Dean

We can confirm the resignation of CEO & Club Secretary, Neil Sears. Further comment will be released in due course.

With profound sadness, we have learnt of the passing of Anne Bent, a beloved member of the Bury FC community. Anne's unwavering passion for Bury FC and her countless hours of dedicated volunteer work at the club has left an indelible mark on all who knew her. Anne was the epitome of what it is to be a Shaker: selfless in her volunteering, measured in her views, and passionate about the club she loved. Anne's dedication to Bury FC went beyond just being a loyal fan. She volunteered her time and energy to the club, working tirelessly to support the team and its community. Whether she was organising events, cleaning up at games, or simply offering a warm smile and a helping hand, Anne's contributions were invaluable and greatly appreciated by all. Anne's selflessness and commitment earned her a special place in the hearts of fellow fans, volunteers, players, and staff. She was not just a volunteer but a pillar of the Bury FC family, known for her kindness, generosity, and unwavering support. Anne Bent's legacy will live on in the hearts of those she touched and in the stands of Gigg Lane, where her spirit will forever be a part of Bury FC. Rest in peace, dear Anne. You will be missed but never forgotten.

The pitch at Gigg Lane has started to be removed ahead of the artificial 3G surface being laid this summer to be ready for the start of the 2024/25 season. Contractors McArdle Sport Tec began work last week by removing the top layers across the majority of the pitch before the deep dig occurs, and upgraded drainage is provided when the new base layers are installed. The works are due to be complete in early August, and whilst all of our pre-season games will need to be staged away from home, as well as the first couple of games of the season, we can't wait to have all of our teams based from Gigg for the first time.

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.

2410 votes total eligible. 1508 votes cast 62.6% turnout. New board is as follows: Jon Newby Phil Young Marcel De Matas John Woodhead Darren Bernstein Rodney Peters Micheal Howarth Michael Goodier Ian Pearson

Responses to Questions Asked In Advance Of The SGM We have to enforce some strict rules for the next Special General Meeting (SGM) meeting due to its nature and the specific circumstances surrounding it. As this is a Special General Meeting, we are only able to discuss the specific questions raised. The board have prepared written answers to those questions which are detailed below. The questions are in bold and italics. The first question was answered previously and we have repeated it here for completeness. The only matters which are available for discussion are any points of further clarification arising from the responses given. We are not permitted to introduce any other business as part of the SGM. As there is currently a board election underway with voting in progress it is extremely important that the neither the SGM nor any comments made during discussion are used by candidates for the purposes of promoting their position. This is something we have been warned about by our external advisers. As a result we will not take questions from the floor but invite questions by email in advance submitted to CBSsecretary@buryfc.co.uk. This will allow us to address only those questions which are admissible and decide who is best to respond. We will provide a full set of minutes after the event which will be appended to the information contained below. Tickets are free and available in advance for members only, so that we can assess likely numbers. When attending you will be asked for your membership number. If you are not a member your ticket may be cancelled or you may be refused entry. You will not be admitted without a ticket. The SGM will start at 7.30pm on Tuesday 10th October 2023 at The Elizabethan Suite, Town Hall, Knowsley St, Bury BL9 0SW. Tickets can be obtained by clicking this link. Rod Peters Secretary to the Interim Board Why have our football board taken it upon themselves to continue as a 100% fan owned club without member consultation? This is not what we as fans/members voted for. I have previously given an update on where we are with the structure of the organization and relationship with benefactors, but with more questions and so much misinformation in circulation I have prepared this more detailed note which summarises how we have arrived at the current position. As secretary of the Football Supporters’ Society of Bury (FSSB) I have no vote, my role is to record discussions and decisions made and where appropriate share these with members. My role is primarily to protect the members’ interests and if, as Secretary, I believe the society is not acting in the best interests of its members then I must remedy the situation. As a result, these notes are intended to be a factual record of events, rather than a statement of opinion. External advice has been sought and received all the way through this process, and I will refer to this where relevant. In summary: • The current ownership structure was agreed by all seven of the board members present. There were no objections and one person was absent