Dean

We’ve had a delivery at Gigg Lane this morning NW Pitch Maintenance will be kicking off works this afternoon and we’ll share some progress updates later today! #PatchThePitch

Council to release £450k for new 3G pitch at Gigg Lane | Bury Council (mynewsdesk.com)

FAQ on the Lease We would like to clarify a few points about the lease to cover any concerns. Q: Would you need a lease if the ownership of the club had changed as originally anticipated under the merger? A: Yes. If the ownership of the club had changed and the benefactors had put the money promised in, we would still need a lease or similar. Unless the football club directly owns the stadium we have to have a lease or a 'license to occupy' in place. There has been no structure discussed at any point where the club directly owns the stadium, and this is currently impossible to achieve as it can’t be transferred out of The Bury Football Club Company Limited under the Articles of Association for that company. We currently have a licence to occupy which is insufficient for funding purposes as it is very short term, lasting only a season. The league, having consulted with the FA, also advised us this week that a lease is preferable as it gives more security to the club. The email from the league states ‘Having viewed your proposed lease agreement and sought guidance from the FA who are aware of the legal structures that form Bury FC and that a holding company owns Gigg Lane. The general opinion is a long term lease rather than a annual licence is a good move and provides longevity of security for the football club. Just for clarity, and for compliance with the FA Standardised League Rules, the lease should be agreed and signed with a copy to the League Secretary by no later than 31st March 2024.’ Q: Does a lease transfer ownership of the stadium to another company? No. A lease does not transfer the ownership of the stadium out of The Bury Football Club Company Limited. The freehold remains with that company. The suggestion that the stadium is being transferred to a new company is completely incorrect. We asked a law firm to confirm that this is the case for the avoidance of doubt, and that the granting of a lease does not contravene the Articles of The Bury Football Club Company Limited or its asset lock provisions. It does not. An excerpt of the response from the law firm is copied below: ‘There is a distinction to be made here between the lease of the stadium and the transfer of the stadium. The granting of a lease of the stadium doesn’t constitute a transfer of the asset from The Bury Football Club Company Limited (the Company) because there will be no transfer of the freehold title (HMLR title number GM931156, according to the lease we have been provided with) which is the asset for the purposes of the relevant article. The Company will remain the proprietor of Gigg Lane Stadium. The position would be different if it was proposed that the Company would be transferring its interest in the freehold but that isn’t the case here because the grant of a lease relates to the creation of a new proprietary interest and the Company’s existing proprietary interest remains in situ. The wording in the articles does not preclude the lease of any of the Company’s assets- only the transfer. We therefore do not agree with Matthew’s assertion that this provision prevents the Company from entering into the proposed lease.’ Q: Does the club rent Gigg Lane? A: The society owns a controlling interest in both the stadium and the football club. They are both subsidiaries of the society, and we are required to make both a success. Internal legal agreements between subsidiaries are very common in business, and leases are used by other recipients of funding from the Community Ownership Fund. There is no rental payment under the lease, just an obligation on the football club to pay for maintenance and repairs. Q: What do other stakeholders think? The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities have a charge on the ground for £1m for the 25 year term of their grant. They have reviewed the protections in place which would prevent the club as leaseholder endangering the security of the ground and are comfortable with them. They asked for two minor amendments to the lease which have been made, having agreed to it in principle. Bury Council have adopted the same position as the Football Foundation by requiring a long term lease to be in place prior to their funding. They have the same reasons as the FA and league, it gives greater security, and that gives greater certainty to investors. The stadium does not work without the football club playing there, as we saw from the £80k+ loss in the previous financial year. The football club continues to subsidise the stadium, a 3G pitch will help with this. Bury Council have kindly allowed us to copy their note to us below which make this very clear: ‘The Council is committed to working closely with the newly elected board and wider partners to discuss the progressing of plans for the transformation of the Gigg Lane stadium as a sustainable community asset. The Council has agreed to make a financial contribution to ensure the success of the principle of community ownership. Any plan for the Stadium should include the active use of the facility to bring benefit to the people of Bury outside of match days, this could be achieved through the provision of accessible sports facilities and the development of community