Mr Fred Goodwin

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think he deserved to get his knighthood taken away. That said, is he the only one to be punished? Seems to me that they can't stop with him, or we'll start feeling sorry for the cynical barsteward.

Another thing, it seems that banks are like sportsmen - British when they are winning and Scottish when they are losing. The media seems to be focussing very much on RBS as the culprits in this whole affair, when, as any fule kno, all the banks were at it.

[easty]

I don't think he should have got a knighthood in the first place. I don't think he should have had it taken off him though.

He seems to have been made a scapegoat for the entire financial crisis. He was a man in a high powered job who didn't do it nearly well enough, and made costly mistakes. Perhaps that's a bit of an understatement, but it's not as if he was the only one who failed, and the way he's being attacked you'd think he was single handedly making every decision for the RBS. That's just not the case.

Will it bother Goodwin anyway? He's got enough (too much) money to pay everyone, in everyplace he goes for the rest of his life, to call him Sir Fred anyway. If there was a way of taking back some of that money, which he made in doing his job badly, I'd be all for that.

[s.a.m]

I don't think he should have got a knighthood in the first place. I don't think he should have had it taken off him though.

He seems to have been made a scapegoat for the entire financial crisis. He was a man in a high powered job who didn't do it nearly well enough, and made costly mistakes. Perhaps that's a bit of an understatement, but it's not as if he was the only one who failed, and the way he's being attacked you'd think he was single handedly making every decision for the RBS. That's just not the case.

Will it bother Goodwin anyway? He's got enough (too much) money to pay everyone, in everyplace he goes for the rest of his life, to call him Sir Fred anyway. If there was a way of taking back some of that money, which he made in doing his job badly, I'd be all for that.

:agree:

[steakbake]

It exposes the rank idiocy of the knighthoods and the honours system.

All this hoo-haa about whether Goodwin has a wee medal from the Queen or not distracts from real issues. It gets the politicians off the hook, deflects the questions and the attention. It's all smoke and mirrors bull****, frankly.

I couldn't care less about whether he has a medal from Betty W. What are we going to do now we've got it back? Take it to a pawn shop and reinvest the money back into the national debt?

[lapsedhibee]

I don't think he should have got a knighthood in the first place. I don't think he should have had it taken off him though.

He seems to have been made a scapegoat for the entire financial crisis. He was a man in a high powered job who didn't do it nearly well enough, and made costly mistakes. Perhaps that's a bit of an understatement, but it's not as if he was the only one who failed, and the way he's being attacked you'd think he was single handedly making every decision for the RBS. That's just not the case.

Will it bother Goodwin anyway? He's got enough (too much) money to pay everyone, in everyplace he goes for the rest of his life, to call him Sir Fred anyway. If there was a way of taking back some of that money, which he made in doing his job badly, I'd be all for that.

:agree: FG=:asshole: , but the scapegoating is pathetic.

[Dashing Bob S]

He's an obnoxious, deluded, money-grabbing shyster, but it's time to let go and just accept the fact that he chose St Mirren over us.

[Hibs Class]

I think he deserved to get his knighthood taken away. That said, is he the only one to be punished? Seems to me that they can't stop with him, or we'll start feeling sorry for the cynical barsteward.

Another thing, it seems that banks are like sportsmen - British when they are winning and Scottish when they are losing. The media seems to be focussing very much on RBS as the culprits in this whole affair, when, as any fule kno, all the banks were at it.

To be fair, the Salmond view was that they were Scottish when they were winning (and remember he also offered personal support on the ABN-AMRO deal) and they then failed because of short-comings in London regulation. In other words everyone will spin it in a way that suits their own agenda.

[GhostofBolivar]

Jeffrey Archer...
Conrad Black....
Gerald Ronson...

The government had a ready made scapegoat and the need to make a populist move.

[CropleyWasGod]

:agree: FG=:asshole: , but the scapegoating is pathetic.

Is he an asshole, though?

"He" (ie RBS) made one mistake....the takeover of ABN-AMRO, without proper due diligence. Admittedly, it was a huge mistake, but don't forget that Barclays were also in for ABN. The week that RBS announced their enormous loss, Barclay's announced record profits. There but for the grace of God etc etc....

"He" was only playing the system.

