Menu Close

A Proposed Way Forward

We would like to emphasise to all members that no actions surrounding the long term future of the club are taken without a member vote.

However, with the speculation surrounding a bid for Gigg Lane from Forever Bury/Est 1885 (“The Bidder”) we thought we would offer a potential way forward which might suit the majority, if not all, of football supporters in Bury, whether they are Bury AFC followers or not.

There is a lot of detail yet to be considered and we have had no sight whatsoever of the business plan or finance model should the bid for Gigg Lane be successful. What we do know is that the bid is reliant on central and local government grants plus further private investment to succeed, and a return to Gigg Lane will be hugely popular but an enormous drain on financial and human resources, even without the additional burden of having to start up a new football club.

Should the bid be successful we believe we should work together with the bidder to give it the best possible chance of success. A willingness to work with Bury AFC has been indicated and we are prepared to reciprocate. Our suggestion is the following, which would require a member vote but we are interested to see your initial impressions and we welcome any further questions you would like us to ask on your behalf.

Proposed Solution

Take the current Bury AFC club (‘the club’), Bury Football Club (2019) Ltd, and rename it as Bury FC as soon as that is possible. Only the FA can make that decision. A new trading entity and club will be required anyway as the limited company which has operated as Bury FC, Bury Football Club Company Limited (The), company number 00053268, is not being purchased as part of the deal.

Dilute the shareholding in the club to allow a minority shareholding by private individuals, if this is required as has been suggested, in return for debt free ownership of Gigg Lane by the club. Private investors appoint their own representatives to work with the club. Private investors should also be asked to sign an investor agreement which outlines key expectations around acting in the best interests of the long term future of the club and anyone the shares are sold to is required to sign the same, or sell to the supporters trust on pre-agreed terms.

Hold new elections for Shakers Community (the ‘Supporters Trust’ which currently owns 100% of the club) board member composition at the end of the current season to allow supporters to elect whoever they want from the list of candidates standing. Rebrand to an alternative trading name if required, but due to the size and scale of the Shakers Community we believe it is more practical to continue to operate the Shakers Community as the Supporters Trust than create a new one or use Forever Bury. If there is a compelling counter-argument we are happy to consider it.

The new Supporters Trust board and the representatives of the private investors agree all future key club appointments with each having the right to veto.

We know how much time, money and anxiety is involved in creating a new club from scratch. The argument against using Bury AFC is that a new application would grant entry in a higher league. We think this is unlikely, as with Macclesfield FC who were placed in the North West Counties League in similar circumstances. We also understand the economics of running a football club in non-league. The additional revenues to be gained from a higher league placing are modest but the playing costs are far higher. We believe it is far more sensible to continue to rise through the leagues as we hope to do now, gaining momentum and building up capital reserves for a time when we really need them, than worry about a higher league position at outset. Again, we are happy to consider evidence to the contrary.

This approach would, of course, give access to the cash we currently hold, the data, media profile and expertise we have developed, and the goodwill and trust we have built with supporters, volunteers and members. We think all of this will be vital to the survival of any club operating out of Gigg Lane in the future.

We believe this offers a way forward for most but not everyone. It is no different from our approach to anyone else interested in buying or investing in the club and was built into our constitution when the club was first formed.

Contrary to some rumours, there is no cost to purchasing this football club. The owners, its members, receive no cash from any sale as any investment made must remain within the football club. That means members need to be convinced of the attractiveness and long term viability of any investor for a vote to succeed. That means full transparency and detailed business plans should be made available. Given what has happened before that will be tough for anyone without a robust plan. The report produced by FWP highlighted a number of areas which needed to be addressed at Gigg Lane to be financially sustainable going forward. That included a rebuild of the main stand, amongst other things, and this is also included in the Est 1885 plans, which is encouraging. We would like to see how this will be be funded on top of the purchase price, along with the costs of repairs. We have heard that Gigg Lane has been gutted and stripped of all fixtures and fittings, so even basic remedial work will be expensive. We have had a lot of support for a move to the new, recommended site since releasing the FWP report and we should be mindful of this.

Every donation received by Bury AFC is treated as exactly that. No donor receives any equity, board position, or influence beyond the one member one vote rule we operate. It’s purely a donation. We would like to understand how the governance over the proposed direct equity investors works, how a distinction is made between an investment for equity and a pure donation where no equity is given, and if there is a plan to allow other fans to participate in due course, on equivalent terms to other investors.

These issues are not posed as criticisms, simply questions we think our members will want us to ask.

We took the option to post this suggestion publicly as we felt it was the most transparent way to ensure that all supporters and interested parties can have visibility of the discussions.

This offers supporters, and the town, one team, called Bury FC as soon as practicable, operating from Gigg Lane, and gives it the best possible chance of success if there is strong evidence of the funding required to deliver it. It should also open up access to the funding desperately needed to update Gigg Lane, firstly to meet statutory compliance and safety requirements and further to develop the ground into a facility worthy of community use for the long-term success of the facility. We understand this will be difficult to obtain without this level of co-operation.

In return, should the bid not be successful we ask for full support to Bury AFC going forward from all parties.

Please indicate your preference for this approach by logging in and using the polling form via the link below. This is not a formal, binding vote just an opportunity to help us understand member preferences at this point in time.

If you disagree with this suggestion, that’s absolutely fine. To move the debate on we have put up a potential solution to stimulate a more constructive debate well ahead of any important decisions. We have simply outlined a process enshrined in our constitution which would apply to any offer for the club, so should this bid fail it is useful information for us in the event of future approaches.

Additional questions you would like asked can also be added in the comments section on the members only page, provided they are constructive.