You do not believe that an English football club can be run by a committee. There was no suggestion that there was going to be a board consisting of more people than on an average club board. The fact that the plan was for 12 Holdings shareholders was no indication that either the Holdings or 1921 board was to consist of an overwhelming number of members.

The bottom 6 budget is from EFL statistics released to the clubs and has been acknowledged by Nigel Clibbens on several occasions including today. The 1921 Chief Executive does not tell lies.

Overall you do not address the known facts as detailed in my previous post because they demolish your argument about the well-being of the club being better catered for by the current incumbents than the consortium. The current Holdings ownership has been in place since 29th October 2009 when David Allen left. No Holdings shares have changed hands since David Allen gave his shares to Andrew Jenkins. It is a fact that the Holdings directors have performed utterly dismally. In 2015 an alternative ownership was ready. This consisted of thoroughly well-tested business people with impeccable records in terms of performance and ethics. Everything that they touch turns into gold, whereas everything that the current Holdings board members touch turns into a somewhat softer substance.

Clearly there is no proof of what sort of performance the consortium would have delivered, had it taken over. We can only presume what that performance would have been, given the formidable expertise of the consortium in a wide variety of directorship / ownership roles in a wide variety of businesses. But we do have conclusive evidence of the performance of the incumbents. Thus, weighing total abject long term failure of the incumbents against null data about the consortium's performance we have to conclude that the consortium owning the club would have been the only sensible choice not only for the club but also personally for the outgoing Holdings shareholders. When weighing the certainty of ongoing failure against the possibility of failure the better option could not be more clear.