Good analysis Le Fournier, I think you are on the right track.

One thing I wonder is, why would such a bright chap essentially allow himself to be used as a pawn by the likes of Desmond?

Strikes me as indicative of a curious lack of self-respect, 'golden circle' or no 'golden circle'.

For waht its worth Walsh is on the hook for everything to now. So, what is coming that is WORSE than the little building society of horrors that he has left. ?

I think he's heading for the hills and won't darken the door of an Oireachtas Committee if he can help it. And if he is forced to testify, he'll know nuttin' and have forgotten everything.

Cabinet given no explanation for INBS resignation
ARTHUR BEESLEY and SIMON CARSWELL
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/fin ... 31825.html

The government said last night it had not received an explanation from Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS) for the reasons behind the abrupt resignation of its chairman, Dr Michael Walsh.
His departure yesterday evening makes INBS the fourth Irish lender guaranteed by the State to lose a chairman or chief executive in less than three months.
INBS has, under direction from the Financial Regulator, been seeking to strengthen its management team by recruiting three executives to work directly under chief executive Michael Fingleton, for decades the dominant force in the business.
The Government is soon likely to turn its attention to the future of INBS as it proceeds with the recapitalisation of Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland. Although few observers in the financial community believe the society will have the strength to forge an independent future for itself, company secretary Stan Purcell told staff yesterday that INBS will “probably” be the only financial institution not to seek capital from the Government in the coming weeks.
>>>>

I assume Walsh's decision has something to do with the dysfunctional governance structure at INBS.

Fingleton resigned as a director in Jan 2008, when the turned 70.

He was apaprently hanging around until he made a few bob from a sale but what is he likely to get now apart from a big pension?

So simply, Fingleton runs a "one-man-show" and the board members are a bunch of puppets as they take responsibility for someone who may have the same legal status as the receptionist on the Grand Parade?

Walsh has been chairman since 2000 and was on the board for a few years before that. In fact, he has been on the board for over a decade.

Even the situation you outline of Mr Fingleton still being chief exec but not been on the board has been in place for over a year, and Dr Walsh made no attempt to change it (that we are aware of).

Speculating that Dr Walsh suddenly decided in February 2009, after over a decade on the board (most of it as chairman), that he was not happy with the governance structure is not a serious theory. Le Fournier's theory on it makes much more sense, IMO.

If the Government had not guaranteed the banks or capitalized them,
I assume they could not be asking for people to resign.

My point here is that people are forgetting, only shareholders should be allowed to remove management - they do after all own the company and have paid for that right.
What shareholder wants the government to appoint a director - just take a look at the mess of the Dublin Airport Authority.
What I can't understand is why there are not shareholder groups DEMANDING EGMs to be called and management forced to resign. This is their investment doing the swanny.

If the Government had not guaranteed the banks or capitalized them,
I assume they could not be asking for people to resign.

My point here is that people are forgetting, only shareholders should be allowed to remove management - they do after all own the company and have paid for that right.
What shareholder wants the government to appoint a director - just take a look at the mess of the Dublin Airport Authority.
What I can't understand is why there are not shareholder groups DEMANDING EGMs to be called and management forced to resign. This is their investment doing the swanny.

Beg to differ sir.

These banks operate under licence from the Irish State - that's a privilege granted by the government or Ireland and not a right. I'd say that subjugates shareholder rights in the case of banks.

The state already pre-empts the rights of shareholders with regards to financial institutions through the Financial Regulator and the Central Bank. It is already within the power of the state to dismiss directors. The guarantee scheme explicitly states this, as I recall, so the minister now also has that power for any guaranteed institution.