John Bennett Withdraws from The Blue Knights Consortium

[Darthter 542]

A quote from Paul Murray from when John Bennett was named:

 

“I also did not want to publicly name individuals until everyone was entirely happy."

Source: DR 12/03/12

 

Total contrary to John Bennett's stance!!!

[Darthter 542]

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

 

Original thread....

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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 respect the fact that you are entitled to your opinion as are others who are expressing similar views but the facts are that John Bennett's involvement with TBK's was public knowledge on 12 March 2012 http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/hendersons-bennett-joins-blue-knights-to-ride-to-rangers-rescue/a573594 (and in the Daily Record) and I first contacted Hendersons on 14 March 2012. I published the letter in full on the original thread. John Bennett phoned me on 16 March 2012. Phil Wagstaff first phoned me on 13 April 2012 when he said that it was important that Mr Bennett made his position clear one way or another. He followed up with the comments I reported today.

 

So if anyone waited "until the bidding process was a in position to highlight if TBK's were succesfull" it certainly was not me.

[Guest PortGlasgow]

Original thread....

 

Apologies Darther, I can only see Alan Harris' comments. A gentleman I don't know personally, but up until now, is not doing too well on the trust worthy front.

 

What is more believable is JB giving his permission to Alan, to assure present fund investors was 100% focussed and wouldn't be distracted by any involvement with TBK. Then again who knows, we only have one man's side of the conversation.

[Darthter 542]

Apologies Darther, I can only see Alan Harris' comments. A gentleman I don't know personally, but up until now, is not doing too well on the trust worthy front.

 

you obviously missed this line then:

I told him that I would be posting details of the conversation on Gersnet this evening and he agreed

[bossy 0]

you obviously missed this line then:

 

 

Should that not be 'allegedly agreed'?

 

Or, alternatively ....

 

'According to BH he agreed'.

 

Not suggesting that BH is telling porkies of course. But in the absence of any corroboration it is always better to be prudent.

[bossy 0]

Apologies Darther, I can only see Alan Harris' comments. A gentleman I don't know personally, but up until now, is not doing too well on the trust worthy front.

 

What is more believable is JB giving his permission to Alan, to assure present fund investors was 100% focussed and wouldn't be distracted by any involvement with TBK. Then again who knows, we only have one man's side of the conversation.

 

I think it perfectly reasonable that, in his professional capacity, BH would not want Mr. Bennett to have any outside distractions. There are not many who have the ability, as BH has, to hold down two important roles at the same time.

[MoodyBlue 0]

I respect the fact that you are entitled to your opinion as are others who are expressing similar views but the facts are that John Bennett's involvement with TBK's was public knowledge on 12 March 2012 http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/hendersons-bennett-joins-blue-knights-to-ride-to-rangers-rescue/a573594 (and in the Daily Record) and I first contacted Hendersons on 14 March 2012. I published the letter in full on the original thread. John Bennett phoned me on 16 March 2012. Phil Wagstaff first phoned me on 13 April 2012 when he said that it was important that Mr Bennett made his position clear one way or another. He followed up with the comments I reported today.

 

So if anyone waited "until the bidding process was a in position to highlight if TBK's were succesfull" it certainly was not me.

 

at fund management level I have big contacts in JPMAM, Close, Aberdeen as well as industry contacts at HL, Fidelity and many others. You sir have put personal issues ahead of the Rangers. That is what is unacceptable.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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

 

As I stated in the original thread it is a fact that I had John Bennett's agreement to post his comments.

 

It is also a fact that he asked me not to say that he was actually withdrawing at that point because he wanted to speak to PM first. I agreed that that was reasonable, so I withheld that information. I fully expected him to make his position clear once he had spoken to PM but he did not.

[MoodyBlue 0]

I think it perfectly reasonable that, in his professional capacity, BH would not want Mr. Bennett to have any outside distractions. There are not many who have the ability, as BH has, to hold down two important roles at the same time.

 

Does Harris think that his 'clients' are happy with the positions he has held in recent years. Are they not a 'distraction'??