The problem is, their getting out could well involve liquidation.
Their past track record in similar situations says liquidation is the step if they fail to get what they want (whatever that is!);
The wider consequences for any other investments they have says that liquidation would be the preferred option if they don't get what they want. Negotiating positions only work if the threat is real.
From their POV the bigger picture requires risk of a loss to gain profits, and that also includes what happens to our club once they've decided they've exhausted all avenues.
Now, as I said above, ever since the dark, tedious days of McGinnity's unofficial administration, this club has been cancer-ridden, hopeless and staggering around like a drunken loon stripping at kareoke. Liquidation might be a good thing.
For those who do feel that (like me), there's an obvious option. For those who have had enough, there's a natural option to take.
All I ask is the potential consequences are thought through. If it's a risk people think worth taking, then they should of course do what they think is right. As I said, the burden of proof is on them to show they will actually build a stadium, not for me to take it on trust, so I'm not going. Plus it's just not fun, and supporting a team's supposed to be fun in some sense, even if they lose a lot!
And whatever happens, if the club comes back we need that bounce to be as big as possible, if the club dies we need its replacement to have the best chance of success possible... and both those options are more likely if we haven't backed one side or another into a corner.