Newbridge Credit Union's "Special Manager"

whitleydonal

Willow20 wrote: »

Amen - I must disagree, 20 years experience is invaluable now days - you wouldn't say that to someone who had their own business for 20yrs ? Oh it's time to give that up now your too long at it, bring in someone with little experience they will be better ! It requires a mixture of experience and new blood.
On a different note - Martin heydon td - is a total idiot for making that irresponsible statement today about it being too early to tell if it will close - the Special Manager told the members the plan is to keep it open and make it stronger!!! Idiot td's !!!!!!

Thanks for your comments I will be leaving the credit union board this year not because I am there too long and I do agree it is too long, but because the central bank has destroyed the ethos it is a sad day when I am no longer in a position to help my neighbour suddenly the focus of the regulator turns to credit unions. I would ask everyone to picture Ireland without credit unions for the last three years with the banks not lending and especially to little folk or the unemployed.

The media do not understand credit unions when you hear Newbridge cu referred to as a branch, when in fact it owned and run by the members. I am sure a well paid board would make a fine job of things, credit union members need to rise up and protect their credit unions in their own interests. I notice in the Newbridge dilema everyone seems to be talking over the members instead of at them. There needs to be a general meeting of the credit union to discuss the report of the special manager I bet that report will be confidential and will never see the light of day. please agitate agitate I agree that TD who appears to know nothing about the matter should keep his mouth shut. it interesting that the media spin is that the credit union has failed to hold its agm I know that you must now get the permission of James O'Brien to hold your AGM and it can take anything up to a month to get a reply I am disappointed that no one questions the motives of the regulator here other than he is protecting the savings of the members.

Ordinary folk started credit unions in the late fifties because at that time you were no welcome in the banks, money lenders, legal and illegal ruled working class areas. Credit unions started in schools with people entrusting their savings to their neighbours there was a lot of people said it would never work but today without grant aid or political boot licking it grew into the success it is today. The credit unions have kept this country going when the banks failed us and in a year where the state borrowed 10 billion half the states borrowing requirement to keep them going and are about to pay the loosing bets of anglo irish Bond holders. credit unions have not cost the state a penny. Since the ethos and heart is leaving the credit union movement so am I but I will remain proud to my dying day of all the selfless men and women who have volunteered so much of their valuable spare time to build their community and when all is said and done voluntary effort has not done a bad job.

whitleydonal

Willow20 wrote: »

Amen - I must disagree, 20 years experience is invaluable now days - you wouldn't say that to someone who had their own business for 20yrs ? Oh it's time to give that up now your too long at it, bring in someone with little experience they will be better ! It requires a mixture of experience and new blood.
On a different note - Martin heydon td - is a total idiot for making that irresponsible statement today about it being too early to tell if it will close - the Special Manager told the members the plan is to keep it open and make it stronger!!! Idiot td's !!!!!!

Thanks for your comments I will be leaving the credit union board this year not because I am there too long and I do agree it is too long, but because the central bank has destroyed the ethos it is a sad day when I am no longer in a position to help my neighbour suddenly the focus of the regulator turns to credit unions. I would ask everyone to picture Ireland without credit unions for the last three years with the banks not lending and especially to little folk or the unemployed.

The media do not understand credit unions when you hear Newbridge cu referred to as a branch, when in fact it owned and run by the members. I am sure a well paid board would make a fine job of things, credit union members need to rise up and protect their credit unions in their own interests. I notice in the Newbridge dilema everyone seems to be talking over the members instead of at them. There needs to be a general meeting of the credit union to discuss the report of the special manager I bet that report will be confidential and will never see the light of day. please agitate agitate I agree that TD who appears to know nothing about the matter should keep his mouth shut. it interesting that the media spin is that the credit union has failed to hold its agm I know that you must now get the permission of James O'Brien to hold your AGM and it can take anything up to a month to get a reply I am disappointed that no one questions the motives of the regulator here other than he is protecting the savings of the members.

