As someone who had a very similar experience with the same branch of the same bank last autumn and had it not been for the fact that I could quickly access some emergency funds, would have been on the streets. I wholeheartedly echo those sentiments.

They weren't in the slightest bit interested in how successful my business was, the fact that I asked to extend a facility was enough for them to decide to withdraw it.

Natwest was bought by RBS some years ago.

So basically selling the Odsal lease was a mistake as the bank sorts their overdraft length (and amount of money loaned out) based on what assets the club has, so in theory we sold our biggest assets to the RFL, the bank saw us selling this big asset and reduced our overdraft as we didn't have that asset anymore?

For about the hundredth time, there is no way the Odsal lease from the council was ever any significant asset for security purposes. Ask RBS how much they believe a liquidator could have realised it for?

So why did the bank reduce our overdraft? Dumb it down please because tbh i dont understand whats been written before. Sorry for being a nuciense (sp) :/

Ah okay cheers

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

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

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