Skip to content

Jim McMahon accused to trying to “duck responsibility” for failed bank

U.S. President Barack Obama looks at Jim McMahon alongside Defensive Co-Ordinator Buddy Ryan at the White House in Washington Reuters

Former Bears quarterback Jim McMahon parlayed his notoriety into a gig as a bank director.  In hindsight, McMahon presumably wishes he’d passed.

McMahon is now on the wrong end of a lawsuit filed by the FDIC seeking $104 million that was lost as a result of 17 bad loans.  And the feds apparently plan to make an example of McMahon, in the hopes that others who perceive bank directorship as a money-for-nothing proposition will realize that it’s a much more solemn and serious undertaking.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the FDIC accuses McMahon of trying to “duck responsibility” for the failed loans, relying on the notion that he was only a “figurehead” in a failed bank that others had caused to fail.  The feds argue that the problems for McMahon arose because he believed that he could simply serve in that role as a “figurehead.”

“Defendant McMahon’s conduct is a paradigm case for director negligence,” the court filing states.  “He appears to have approved loans he was told to approve without questioning.  He received critical regulatory reports but did nothing in response.  He did not read bank status reports; he missed many meetings.  There is no substitute for the disciplined work required to be a responsible bank director.  This is something that McMahon does not acknowledge or appear to understand.”

While the decision of other bank directors to want McMahon to serve makes sense, given that his involvement could attract business, McMahon’s situation provides a clear warning for any other celebrity who may be offered a similar role.  It’s not an endorsement deal; it’s real work, with real responsibilities.

And, quite possibly, real consequences that can’t be rectified simply by mooning someone.

Permalink 13 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Chicago Bears, Home, Rumor Mill
13 Responses to “Jim McMahon accused to trying to “duck responsibility” for failed bank”
  1. waitingguilty says: Jul 17, 2012 9:36 AM

    When I think of Bank Director…Jim McMahon is not the first guy that pops into my head. Or the billionth.

  2. cleverbob says: Jul 17, 2012 9:42 AM

    What’s the big deal? Why be a spokesperson or just have a cushy “business development” gig when you can be an executive? I think Peyton Manning should run Buick in his free time.

  3. swingondeesenuts says: Jul 17, 2012 9:43 AM

    And he is also one of the ring leaders in this “I didn’t know football was dangerous” lawsuit. Sounds like he is “banking” on getting a settlement from the NFL because he is now broke.

  4. sowcrates says: Jul 17, 2012 9:47 AM

    How long until “concussions received while playing in the NFL have inhibited my ability to be a bank regulator, to conduct respectable and productive employment after my football career was over”?

  5. nfloracle says: Jul 17, 2012 9:50 AM

    Right. Go after brain-damaged Jim McMahon while giving away billions in bailouts to the 1%er multi-millionaire bankers on Wall Street, NONE of whom have ever been indicted or charged with a single crime for what they did.

    This country’s “justice system” took a serious wrong turn somewhere.

    And this is not to condone negligence on McMahon’s part… just saying if Justice wants to go after people, start at the top with the real thieves.

  6. walleyejon says: Jul 17, 2012 10:27 AM

    Not sticking up for him, but 17 bad loans and the FDIC is making an example out of him? Meanwhile Chase, Freddie, Fannie, and the gang get bailed out? Jim must have belonged to the wrong fraternity.

  7. chi01town says: Jul 17, 2012 10:43 AM

    Macmahon been broke that aint the point, if the government is after someone go to the top an do it right. Macmahon just works there him is not on the board of directors. Go after the CEO an the bank president, the people responsible for that money NOT A FOOTBALL QB who was working there because of his NAME

  8. SilentMajority says: Jul 17, 2012 11:04 AM

    Nothing says financial or emotional stability like a retired athlete! Paging Lawrence Taylor, there’s a Bank Director position open. Paging Lawrence Taylor…

  9. granadafan says: Jul 17, 2012 11:27 AM

    Hiring Jim McMahon to be in charge of anyone’s money should have been the first tip off that the bank’s decision making ought to be called into question. This is worse than players getting scammed into hiring a family member to be their agent.

  10. wnstonchill says: Jul 17, 2012 11:35 AM

    McMahon is a shyster and has been since his playing days in the NFL. He’s got the typical liberal worldview mindset that his actions are exempt from consequences. In short, the guy did a great job convincing his teammates and the public that he was the consummate team player, when in truth, it was always about him! Now he’s playing the head trauma card for the world to see so people will sympathize with him and give him a free pass for all of his antics and bad decisions. God forbid the guy would perhaps take a good look in the mirror and actually admit a good share of the responsibility for his problems just might start with him! ;-)

  11. rajbais says: Jul 17, 2012 11:42 AM

    He would because all I saw him do during his retirement (mainly based on TV appearances) was play golf, do interviews, and rare commercials.

    Chicagoans, look at Penn State (not to equate McMahon to Sandusky/JoePa)! Just because a sports icon was in your hometown it doesn’t mean you trust him or her with anything else!

  12. badintent says: Jul 17, 2012 1:43 PM

    Jimbo just calling the wrong plays .. again. Ditka screaming from the sidelines ! HA HA ! But seriously, we talking bout Holder and his left wing gay protectors here for this lawsuit. This is a waste of taxpayer money ! DOJ is a joke and Holder is the one that should go to jail, not a washed up ex-pro jock who is a Mormon with conservative views that don’t jib with the Oduma administration. This is just a political attack, nothing more. Next question, hornblower.

  13. backindasaddle says: Jul 17, 2012 8:41 PM

    Jim apparently doesn’t understand the concept of fiduciary responsibility. Anybody put into a role as a director of a bank must have an understanding of a concept so fundamental to the position. Apparently he just thought he’d be paid huge sums of money to be a “figurehead”. At the end of the day he wasn’t a figurehead… he was a pinhead.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!