Ordinary folk started credit unions in the late fifties because at that time you were no welcome in the banks, money lenders, legal and illegal ruled working class areas. Credit unions started in schools with people entrusting their savings to their neighbours there was a lot of people said it would never work but today without grant aid or political boot licking it grew into the success it is today. The credit unions have kept this country going when the banks failed us and in a year where the state borrowed 10 billion half the states borrowing requirement to keep them going and are about to pay the loosing bets of anglo irish Bond holders. credit unions have not cost the state a penny. Since the ethos and heart is leaving the credit union movement so am I but I will remain proud to my dying day of all the selfless men and women who have volunteered so much of their valuable spare time to build their community and when all is said and done voluntary effort has not done a bad job.

bbability

Just to clarify the board of directors of any credit union is unable to call an AGM without the regulator approving the accounts for the previous 12 months. For example if your local credit union is in good condition and is meeting all the regulators requirements and the board propose a dividend, it must be approved by the regulator before the AGM can be finalised.

From what I can see Newbridge have a problem with their reserves. That to me did not happen overnight. The regulator was quite clear to CU's last year to reviews all loan books and ensure reserves were at correct level and to get house in order or they would step in.
In my opinion Newbridge will get through this as long as it's members don't panic. They don't need to. They do have a right to question the people who they voted to represent them and make sure when the regulator is ready to hand back the reigns that qualified/experienced and pro credit union financial people are elected to the board. This is another requirement by the regulator that all board members have completed some sort of training pertaining to financial regulations/corporate governance.

All I can say finally is I hope and pray that NCU get sorted quickly and the people/members get behind their credit union and appoint the right people to guide them forward. On another note they are not members of the League of Credit Unions but are members of CUDA who in my opinion are pressing forward with changes to the future of the Credit Union movement in Ireland.

whitleydonal

bbability wrote: »

Just to clarify the board of directors of any credit union is unable to call an AGM without the regulator approving the accounts for the previous 12 months. For example if your local credit union is in good condition and is meeting all the regulators requirements and the board propose a dividend, it must be approved by the regulator before the AGM can be finalised.

From what I can see Newbridge have a problem with their reserves. That to me did not happen overnight. The regulator was quite clear to CU's last year to reviews all loan books and ensure reserves were at correct level and to get house in order or they would step in.
In my opinion Newbridge will get through this as long as it's members don't panic. They don't need to. They do have a right to question the people who they voted to represent them and make sure when the regulator is ready to hand back the reigns that qualified/experienced and pro credit union financial people are elected to the board. This is another requirement by the regulator that all board members have completed some sort of training pertaining to financial regulations/corporate governance.

All I can say finally is I hope and pray that NCU get sorted quickly and the people/members get behind their credit union and appoint the right people to guide them forward. On another note they are not members of the League of Credit Unions but are members of CUDA who in my opinion are pressing forward with changes to the future of the Credit Union movement in Ireland.

Hi yes every credit union must have the permission of the regulator to hold their agm or any general meeting.
I am on the board of a credit union with liquidity of 58% requirement 25% reserves of 17% requirement 10% and dividend reserve not allowed to be given to the members of 7 million and in spite of these numbers we are not allowed to invest beyond three months deposit and our lending is restricted and we are not a small credit union 200 million plus.

earnst & young were auditors to Anglo but it would appear that their cv is good enough for newbridge.

Grant thornton are the auditors of choice imposed by the regulator. I have a significant problem with a regulator who insists in using the total loan book figure to calculate a credit unions loan exposure. A member of a credit union pledges their shares as security and under the law may not be withdrawn when there is a loan outstanding yet the regulator insists in using the gross loan figure which has the result of making the position look worse than it actually is.

when you make bad debt provision it must be on the total loan.


our loan book is gross 67 million but when the share are deducted the net position is 41 million our bad and doubful debt provision is 5.1 million against a write off of 2,1 million. I would be more impressed if the central bank conducted its own investigation and stood over its own findings its chicken to hide behing earnst & young and when the bank refers to newbridge cu it will be the earnst & young report this and that. THE CREDIT UNIONS LATE LAST YEAR WERE GOING TO NEED ONE BILLION THEN IT WAS 500 NOW ITS 250 its not an exact sicence patrick Neary springs to mind.It is the small credit unions that will fail there are far too many credit unions in ireland, with a large amount of regulation compliance requirement and minimum competency requirements small credit unions are finished. newbridge appears to have wanted to pay a dividend the regulator appears to have insisted on one of two things a demand to meet the 10% reserve requirement immediately or more than likely make a bigger provision for bad and doubtful debts, the board apperar to have had a showdown and the regulator decided to take them out of the equation,
the members of newbridge deserve their AGm and this should take place as soon as possible and the registrar of Credit Unions should go along address the members and answer questions is that too much to ask, Above ALL the process should be transparent

Willow20

I heard today from a very good source that there was a showdown of sorts between Newbridge board and the regulator / they had reserves of well over 10% at there year end in September 2011, but when their (forced upon them) auditors grant tharnton got a hold of the account they had them for ages and then changed parts around leaving them under the 10%! what type of auditor are they that they purposefully brought them down and took months to do it - what hope do other Cu have if they get grant Thornton forced on them too.

