basically used it as an opportunity to reduce the banks exposure. banks dont like sports clubs in general. see them as a big potential risk.

Ah okay cheers

So would a protest outside NatWest do any good? I'm free all week...

For this I don't criticise you, but you are making the very naive if understandable mistake of thinking that there would have to be a sound, sensible and reasonable reason for a bank to take a drastic step. The fact is, banks are not like that. At all. they are cold hearted, cynical, calculating basstards, only out for themselves, they all trouser a few million a year and screw me and you. And they often do things which any decent person would find both inexplicable and shameful.

you would hope that if we get through the next few weeks the club will be finding a new bank and not giving RBS anymore business.

Probably not, but if a few hundred Bulls fans disrupting their business at one branch for one day, and any adverse publicity we could get them, caused a bit of consternation and discomfiture for them then perhaps there's a bit of satisfaction to be had.



Re-banking in present circumstances might be hard.

Basically, the club says they has no idea why. And, from my understanding of the situation, neither do I.



My own opinion is that the bank is widely-known for looking to shrink its balance sheet and further de-risk its lending, and that basically means reducing its lending to all but the strongest businesses. And I suspect the bank was looking for an excuse to do what one of its senior guys told me some years ago it was seeking to do: get out of lending to RL clubs.



With all due respect to the bankers who post on here, IMO the attitude of the banks at the moment towards any degree of commercial risk whatsoever is the biggest single impediment to our economic recovery. Having wrecked the country (with the gleeful acquiescence of Gordon Brown) through e.g. their reckless lending to Russian oligarchs and the like in the past, and their reckless purchase of foreign banks at far more than they were worth, they are now going to jolly well show all the small businesses in their own back yard what responsible lenders they are.



But...we taxpayers are stuck with owning most of RBS, since Goodwin and his fellow bandits ruined it and us with it (why he has not been shot for high treason escapes me...) so we have a problem. You hear the howls about will the taxpayer ever get its money back for the billions RBS cost us - not least from those on whose watch the disaster happened. Well, the less risky its loan book is, the more it is worth. And the government is of course desperate to be able to sell at least some of its holding - OUR holding - off to reduce the need for spending cuts and tax increases. And how do you make the loan book less risky...?

True, I am 17 so I'll be honest I'm still learning and understanding the whole bank process thing

But I do thank you and Adeybull and Mat for clearing things up for me

Sadly, so were Goodwin and all the other vermin who were in charge of the banks when their actions were destroying our future.

... only ever lend money to people who have absolutely no need whatsoever for a loan?

Incidentally, never forget that, as well as wrecking the country, destroying our future and starving small businesses of funding, thereby choking off any chance of decent economic growth, the actions of those vermin resulted in tens of thousands of totally innocent bank employees losing their jobs.