He probably has lied but things that he has or has not lied about is none of my business so does not really matter all i worry about is watching a game of football. If mary poppins was in charge of northwich we would still have the same problems.

On Tuesday a meeting was convened by the President of the Club with the hope of clarifying the position of all parts of the club and galvanize them behind the club with representatives of the fans, Junior clubs, Trust, Supporters club and most importantly the Owner Jim Rushe all present.

Now this wasn't meant as a confidential or secret meeting as several of the people were there as fans but this Trust still hasn't told you, the members of the Trust or the people on this forum or the outside world what was said. This has led to continued abuse of both myself and Jim Rushe.

My question is why the Trust haven't told you what was said by the Owner Jim Rushe in reply to your letter, about his knowledge of me and about the future ownership of the Club.

Most of the information, I believe, would have stopped the comments on here but I will wait to see what is put on this forum by the Trust board

I'm going to give the Trust 24 hours to let you know what was said before I tell you as I have waited nearly 3 days for the Trust to come forward and to hear their comments so another day won't matter.

I hope they don't say they were waiting until your meeting on the 19th as that would not be at all credible. As that would have left you all posting things on here for 11 days without knowing the truth of the situation.

I know what was said and I have spoken to several people who were present about their opinions of the information given to the Trust Board members.

I have my own theories as to why you haven't been told but I will wait until the Board members have told you before I say any more.

What you will be told by either the Trust board or myself will mean many people on this forum are wrong about me and I believe Jim Rushe.

Northwich Victoria News wrote:

As you can see above I indicated I wanted an answer within 24 hrs but that was mainly to get someone to say something to stop the abuse I get on this forum. As that hasn't happened I would like to point out the following.

Above I have highlighted some of the text as they are the important parts. I have also pasted the James Wood reply. I have done this due to the fact instead of James indicating that I wasn't who or what several people had made me out to be on this forum he continued to insinuate that my objective was to divide the fan base and I had an agenda.

I am still unsure why James needed to set up a new thread instead of replying directly but when you read the highlighted pieces against each other you can see that he actually misquoted me then went on to continue to insinuate that I had other motives for asking for some sort of statement over who I am.

I think it is only fair that if the management of a forum, who have actively made negative comments about me with no foundation, get information about me indicating my innocence then they are duty bound to state the facts not continue the negative attitude.

If there were any reasons for not indicating information to do with Jim or the Club or the future ownership that is understandable but the information about me was given to the group to stop the abuse I get on this forum.

It was also given to show everything I am doing to get Northwich Victoria FC a new stadium and community facilities is legitimate and above board.

I would also clarify the following about the Chatham house rules

<strong>Q. Can participants in a meeting be named as long as what is said is not attributed?
A. It is important to think about the spirit of the Rule. For example, sometimes speakers need to be named when publicizing the meeting. The Rule is more about the dissemination of the information after the event - nothing should be done to identify, either explicitly or implicitly, who said what.</strong>

<strong>Q. Can I 'tweet' whilst at an event under the Chatham House Rule?
A. The Rule can be used effectively on social media sites such as Twitter as long as the person tweeting or messaging reports only what was said at an event and does not identify - directly or indirectly - the speaker or another participant. This consideration should always guide the way in which event information is disseminated - online as well as offline.
I have highlighted my point that this wasn't a secret meeting as James indicates that</strong>

The above was taken from www.chathamhouse.org/about-us/chathamhouserule

The rule is more about not indicating who was there not what was said and the information about me was intended to be utilised to clear up what and why I am doing the things I am.

I have the respect of my peers in all other areas I am involved in except a minority of this forum. I also have the respect of many fans of Northwich Victoria FC. I therefore expected the Board of this Trust to clarify things and not continue them as James has done below.

If you read the parts highlighted below you will see in the first part it is implied I said this was a secret meeting when in fact I said, as highlighted above, it wasn't a secret meeting. Why?

The other part I have highlighted below is the last paragraph which insinuates that I still have an agenda when James was told in clear terms at that meeting I had no agenda. I will leave you to your opinion of why that was posted.

As I said in my post above I just wanted someone to do the decent thing so the abuse on here can stop as they are in charge of this forum. They have obviously thought it wasn't important enough to deal with although I do feel my reputation is very important to me.

Therefore I can only observe that maintaining the illusion that I am somehow doing something wrong is in the best interests of the Trust or James himself. I make this point as the President had on Friday evening at the same time as my post made a statement to Andy Simpson, see the guardian on line, and therefore the Trust could have published my information as they knew of his statement but they didn't.