GerardKeating

SPDUB wrote: »

According to the RTE 8am news the "Special Manager" is being paid his hourly rate even though he's being appointed for an indefinite period .

Nice to know the Central bank tried to get value for money :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Is it an "indefinite period, in the letter he sent to members he states his appointment is for a period of six months.

bbability

Has there been any interviews on TV or radio regarding this matter?

Just to note the board are not entitled to call an AGM without approval of regulator. They should have called an EGM mind you...

whitleydonal

bbability wrote: »

Has there been any interviews on TV or radio regarding this matter?

Just to note the board are not entitled to call an AGM without approval of regulator. They should have called an EGM mind you...

The elected board of directors are voiceless as all their power is vested in the Special manager The mambers cannot get a general meeting of any kind the whole thing is a disgrace The members are entitled to a general meeting and to be given answers. Newbridge credit union is in administration and may be wound up in spite of what the letter to the members says. it is a process that is going to cost the members of the credit union at least one million euro and you are not guaranteed any answers. The members need to take to the streets and demand answers

Damien360

Can someone explain these figures to me. I am struggling to find the 29% liquidity rate.

taken form here : http://www.newbridgecu.ie/content.asp?section=112

Also what could have changed for the rate to be calculated as below 10% bringing in the central bank.



Nett assets are 210m total assets less the bad provison of 20m giving 190m. I cannot understand why a loan book of 140m is included as an asset but I assume that is accounting.

Total assets of 210m equals cash 53m, fixed assets 17m (I hope this is not the accounting value of the big building they are in) and loan book of 140m.

Total liabilities 164m equals total assets 210 less reserves 26m and less bad debt provision 20m.

Solvency rate 190m assets divided by liabilities of 164m equal 113%. But the loan book is used as part of this calculation in assets and liabilities.

I am not an accountant so maybe I am reading too much in to this. can someone please explain the figures and offer a reasonable explanation as to what way the calculation changed to change liquidity rate as willow20 alluded to.

Geuze

Loans are the main assets of all credit unions or banks.

ressem

Damien360 wrote: »

Can someone explain these figures to me. I am struggling to find the 29% liquidity rate.

Also what could have changed for the rate to be calculated as below 10% bringing in the central bank.

The reserves need to be over 10%.

Damien360 wrote: »

Nett assets are 210m total assets less the bad provison of 20m giving 190m. I cannot understand why a loan book of 140m is included as an asset but I assume that is accounting.

From a lenders point of view, the loan book is money the union is scheduled to receive. Interest on these loans makes up the majority of income.

Damien360 wrote: »

Total assets of 210m equals cash 53m, fixed assets 17m (I hope this is not the accounting value of the big building they are in) and loan book of 140m.

Total liabilities 164m equals total assets 210 less reserves 26m and less bad debt provision 20m.

Solvency rate 190m assets divided by liabilities of 164m equal 113%. But the loan book is used as part of this calculation in assets and liabilities.

I am not an accountant so maybe I am reading too much in to this. can someone please explain the figures and offer a reasonable explanation as to what way the calculation changed to change liquidity rate as willow20 alluded to.

The liquidity rate measures current assets (money held in investments that can be got hold of very quickly) against current liabilities (mostly the deposits of credit union members who could choose to withdraw the money any morning)

If there was a panic of members withdrawing savings that approaches the 29% the credit union would not be able to pay out the members savings until the next batch of income came in.

Damien360

Geuze wrote: »

Loans are the main assets of all credit unions or banks.

Fair enough but then the question is how much more bad debt provision had to be supplied this year to allow the liquidity rate fall below 29% from 2011.

How much of the 140m can be considered realistic to recover. Anyone have the current default rate on loans in Ireland. I looked at central bank statistics but cannot seem to find the figure. I do not have excel on this PC to view sheets but not sure I have the correct page.

http://www.centralbank.ie/polstats/stats/cmab/Pages/releases.aspx

Damien360

ressem wrote: »

The reserves need to be over 10%.

