John Bennett Withdraws from The Blue Knights Consortium

[craig 5,199]

As an aside, I am playing devil's advocate more than anything here - I dont think BH should have released his information.

[Guest BdTS]

Bennett was never actually confirmed as being a member of TBK. Perhaps some fingers should be pointed at Paul Murray for suggesting he was without getting such confirmation from Bennett himself first.

 

Craig,

 

None of this matters.

 

What was the motivation/intention of the OP for doing this is the key question on here and elsewhere.

 

The only thing that could be achieved from this is disruption of TBK's bid....and even if it has no effect at all, just what was the motivation?

 

WHY did the OP feel the need to do these things?

[Frankie 8,169]

It was too late as he had already went over his head and informed his boss.

 

Then his boss should have said do one.

[Guest laudrup]

OP has used his position and influence to undermine Mr Bennett and his potential involvement in TBK's. He has not had the decency to speak to Mr Bennett first and went directly to his boss, which is pretty low. This could jepordise TBK bid at a time we need every bid we can get, regardless of favourites. All in the quest to achieve what is his 'vision' for a future Rangers. Selfish, underhand and detrimental to Rangers' future. Cannot fathom why a Rangers 'fan' would do such a thing.

[craig 5,199]

Craig,

 

None of this matters.

 

What was the motivation/intention of the OP for doing this is the key question on here and elsewhere.

 

The only thing that could be achieved from this is disruption of TBK's bid....and even if it has no effect at all, just what was the motivation?

 

WHY did the OP feel the need to do these things?

 

The way I see this personally is as follows :

 

The original intent by BH was to get clarification that his clients' invested funds would not be negatively impacted by Bennett's involvement in TBK. It wasnt necessarily a "Rangers question". And for that I dont really have an issue with what BH did because I think he has that obligation to his clients funds to ensure that they are getting the best fund manager they can - it was, in essence, financial planning on his client's behalf. If JB was going to be heavily involved and, by extension, less involved in his fund management job, then BH would have a decision to make on whether to recommend his clients stay with JB's fund.

 

And trust me, decisions on clients funds DO get made based on fund managers and what they are doing. My company have fired fund managers because they have changed how they operate or have taken a step back from the day to day - it is the manager himself that generates the returns so decisions get made based on people, not the organisation.

 

Where it all falls down, for me, is that IMHO BH should never have brought it into public view - it was an issue for his clients and him as their IFA - he had no reason to tell the wider Rangers support about it.

 

Again, only my opinion. I still dont think that BH's actions alone caused Bennett to withdraw.

[Guest BdTS]

The way I see this personally is as follows :

 

The original intent by BH was to get clarification that his clients' invested funds would not be negatively impacted by Bennett's involvement in TBK. It wasnt necessarily a "Rangers question". And for that I dont really have an issue with what BH did because I think he has that obligation to his clients funds to ensure that they are getting the best fund manager they can - it was, in essence, financial planning on his client's behalf. If JB was going to be heavily involved and, by extension, less involved in his fund management job, then BH would have a decision to make on whether to recommend his clients stay with JB's fund.

 

And trust me, decisions on clients funds DO get made based on fund managers and what they are doing. My company have fired fund managers because they have changed how they operate or have taken a step back from the day to day - it is the manager himself that generates the returns so decisions get made based on people, not the organisation.

 

Where it all falls down, for me, is that IMHO BH should never have brought it into public view - it was an issue for his clients and him as their IFA - he had no reason to tell the wider Rangers support about it.

 

Again, only my opinion. I still dont think that BH's actions alone caused Bennett to withdraw.

 

 

Fair comment Craig.

 

John Bennett could be involved in a variety of side business deals now, he could be involved in some one week, one month, one year from now that Alan may never catch wind of.

 

Given Bennett's line of work, business deals on the side are inevitable in my opinion.

 

For me, this has been about proving a point, flexing muscle.

[MoodyBlue 0]

Who the hell doe the OP think he is ??!!!

 

As selfish a move as I have ever seen from any bear on any board. Ridiculous !!!

[capstans 0]

If I read this right the OP's original gripe was effect on his clients business he writes to JB's boss complaining and is back again showing off his success at the expense of TBK's it is little wonder the divisions that exist with this shameless nonsense.

[RFC_Falkirk 0]

I'm sure you're very proud of yourself. Taking the matter up with the guy's boss is a very poor thing to do, as well as posting it to the public.

 

Surely you could have spoken with the guy one-to-one first? Or would that not get you the attention you so desperately crave?

[GovanAllan 0]

I'm sure you're very proud of yourself. Taking the matter up with the guy's boss is a very poor thing to do, as well as posting it to the public.

 

Surely you could have spoken with the guy one-to-one first? Or would that not get you the attention you so desperately crave?

 

He did speak with the guy first, he went over his head after that.