If you read my request it asks for some information to be published about me and it wasn't. I don't believe I was wrong to ask for it and hope the Board clarify things tonight or tomorrow so that the people attending the meeting tomorrow and the supporters meeting next week, who may be at tomorrows meeting, know what I am doing is in the best interests of Northwich Victoria FC even if it is the opposite of the Trusts own plans.

I will indicate true points about me after this post.

I hope someone in the Trust stops this farce as they should have done last week when I first asked them to.


<strong>James Wood statement on his thread - Meeting 8th May the Truth
</strong>
The Trust first became aware of the proposed meeting on the morning of Thursday 3 May. This was the same day as the ST / Open meeting that we held at Lostock Club.

The information that we were given was that the club President, Derek Nuttall, was trying to arrange a meeting of all interested parties to discuss the future of the club. However, at that time, the Trust was not aware of the purpose, agenda or proposed timing of this meeting.

In response to this, the Board decided to amend the presentation that we made to fans on the evening of 3 May. Hence, whilst we stated that we still believed that we could no longer work directly with Jim Rushe, "the door was always open" if he chose to approach us. This was articulated in the presentation I made that night and that many Vics fans present witnessed.

Over the weekend of 5/6 May, several e-mails were exchanged between various parties regarding the proposed meeting. As a result of these, it was eventually agreed to hold a meeting on the evening of Tuesday 8 May.

<strong>Despite what Mr McNally might suggest, this was not a ‘secret’ meeting. However, all present were of the opinion that, given the current circumstances regarding the future of the club, it would not be in the interests of any party to make the details of the discussions known at this moment in time. </strong>

Our view was that the meeting was to be held under ‘Chatham House Rules’ – i.e. that the detailed discussions would remain confidential but we would be able to report the generalities members of the Board and Trust.

On this basis and to be fair to him, Jim was quite candid on a number of points and it would be churlish of us not to acknowledge him for being so open on certain matters.

But given this, we will leave it to you to decide why Mr McNally has chosen to make the existence of this meeting known to all via this forum when those present had agreed to wait until an appropriate time to do so.

Since the meeting was held, a series of e-mails have been shared between most of those who were present at the meeting. The aim of this was to gain agreement regarding the outcome of the meeting and to share this to all fans. Whilst not everyone has provided their comments, from the responses we have so far received, we believe that the following is a fair and equitable summation of the facts;

“Last Tuesday evening, 8th May, a meeting was held at Wincham Community Centre by a number of parties, the purpose of which was to discuss the future of Northwich Victoria Football Club.

The event was organised and facilitated by the Club President, Derek Nuttall. Attendees included the Chairman of the Club, Jim Rushe, representatives of both Northwich Victoria Supporters Trust and Northwich Vics Juniors FC. In addition, also present were a number of former directors, long standing supporters - who have previously been involved in the ‘old’ Northwich Victoria Supporters Association and the Northwich Victoria Supporters Club - plus others who have the interest and well-being of the club at heart.

The meeting - which last just over 2 ½ hours – allowed all parties to air their views and opinions. Whilst the conversations were frank, candid and forthright at times, the meeting was held in an constructive , open and equitable manner.

All parties agreed that it had been a useful event and had helped to encourage and stimulate dialogue between those present. As a result, it has been agreed to organise a follow-up meeting and this will be held towards the end of the month”.

It was not the intention of the Supporters Trust to issue this statement as we believe that this ought to have been issued by the originator of the meeting, namely the Club President. Unfortunately, Mr McNally’s unhelpful and inappropriate intervention has somewhat forced our hand and we feel that we need to issue this statement now in order to clarify the current situation.

We also wish to make it known to all that The Trust Board met on the following evening (Wed 9 May) and, amongst other matters, discussed our planned way forward given the latest developments. The Board is again due to meet later today (Saturday) to further discuss the current situation with a view to formulating its view prior to the next advertised meeting of fans which is scheduled for Saturday 19 May.

<strong>In summary, despite his continued protestations that he has the best interests of Northwich Victoria Football Club at heart, it is clear to all that Mr McNally’s actions and deeds are having the opposite effect. In particular, his continued active opposition to the aims and objectives of the Supporters Trust - which is the only democratic and viable organisation that represents the true voice of the majority of fans – has confirmed to most supporters that his is completely out of touch with the widr fan-base and is acting on his own, yet unspecified, agenda.</strong>

I have the respect of my peers in all other areas I am involved in except a minority of this forum. ... I do feel my reputation is very important to me.

Northwich Victoria News wrote:
Oh my poor little scouse baby. Get yourself tucked up in bed; things will appear different in the morning.