.

So therefore reserves of 26m divided by liabilities of 164m = 15% ???

I huge jump in bad debt provision can be the only thing that effected the reserve rate. Not sure if there was a capital flight before the central bank walked in.

whitleydonal

The central bank is insisting on huge provisions for bad and doubtful debts in a lot of cases this requirement is in excess of the prudential requirement. The provision takes no account of the net loan figure. A members share are held as security against the loan. The bad debt position is overstated by the central bank. There are over 400 credit unions that have taken ordinary people through the worst recession since the second world war. I am at a loss to understand that after three years since the banks closed their doors the central bank turns its attention to credit unions. Minister Noonan started out with a figure of 1 billion to bailout the credit unions that after a few weeks this fell to 500 million then in the budget it is 250 million, Please bring in the people who finally stress tested the banks properly it appears taht the central bank does not have a clue
Credit unions have driven money lenders out of communities it appaers that they will be making a return with the assistance of the central bank.

BornToKill

whitleydonal wrote: »

The provision takes no account of the net loan figure. A members share are held as security against the loan. The bad debt position is overstated by the central bank.

That's fair enough but what would be the worth of members' shares held as security where a credit union is insolvent? I'm asking the question in general terms and am not suggesting that any given credit union is in this situation.

whitleydonal

BornToKill wrote: »

That's fair enough but what would be the worth of members' shares held as security where a credit union is insolvent? I'm asking the question in general terms and am not suggesting that any given credit union is in this situation.

There is no evdience that any credit union is insolvent the main problem with bank lending was that they did not know their customers more interested in quick profits. All credit union members are held by a common bond employer or parish generally. The vast majority of credit union members are individual hard working and honest. I would consider the crediit union is for most people their only hope as the next stop is a money lender. it is my experience that members are loyal to their credit union. the only request I make is that the actions of the central bank are transparent and accountable because I know when questions are asked the answers will be held secret and cloaked in Confidentiality and secrecy

BornToKill

whitleydonal wrote: »

There is no evdience that any credit union is insolvent the main problem with bank lending was that they did not know their customers more interested in quick profits. All credit union members are held by a common bond employer or parish generally. The vast majority of credit union members are individual hard working and honest. I would consider the crediit union is for most people their only hope as the next stop is a money lender. it is my experience that members are loyal to their credit union. the only request I make is that the actions of the central bank are transparent and accountable because I know when questions are asked the answers will be held secret and cloaked in Confidentiality and secrecy

That does not answer the question I asked at all.

whitleydonal

BornToKill wrote: »

That does not answer the question I asked at all.

A credit union or any business is insolvent when it cannot pay its bills as they fall due. Your question is really how long is a piece of string when a credit union becomes insolvent it may very well cease to trade or wind up. In winding up all the assets reserves costs and liabilities are realised and to answer your question the members may get anything from zero to a percentage of their shareholding following this exercise after examinership. In that event the state guarantee on which there has been no call on it yet even in the banks, would step in and pay the shareholders up to par. This is where your security will be realised against your loan for instance if you had shares of 5000 and a loan of 10000 your shares would be netted off and your revised liability would be 5000. All credit unions are obliged to hold a reserve with the central bank

bbability

The old rule was and still is in most cases you must have a certain amount of shares to borrow a certain amount of money. 3:1 was the rule of thumb for most CU'S around the country. Far be it from me to say what a credit union is lending out but it most certainly should not be lending money to people who have very little in shares. If the banks had been regulated like this in the past we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I believe that the reserve required by the regulator is adequate. This weekends CUDA AGM will be interesting. I wonder if Newbridge can attend in their current position.

whitleydonal

bbability wrote: »

The old rule was and still is in most cases you must have a certain amount of shares to borrow a certain amount of money. 3:1 was the rule of thumb for most CU'S around the country. Far be it from me to say what a credit union is lending out but it most certainly should not be lending money to people who have very little in shares. If the banks had been regulated like this in the past we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I believe that the reserve required by the regulator is adequate. This weekends CUDA AGM will be interesting. I wonder if Newbridge can attend in their current position.

