Page 2 of 2

Re: SAVE BURY

Posted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:24 am
by Bruce Rioja
Sadly, I cannot think of a single plot in our entire region more suited to conversion into housing than Gigg Lane; it ticks every single box. Dale knows this and that's his only interest.

Re: SAVE BURY

Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:17 am
by nelson66
Gigg Lane was donated to Bury Football Club in 1895 by the Earl Of Derby.
There are covenants on the land that state that the land can only be used for sporting purposes.
I rent land from both the Earl of Wilton and Earl of Derby estates and have spoken to the land agents about Gigg Lane in the past, and asked them their opinion about Gigg Lane being sold off for housing .... at which point they just laugh and say "in someones dreams".
Edward Stanley 19th Earl of Derby is alive and kicking, and and avid sports fan.
Gigg Lane, housing ,,, not a chance.

Re: SAVE BURY

Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2020 1:11 pm
by Harry Genshaw
nelson66 wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:17 am
, and asked them their opinion about Gigg Lane being sold off for housing .... at which point they just laugh and say "in someones dreams".
Edward Stanley 19th Earl of Derby is alive and kicking, and and avid sports fan.
Gigg Lane, housing ,,, not a chance.
When it's been empty (more than usual) for a couple more years, no one is there to maintain it and it falls into disrepair, what then?

The council wont want, much less allow a derelict site in its borough. Covenants or not, it could be subject to a CPO and if there's no one there to play sport on it or who can afford to...

Re: SAVE BURY

Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2020 11:47 pm
by Bruce Rioja
nelson66 wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:17 am
Gigg Lane was donated to Bury Football Club in 1895 by the Earl Of Derby.
There are covenants on the land that state that the land can only be used for sporting purposes.
I rent land from both the Earl of Wilton and Earl of Derby estates and have spoken to the land agents about Gigg Lane in the past, and asked them their opinion about Gigg Lane being sold off for housing .... at which point they just laugh and say "in someones dreams".
Edward Stanley 19th Earl of Derby is alive and kicking, and and avid sports fan.
Gigg Lane, housing ,,, not a chance.
What was the name of the land at the side of Turton Road? There was a 'stand on the land' campaign by way of protest from the locals? Two brothers left their land for the recreational benefit of the people of the area and placed a covenant on it so that it couldn't ever be built on? Similar story to the one you describe at Gigg Lane. The land at the side of Turton Road is, of course, a housing estate now. Also, given Borris's 'Build, Build, Build' blather, and the announcement this morning that planning permission's about to be handed out like packets of sandwiches then I'm not sure it looks all that good for The Gigg, sadly.

Re: SAVE BURY

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 8:02 am
by nelson66
The difference being that the Earl Of Derby and the Earl Of Derby Estate is alive and kicking -- hopefully they will recall their "gift with reservation" if someone breaks the restrictive convenants on the land.
I'm not a lawyer, so who knows what going to happen.........

Re: SAVE BURY

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2020 7:13 pm
by officer_dibble
https://www.buryfc.co.uk/news/latest-st ... ub-update/

What the actual feck is this all about? The rant about the bbc at the end??

Re: SAVE BURY

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:44 pm
by Prufrock
Good lord above. They've got a Hoboh!

Re: SAVE BURY

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:01 pm
by Worthy4England
Prufrock wrote:
Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:44 pm
Good lord above. They've got a Hoboh!
:lol:

Re: SAVE BURY

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:26 pm
by GhostoftheBok
Either he's having a mental breakdown or he thinks he is going to win Bury over by going full Trump on them.

Re: SAVE BURY

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:48 am
by Dujon
If that discombobulating collection of wordage is a genuine expression of the Bury steering committee, and if I was a Bury supporter, I would consider seriously the option of packing my bags and leaving the ship before the rats block the gangways.
To any Bury fan who might be reading this: I have no antagonism towards you or your fellow punters. After all, BWFC came within a gnat's whisker of being in a similar situation to you. I wish you well but ...

Re: SAVE BURY

Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2020 3:09 pm
by Aanvalluh
Dujon wrote:
Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:48 am
If that discombobulating collection of wordage is a genuine expression of the Bury steering committee, and if I was a Bury supporter, I would consider seriously the option of packing my bags and leaving the ship before the rats block the gangways.
To any Bury fan who might be reading this: I have no antagonism towards you or your fellow punters. After all, BWFC came within a gnat's whisker of being in a similar situation to you. I wish you well but ...
Well that appears to be exactly what's happened, they ran off and formed their own AFC with 1500+ paid-up members, and accounts published to boot. Meanwhile the "old" club - the one still at Gigg - under the guise of Forever Bury (Forever Incompetent??) have attempted to raise cash to grasp the ground from Dale, so they would pay him to allow him to rent the ground back to them - I think. "That's a good deal?" as Smith said to Jones. Or Jones to Smith...

They need £2,500,000. In 55 days.

To date, after 5 days, I think they have around £3500.

There simply doesn't seem to be the interest/will in the town to bother with an Fb/Dale run FC at Gigg. It's too large for the fan base anyway, if AFC grow and get promoted, they may need their own smaller stadium somewhere in town, maybe around the size of Rochdale's. But will they ever have the funds to buy and build, even with council assistance (ie a municipal community stadium)?