facilities operating from within the stadium. The delivery of this vision is not only compatible, but dependent on the issuing of a long-term lease to the football club. This will enable a football operation to be run from the Stadium, with the facilities being made available exclusively to the Club on match days, but at other times to also be operated as an active community sports facility. This was fundamental to the Council making an offer of funding to support the works needed to adapt and develop the Stadium. We also believe this is best possible way to attract additional external investment into the stadium and deliver the objectives of the Community Ownership Fund. It is therefore imperative that all partners work together to put a long-term lease in place for the football club, develop a community use and engagement plan, and begin the work of drawing in external funding.‘ We hope this provides some useful clarification. The funding is 'dependent on the issuing of a long-term lease to the football club' amongst other terms which we need to agree with them. FAQ on Risks We have also been asked what are the key risks to the project and what are the mitigants. We have already undertaken an assessment of these and have copied them below. Key Risks 1. Delay in funding delays installation Probability: High Impact: High If we are unable to complete the order with the supplier by March we cannot install the pitch during the summer, will have missed the opportunity the apply to the Football Foundation for funding the following summer, and we assume we will lose the remaining £300, 000 from the Community Ownership Fund. We will also have missed the window for booking in suppliers for remediation work to the grass pitch and may struggle to complete the season as the current grass pitch is in a poor condition and requires considerable work. The requisite funds are available but there is a process to access these in time and Bury Council have no precedent for this so it is unclear. We also need to put the lease in place to access the Bury Council funding and this is awaiting a decision from DLUHC. Mitigation: Secure and agree funding terms from DHLUC and Bury Council by end February. 2. Pitch is not correctly installed and is unusable Probability: Medium Impact: High This would cause increased costs and potentially an inability to complete fixtures. Mitigation: We will ask the league to arrange away fixtures at the start of the season to allow more time should there be any minor delays. We have sourced an experienced supplier who can manage the whole process, rather than attempting to save cost with a higher risk supplier. The supplier has numerous reference sites, and we have spoken to Reading Football Club and Burton Albion who spoke highly of their work. They are based in Oxfordshire but have a representative local to Bury. 3. Pitch is not used by the community Probability: Low Impact: Medium If the pitch is used by the club but there is a lack of demand for use it will fail to meet its community objectives. With no Football Foundation funding there are no grant funding metrics we would need to adhere to but we expect Bury Council to want to see community benefit evidence for their funding. Mitigation: We have already researched demand for a 3G pitch in the area and it is high due to a lack of available pitches. There is a large deficit in the Bury Council area of 3G pitches based upon the Football Foundation and FA Football Facility Plan and Bury Council’s own Sports Facility Strategy. The future development of more 3G surfaces in the borough is unlikely to reduce this demand significantly and the stadium’s local status will undoubtedly give it a competitive edge over other facilities. Employing a community officer will ensure that the facilities are used by people who Bury Council wish to target for better health and may not be attracted to the stadium or football. 4. Income is short of expectation Probability: Low Impact: Low The revenues forecast are lower than we expect either through less usage or a need to reduce hire charges. Mitigation: We have already tested the rental charges and they are competitive when compared to other surfaces. We could increase costs and still attract a high level of usage. The combination of club and stadium has been trading at a profit without the new surface. We expect the community officer to create programmes that will be funded either through user ‘subs’ or through funded programmes, reducing the reliance on standard rental fees. Whilst lower revenues would reduce the ability to invest further it would not alter the financial viability of the club or stadium. We could reduce the reliance on hourly rental fees and look to share the ground with another football club. 5. Pitch needs to be replaced faster than expected Probability: Medium Impact: Medium The pitch is no longer suitable for senior men’s football as it degrades faster than expected and fails league certification, or is considered unacceptable for some other reason. Mitigation: We have opted for a substructure which will perform better over time and be cheaper to replace when required. We will adopt a limit on usage similar to that used by the Football Foundation. We will use a sinking fund to provision for a replacement over time and aim to build this to around £320, 000. We have experience of ground-sharing which means that if critical repair work was required mid-season we could change stadium temporarily.

