John Bennett Withdraws from The Blue Knights Consortium

[caseyjones 0]

All I have done is state a fact.

 

John Bennett was one of a small number of people named as a member of the Blue Knights consortium, now he is not a member.

 

I think that is something that should be known but if anyone chooses to put a negative connotation on it that is obviously up to them.

 

I recognise that some will be equally unhappy that I have released this information but it will be published in the financial trade press soon enough, so will become public knowledge in any event.

 

It is simply the case that I was in a postion to find out as others such as Frankie and TB have been able to find out information about the bids and chose to publish here.

 

For me, it's not about stating facts or furnishing the support with information, it's the underhand way that you went about the whole thing.

[forlanssister 3,050]

I have had it confirmed to me today by the Head of Global Distribution at Henderson Global Investors (John Bennett's employers) that he is "no longer invloved in any way with the Blue Knights syndicate".

 

Apparently Mr Bennett only confirmed this to Henderson's last evening.

 

I have a call in to John Bennett himself but for the avoidance of doubt I have no reason to believe that his withdrawal is for anything other than business reasons to do with his employment as per my previous thread on this topic.

 

Congratulations you must be very,very proud of yourself.

[Frankie 8,148]

I still don't understand why you thought pressurising this guy was a good idea.

 

People can hold a variety of different directorships and not let it affect their 'day-job'.

[Guest John1872]

Sorry for being thick, but why have Rangers fans happily forced a member of The Blue Knights out of a consortium, when that goal is to help Rangers?

[Guest cadge_1959]

Why would a Rangers fan force him out?

[craig 5,195]

I think it is naive of us to think that BH forced him out. I dont think that is the case at all.

 

The only real issue I have with this is that BH published it, I think it should have been something kept to himself but even then John Bennett himself OK'd it to be released.

[forlanssister 3,050]

I still don't understand why you thought pressurising this guy was a good idea.

 

People can hold a variety of different directorships and not let it affect their 'day-job'.

 

As is ably demonstrated by Ian Livingston who manages to do an excellent job as CEO of BT whilst being a non-executive director across the city.

 

I wonder if a missive was sent to Sir Christopher Bland when Livingston took up his post across the city ? Any IFA is bound to have clients monies tied up in BT either directly or indirectly via trusts,bonds etc.

[Darthter 542]

From my reading of the original post...John Bennett was never 100% in!!! Details of his involvement were released by Paul Murray before he had fully committed.

 

I think folk have blown this completely out of proportion. BH had concerns of a professional nature which he addressed, and posted - with the full consent & knowledge of Mr Bennett.

[Frankie 8,148]

As is ably demonstrated by Ian Livingston who manages to do an excellent job as CEO of BT whilst being a non-executive director across the city.

 

I wonder if a missive was sent to Sir Christopher Bland when Livingston took up his post across the city ? Any IFA is bound to have clients monies tied up in BT either directly or indirectly via trusts,bonds etc.

 

I've not really followed this issue all that closely so hopefully BH can explain his reasoning.

[Guest John1872]

I think it is naive of us to think that BH forced him out. I dont think that is the case at all.

 

The only real issue I have with this is that BH published it, I think it should have been something kept to himself but even then John Bennett himself OK'd it to be released.

 

If I am getting the story right, I would say it's probably the worst thing I have ever read any Rangers fan doing outside violence.