Re: SAVE BURY

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:00 am
by Harry Genshaw
It beggars belief that any Bury fan would want to chip in to pay Dale off.

The phoenix club is where it's at now and they'll have to hope in time that they can work their way up the divisions and buy Gigg Lane back from whoever has it then.

I do like the fact that after years of their snide Horwich Wanderers comments, "you dont play in Bolton" etc, they're now plying their trade in Radcliffe.

Re: SAVE BURY

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:42 am
by Aanvalluh
Harry Genshaw wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:00 am
It beggars belief that any Bury fan would want to chip in to pay Dale off.

The phoenix club is where it's at now and they'll have to hope in time that they can work their way up the divisions and buy Gigg Lane back from whoever has it then.

I do like the fact that after years of their snide Horwich Wanderers comments, "you dont play in Bolton" etc, they're now plying their trade in Radcliffe.
To be fair, Radcliffe is in Bury Borough! The borough is quite large, and stretches to within a decent free-kick of Salford's ground. Dunno the ins and outs, but I would have thought a ground-share with Salford would have been the way to go (pre-covid) although with the Nevilles being involved at Salford, there may be a conflict of interest - back FC or AFC?

Anyhow, I've been on Radcliffe's ground, and it's actually not as bad/small as it looks and can handle gates of 2000 (again, covid permitting) which is more than can be said for many grounds at AFC's level. Daisy Hill, for example. Lovely little ground, with the emphasis on little.

Re: SAVE BURY

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:51 pm
by Harry Genshaw
Aanvalluh wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:42 am
Harry Genshaw wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:00 am
It beggars belief that any Bury fan would want to chip in to pay Dale off.

The phoenix club is where it's at now and they'll have to hope in time that they can work their way up the divisions and buy Gigg Lane back from whoever has it then.

I do like the fact that after years of their snide Horwich Wanderers comments, "you dont play in Bolton" etc, they're now plying their trade in Radcliffe.
To be fair, Radcliffe is in Bury Borough! The borough is quite large, and stretches to within a decent free-kick of Salford's ground. Dunno the ins and outs, but I would have thought a ground-share with Salford would have been the way to go (pre-covid) although with the Nevilles being involved at Salford, there may be a conflict of interest - back FC or AFC?

Anyhow, I've been on Radcliffe's ground, and it's actually not as bad/small as it looks and can handle gates of 2000 (again, covid permitting) which is more than can be said for many grounds at AFC's level. Daisy Hill, for example. Lovely little ground, with the emphasis on little.
I know! Horwich is in the borough of Bolton but that seemed to escape many of them.

A ground share with Salford is a good shout. There's no conflict of interest now as far as I can tell since Neville Neville karked it.

Re: SAVE BURY

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:02 pm
by Aanvalluh
Harry Genshaw wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:51 pm
Aanvalluh wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 11:42 am
Harry Genshaw wrote:
Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:00 am
It beggars belief that any Bury fan would want to chip in to pay Dale off.

The phoenix club is where it's at now and they'll have to hope in time that they can work their way up the divisions and buy Gigg Lane back from whoever has it then.

I do like the fact that after years of their snide Horwich Wanderers comments, "you dont play in Bolton" etc, they're now plying their trade in Radcliffe.
To be fair, Radcliffe is in Bury Borough! The borough is quite large, and stretches to within a decent free-kick of Salford's ground. Dunno the ins and outs, but I would have thought a ground-share with Salford would have been the way to go (pre-covid) although with the Nevilles being involved at Salford, there may be a conflict of interest - back FC or AFC?

Anyhow, I've been on Radcliffe's ground, and it's actually not as bad/small as it looks and can handle gates of 2000 (again, covid permitting) which is more than can be said for many grounds at AFC's level. Daisy Hill, for example. Lovely little ground, with the emphasis on little.
I know! Horwich is in the borough of Bolton but that seemed to escape many of them.

A ground share with Salford is a good shout. There's no conflict of interest now as far as I can tell since Neville Neville karked it.
Slightly off-topic, but I'm sure now it would help enormously if clubs below the Premiership could install the latest astro surfaces. Example as discussed, salford could host a multitude of clubs, such as AFC Bury, maybe Swinton RL (where are they these days?) and Sedgley RU's bigger games. The Reebok (sorry, old habits!) could host Chorley FC; if CFC want to progress - and admittedly they are rock bottom right now :-( - their current ground isn't up to scratch.
And those pitches could be used by the locals too, just imagine Rivington and Blackrod Yr 11 vs Canon Slade at 12noon before Bolton's game...
But I do appreciate many fans hate the prospect of Astro, however post-corvid to me it makes sense.

Re: SAVE BURY

Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:40 pm
by Worthy4England
Not in favour of astro for football and absolutely not for rugby. Swinton currently play at Heywood Road, Sale (previously Sale Sharks home ground). As an aside, I used to watch Swinton home and away. Went to first couple of games at Bury, never been back. Just lost any interest.