The statement below is in response to the recent news of 3g pitch installation at Gigg Lane.

We are well progressed with our strategy to bring a 3G pitch to Gigg Lane this summer. In addition to more revenue, and avoiding pitch postponements due to the weather, it will give us a sporting facility which benefits the wider community, and promote active health throughout the borough. This update covers two issues, firstly the technical specifications and requirements for the installation and secondly how we propose to fund it. Technical Requirements We are grateful to Dave McNabb and his team for input into the type of surface we wanted the first teams to play on, and examples of good and bad artificial pitches they have experienced. 3G, 4G, 5G?... We will be installing a 3G pitch, as those are the only ones which are currently permitted. We've been asked about 4G pitches but they don't really exist. The FA’s Third Generation Football Turf Guidance state: “At the moment there is no such thing as 4G or 5G. These are marketing terms used by companies. Some manufacturers may promote non-infilled products, but these have not received acceptance as a suitable football surface and often struggle to satisfy FIFA requirements.” You can read more below. https://mcardlesport.co.uk/blog/3g-4g-or-5g-2/ 3G, 4G Pitch Blog League Requirements We have chosen a FIFA Quality Pro pitch, which is the highest quality available. This is necessary as it is a requirement to have a Quality Pro pitch to play in the National League. You can read more about the relevant standards below. https://www.fifa.com/technical/football-technology/standards https://www.fifa.com/technical/football-technology/standards/footballs/fifa-quality-marks-explained?tch Technology StandardsFIFA Quality Marks Explained Reducing Rubber Crumb One issue which came across loud and clear from players was the need to reduce the amount of rubber crumb required on the pitch. Rubber crumb costs money, as it has to be topped up annually, and is subject to a lot of negative press. Historically 3G pitches were designed and built using 60mm pile height systems without a shock pad, this combination required 17 kilograms of rubber infill per square meter. Current industry best practice is to reduce the amount of rubber installed within the system. This is achieved with the inclusion of a shockpad and modern 3G turf technology. The proposed system has over 40% less rubber crumb in-fill at 10 kilograms per square meter. Our solution will achieve this significant reduction in rubber crumb. The pitch already has perimeter boarding which prevents the escape of the rubber crumb. You can read more on the best practice for this here. The Supplier We have chosen McArdle Sport Tec to install the pitch. They provided the most competitive price on a like for like basis and have a strong reputation and track record of delivery of similar projects. We obtained references from other clubs and the Football Foundation. McArdle-Brochure-5mb.pdf Cost The headline cost quoted is £652, 456.38 plus VAT. This includes all elements of the pitch build, plus the equipment required to use and maintain the pitch such as socketed goals and corner flags, a ride on tractor with brushes for maintaining the surface, specialist maintenance service visits to undertake deep decompaction works, and clearance of the site. It also includes the soil sampling which has already been paid for by the football club. This does not include any contingency for unforseen costs, but we have already paid for detailed soil sampling for depth, quality, and CBR values, which has informed the quote to ensure it is as accurate as possible at this stage. Income and Expenditure 3G pitches all perform differently over time. The standard guideline is that 50 hours use per week for a 48 week year is appropriate, and we are working to that. The warranty is for 8 years and 20, 000 hours which also fits in with this usage limit. We are proposing a £45, 000 per annum contribution from pitch rental profits into a sinking fund which will fund the replacement of the pitch when required. Revenues of £130, 000 per annum (net of VAT) from pitch hire are achievable, based on charging a blend of rates and restricting usage to 50 hours per week over a 30 week period with a full maintenance programme in place. This is a relatively conservative estimate, using the Football Foundation's modelling tools. It leaves an additional 18 weeks where we could run community events throughout the summer, or we could blend these into peak times and extend the 30 weeks to 48. We are in discussions with Bury Council to understand their requirement for community use and best way to accommodate this. Maintenance costs are estimated at around £60, 000 per annum which includes the £45, 000 contribution to the sinking fund. Community Officer Core to the success of the new pitch is the provision of benefit to the wider community of Bury. This is key to both the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities requirements and also to Bury Council's funding. We know that the pitch will be successfully rented due to the huge demand for 3G pitch rental in the borough, but to ensure that the pitch is used to promote active health and lifestyle services to those who need it most, we propose to employ a Community Officer, and develop an outreach programme to ensure that these services reach people who would not typically come to the stadium. This is an additional cost which will be funded from profits but will also provide us with a resource to apply for additional funding for the delivery of these services. It should become cost neutral, or close to cost neutral, over time. Funding The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) have approved our business plan and stated that they will transfer the remaining funds of £300, 000 allocated to us on completion of a long term lease which ensures that the club plays at Gigg Lane and the signing of the contract with the supplier. Bury Council have indicated they are comfortable with the allocation of their £450, 000 commitment to the pitch subject to the signing of the long term lease and meeting their own governance requirements. This includes the successful approval of an application which demonstrates community use, and agreeing how their investment will be governed ongoing. We are actively involved working this through with them. There is still a formal process to complete and we will respect that process. We have our own cash reserves which will be used to top up any funding gap, and provide a contingency in the event that costs increase due to unforseen events. We have received no further capital from the benefactors, who have objected to the use of a lease, which they believe devalues their own investment, but we have no alternative sources of capital so believe it is right to proceed to access the DLUHC and Bury Council funds. The lease does not require the football club to pay any rent, it simply imposes the obligation to pay bills and fund repairs and will collect stadium revenue. If we proceeded with Football Foundation funding for the pitch we would also have to put a long term lease in place. The lease will also fulfill our obligation to provide 'security of tenure' to the FA and league. We have opted not to apply to the Football Foundation at this point as their lead in time of 15 months means that we could not install the pitch this summer. Both financially and in terms of community benefit, the benefits of installing the pitch this summer outweigh the costs. We anticipate applying to the Football Foundation later in the year as we are able to apply for a higher amount of funding for stadium improvements if we are promoted. With the exception of the benefactors, all parties are comfortable with this direction of travel, although we acknowledge there is still a formal process to follow. We are grateful to all the organisations and individuals who have assisted in the project so far. Your Views We have been clear about the need for a 3G pitch for a long time, and it has been a major part of our planning and the grant funding received to acquire Gigg Lane. We are not required to run a member vote on this but want to seek approval and will issue an advisory vote to all members on this to assess that.

