Article in this weeks NLP suggests that consultations are ongoing between the two supporters groups which will lead to a vote of both groups, (ie the one with a team, and the one with a stadium) with hopes of a positive outcome, leading to the phoenix team playing at Gigg Lane from the 23/24 season
If it is the pheonix team it will be the original Bury who play at Gigg Lane next season.
The original Bury weren't liquidated so if things are sorted out it is perfectly feasible for them to begin the long process back, starting at the bottom.
They won't be able to jump on the back of Bury AFC, they are a total seperate identity formed by a group of Bury FC fans after Bury FC had been suspended from the EFL.
So in my mind its;
Either abandon the Bury AFC project and everyone goes back to putting all their efforts into the original Bury FC and starting all over again...or...those who are now running Bury AFC continue to do as a seperate club from Bury FC.
They are not the same club.
Surely if the 2 clubs agree to merge they can still lay claim to the original clubs history and carry on the work started by the new club. Mergers happen regularly in football D&R and however many were merged before that merger. The original R&D before they went belly up. The Bury side that were kicked out were themselves a merger. There are many instances of clubs merging,
Yeah I suppose they could merge thinking about it.
I wonder how the authorities decide which league they go in though?
Great town , great supporters and a lovely ground.
Heres to football back at Gigg Lane as soon as possible.
At face value at least, that does sound like a reasonable majority being held hostage by quite a small minority. I wonder how the cut-off point is decided i.e., the two thirds required opposed to simply being greater than 50%.Report in today's NLP that the vote for a merger of the two Bury groups went against. The Shakers Society, which set up AFC Bury, voted 94% in favour, and the Bury FC Supporters Society (who own the ground) voted 62.9% in favour, but that fell short of the 66.6% required to pass (apparently 286 voted against). Don't know where that leaves things for the Gigg Lane group (AFC will just carry on as normal), particularly since the report states that the council had pledged £450,000 funding to a unified club.
Personal politics getting in the way? Dunno, but from outside appears to be a strange decision by a minority of supporters