due to holiday. • We have acted in accordance with the external advice we sought from both our lawyers and the FSA. The facts were supported by other impartial individuals involved in discussions, including the Investment Director at Greater Manchester Combined Authority. • Opportunities to discuss or comment on our previous communications have been offered to the benefactors. • There is no reason the structure cannot change once the promised funds are committed, it just needs member approval. • The contents of this report have all been agreed as accurate by the board of FSSB. There was very little difference in the information presented to members from the first amalgamation vote in October 2022, which did not pass, and the second vote in May 2023 which was approved. The formalities of the motions themselves were identical and all of the actions required from these motions are complete. Specifically, Bury FC Supporters’ Society members (BFCSS) were asked to approve the amalgamation of the two societies. Shakers Community Society (SCS) members were asked to approve the amalgamation of the two societies, change the paying name to Bury Football Club, and move playing venue to Gigg Lane. The differences between the two votes simply reflect that SCS owned the football club, then playing as Bury AFC, which needed member approval to change playing name and home ground. BFCSS owned a controlling interest (in that they owned the majority of voting rights) in the company which owns stadium, called The Bury Football Club Company Limited. The other co-owner of The Bury Football Club Company Limited is Bury FC Benefactors Limited, which is the vehicle which holds the shares on behalf of the benefactors who invested in half of the cost of the acquisition of Gigg Lane, the other half funded by central government money in the form of the Community Ownership Fund, which falls under the remit of the Department for Levelling Up, Communities and Housing (DLUHC). Two other key pieces of information were noted within the documentation issued to members prior to the vote, which are pertinent to the current situation. One was that the organisation would be restructured so that the football club would fall under the ownership of The Bury Football Club Company Limited, which would give Bury FC Benefactors Limited an equal share in the football club, albeit without voting control. The other was that a successful vote to amalgamate would result in additional capital committed to the project. This included £300k from the two societies, £450k from Bury Council, the remaining £300k from DLUHC and around £300k from Bury FC Benefactors Limited. There is some dispute as to the exact figure which should be used for the benefactor contribution but as no monies have been committed at all so far, I do not think this point is relevant at this point. DHLUC have confirmed that around £300k of the £1m agreed is still available to draw down from their fund. Prior to the second vote SCS board members wished to evidence to its members that this money was still available. It was evident from its own finances that the society could meet its obligations. Bury Council reconfirmed their own commitment, subject to the conditions previously outlined, and DHLUC confirmed the remaining funding was still available. Understandably, it was not possible to evidence the Bury FC Benefactors Limited money was available as it had not been committed and we were advised it would not be committed unless the second amalgamation vote was successful. This was not a surprise. No additional funding has been provided from Bury FC Benefactors Limited to The Bury Football Club Company Limited other than the initial funding required to purchase the stadium in early 2021. A request for letter of intent from benefactors was requested but not provided and it was accepted this would have no binding legal status. There was a desire from both sides to find a solution to this, as SCS board was uncomfortable recommending the merger to members based this level of uncertainty. The Investment Director at Greater Manchester Combined Authorities, who had chair various meetings on the second amalgamation, was asked to discuss the availability of the benefactor funding with a director and representative of Bury FC Benefactors Limited, who confirmed that the funding was available and conditional only on the merger. This information was relayed to the SCS board to provide some additional comfort and evidence that information this had been provided to a third party, not just the SCS board. We received written confirmation from that Investment Director on 11th July 2023 that this conversation took place and I have copied the relevant statement below: “At the working group meeting on 10th February, the minutes show that in order to move forwards towards a vote one of the points you (SCS) needed was confirmation that the £300k of funding from the Benefactors was still available. The minutes note that the £300k was subject to a positive outcome of the vote.” “Further to this meeting I had a conversation with Matt Barker to understand the position with respect to the additional benefactor monies as given the status of the vote at that time, Matt had not wanted to revert to Benefactors and ask for a