John Bennett Withdraws from The Blue Knights Consortium

[Zappa 0]

It is unfortunate that either thread on this bizzare subject has been allowed to see the light of day.

 

Have to agree with you and I said that I thought this shouldn't have been made public on the previous thread, but this forum doesn't pull/delete controversial threads.

 

BH had his own reasons for doing what he did and he posted information/details about it here for his own reasons too. It was his prerogative.

[MoodyBlue 0]

Have to agree with you and I said that I thought this shouldn't have been made public on the previous thread, but this forum doesn't pull/delete controversial threads.

 

BH had his own reasons for doing what he did and he posted information/details about it here for his own reasons too. It was his prerogative.

He has carried this out for selfish reasons. Not for the good of the club. When we are looking for unity this self centered attitude stinks mate.

[Darthter 542]

Can I just refer back to BH's original post on this subject.

 

Comments from John Bennett:

He told me that he fully understood my concerns. He said that “he was one of the parties to have expressed an interest” in the consortium but that his name had been quoted by PM “early”.

 

He had “looked at the complexities in terms of the management (of Rangers) and had had time to study what was required”. In his opinion it would require a “full-time commitment” and that was “not something that he was able to offer”.

 

To me this says a helluva lot!!!! Here is a guy who had not even confirmed his commitment to the consortium, and has stated that he would not be able to commit the time required. Yet just over a month later, folk on here are up in arms saying that BH has driven a member to quit the BK's - which could be the downfall of the whole bid.

 

I think folk need to calm down and look at the bigger picture. This was a guy who was quoted by the head of the BK's consortium as being a "Big Hitter" and a key player. Has John Bennett's name been mentioned either in the media or from Paul Murray since??? Then folk wonder why there are delays with his bid - he can't even get the members of his team sorted!!! I stand by my view that the information contained in these threads paints a more worrying picture of the BK's than it does of BH.

 

For the record....I have never met BH, and have no idea who he is!!!

 

I will also repeat an earlier question: Do we really want folk who aren't committed to the club to be in a position of power/control???

[bossy 0]

There may be many reasons for the withdrawal of Mr. Bennett from the BK consortium and that withdrawal may not necessarily mean that he is not willing to invest in a share issue down the road. I am sure there are many of us who have turned down opportunities because we did not feel we had the time to do them properly. It is, therefore, gratifying to know that BH is able to perform his role as Chair of Supporters Direct in Scotland while giving his undivided attention to the financial interests of his clients. Further, we should be grateful to his remarkable insight in realising that Mr. Bennet would be unable to do the same for his clients. Clearly, Mr Bennett is not made of the same metal as BH.

 

I must also applaud BH for his tenacity in contacting Mr. Bennett's employer and especially realising the importance of going over Mr. Bennett's head when needed. After all, Mr. Bennett may not have realised the risk he was taking and I am sure that BH has, to a certain extent, saved him from himself. We are, indeed, fortunate that BH gave a full account of his actions on here. Otherwise, we might still be in the dark about what kind of person he is.

[Guest Nacho's his name]

After I've had a few hours to digest it I think it's right they weren't deleted too

 

I don't mean to belittle Mr Harris but it's right our support get more transparency, we don't need factions, splinter groups or individuals who seemingly have influence which are harmful. I just can't understand why he'd contact his boss, it's timmy like

edit: I'm in favour of part supporter ownership but stories like this worry me what it'd be like if it didn't have proper governance.

 

Have to agree with you and I said that I thought this shouldn't have been made public on the previous thread, but this forum doesn't pull/delete controversial threads.

 

BH had his own reasons for doing what he did and he posted information/details about it here for his own reasons too. It was his prerogative.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Nacho's his name

[capstans 0]

Darther You need to take a good look at yourself and get a dose of reality while you are at it.

Edited April 24, 2012 by capstans

[Guest PortGlasgow]

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.

 

This post absolutely disgust's me, you contacted Phil Wagstaff (his Boss) and, behind Mr Bennett's back, informed on his involvement in TBK. More than likely before Bennett discussed this openly with his anyone at Henderson, potentially waiting until the bidding process was a in position to highlight if TBK's were succesfull. I can only imagine the smirk on your face when you put the phone down on Wagstaff

 

I'm not sure what's more cringe worthy, you going behind his back to his boss or rushing onto a football forum and bragging about it.

[Darthter 542]

Darther You need to take a good look at yourself and get a dose of reality while you are at it.

 

I am being realistic - The Blue Knights consortium appears to be held together with Blu-tac - JB's involvement shows this. They will not progress with their bid.

 

The info that BH has posted - with the permission, agreement & knowledge of JB - has highlighted flaws & mis-information from the BK's group. He has not done anything underhanded IMHO, and has posted this information for everyone's benefit.

 

Does anyone know what role JB had within the consortium??? What his input would have been???? All anyone would have known was whatever PM felt like telling!!! BH's info has highlighted a serious weak link in the BK's. It has also raised the question (with me anyway) - How committed are the other members???

[54andcounting 0]

I've been on Gersnet for about a year and a half now and have always found BH to be a sound and decent type, but what do I know.

Edited April 24, 2012 by 54andcounting

[Guest PortGlasgow]

I am being realistic - The Blue Knights consortium appears to be held together with Blu-tac - JB's involvement shows this. They will not progress with their bid.

 

The info that BH has posted - with the permission, agreement & knowledge of JB - has highlighted flaws & mis-information from the BK's group. He has not done anything underhanded IMHO, and has posted this information for everyone's benefit.

 

Does anyone know what role JB had within the consortium??? What his input would have been???? All anyone would have known was whatever PM felt like telling!!! BH's info has highlighted a serious weak link in the BK's. It has also raised the question (with me anyway) - How committed are the other members???

 

Sorry I've missed John Bennett's contribution on this thread, not that it really matters but can you confirm how you know this?