[Speedy]

It exposes the rank idiocy of the knighthoods and the honours system.

All this hoo-haa about whether Goodwin has a wee medal from the Queen or not distracts from real issues. It gets the politicians off the hook, deflects the questions and the attention. It's all smoke and mirrors bull****, frankly.
I couldn't care less about whether he has a medal from Betty W. What are we going to do now we've got it back? Take it to a pawn shop and reinvest the money back into the national debt?

This, imo.

[RyeSloan]

I don't think he should have got a knighthood in the first place. I don't think he should have had it taken off him though.

He seems to have been made a scapegoat for the entire financial crisis. He was a man in a high powered job who didn't do it nearly well enough, and made costly mistakes. Perhaps that's a bit of an understatement, but it's not as if he was the only one who failed, and the way he's being attacked you'd think he was single handedly making every decision for the RBS. That's just not the case.

Will it bother Goodwin anyway? He's got enough (too much) money to pay everyone, in everyplace he goes for the rest of his life, to call him Sir Fred anyway. If there was a way of taking back some of that money, which he made in doing his job badly, I'd be all for that.

Good post. It's conveniently forgotten that RBS shareholders had to approve the ABN deal...this certainly turned out to be turkeys voting for Christmas to be an every day event but none the less the ultimate decision lay with them not Fred.

Salmond at least was honest enough to admit he had made a mistake backing the takeover and made a very good comment that few people at the time could have envisaged the scale of the credit crunch that was to come.

So it does seem almost petty to strip Fred of his title but none the less I’m not going to be shedding any tears for him.

[Stonewall]

Is he an asshole, though?

"He" (ie RBS) made one mistake....the takeover of ABN-AMRO, without proper due diligence. Admittedly, it was a huge mistake, but don't forget that Barclays were also in for ABN. The week that RBS announced their enormous loss, Barclay's announced record profits. There but for the grace of God etc etc....

"He" was only playing the system.

Well the American Banks they took over had a high exposure to the sub-prime motgage market and RBS's expansion was wrecklessly fast.

Don't like the fact he's being made a scapegoat but his bully boy behaviour, hubris and lack of contrition over what happened made him an obvious target.


I have a suspicion that deep down he does not think he did anything wrong.

[Andy74]

Well the American Banks they took over had a high exposure to the sub-prime motgage market and RBS's expansion was wrecklessly fast.

Don't like the fact he's being made a scapegoat but his bully boy behaviour, hubris and lack of contrition over what happened made him an obvious target.


I have a suspicion that deep down he does not think he did anything wrong.

It depends what you mean by wrong.

He's been cleared of anything criminal or even egligent really. The decisions which were made need to be seen in the light of what was known at the time, the regulatory environment and what was going on in the market.

Pension schemes and investors were encouraging the banks to take more risks and make more money for them, punters wanted houses and cars they couldn't afford usually and Fred was one of many people running a bank within the confines of the market he was operating in.

The ABN Amro deal left RBS, eventually, open with the capital it had used on the deal and the assets that came with it. At the time of the deal though, the shareholders backed it, the advisors backed it, the rating agencies backed it.

A fair bit has been made of the due diligence. It was a hostile takeover of a public company and their trading information was out there - in the hostile situation RBS couldn't have got more detail and this is where the analyst and rating agency advice comes in.

Fred's style didn't suit everyone and he was difficult to work with but a scapegoat he certainly is.

The knighthood things is a jok anyway, but taking it away is just as big a joke.

Its been shown that he played a part in making some bad decsions, which was also only clear with hindsight. Previously he had been very succesful and led the biggest UK banking takeover when RBS tok NatWest, it was a very succesful and well executed deal and integration.

Do sportsmen get theirs taken away when they make a mess the next time and come last instead of getting gold? Doubt it.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Is he an asshole, though?

"He" (ie RBS) made one mistake....the takeover of ABN-AMRO, without proper due diligence. Admittedly, it was a huge mistake, but don't forget that Barclays were also in for ABN. The week that RBS announced their enormous loss, Barclay's announced record profits. There but for the grace of God etc etc....

"He" was only playing the system.

Kind of like saying the captain of the Titanic only made one mistake, though.