letter of commitment. In my conversation Matt was clear that whilst he did not feel it was the right time to go back and ask for a letter of commitment from the Benefactors, that he was comfortable that this funding was available subject to a positive vote outcome and that I could reiterate this message to you ( SCS). In addition, the Q&As, which were approved by that same director and representative of Bury FC Benefactors Limited, and issued to members of both societies ahead of the merger vote read: “All of the previous funding is available again should a vote go through this time. This an instant £1.3m rising to an estimated £2.3m over time. This includes a further £300,000 from the existing benefactors. There has been no further capital invested or donated to the project since the first vote. There will be some confirmatory diligence undertaken to confirm all funds are in place as expected before the merger completes.” It was understood, therefore, that the additional benefactor money was readily available, and subject to no conditions other than a positive amalgamation vote, given that it was to come from existing benefactors who had already committed funds. The exact source of the funds, whether it be new or existing benefactors is not material, other than by stating the money could come from existing benefactors it gave the SCS board far more confidence it would be made available. Bury Council were also concerned to establish that this funding was available. The terms of their own funding which are detailed in their cabinet paper of 13th June 2022 states: “The business plan includes a commitment of £1m from private benefactors of which £730k has been invested to date. The balance of £270k will be invested if the merger discussions are successful and will be used as match funding, alongside the Bury Council funding, to release the balancing £300k of grant from the Community Ownership Fund.” The business plan originally submitted included additional funding from Bury FC Benefactor Limited. We were advised that there were no available Bury FC Benefactor Limited funds after voting had closed. There was no immediate financial pressure caused by this situation, however once it became apparent that the money would not be committed a discussion amongst the FSSB board members was held at a board meeting on firstly the 4th July 2023 and later on the 18th July 2023 about the next steps. At the meeting on the 4th July 2023 the relevant minute confirms that: ‘It was agreed by all that it would be wrong to transfer Bury Football Club (2019) Ltd to The Bury Football Club Company Ltd as the financial diligence has not been completed and Bury FC Benefactors Ltd have not provided an additional £300k into that company as set out in the original merger proposal.’ It was also agreed at the meeting on the 4th July 2023 that: “advice from Anthony Collins Solicitors LLP would be sought (should these funds be made available in future) about whether a member vote would be required. Bury Football Club (2019) Ltd trading as Bury Football Club would remain a wholly owned subsidiary of the Football Supporters’ Society of Bury’ A course of action was agreed at board meeting on the 18th July 2023 attended by seven of the eight board members. All seven voted in favour of this and the relevant minute is copied below. “MB has confirmed there is £240k outstanding from the Benefactors who want a meeting to discuss. We can arrange a meeting but even with this figure there seems to be a £60k downfall. Benefactors feel £760k has been paid in to date. JW said there was an understanding that there would be £1mil of funding from existing benefactors at the time of the vote amongst members. MB spoke to PY prior to vote results being announced to say that additional benefactor funding would not immediately be available. DT raised that current position of the benefactors suggest that they do not or are unwilling to immediately invest existing funds. MB has stated that the current position is ‘uninvestible’. KL says we’re currently in transition period. Deadline has been given until the end of the month for the benefactors to provide additional funds and then we can draw a line under it and decide on a new way forward. PY happy to meet to discuss with benefactors as requested along with other Interim Board members. Meeting to be facilitated in forthcoming weeks between Benefactors and IB members, Face to Face is going to be more difficult due to geographical and proximity issues involved of IB members and benefactors. ACTION: Meeting to be arranged between Benefactors and IB members to discuss this current impasse. Remote meeting would be most suitable.” The legal opinion, obtained from a mutual law expert at the firm who had advised us throughout the amalgamation process confirmed this course of action. In particular, it re-iterated that in the absence of any binding legal agreement on the matter the society could not force benefactors individually or collectively to pay the outstanding amount, nor could they force transfer of the football cub ownership. Given that this would effectively be transferring half of the ownership of the football club for no financial contribution it was clear this would not be in the interests of the society, which