I have discussed this incident with the most impeccable of sources. From what I was told, he gave out the loan knowing full well it would be paid. It was underwritten by the RFL and monthly instalments were deducted from the subsequent SL payments in order to repay him. The figures I were told also suggest he also got substantial interest on the loan and came out financially on top.

I am only reiterating what I have been told by people in good faith. However it suggests that this gesture by Walker benefited him the most.

Grasscrete

Up the Trin

Didn't know about it being underwritten, that explains a lot.

This is what I can't understand, why would somebody with the public profile and standing in the wider community (up to and including the national stage) bother to get his hands dirty in something like this.

Surely the carrot of a few extra quid wouln't be worth the potential damage to his reputation, considering that he probably has . Why would somebody with such a glittering CV like his bother at his time of life (I am aware that in the earlier days he may well have played a bit fast and loose in his business dealings) and literally on his own doorstep, surely he can't be either that greedy or that narcicistic?

Not to mention he's (presumably) got a good few quid already trousered from decades of wheeling and dealing?

See PM shortly to arrive

A fitting epitaph?

For people of Rodders' ilk, there's no such thing as enough money.

I've come to believe that the natural apex of neo-capitalism is that the 1% don't just want some, or lots or even shedloads of money - they want *all* the money - every last penny - which they'll squirrel away in secret offshore vehicles, free from tax, for use exclusively by their future chinless offspring, who will be wealthy beyond measure through none of their own endeavours.

Not that I've thought about it much like.

Are you suggesting Rodders is in the richest 1%? Surely not. Also completely off topic but the richest 1% in the UK contribute 28% of the total income tax collected.

And we're off

No - but it's a mindset.

And of course they do - they earn the most money; it's a statement of the bleedin obvious that they contribute more.

In fact, the poorest 10% of households pay around 42% of their income in combined taxation, whereas the wealthiest 10% pay only around 30%; I guess that's because the average joe can't employ a tax avoidance specialist, ask his employer to pay him dividends instead of salary, funnel his income through offshore vehicles or beneficial trusts, transfer his taxable assets to his children or spouse, or any of the other countless ways that wealth inequality is enabled by the system we currently operate - by wealthy people, for the benefit of wealthy people.

In short - the little guy always gets screwed over - which is exactly what's happening with the whole NM debacle; which is a neat segue to being back on topic, so I won't get sent to the gulag.

I agree broadley speaking, but what I don't get is there must be any number of fancy financial vehicles, scams, plans, schemes and whatever else of varying moral dubiousness for people to try and manipulate a few extra quid out of the system without resording to ting on your own doorstep. Especially after paying out of your own pocket for the club possibly more than once (this appears fact, how he may or may not have been paid off at this point appears to be pure speculation only at this point).

That's what I struggle to square off in my mind.

Well said.