Sorry Tony, I disagree.

No one in their right mind would take on debts of £1.2 millon. I think most fans want Jim out as well. None of this middle ground for me.

I most certainly do. There is only way forward for me and a lot of other people. It's about time Jim and certain other fans came to terms with it.

Ben wrote:
No need to be sorry Ben! It's just an example, I'm not for one minute suggesting that it's offered.
But the fact remains that Rushe isn't willing to compromise on control. Therefore what have the fans got to offer, remembering that they buy into the club they also buy into the debt and the debt is not £1.2m it's around the £650k area.

Your comment 'Rushe out' suggests out of the club, if Rushe walks, whoever takes over takes on the debt or do you mean you want Rushe out and the club to be liquidated?

The amount of debt you state is still far too much to take on.

Jim has made it perfectly clear that he does not want to work with the fans and is in no need for compromises.

I would rather not work or give any of my money towards a conman that thinks it acceptable behaviour to lie and rob local businesses.

By my comment 'Rushe out', I meant I want Rushe out and the club to be liquidated because I believe that is what will happen and what is best for everyone. The Trust can then step in, that's if they don't think about starting a new club for the season coming.

Tony Rogers wrote:
With the greatest of respect, that would be almost pointless. All it will do is help strengthen his stranglehold on the club - what could you realistically achieve with 10%, when he's holding the other 90%?

I understand the principle of wanting to 'save' the club - but the likelihood is, given his past record of failing to pay what he owes, that you'll simply be delaying the inevitable.

Obviously it would be solely the decision of your Trust, if that's the option you decided to pursue, but given the current state of the club it strikes me as a poor use of the money you have.

Don't forget the £650k relates to a couple of years ago.
The current debt is probably a lot higher

Totally agree AMF - being a 10% shareholder against one individual who has a 90% stake would be virtually pointless as far as having a say in how the club is run. OK if there were say 10 people all taking a 10% share that would be different but anyone with a 51% shareholding or more will always have the final say. The only thing a shareholding would give is access to the books - but based on everything else that has gone on I'm not sure that you could even guarentee that.

The other thing to consider when talking about debt is that everyone is mentioning the known debt from when NVFC 2007 was set up - What we dont know is what the actual debt is now, but obviously JR assured everybody a couple of months ago that the club is not currently in debt (sorry Edge your post wasnt there when I started writing)

Furthermore any value in the business (ie top tier of non league football and home gates of 500-1000, use of a modern stadium etc) has now gone. It would be like someone buying Woolworth debt then being told that all the high street shops are closed but you can have a corner shop in Rudheath.

If the club (business) is already near the bottom of the pyramid (corner shop level) you might as well start again with no debt rent another ground (empty shop)
and build back up from there.