may wish to accept investment into the football club at a future date, subject to member vote. We were advised to provide a deadline date of seven or 14 days to Bury FC Benefactors Limited for the investment to allow another opportunity for investment and gave a deadline of 31st July. It was confirmed that the outstanding monies would not be paid, and the matter closed. We had also advised further investment could be made, along with changes to the ownership structure but this would be subject to another consultation and member vote, as the terms of the previous agreement had expired. Again, this was in accordance with the legal advice we received and also the advice received from the Football Supporters Association (FSA) who had been involved throughout. It was expected that the benefactors would not agree with this, as they still believe the football club ownership should be transferred without any additional financial contribution from Bury FC Benefactors Limited. The dispute between board members of FSSB occurred when it was suggested that this situation be disclosed to members. Four board members wished to disclose the information to members, and four did not. The statement which was eventually released and can be seen here, and is repeated below, had been passed to the board of Bury FC Benefactors Limited for comment on the 1st August 2023 and we had received no comment on it other than that it had been received and they were not in agreement with its release. By the 6th August 2023 we had still received no comment on it, and I, acting as Secretary, took advice from the FSA on my obligations as I felt it was something FSSB members should be informed of given we had been asked about funding by some members, questions had been raised about the football club ownership and it was pertinent to the amalgamation vote which was a hugely significant event for members of both societies. It was issued to members by email on 7th August at 6pm and is copied below. Update from The Secretary of the Football Supporters' Society of Bury We have completed the amalgamation of the two societies, the name change to Bury Football Club and made Gigg Lane our home ground, which were the three items voted on by members in May. We also advised as part of the pre-vote information pack that we would move the ownership of the football club, which is Bury Football Club (2019) Ltd trading as Bury Football Club, under the ownership of The Bury Football Club Company Limited, subject to further financial due diligence. We have been advised by Bury FC Benefactors Ltd that at this stage they will not be investing the further £300, 000 they had committed to in the business plan presented to members. This does not place the stadium or club in any significant jeopardy as we are still able to access both central and local government funding in addition to holding our own cash reserves. There is no obligation on Bury FC Benefactors Ltd to invest this money, and we will continue to work with them as normal. Equally there is no requirement for the Football Supporters’ Society of Bury to make any changes to the ownership of the club, and so it will remain 100% owned by the Society, and separate from The Bury Football Club Company Limited, which the Society co-owns with Bury FC Benefactors Ltd. The Football Supporters’ Society of Bury also owns the majority of voting rights in The Bury Football Club Company Limited, so should not be prejudiced in any way by keeping the organisational structure in its current format. Should any party, including Bury FC Benefactors Ltd, wish to invest into either Bury Football Club (2019) Ltd or The Bury Football Club Company Limited at a future date they may do so by an approach to the board of the Football Supporters’ Society of Bury, who can take this forward to member consultation and a member vote if they believe it is a credible offer in the best interests of the club and the society. There are some significant legal and tax issues to consider as part of any transaction like this, in addition to the need for member approval, and so it is unlikely that any offer could be agreed and put forward for a vote quickly or without professional advice. Rod Peters Secretary to the Interim Board Why have the benefactors gone completely silent? Do they still want to take over the 49% stake? This is a question for the benefactors to answer, and they have made comment publicly on the matter. Our understanding is that they wish us to transfer the ownership of the football club now. As outlined in our earlier comments, the society board took the view, with external advice, that this was not appropriate without the transfer of the outstanding monies due. With the elections being delayed due to a data leak of personal member information, has the club started an internal investigation into this leak? Are the club now looking into such a serious GDPR breach especially with the upcoming board elections? We have investigated this issue. Firstly, there was no leak of confidential information and no breach of GDPR. Under section 30 of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 (the Act), it is a requirement that a registered society must keep a register of members including the members name and postal address (s.30(2)(a)). Pursuant to section 103(1)(b) of the Act, any member of the society has the right to inspect the register kept in accordance with section 30. Names and addresses of members are not, therefore, confidential. Any member has access to this information. We did attempt to discover who had posted the specific information about people who had multiple membership accounts linked to the same address but were unable to obtain this or evidence how it had been obtained. Board members did also take some time to clean the database to the best of their ability. The vast majority of accounts removed were duplicates where the same person had a membership for both societies. Where multiple accounts were registered to the same address we sought additional evidence that these were valid, adult voting accounts. In a very small number of cases we removed accounts where we could not obtain that evidence. Why are we still hearing reports of discontent between the 2 merged societies? As the person who acts as secretary to the society I have found all board meetings to be well mannered and easy to manage. It is healthy to have differences of opinion and when I look back there have been relatively few of these. Debate, discussion and challenge is a health mechanism of any board decision making process. A board election should have taken place far sooner that has happened, which is nobody’s fault. It has left the Interim Board in a position where it is being faced with issues which it does not has sufficient time to resolve, but has undertaken some considerable work to leave the new board with the information and tools to make some key decisions on complex matters. It should also be noted that every member of the Interim Board, who represents both societies, are volunteers with jobs and families and they have all invested considerable time to this project. Every one of them has regularly attended meetings, either weekly or fortnightly. There has been no lack of effort or commitment. There are entrenched attitudes amongst a small minority of supporters, but this is common to all football clubs. All clubs have factions, they are all plagued by anonymous social media accounts, and they are all subject to constant rumour and speculation. It is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect any board to eliminate this. Why are only a section of members receiving communication from the society? Some fans haven’t heard anything since the vote. We have been working through our email system to resolve any problems over the past month. The number of people experiencing problems is extremely small as a percentage of both the member database (well over 2000) and the total database (around 8000). We use Mailchimp, which is a very well-known system, for bulk emails. There is no single reason for the problems when they arise, the most common problems are that it is sent to junk or people have accidentally unsubscribed from emails. The voting emails come from a completely different system which is managed by Mi-Voice, so they have to resolved their own issues. In due course a new membership system will be built which can incorporate a ‘member only’ part of the website where all relevant information can be posted, rather than relying solely on email which will always be problematic. Any problems can be resolved by emailing me at CBSsecretary@buryfc.co.uk.

We have to enforce some strict rules for the next Special General Meeting (SGM) meeting due to its nature and the specific circumstances surrounding it. As this is a Special General Meeting, we are only able to discuss the specific questions raised. The board have prepared written answers to those questions which can be access by clicking the button below. The questions are in bold and italics. The first question was answered previously and we have repeated it here for completeness. The only matters which are available for discussion are any points of further clarification arising from the responses given. We are not permitted to introduce any other business as part of the SGM. As there is currently a board election underway with voting in progress it is extremely important that the neither the SGM nor any comments made during discussion are used by candidates for the purposes of promoting their position. This is something we have been warned about by our external advisers. As a result we will not take questions from the floor but invite questions by email in advance submitted to the email address included in the responses. This will allow us to address only those questions which are admissible and decide who is best to respond. We will provide a full set of minutes after the event which will be appended to the information contained below. Tickets are free and available in advance for members only, so that we can assess likely numbers. When attending you will be asked for your membership number. If you are not a member your ticket may be cancelled or you may be refused entry. You will not be admitted without a ticket. The SGM will start at 7.30pm on Tuesday 10th October 2023 at The Elizabethan Suite, Town Hall, Knowsley St, Bury BL9 0SW. Tickets can be obtained by clicking this link. We expect it to take no longer than an hour. Rod Peters Secretary to the Interim Board Vote Countdown!