There is no argument that reserves need to be adequate but it is the other reserves that the regulator is pushing the bad and doubtful reserve for instance where in some credit unions it is 200% 0f what is required under resolution 49.
A number of directors from Newbridge credit union will be attending the CUDA AGM but the special manager has made it clear that l do so in a personal capacity at their own expense and do not represent Newbridge credit Union

BornToKill

whitleydonal wrote: »

In that event the state guarantee on which there has been no call on it yet even in the banks, would step in and pay the shareholders up to par.

I'm aware that the State has guaranteed deposits. I am not aware that it has given any such guarantees in respect of shareholdings. Could you point to the relevant provisions?

ressem

For credit unions, savings and shares are treated as much the same term, there is no double-payout.

1 additional euro deposited with the credit union gets another share.
There are no extra voting rights, and shares aren't tradeable except by adding and removing money from the credit union.
But they do entitle you to a share of any dividend payout in normal times.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/tax_on_savings_and_investments/deposit_interest_retention_tax.html

greenpilot

Hi,

Got written confirmation on Friday from Ernst and Young that the Special Manager, Luke Charlton's salary of €423 per hour is being footed by the members of Newbridge Credit Union. A total discrace.:mad:

Willow20

greenpilot wrote: »

Hi,

Got written confirmation on Friday from Ernst and Young that the Special Manager, Luke Charlton's salary of €423 per hour is being footed by the members of Newbridge Credit Union. A total discrace.:mad:

It's grossly unfair that these fees are forced on this credit union / they really are getting away with trying to get the people's money back in the banks. The regulator had many more options available to him in the c u act to resolve the issue of low reserves etc but he choose the most extreme to put panic on people and it worked well there is no way in hell will I put a penny into a bank - cu's have been there for people for over 40 years and do not make profits unlike the bankers who line their own pockets with our money in the form of ludicrous bonuses. If we all look around us we have many things in our lives that we got through our credit union whether it be a holiday or a kitchen table or our gardens etc we all have something that they helped us with and we should not forget that. We need to get behind our cu and offer our support to help them put forward arguments about these fees that are inflicted and forced on them through the high courts !
It's very important to remember its not the choice of our cu to have these people or these fees inflicted on them so that our lazy ass regulator can throw his weight around and line the pockets of his cronies. We just can not let this muppet take away our credit unions they belong to us, we own them and there is no way we should be letting them take them.

pacelut

Are there any news regarding Newbridge CU financial status? It's been 6 month since the special manager was appointed on €423 per hour sallary but I haven't heard anything since. Anyone knows where Newbridge CU stands?

whitleydonal

pacelut wrote: »

Are there any news regarding Newbridge CU financial status? It's been 6 month since the special manager was appointed on €423 per hour sallary but I haven't heard anything since. Anyone knows where Newbridge CU stands?

This whole adventure is going to cost the members of Newbridge Credit Union in excess of 1 million euro and they may not even get any answers as the special manager only answers to the high court. I find it disgraceful that the members are excluded from this process to the extent that affidavits in the high court were redacted or blacked out in parts and could only be viewed if the directors appealed the decision to appoint the special manager.
I have no objection to this process if it is in the interests of the members but when the process ends there should be a clear and transparent report to the public and to the members of Newbridge credit union in particular. I have a feeling that we are not going to get answers from the central bank on how they spent all this money. It would seem that the central bank is setting out to destroy credit unions one way or another. Not one cent of tax payers’ money went into credit union unlike the banks have been operating for the last four years providing vital services to the communities they serve. This bullying of credit union has gone on for far too long and it is time for it to stop

Damien360

whitleydonal wrote: »

This whole adventure is going to cost the members of Newbridge Credit Union in excess of 1 million euro and they may not even get any answers as the special manager only answers to the high court.

That is a disgraceful amount of money. I take this as just a tax.

whitleydonal wrote: »

I find it disgraceful that the members are excluded from this process to the extent that affidavits in the high court were redacted or blacked out in parts and could only be viewed if the directors appealed the decision to appoint the special manager.

Just like the bank bailout in 2008. It only adds to a public view of the ones at the top getting looked after to the detriment of all others.

whitleydonal wrote: »

I It would seem that the central bank is setting out to destroy credit unions one way or another.

I have been wondering this for some time. I do not think this is the case but I do think that when so many credit unions have their money sitting in the banks as either cash or bonds, it was a major stop in letting any bank fail.

