John B Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 So why did they want their SFC money http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8037233.stm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St.Patrik Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Becasue they have share-holders who wants to make a profit on their invested money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graffito Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 So they continue to demonstrate their commitment to football as proud sponsors of the premier league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsash saint Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 So why did they want their SFC money http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8037233.stm. Because last time I looked, Barclays were not a registered charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 7 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Because last time I looked, Barclays were not a registered charity. Yes but banks make money by lending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Yes but banks make money by lending Hope so, have a meet with mine tomorrow, will of course cite their performance when doing an Oliver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Yes but banks make money by lending ....to people who can pay it back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wopper Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Yes but banks make money by lending Not to nutters they dont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintDonkey Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 To be honest it is still odd that they called in the overdraft. If it was consistantly rising I could understand it but by all accounts it had been cut by 2 million over the course of last season. By forcing SLH into administration they've more or less guaranteed that they'll lose money as it's unlikely they'll be paid back in full, but there was at least a chance of that if they hadn't called it in. So by calling in the overdraft they've cost themselves money and dented their reputation in the world of football. So why did they do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfurdent Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 So by calling in the overdraft they've cost themselves money and dented their reputation in the world of football. So why did they do it? Because they could, someone has to pay for the mess the banks are in and the stress on the poor investment bankers who might get reduced bonuses Me, I've stopped using my Barclaycard and gone back to Amex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowgli Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Call me a cynic but the tenuous connection between the bank manager who approved the loan and Leon Crouch troubles me. Could it be that an attempt to derail Lowe ended up derailing the club. Surely Crouch was not that stupid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 7 May, 2009 Share Posted 7 May, 2009 Call me a cynic but the tenuous connection between the bank manager who approved the loan and Leon Crouch troubles me. Could it be that an attempt to derail Lowe ended up derailing the club. Surely Crouch was not that stupid... Er, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now