Structure of the organisation – How we arrived at the current position I have previously given an update on where we are with the structure of the organisation and the relationship with the benefactors, but with more questions and so much misinformation in circulation I have prepared this more detailed note which summarises how we have arrived at the current position. As secretary of the Football Supporters’ Society of Bury (FSSB) I have no vote, my role is to record discussions and decisions made and where appropriate share these with members. My role is primarily to protect the members’ interests and if, as Secretary, I believe the society is not acting in the best interests of its members then I must remedy the situation. As a result, these notes are intended to be a factual record of events, rather than a statement of opinion. External advice has been sought and received all the way through this process, and I will refer to this where relevant. In summary: The current ownership structure was agreed by all seven of the board members present. There were no objections and one person was absent due to holiday. We have acted in accordance with the external advice we sought from both our lawyers and the FSA. The facts were supported by other impartial individuals involved in discussions, including the Investment Director at Greater Manchester Combined Authority. Opportunities to discuss or comment on our previous communications have been offered to the benefactors. There is no reason the structure cannot change once the promised funds are committed, it just needs member approval. The contents of this report have all been agreed as accurate by the board of FSSB. There was very little difference in the information presented to members from the first amalgamation vote in October 2022, which did not pass, and the second vote in May 2023 which was approved. The formalities of the motions themselves were identical and all of the actions required from these motions are complete. Specifically, Bury FC Supporters’ Society members (BFCSS) were asked to approve the amalgamation of the two societies. Shakers Community Society (SCS) members were asked to approve the amalgamation of the two societies, change the playing name to Bury Football Club, and move playing venue to Gigg Lane. The differences between the two votes simply reflect that SCS owned the football club, then playing as Bury AFC, which needed member approval to change playing name and home ground. BFCSS owned a controlling interest (in that they owned the majority of voting rights) in the company which owns the stadium, called The Bury Football Club Company Limited. The other co-owner of The Bury Football Club Company Limited is Bury FC Benefactors Limited, which is the vehicle which holds the shares on behalf of the benefactors who invested in half of the cost of the acquisition of Gigg Lane, the other half funded by central government money in the form of the Community Ownership Fund, which falls under the remit of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DLUHC). In regard to the benefactors’ contribution to acquire Gigg Lane they have no expectation or desire to earn a financial reward. Two other key pieces of information were noted within the documentation issued to members prior to the vote, which are pertinent to the current situation. One was that the organisation would be restructured so that the football club would fall under the ownership of The Bury Football Club Company Limited, which would give Bury FC Benefactors Limited an equal share in the football club, albeit without voting control. The other was that a successful vote to amalgamate would result in additional capital committed to the project. This included £300k from the two societies, £450k from Bury Council, the remaining £300k from DLUHC and around £300k from Bury FC Benefactors Limited. There is some dispute as to the exact figure which should be used for the benefactor contribution but as no monies have been committed at all so far, I do not think this point is relevant at this point. DLUHC have confirmed that around £300k of the £1m agreed is still available to draw down from their fund. Prior to the second vote SCS board members wished to evidence to its members that this money was still available. It was evident from its own finances that the society could meet its obligations. Bury Council reconfirmed their own commitment, subject to the conditions previously outlined, and DLUHC confirmed the remaining funding was still available. Understandably, it was not possible to evidence the Bury FC Benefactors Limited money was available as it had not been committed and we were advised it would not be committed unless the second amalgamation vote was successful. This was not a surprise. No additional funding has been provided from Bury FC Benefactors Limited to The Bury Football Club Company Limited other than the initial funding required to purchase the stadium in early 2021. A request for a letter of intent from benefactors was requested but not provided and it was accepted this would have no binding legal status. There was a desire from both sides to find a solution to this, as the SCS board was uncomfortable recommending the merger to members based on this level of uncertainty. The Investment Director at Greater Manchester Combined Authority, who had chaired various meetings on the second amalgamation, was asked to discuss the availability of the benefactor funding with a director and representative of Bury FC Benefactors Limited, who confirmed that the funding was available and conditional only on the merger. This information was relayed to the SCS board to provide some additional comfort and evidence that this information had been provided to a third party, not just the SCS board. We received written confirmation from that Investment Director on the 11th2023 that this conversation took place and I have copied the relevant statement below: “At the working group meeting on 10th February, the minutes show that in order to move forwards towards a vote one of the points you (SCS) needed was confirmation that the £300k of funding from the Benefactors was still available. The minutes note that the £300k was subject to a positive outcome of the vote.” “Further to this meeting I had a conversation with Matt Barker to understand the position with respect to the additional benefactor monies as given the status of the vote at that time, Matt had not wanted to revert to Benefactors and ask for a letter of commitment. In my conversation Matt was clear that whilst he did not feel it was the right time to go back and ask for a letter of commitment from the Benefactors, that he was comfortable that this funding was available subject to a positive vote outcome and that I could reiterate this message to you ( SCS). In addition, the Q&As, which were approved by that same director and representative of Bury FC Benefactors Limited, and issued to members of both societies ahead of the merger vote read: “All of the previous funding is available again should a vote go through this time. This is an instant £1.3m rising to an estimated £2.3m over time. This includes a further £300,000 from the existing benefactors. There has been no further capital invested or donated to the project since the first vote. There will be some confirmatory diligence undertaken to confirm all funds are in place as expected before the merger completes.” It was understood, therefore, that the additional benefactor money was readily available, and subject to no conditions other than a positive amalgamation vote, given that it was to come from existing benefactors who had already committed funds. The exact source of the funds, whether it be new or existing benefactors is not material, other than by stating the money could come from existing benefactors it gave the SCS board far more confidence it would be made available. Bury Council were also concerned to establish that this funding was available. The terms of their own funding which are detailed in their cabinet paper of 13th June 2022 states: “The business plan includes a commitment of £1m from private benefactors of which £730k has been invested to date. The balance of £270k will be invested if the merger discussions are successful and will be used as match funding, alongside the Bury Council funding, to release the balancing £300k of grant from the Community Ownership Fund.” The business plan originally submitted included additional funding from Bury FC Benefactor Limited. We were advised that there were no available Bury FC Benefactor Limited funds after voting had closed. There was no immediate financial pressure caused by this situation, however once it became apparent that the money would not be committed a discussion amongst the FSSB board members was held at a board meeting on firstly the 4th July 2023 ( where seven board members were present) and later on the 18th July 2023 ( where seven board members were present) ) about the next steps. At the meeting on the 4th July 2023 the relevant minute confirms that: ‘It was agreed by all that it would be wrong to transfer Bury Football Club (2019) Ltd to The Bury Football Club Company Ltd as the financial diligence has not been completed and Bury FC Benefactors Ltd have not provided an additional £300k into that company as set out in the original merger proposal.’ It was also agreed at the meeting on the 4th July 2023 that: “advice from Anthony Collins Solicitors LLP would be sought (should these funds be made available in future) about whether a member vote would be required. Bury Football Club (2019) Ltd trading as Bury Football Club would remain a wholly owned subsidiary of the Football Supporters’ Society of Bury’ A course of action was agreed at board meeting on the 18th July 2023 attended by seven of the eight board members. All seven voted in favour of this and the relevant minute is copied below. “MB has confirmed there is £240k outstanding from the Benefactors who want a meeting to discuss. We can arrange a meeting but even with this figure there seems to be a £60k downfall. Benefactors feel £760k has been paid in to date. JW said there was an understanding that there would be £1mil of funding from existing benefactors at the time of the vote amongst members. MB spoke to PY prior to vote results being announced to say that additional benefactor funding would not immediately be available. DT raised that current position of the benefactors suggest that they do not or are unwilling to immediately invest existing funds. MB has stated that the current position is ‘uninvestible’ KL says we’re currently in transition period. Deadline has been given until the end of the month for the benefactors to provide additional funds but keen that all avenues should still be explored with the benefactors to resolve the matter. PY agreed that the deadline was sensible and then we can draw a line under it and decide on a new way forward. PY happy to meet to discuss with benefactors as requested along with other Interim Board members. . Meeting to be facilitated in forthcoming weeks between Benefactors and IB members, Face to Face is going to be more difficult due to geographical and proximity issues involved of IB members and benefactors. KL suggested that a minute taker be present and a second set of eyes and ears. ACTION: Meeting to be arranged between Benefactors and IB members to discuss this current impasse. Remote meeting would be most suitable.” The legal opinion, obtained from a mutual law expert at the firm who had advised us throughout the amalgamation process confirmed this course of action. In particular, it re-iterated that in the absence of any binding legal agreement on the matter the society could not force benefactors individually or collectively to pay the outstanding amount, nor could the benefactors force transfer of the football cub ownership. Given that this would effectively be transferring half of the ownership of the football club for no financial contribution it was clear this would not be in the interests of the society, which may wish to accept investment into the football club at a future date, subject to member vote. We were advised to provide a deadline date of seven or fourteen days to Bury FC Benefactors Limited for the investment to allow another opportunity for investment and gave a deadline of the 31st July 2023. It was confirmed that the outstanding monies would not be paid, and the matter closed. We had also advised further investment could be made, along with changes to the ownership structure but this would be subject to another consultation and member vote, as the terms of the previous agreement had expired. Again, this was in accordance with the legal advice we received and also the advice received from the Football Supporters Association (FSA) who had been involved throughout. It was expected that the benefactors would not agree with this, as they still believe the football club ownership should be transferred without any additional financial contribution from Bury FC Benefactors Limited. The dispute between board members of FSSB occurred when it was suggested that this situation be disclosed to members. The board was equally split on this issue and we did not have a majority vote to disclose the information to members. The statement which was eventually released and can be seen here, and is repeated below, had been passed to the board of Bury FC Benefactors Limited for comment on the 1st August 2023 and we had received no comment on it other than that it had been received and they were not in agreement with its release. By the 6th August 2023 we had still received no comment on it, and I, acting as Secretary, took advice from the FSA on my obligations as I felt it was something FSSB members should be informed of given we had been asked about funding by some members, questions had been raised about the football club ownership and it was pertinent to the amalgamation vote which was a hugely significant event for members of both societies. It was issued to members by email on the 7th August 2023 at 6.00pm and is reproduced below. Update from The Secretary of the Football Supporters' Society of Bury We have completed the amalgamation of the two societies, the name change to Bury Football Club and made Gigg Lane our home ground, which were the three items voted on by members in May. We also advised as part of the pre-vote information pack that we would move the ownership of the football club, which is Bury Football Club (2019) Ltd trading as Bury Football Club, under the ownership of The Bury Football Club Company Limited, subject to further financial due diligence. We have been advised by Bury FC Benefactors Ltd that at this stage they will not be investing the further £300, 000 they had committed to in the business plan presented to members. This does not place the stadium or club in any significant jeopardy as we are still able to access both central and local government funding in addition to holding our own cash reserves. There is no obligation on Bury FC Benefactors Ltd to invest this money, and we will continue to work with them as normal. Equally there is no requirement for the Football Supporters’ Society of Bury to make any changes to the ownership of the club, and so it will remain 100% owned by the Society, and separate from The Bury Football Club Company Limited, which the Society co-owns with Bury FC Benefactors Ltd. The Football Supporters’ Society of Bury also owns the majority of voting rights in The Bury Football Club Company Limited, so should not be prejudiced in any way by keeping the organisational structure in its current format. Should any party, including Bury FC Benefactors Ltd, wish to invest into either Bury Football Club (2019) Ltd or The Bury Football Club Company Limited at a future date they may do so by an approach to the board of the Football Supporters’ Society of Bury, who can take this forward to member consultation and a member vote if they believe it is a credible offer in the best interests of the club and the society. There are some significant legal and tax issues to consider as part of any transaction like this, in addition to the need for member approval, and so it is unlikely that any offer could be agreed and put forward for a vote quickly or without professional advice. Rod Peters Secretary to the Interim Board

Our sole motivation from day 1 has been to return to a united Bury FC to Gigg Lane for ALL supporters and the community. We have objected in the past when certain members of BFCSS sought to dismiss those who followed Bury AFC, The Pendulum has now swung entirely the other way as SCS seeks to cleanse the management of any BFCSS representatives and marginalise the Benefactors as much as possible. This is morally and commercially wrong. By the FANS for the FANS means all fans, not just those that happen to agree with a small group of the leadership. It is so disappointing to feel forced to issue this statement as there is so much to be celebrating – the number and hard work by the volunteers (matchday and every other day/night of the week), a great atmosphere at matches, especially at Gigg, some memorable moments like the first match and Benito Lowe’s lastminute winner against West Didsbury & Charlton. Also it’s great to see the many new, young fans coming to matches and loving the experience just as much as those who’ve been watching for years and returned to their beloved Gigg. If we’re all together this can become even greater, if we’re divided the honeymoon period will sadly end. Please ensure that in the forthcoming vote for elections to the new CBS3 board you consider carefully who you elect, or we are seriously worried that the control will rest in a small group that in our experience is not focused on an inclusive, sustainable, community football club.