Well the American Banks they took over had a high exposure to the sub-prime motgage market and RBS's expansion was wrecklessly fast.

Don't like the fact he's being made a scapegoat but his bully boy behaviour, hubris and lack of contrition over what happened made him an obvious target.


I have a suspicion that deep down he does not think he did anything wrong.

I have a suspicion that deep down he doesn't know right from wrong. However, he has been a patsy to a large extent. People who knew better, let this amatuer continue to bulldoze ahead, safe in the knowledge that if he succeeded, they would be better off for it, and if he failed, their reputations would be intact.

How can the FSA escape from this unscathed? Not only did they fail to act to ensure that banks behaved correctly, but they have been part of a whitewash of the whole business. Only in Britain could such massive cock ups occur and no one is held to blame. I don't sleep any easier with the information that "lessons have been learned".

[CropleyWasGod]

As someone in the Guardian said today, Fred's biggest mistake was not being a major donor to a political party.

[heretoday]

The whole thing is a mess of hypocrisy as usual.

[Big Ed]

It depends what you mean by wrong.

He's been cleared of anything criminal or even egligent really. The decisions which were made need to be seen in the light of what was known at the time, the regulatory environment and what was going on in the market.

Pension schemes and investors were encouraging the banks to take more risks and make more money for them, punters wanted houses and cars they couldn't afford usually and Fred was one of many people running a bank within the confines of the market he was operating in.

The ABN Amro deal left RBS, eventually, open with the capital it had used on the deal and the assets that came with it. At the time of the deal though, the shareholders backed it, the advisors backed it, the rating agencies backed it.

A fair bit has been made of the due diligence. It was a hostile takeover of a public company and their trading information was out there - in the hostile situation RBS couldn't have got more detail and this is where the analyst and rating agency advice comes in.

Fred's style didn't suit everyone and he was difficult to work with but a scapegoat he certainly is.

The knighthood things is a jok anyway, but taking it away is just as big a joke.

Its been shown that he played a part in making some bad decsions, which was also only clear with hindsight. Previously he had been very succesful and led the biggest UK banking takeover when RBS tok NatWest, it was a very succesful and well executed deal and integration.

Do sportsmen get theirs taken away when they make a mess the next time and come last instead of getting gold? Doubt it.

In 2004, Fred Goodwin was knighted for" Services to Banking". In 2008 the UK Treasury had to meet with managers from his bank over a weekend in early October, because they wouldn't be able to open for business on the Monday morning, culminating in what is now widely referred to as the largest corporate collapse in UK history.
I know that he has been made a scapegoat; but he managed to do a bit more damage than coming last in the 100 metres.

[easty]

I know that he has been made a scapegoat; but he managed to do a bit more damage than coming last in the 100 metres.

But what you're doing is making him the scapegoat for the RBS as a whole. There was more than one player in this game who got things wrong.

So if we're comparing it to any kind of race then, rather than the 100m, surely it's a case of the 4x100m relay, all of them run a terrible race but the blame is thrown completely at the guy who ran the last leg of it.

[ancienthibby]

But what you're doing is making him the scapegoat for the RBS as a whole. There was more than one player in this game who got things wrong.

So if we're comparing it to any kind of race then, rather than the 100m, surely it's a case of the 4x100m relay, all of them run a terrible race but the blame is thrown completely at the guy who ran the last leg of it.

Don't think so at all.

FG was always going to become a cropper at RBS. Why? Because as all the investigations and leaked information show this was a man who was on a monumental ego trip. A man unqualified for his job. A man who served his (weak) Board with a distinct lack of information. A man who knew the gross weaknesses of his Chairman (a token Scot, but unqualified) and who manipulated the information provided to the Board. And a man who paid £46 billion for another Bank valued at £6 billion.

There is no escape clause for FG.

The stripping of his knighthood at least provides some justice for tens of thousands of private shareholders who saw the value of their shareholding cut by what? 90%??

And the world-wide recession did all this??

DO NOT THINK SO!

[CropleyWasGod]

Don't think so at all.

FG was always going to become a cropper at RBS. Why? Because as all the investigations and leaked information show this was a man who was on a monumental ego trip. A man unqualified for his job. A man who served his (weak) Board with a distinct lack of information. A man who knew the gross weaknesses of his Chairman (a token Scot, but unqualified) and who manipulated the information provided to the Board. And a man who paid £46 billion for another Bank valued at £6 billion.

