Talk:Bury A.F.C.

Keep or move the Bury AFC article in the event of a merger with Bury FC?; Getting ahead of a potential issue

File:Screenshot of Bury football merger proposals.png

Diagram showing the proposed corporate structure of a new Bury Football Club

Decide in the event of Bury AFC merging to play as "Bury FC":

A) Keep the Bury AFC article
B) Move the Bury AFC article to Bury FC

Background (see attached diagrams): Voting is currently underway amongst members of two Bury supporters' groups, the Shakers Community Society and the Bury Football Club Supporters' Society. The principle decision is on whether to amalgamate the two societies into one, therefore combining all their assets. The SCS own a phoenix club called Bury AFC, whilst the BFCSS now control Gigg Lane, the Bury FC trading name, intellectual property and memorabilia of the Bury FC oldco after it was sold by administrators to a subsidiary company they 50+1 own. The former are also voting on whether to change the name and ground of their team that merger with the latter would facilitate. Presuming the results of these votes are yes, it will likely mean a team called "Bury FC" playing in the English pyramid and the cessation of a team called "Bury AFC". We could do with clarifying ahead of time what wikiaction to take when it occurs. Also see Talk:Bury F.C.#Consensus to maintain the 1885 formation date of Bury FC post-merger for a separate issue relating to the potential events.

Example of precedent in favour of option A (keep):

The articles of Ossett Albion and Ossett Town were not moved to the article about the new team they merged together to create, Ossett United). Numerous other examples like Hayes FC and Yeading FC forming Hayes & Yeading United.

Example of precedent in favour of option B (move):

Darlington 1883 as a phoenix club used to exist as its own separate article to Darlington F.C. from 2012–2017 but was moved upon the club being granted the use of the old name by The FA.

Nominator's argument in favour of option B (move): Although the project seems to keep the article of the clubs that merge together, I believe this case is not like the examples listed in option A as though two clubs are merging together nor to create a new club. Rather it is Bury AFC aquiring the asset of the "Bury FC" trading name by merger of two societies to rename one club and restore the other club (see background above). I think this is more in line with the precedent set by Darlington.

Raised by JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Address if and only if the merger occurs, which it hasn't yet. WP:COMMONNAME should be a good indication of the direction to take. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i mean it kinda sounds like two wrestling titles being merged together. when wrestling does that it keeps both articles but has the one that gets absorbed as the defunct one. as an exmaple, WWE Championship and World Heavyweight Championship (WWE). the latter was merged into the former and the latter was retired. if its just bury fc absorbing bury afc, then keep bury afc with their history since that's seasons and players etc that did not play for the original bury and just mention they were merged together then have like a line saying for the history of afc see here or whatever. so basically, my vote is to have two articles with the second covering what bury afc did as bury afc. in all honesty its basically just afc agreeing to die so the original bury can live. also unlike darlington, the original bury never died. like the other guy said though, its better to wait i guess, cuz maybe afc change to fc and its the original that dies.Muur (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wrestling title analogy is a good one and ~~I support keeping the article of the defunct one and opposed to merging them~~. To be technical about things though, the "original" Bury FC will die and is not involved in this vote (this doesn't affect the existence of the Bury FC article, however, because the WikiProject treats new companies with the same name as the same club like Rangers FC). All the assets of the original company were bought and transferred to BFCSS' subsidiary company. The merger in question is to amalgamate BFCSS (who own the name Bury FC and the stadium, Gigg Lane) with the SCS (who own the phoenix club Bury AFC). As The Sportsman summed up perfectly, it is a team with no ground and a ground with no team.

I agree that no action should be taken until something happens, this was merely to sound out a consensus before waiting until it happens and there is a flurry of activity in opposing directions. This vote has been prepared for the last few months and only opened yesterday. I believe it will be up to 30 days before it closes and then it will still be until next season before any decision is finally implemented. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC) EDIT:changed opening argument as above, strikedthrough relevant comment as to not contradict myself JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Matilda Maniac ~~and JamesLB~~ - address if and when the merger occurs (my inclination would also be to retain the defunct article rather than merging). Paul W (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC) EDIT: JLB changed argument as above, strikedthrough relevant comment as to not contradict Paul W JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Options A and B are completely different circumstances - A is about two existing clubs merging to form a new club, B is about a phoenix club. It is my understanding that Darlington (FC/1883) is essentially the same club - the article certainly deals with both? Giant Snowman 09:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I would agree, I reflected on that in the paragraph below the examples. But the answer is what circumstance you believe applies to this case. IMO, this Bury FC/Bury AFC case would be more like Darlington. Bury AFC are merging their assets with a company/society that has no football team (yet), THEN renaming their club to Bury FC upon acquiring the name from the latter company/society. I changed my opinion to merge on this basis.

When Darlington reformed initially as "1883", it existed as a separate article and was only merged 5 years later when they renamed to FC. They say renaming "restored" the club but fundamentally whether it is the same club is semantic/subjective (although WP thinks so as long as they have the same name) – but in terms of companies they are at least different. None of this has happened (yet) with Bury though.

by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some tensions between the two Bury clubs, with protests by FC supporters affecting a recent AFC fixture. Do we take fan sentiment into consideration in looking at whether it was a smooth transition from old to new?

Keeping/merging issues also arose in relation to Aldershot F.C./Aldershot Town F.C., Darwen F.C./A.F.C. Darwen and Macclesfield Town F.C./Macclesfield F.C.. In each case, the phoenix article was retained; precedent in these cases was keep, it seems. Paul W (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge them if Bury A.F.C. do become Bury F.C. It seems as if Darwen F.C. and Darwen F.C. (1870) need merging too. Both Port Vale F.C. and Stoke City F.C. were liquidated in 907 and 1908 and then either another club changed their name to suit or a new club was formed with the same name. It's fairly common for this to happen in a club's history.--Echetus Xe 16:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update Welp. It didn't go through so consider this void. Gutted for Bury Fans. by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix club

Given that Bury FC existed when AFC were formed and indeed technically still does, why are they being referred to as a Phoenix club? That term is intended for clubs that rise from the ashes of a club that no longer exists, which is not true in this case. An alternative name to describe the link between Bury FC and Bury AFC is needed SimonUpNorth (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe answering my own question, I can see that media sources linked have used the term, I believe i correctly, as they were expelled from the EFL when AFC were formed but not actually folded SimonUpNorth (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry typo.... "... I believe incorrectly, ..." SimonUpNorth (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-merger discussion re Bury articles

There is a discussion on the Football WikiProject page about whether to merge or retain the Bury AFC article alongside the Bury FC article. Paul W (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the discussion on Talk:Bury_F.C.#Consensus_to_maintain_the_1885_formation_date_of_Bury_FC_post-merger gives precedence to merge bury afc into the original fc page, as darlington 1883 was merged into the regular darligonton page. same exact situation. kicked out of league, new team formed, new team later merges with old team as one team. same exact situation so treat it the same and merge afc into the fc page.Muur (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]