitheroe FC (A) 01 October 2022 | Match Highlights | Bury AFC

Highlights from our1 - 1 FA Cup Draw at ClitheroeThank you for your continued support of the club. Bury AFC is a community, fan-owned football club competing...
t.co t.co
Click to expand...

Highlights of FA Cup replay
Bury v Clitheroe 2 - 0

t.co

VS Clitheroe FC (H) 05 October 2022 | Match Highlights | Bury AFC

Highlights from our epic 2 - 0 FQA Cup victory over Clitheroe!Thank you for your continued support of the club. Bury AFC is a community, fan-owned football c...
t.co t.co
 
GTshaker1903 said:
The FSA, football supporters association, have issued their statement on the issues.
I am still trying to sort it out.
Here it is,

Statement from the Football Supporters' Association​

​

The Proposals and Q&As supplied to date have focused on the reasons why we are recommending a merger, and a return to Gigg Lane.

We are very clearly backing a merger, and our efforts have gone into describing the positives of that outcome.

We know there have been questions, aimed predominantly at Bury FC Supporters’ Society but copied into to us also, about what would happen if a merger did not happen and how feasible it would be for Bury FC Supporters’ Society to operate without merging with Bury AFC.

The Football Supporters’ Association (FSA) have also been asked the same question, and this came up again during our online Q&A on Monday night. The FSA have supplied the following statement on this, as their standard response to these questions.

It independently corroborates a number of our own previous statements and those contained within the Q&As. In particular, a vote against the merger will most likely result in the loss of:
  1. Around £2m in external funding, which is critical to delivery of the business plan presented. There is no evidence this could be sourced elsewhere. We believe it is a once in a lifetime opportunity to access this capital. The non-delivery of the community usage which the £1m of government matched funding was predicated on also puts that funding at risk and the terms would need to be renegotiated.
  2. The potential opportunity to use the playing name Bury Football Club.
This would be sacrificed to pursue an application for a new club which is extremely unlikely to obtain a position in the National League System, and as a result unlikely to drive sufficient revenue to maintain Gigg Lane.

This puts the future of Gigg Lane at risk and we have seen no rational argument why these opportunities should be overlooked in favour of an alternative plan. You can also read the benefactors statement here and the Bury Council statement here. The full set of paperwork can be found here.

FSA Statement

The FSA believes that the best route to restoring senior men’s football playing at Gigg Lane is for the members of BFCSS and Shakers Community Society to vote for a merger between the two organisations.

The FSA is a joint signatory to a memorandum of understanding, which pledges to bring professional football back to Bury by uniting and growing the fan base. This agreement has also been signed by BFCSS, Shakers Community Society, the private benefactors and Bury council.

BFCSS have recently published a statement that sought to give assurance that an alternative to merger existed. The FSA respects the right of the BFCSS board to explore options should the merger not be approved but we have yet to see what we believe to be a viable and sustainable alternative to merger.

Without a merger the project to re-establish Bury FC will take a backward step. The council offer of £450k of funding will be lost and additional future funding restricted or threatened. Without a merger Bury AFC will continue to play at Radcliffe FC and Gigg Lane will be left without a senior men’s team. Should BFCSS decide to create a men’s team playing football at Gigg Lane next season (2023-24) a new club will need to be set up. It is the FSA’s understanding that a new club would not immediately be eligible to apply for the Bury Football Club playing name and would begin life outside of the National League System in a county league.

Bury FC supporters in BFCSS and Shakers Community Society have shown the football world a determination to re-establish their club following the ruinous ownership of Stewart Day and Steve Dale. Having obtained the financial support from private benefactors and central government BFCSS have secured the purchase of Gigg Lane. Whilst Bury supporters in Shakers Community Society have established a successful football club in Bury AFC. A merger of the two societies will see Bury AFC apply to the FA to change their name to Bury FC. If this name change application is approved by the FA, then Bury Football Club will once again be able to play home games at Gigg Lane.


I cant see the FA allowing the name change yet as Bury FC is still in administration.
But what do i know?
Click to expand...
So the name Bury FC "could" be used?
And BFCSS or whatever name they're using are looking at an alternative plan even with a merger on the table?

Sounds promising :eek::eek:
 
GazzaG said:
So the name Bury FC "could" be used?
And BFCSS or whatever name they're using are looking at an alternative plan even with a merger on the table?

Sounds promising :eek::eek:
Click to expand...
I cant see the FA changing their rules to allow the use of the name Bury FC whilst the original club has not been liquidated
If they were to do that you could imagine any club in debt restart and keep the same name, it wont happen
 
A Manchester Cup game tonight away at Wythenshaw Town finished with a 3 - 0 defeat.
Many first team players were given a well earned rest
 
GazzaG said:
Voted.

Use of Gigg Lane, Abstain.
Use of Bury FC name, abstain.
Merge BAFC with BFCSS, No.
Click to expand...

Thank you for voting, it is really appreciated.
Many are in a difficult position with this vote, me included. There is no right or wrong, just a choice.