There is no escape clause for FG.

The stripping of his knighthood at least provides some justice for tens of thousands of private shareholders who saw the value of their shareholding cut by what? 90%??

And the world-wide recession did all this??

DO NOT THINK SO!

And what about "his" successes? Like the take-over of NatWest, the biggest corporate deal in UK history.

[Phil D. Rolls]

And what about "his" successes? Like the take-over of NatWest, the biggest corporate deal in UK history.

All stoked his ego to the extent that he thought he was untouchable?

[Andy74]

Don't think so at all.

FG was always going to become a cropper at RBS. Why? Because as all the investigations and leaked information show this was a man who was on a monumental ego trip. A man unqualified for his job. A man who served his (weak) Board with a distinct lack of information. A man who knew the gross weaknesses of his Chairman (a token Scot, but unqualified) and who manipulated the information provided to the Board. And a man who paid £46 billion for another Bank valued at £6 billion.

There is no escape clause for FG.

The stripping of his knighthood at least provides some justice for tens of thousands of private shareholders who saw the value of their shareholding cut by what? 90%??

And the world-wide recession did all this??

DO NOT THINK SO!

From first hand knowledge most of that, if not all of it is media fed nonsense!

[ancienthibby]

[QUOTE=CropleyWasGod;3100271]And what about "his" successes? Like the take-over of NatWest, the biggest corporate deal in UK history.

[/QUOT

Success at the time utterly and totally obliterated by his humongous failure with the Amro takeover.

Remember this, what was gained with these early take-overs became a drop in the bucket after the horrendous error his ego allowed him to make with Amro.

How does £12 translate to 59 pence with you??

[Andy74]

In 2004, Fred Goodwin was knighted for" Services to Banking". In 2008 the UK Treasury had to meet with managers from his bank over a weekend in early October, because they wouldn't be able to open for business on the Monday morning, culminating in what is now widely referred to as the largest corporate collapse in UK history.
I know that he has been made a scapegoat; but he managed to do a bit more damage than coming last in the 100 metres.

If they can't be compared it shows how daft the syatem is. People get knighted just for winning the 100 metres.

[Leicester Fan]

The whole thing is a mess of hypocrisy as usual.

:agree:

Just wait until after the next election when Gordon Brown is made a Lord.

[ancienthibby]

:agree:

Just wait until after the next election when Gordon Brown is made a Lord.

Just why on earth would the next Conservative Government do such a thing??:aok:

[Big Ed]

But what you're doing is making him the scapegoat for the RBS as a whole. There was more than one player in this game who got things wrong.

So if we're comparing it to any kind of race then, rather than the 100m, surely it's a case of the 4x100m relay, all of them run a terrible race but the blame is thrown completely at the guy who ran the last leg of it.

He was CEO. His style of management is widely reported to be dictatorial. It has also been documented that he aggressively dealt with any dissent in the boardroom. Ultimately he has to take the blame for the collapse of RBS.

[lapsedhibee]

Is he an asshole, though?
It was widely said, before his humungous-scale successes and failures, that there were two sorts of people in the world of banking: Those who thought Fred Goodwin was a complete and utter ****; and those who hadn't yet met him.

So aye! :wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

It was widely said, before his humungous-scale successes and failures, that there were two sorts of people in the world of banking: Those who thought Fred Goodwin was a complete and utter ****; and those who hadn't yet met him.

So aye! :wink:

:faf:

[bighairyfaeleith]

I don't think anyone is trying to defend goodwin, however I think we need to maintain some of our values and not have a witch hunt against one man. Will people be happy when he is found hanging from a rope in his house?

I have no idea what type of person goodwin is and I genuinely hope never have to find out, however this country needs to move on and concentrate on the future, and fred aint it!!

Not suggesting anyone here wants him dead by the way, I'm just not so sure about where the press will stop with this one now they smell blood, in many ways this is a perfect event for both the press and the politicians as it distracts from both the current news corp scandal and the banking bonuses season that nobody is dealing with.

I just wish we would deal with the things that actually matter, leave the outcast st mirren fan to play with himself in his mansion.