If he wants to guarantee his continuing involvement he can take over the club, but it is pretty obvious he lacks the finances to do so. He could which happens quite often negotiate with a new owner to stay in situ for a period after the takeover.
The problem is we have one motivated seller plus a club in need of a motivated buyer with the finances necessary and one who wants to stay in place. We cannot go on the way we are because with or without relegation the club has been starved of cash for many years.
I am sorry but at the end of the day the club’s survival is bigger than any one individual. I would point out he is not the majority shareholder so I suppose he could be out voted by the others because it will come to this at some point, hopefully soon.

That's not true.
No one who 'wants' to stay in place at all.

All shareholders have said multiple times they will sell their shares for nothing and not call in their loan.

It is other people who are saying Minards should stay and he has said he would,maybe, in some capacity, if Ellis wanted him to.

If it is some supporters who think he should stay then fine because it would not be in their gift to do so. I guess time will tell if they get their wish.

Just out of a matter of interest…
If Matt Ellis decides he wants a clean slate and bring a fresh team in(which could be a good thing) who do you think would be a good fit for the positions…?

I think Matt Ellis could run rings around everyone on this forum in business matters, his track record proved that. Therefore I would be happy with anyone he decides to bring in.
AS for John Minards, the guy has done his shift for the club and like Micheal Carter he should move on.

You could say the same about Glover, Ted, Pearman and the rest. All were better businessmen than me but all left the club in dire straits.

Being able to run your own business is not the same as running a rugby club.

Just to be clear. No IF.
Anyone at the meeting will tell you how it is.

Stockholm Syndrome ?

Just reporting what was said. If you want to believe the world is flat you are free to do so.

Well I can’t argue with the two top lines of that sentence.. it would appear he’s been watching the money pile up and has some to spend..and so with that in mind i am sure he will pick someone with a similar track record…. Someone with proven ability to run a sports club would be preferable. That choice will be his of course…

Just suggesting that the room that JM was addressing was perhaps the most JM friendly audience you could possibly imagine. These were the much appreciated and valued supporters who put hands in their pockets and handed over cash money and huge kudos to them. That said they are not, I would suggest, a representative viewpoint of a wider cross section of the fan base. It would be like Jeremy Corbyn going for a pint in the Red Shed and presenting the case for Trade Union Membership. If JM had stood up at Mondays meeting and advised that he was going to remain in charge, that the rest of the board had gifted him their shares, that the club was going part time and asking permission to be relegated to The National Conference then Monday nights audience would have given their JM a standing ovation.

You seem to have the opinion that the majority of fans are just a bunch of sheep, unable to think for themselves and just toe the party line. How wrong you are, the people in that meeting room were level headed, intelligent and asked searching questions to JM, he did not treat us as serfs, and gave honest answers to honest questions. If you didn’t attend that meeting then don’t assume you know how it went. Just suggesting you don’t really know what you’re taking about.

Absolutely. There were some very awkward questions asked and feedback given.

Give over will you, Matt Ellis has not get control yet, give the bloke a chance before you start having doubts about his ability. Caddick,Lennigan,Moran etc had never run rugby clubs before either !!! Don't see any of their clubs being in Dire Straits.

As for Pearman, don't make me laugh, that bloke was not a business man, just a dodgy civil servant.

But he hasn't taken over and you think he'll be great? How is that different?

All I'm explaining is why a business does due diligence. Thay way both parties are aware of what they are getting and are then prepared. It's for Ellis too.

And when those other people took over their clubs, they would have gone through a due diligence process.

If Glover, Richardson or Pearman suddenly won the lottery, would you hand the club to them without question?