To merge BAFC with BFCSS
This is the crazy position
Both cbs boards stated their support for yes, but the BFCSS are promoting vote no
Political pressure is immense, the govt £1M match fund and a further Bury Council £450k are apparently dependant on there being one club only.
Politically, if there is no merger, funding will be removed.
So if both sets vote yes
then the merger goes ahead, then a new cbs will be voted on and technically BFCSS will no longer exist but neither will the AFC board. And it will be upto us fans to vote in AFC minded people to make things work. But the new cbs will make the decisions on the football team which will still be Bury AFC.

If the AFC vote yes and BFCSS vote no, then BFCSS will try and go it alone and Bury AFC will then continue seperately with the political goodwill - presumably

If both vote no then all political and financial support will be very difficult
(assuming my interpretation is right!!)

So some are abstaining because they cant bring themselves to join with BFCSS.

I am in the leap of faith, going with what the AFC board recommend, and it really is a big leap of faith that it will work out right.
This is a very simplified analysis and i have voted yes

But i could have voted no or abstained more readily. It really is a difficult choice and i hope i dont get to regret my choice

Cheers again
 
GTshaker1903 said:
Highlights of FA Cup replay
Bury v Clitheroe 2 - 0

t.co

VS Clitheroe FC (H) 05 October 2022 | Match Highlights | Bury AFC

Highlights from our epic 2 - 0 FQA Cup victory over Clitheroe!Thank you for your continued support of the club. Bury AFC is a community, fan-owned football c...
t.co t.co
Click to expand...

This Saturday, the next Pre qualifying round of the FA Cup, ha ha , the next round will be round 1

We have a great fixture

Bury AFC v York City

They are tier 5, we are tier 9
Hoping for a giant killing of massive proportions, i have my tickets
Bring it on, but i will be careful with the score


Match Info: York City (H), Sat 15th Oct (3pm KO) – Emirates FA Cup Fourth Rd Qualifying – Bury AFC

buryafc.uk buryafc.uk
 
GTshaker1903 said:
Thank you for voting, it is really appreciated.
Many are in a difficult position with this vote, me included. There is no right or wrong, just a choice.

To merge BAFC with BFCSS
This is the crazy position
Both cbs boards stated their support for yes, but the BFCSS are promoting vote no
Political pressure is immense, the govt £1M match fund and a further Bury Council £450k are apparently dependant on there being one club only.
Politically, if there is no merger, funding will be removed.
So if both sets vote yes
then the merger goes ahead, then a new cbs will be voted on and technically BFCSS will no longer exist but neither will the AFC board. And it will be upto us fans to vote in AFC minded people to make things work. But the new cbs will make the decisions on the football team which will still be Bury AFC.

If the AFC vote yes and BFCSS vote no, then BFCSS will try and go it alone and Bury AFC will then continue seperately with the political goodwill - presumably

If both vote no then all political and financial support will be very difficult
(assuming my interpretation is right!!)

So some are abstaining because they cant bring themselves to join with BFCSS.

I am in the leap of faith, going with what the AFC board recommend, and it really is a big leap of faith that it will work out right.
This is a very simplified analysis and i have voted yes

But i could have voted no or abstained more readily. It really is a difficult choice and i hope i dont get to regret my choice

Cheers again
Click to expand...
I really hope I'm wrong and you're right, but I just couldn't shake the feeling that there's something seriously untoward with BFCSS.
 
GazzaG said:
I really hope I'm wrong and you're right, but I just couldn't shake the feeling that there's something seriously untoward with BFCSS.
Click to expand...
I think you may be right as they seem to put out misinformation and stir it up, I voted yes on all 3 as i feel that it needs to be given a chance to work.
 
GazzaG said:
I really hope I'm wrong and you're right, but I just couldn't shake the feeling that there's something seriously untoward with BFCSS.
Click to expand...
I agree with you and that is why it has been so difficult to make the decision.
The whole situation is a crazy mess
 
GTshaker1903 said:
This Saturday, the next Pre qualifying round of the FA Cup, ha ha , the next round will be round 1

We have a great fixture

Bury AFC v York City

They are tier 5, we are tier 9
Hoping for a giant killing of massive proportions, i have my tickets
Bring it on, but i will be careful with the score


Match Info: York City (H), Sat 15th Oct (3pm KO) – Emirates FA Cup Fourth Rd Qualifying – Bury AFC

buryafc.uk buryafc.uk
Click to expand...
What a game
The heavens opened on occasions
York got the perfect start scoring a well worked move on 8 mins
But after the first 20 minutes you would not know who were the higher division team and in the second half we played them off the pitch. Lewis scored the equaliser and it looked like we were going to grab the victory, but in the 86th minute they snatched their 2nd goal and won the game.
But what a great effort by The Bury AFC team, very proud of them

Here are the highlights

t.co

VS York City (H) 15 October 2022 | Match Highlights | Bury AFC

Highlights from our 2-1 loss to York in the FA Cup.Thank you for your continued support of the club. Bury AFC is a community, fan-owned football club competi...
t.co t.co
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top