Who thinks Sean Quinn is a great businessman now?

General General · 16-01-2012 11:06pm

I would find it difficult to deny that his current claims of a 'vendetta' could seem to some people as the babbling of a man who has completely lost the plot - delusional beyond belief.

Noreen1 · 16-01-2012 11:43pm

wobbles-grogan wrote: »

Is that not kind of the defination of a bad business man?

In fairness, there is a difference between running your own company, and investing in bank shares.
You can check the accounts in your own company - or even have an accountant check them for you if you have reason to believe the figures may be inaccurate. (Yet many successful businessmen have been victims of fraud.)
Investors don't have the same access to information.

Sean Quinn may have been naive and foolish - I don't believe he ever had evil intent. He wasn't the only one to be suckered by Anglo, either.
Quite a few "experts" believed the spin, too.

withless · 16-01-2012 11:49pm

Did he ever build school or a hospital? Anything of that nature?

Liam Byrne · 17-01-2012 12:02am

Noreen1 wrote: »

wobbles-grogan wrote: »

Is that not kind of the defination of a bad business man?

In fairness, there is a difference between running your own company, and investing in bank shares.
You can check the accounts in your own company - or even have an accountant check them for you if you have reason to believe the figures may be inaccurate. (Yet many successful businessmen have been victims of fraud.)
Investors don't have the same access to information.

Sean Quinn may have been naive and foolish - I don't believe he ever had evil intent. He wasn't the only one to be suckered by Anglo, either.
Quite a few "experts" believed the spin, too.

Naive & foolish doesn't quite cover taking out a €2,800,000,000 loan

Naive & foolish certainly doesn't cover breaking the law by borrowing money from a bank to invest in its shares.

All that aside, the contempt for Quinn is based on his CURRENT actions in giving assets off to family members while expecting those far less well off to foot his bill; that is absolutely despicable and if I used the word I want to use to describe that mindset I would probably be banned.

Suffice to say it's beyond contempt.

Trader1991 · 17-01-2012 12:05am

wobbles-grogan wrote: »

Is that not kind of the defination of a bad business man?

Well I don't think he became the richest person in Ireland by being bad at business. I know hes bankrupt now but thats only because he got involved in shares and derivatives which didn't pan out for him. In terms of building a business and entrepreneurial spirit hes got it all which makes him a good business man, but oviously hes not a professional investor and more than likely acted on so called experts advice.

Mardy Bum · 17-01-2012 12:13am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Naive & foolish doesn't quite cover taking out a €2,800,000,000 loan

Naive & foolish certainly doesn't cover breaking the law by borrowing money from a bank to invest in its shares.

All that aside, the contempt for Quinn is based on his CURRENT actions in giving assets off to family members while expecting those far less well off to foot his bill; that is absolutely despicable and if I used the word I want to use to describe that mindset I would probably be banned.

Suffice to say it's beyond contempt.

He didn't take out a loan it was mainly through contracts for difference.

Liam Byrne · 17-01-2012 12:45am

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Naive & foolish doesn't quite cover taking out a €2,800,000,000 loan

Naive & foolish certainly doesn't cover breaking the law by borrowing money from a bank to invest in its shares.

All that aside, the contempt for Quinn is based on his CURRENT actions in giving assets off to family members while expecting those far less well off to foot his bill; that is absolutely despicable and if I used the word I want to use to describe that mindset I would probably be banned.

Suffice to say it's beyond contempt.

He didn't take out a loan it was mainly through contracts for difference.

Couldn't remember the phrase! Cheers!

Same difference though, just a negative difference (maybe minus some interest)

And as I said, the issue with him is his current lies and weaselling.

Noreen1 · 17-01-2012 12:54am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Naive & foolish doesn't quite cover taking out a €2,800,000,000 loan

Naive & foolish certainly doesn't cover breaking the law by borrowing money from a bank to invest in its shares.