It is also more problematic for the government to say to Merkel and co. that some tiny banks (we may see them as Credit unions) may need to be bailed out with some Euro cash. Not on the same scale but when the government has'nt a bean to its name, it is more than they could afford.

whitleydonal wrote: »

Not one cent of tax payers’ money went into credit union unlike the banks have been operating for the last four years providing vital services to the communities they serve. This bullying of credit union has gone on for far too long and it is time for it to stop

Just to knock my last point on the head, the situation of not putting taxpayers money in to CU's may not last forever. Newbridge CU was bullied unfairly but I always believed this was the tip of the iceberg.

whitleydonal

Damien360 wrote: »

That is a disgraceful amount of money. I take this as just a tax.



Just like the bank bailout in 2008. It only adds to a public view of the ones at the top getting looked after to the detriment of all others.



I have been wondering this for some time. I do not think this is the case but I do think that when so many credit unions have their money sitting in the banks as either cash or bonds, it was a major stop in letting any bank fail.

It is also more problematic for the government to say to Merkel and co. that some tiny banks (we may see them as Credit unions) may need to be bailed out with some Euro cash. Not on the same scale but when the government has'nt a bean to its name, it is more than they could afford.



Just to knock my last point on the head, the situation of not putting taxpayers money in to CU's may not last forever. Newbridge CU was bullied unfairly but I always believed this was the tip of the iceberg.

Well I have to strongly disagree there is no evdience that the credit unions are in trouble except for Mr.noonan scare mongering remember he said the credit union were going to need a billion then they were going to need half a billion and now its down to a loan of 250 million. Then there was the great Davy credit union bond scandal where the regulator covered up the matter with a secret report from the stock exchange.

I am involved with a credit union we have liquidity of 68% ban and doubtful debt provision of over 250% above the resolution 49 requirement and we are still between the shafts with the regulator. Suddenly the people on the Boards of credit unions will not do they are there too long, eaten bread and all that. I think it is the aspiration of the regulator to fill credit union boards with competent people from the banking sector.

Credit union do an excellent job as demonstrated by three million members
and volunteer boards that work for their community and not for money.

If there is an iceberg the financial regulator is yet to find it the same people who failed and continue to fail Custom House capital where the whistle blower had to insist on an investigation twice before they acted another scandal swept under the carpet.
No I am backing my credit union and others and if I was a politican I would be very careful about messing with credit unions and their communities

glic71rods46t0

whitleydonal wrote: »

Well I have to strongly disagree there is no evdience that the credit unions are in trouble except for Mr.noonan scare mongering remember he said the credit union were going to need a billion then they were going to need half a billion and now its down to a loan of 250 million. Then there was the great Davy credit union bond scandal where the regulator covered up the matter with a secret report from the stock exchange.

I am involved with a credit union we have liquidity of 68% ban and doubtful debt provision of over 250% above the resolution 49 requirement and we are still between the shafts with the regulator. Suddenly the people on the Boards of credit unions will not do they are there too long, eaten bread and all that. I think it is the aspiration of the regulator to fill credit union boards with competent people from the banking sector.

Credit union do an excellent job as demonstrated by three million members
and volunteer boards that work for their community and not for money.

If there is an iceberg the financial regulator is yet to find it the same people who failed and continue to fail Custom House capital where the whistle blower had to insist on an investigation twice before they acted another scandal swept under the carpet.
No I am backing my credit union and others and if I was a politican I would be very careful about messing with credit unions and their communities

Credit Unions are going to change completely when the New Credit Union Bill is enacted. Every CU will need to have a Risk Officer, a Compliance Officer, an Internal Auditor - many smaller CU's will merge creating a smaller number of large CU's with Boards made up of professionally qualified people - not saying this is right but the writing is on the wall now!

AlekSmart

k3pblc40y6ahwz wrote: »

Credit Unions are going to change completely when the New Credit Union Bill is enacted. Every CU will need to have a Risk Officer, a Compliance Officer, an Internal Auditor - many smaller CU's will merge creating a smaller number of large CU's with Boards made up of professionally qualified people - not saying this is right but the writing is on the wall now!

Oh dear.....I'm put in mind of Ronald Regan's quote about the worst possible phrase an American citizen could ever hear..."Hi,I'm from the Government and I'm here to help" :eek:

More work for Peter Bacon I expect....:rolleyes: