Bates, directorship and a question of ethics

So it seems that the only question in Ken Bates' mind when it came to signing THAT contract was whether he could do it, whether as a director he COULD commit the club to a half million contract, for his personal expenses. For most ethical people the question would have been whether he SHOULD do it, whether it was morally right to do so.

The first duty of directors, as most of them will readily acknowledge, is to the good of their organisation and they would know with every fibre of their being that serving their own interests at the expense of the firm is wrong.

It's impossible for the outsider to know whether Bates was actually a director at the time (chairman doesn't automatically confer that privilege) and it is interesting that Bates chose to take the decision in the final few days before he moved into the honorary role of president. But aren't we glad that the ties are now severed?