EPISODE 9 OUT NOW The Mighty Shakers Podcast are joined by captain Tom Moore and striker Declan Daniels, and chat about their careers and hopes for the season...

Match vlog from Bury FC v Prestwich Heys on Boxing Day 2023 from Gigg Lane. This was a fabulous performance from Bury featuring a brace of goals from their captain Tom Moore culminating in a 2-0 win.

The frost has beaten us this weekend and Longridge have advised us that the game is to be postponed. Assuming Ramsbottom’s cup game is postponed (they expect it to be but the ref needs to confirm this) our fixture against them on 9th December will be re-arranged. It does leave this date free for both us and Longridge Town, so we are expecting to play tomorrow’s fixture on that date. This is subject to league approval and more details will follow. Keep across our social media profiles for the latest updates, the links to each are at the bottom of this email.

The King's Speech this morning confirmed that the legislation necessary to implement an Independent Regulator to govern English football will be brought forward 'to safeguard the future of football clubs for the benefit of communities and fans.' It only covers clubs down as far as the National League so wouldn't cover Bury when implemented but our fans have had a big say in it's creation. The Regulator will operate a licensing system, where all clubs in the top five tiers of the men’s English football pyramid will need a licence to operate as professional football clubs. It will have powers to monitor and enforce compliance with requirements in financial regulation; corporate governance; club ownership (Owners’ and Directors’ tests); fan engagement and club heritage protection; and approved competitions. It’s narrow focus will be protecting the long-term sustainability of clubs for the benefit of their fans and communities and helping to prevent the collapse of clubs like Bury and Macclesfield Town. Bury supporters contributed to the Fan-Led Review directly and through organisations such as the Football Supporters' Association and Fair Game, providing insight into what went wrong before and what needs to happen in future. Whilst we await the details on exactly how this will be implemented we are extremely supportive of this piece of legislation and it's aims. You can read more on the full government consultation process and responses here. We can't undo the past, but we can help make the future more positive for other clubs and, ultimately, for ourselves as we work our way back up the football pyramid.

The board met for the first time at the end of October, and we have summarized the main decisions below. The board appointed Rod Peters and Phil Young as Secretary and Chair of the Society, respectively. There were no other nominations for these positions. The board appointed Jon Newby to the board of Bury Football Club (2019) Ltd which trades as Bury Football Club. Dave Triggs and Phil Young stepped down. The board appointed John Woodhead, Ian Pearson, Marcel de Matas and Darren Bernstein to the board of The Bury Football Club Company Ltd, which owns the Gigg Lane stadium. They will represent the Society’s interests on that board. John Woodhead will chair this board. Mike Goodier has stepped down. Bury FC Benefactors Ltd have appointed Matt Barker, Ian Harrop and David Manchester as their board representatives. The board agreed to the creation of three committees: A Finance and Audit Committee, responsible for providing an additional layer of oversight over the club and societies financial decisions and functions. A Heritage Committee, responsible for initiatives which recognise, promote and preserve the history of the football club. A Diversity and Inclusion Committee, to recognise that this plays a vital role in a growing, community club and more can and should be done. The board acknowledged the lack of diversity across its own membership. Terms of Reference for each committee will be drafted ahead of open invitations to join the committees being issued. The board will appoint a Secretary and Chair for each committee. It was agreed that a new legal agreement would be put in place which would result in the football club assuming responsibility for meeting all of the future operating costs of the stadium and take all future stadium revenue. The intent is to simplify the current arrangement, reduce costs, and will satisfy the requirements of funders such as Bury Council and The Football Foundation who wish to see long term security for the club at Gigg Lane before they invest in it, along with detailed operating and development plans. It should also allay any concerns from supporters about our commitment to the Gigg Lane stadium and its future financial viability. The specific details of this agreement are now under discussion. We will start work on a slight reworking of our budgets as we anticipate employing people through Bury Football Club (2019) Ltd to deliver services in the stadium and complete the operating and development plans. Most of these are not unexpected costs, they are just being re-allocated to a different company. A new financial reporting tool is under review to assist with consolidated reporting for members. We are profitable and we are reviewing how we move money between different organisations, some of which operate under different tax rules which has prevented us with problems. Overall, we are ahead of expectations in terms of profitability, but it should be remembered that our cash position has been boosted by season ticket sales which will be spent throughout the season. We are generating more revenue, primarily from greater ticket sales, but as we are starting to understand more about the stadium there are also additional costs to bear. Some of these are exceptional costs, some ongoing, and we will share these with members as soon as possible. We are now required to have The Bury Football Club Company Ltd financially audited, as it is a subsidiary under the Community Benefit Society Act 2014, and have changed the accounting reference date to allow us time for this to take place. We are now working on the launch of a new membership system and will make further announcements on this in due course. The price will remain as £5pm or £60 per annum. The formal minute for the election SGM can also be found here.

As communicated at this evening's online Special General Meeting (SGM), the Returning Officer from election service provider Mi-Voice has confirmed the following nine nominees will form the inaugural FSSB board (in alphabetical order): Darren Bernstein Mike Goodier Michael Howarth Marcel De Matas Jon Newby Ian Pearson Rod Peters John Woodhead Phil Young By the closing time and date of the nomination period, 28 nominations had been received for the nine Board positions, and the election was contested over a 21-day period (Thursday 28th September to Wednesday 18th October). There were 2,410 eligible voters on the membership database at the time the election began. This database list was verified and signed off by the Interim Board in the period proceeding the election. Ballot papers were issued digitally and vote returns processed online by Mi-Voice throughout. From the eligible voters, 1,508 ballots were returned during the voting period which was a 62.6% turnout. The votes cast provided the following vote share results (in vote total order): We wish to thank all nominees for being part of a contest election process and congratulate the chosen board members on their selection. Having an engaged membership in place gives encouragement towards future growth of the society and club respectively. The Election Committee are happy to confirm that the election policy and rules were followed in conducting this election and were fit for purpose.