All that aside, the contempt for Quinn is based on his CURRENT actions in giving assets off to family members while expecting those far less well off to foot his bill; that is absolutely despicable and if I used the word I want to use to describe that mindset I would probably be banned.

Suffice to say it's beyond contempt.

I never said I condoned giving assets to family members since his business fell apart - if that is what has been happening.
I'm not inclined to believe everything I read in the media. Facts tend to get distorted a little too often, in my experience.

I don't know what the truth is. I haven't spoken to Sean Quinn in years.
What I can say, is that back in 2000/2001, he was a quiet, shy, unassuming man. He never tried to be anything other than what he was - a man who started digging out the back of his fathers house, at the age of 15, and who got laughed at for believing he could ever create a successful business.
He went on to build a business empire, and never looked down on either his workforce, or your average working Joe. As a matter of fact, he was happiest driving a cement lorry, in a pair of working boots, and chatting to working class people. By his own admission, he disliked the Boardroom.

I liked him.
Did he change since? I don't know.
I do know that the man I knew then doesn't sound like the man I read about in the media.

I do not condone fraud. I do, however, wonder how much truth there is in what I read, and whether Sean Quinn is being used as a scapegoat to divert attention from others.
I suspect, strongly, that the "upstart newcomer" was setup for a fall to save other skins.

I have no insider knowledge of what went on in the Quinn Empire over the last 10 years. I do know that Sean Quinn considered Derrylin to be his place of business 10 years ago, despite what you may read in the media, and what the learned judge may have decided.

I have serious difficulty in equating the man I knew with the guy who is vilified in the media, and I tend to disbelieve that anyone could change that much in 10 years. So, I'll accept that I will probably never know the full facts, and refrain form vilifying him, based on the facts that I do know.

flutered · 17-01-2012 1:05am

Noreen1 wrote: »

I never said I condoned giving assets to family members since his business fell apart - if that is what has been happening.
I'm not inclined to believe everything I read in the media. Facts tend to get distorted a little too often, in my experience.

I don't know what the truth is. I haven't spoken to Sean Quinn in years.
What I can say, is that back in 2000/2001, he was a quiet, shy, unassuming man. He never tried to be anything other than what he was - a man who started digging out the back of his fathers house, at the age of 15, and who got laughed at for believing he could ever create a successful business.
He went on to build a business empire, and never looked down on either his workforce, or your average working Joe. As a matter of fact, he was happiest driving a cement lorry, in a pair of working boots, and chatting to working class people. By his own admission, he disliked the Boardroom.

I liked him.
Did he change since? I don't know.
I do know that the man I knew then doesn't sound like the man I read about in the media.

I do not condone fraud. I do, however, wonder how much truth there is in what I read, and whether Sean Quinn is being used as a scapegoat to divert attention from others.
I suspect, strongly, that the "upstart newcomer" was setup for a fall to save other skins.

I have no insider knowledge of what went on in the Quinn Empire over the last 10 years. I do know that Sean Quinn considered Derrylin to be his place of business 10 years ago, despite what you may read in the media, and what the learned judge may have decided.

I have serious difficulty in equating the man I knew with the guy who is vilified in the media, and I tend to disbelieve that anyone could change that much in 10 years. So, I'll accept that I will probably never know the full facts, and refrain form vilifying him, based on the facts that I do know.

yet he traded a buisness for a laptop, the morning coffee must be non existant in your kitchen.

Noreen1 · 17-01-2012 2:33am

flutered wrote: »

yet he traded a buisness for a laptop, the morning coffee must be non existant in your kitchen.

I thought it wouldn't be long before I received a response - but that was quicker than I expected.:D

Anglo claimed he traded a business for a laptop. But the court made no findings of impropriety, which I find rather strange.

So, I'm still left with the question, how much of what is commonly believed is truth?

I have no obligation of loyalty to Sean Quinn, and, as I said previously, I do not condone fraud, nor offloading debts onto the hard-pressed Irish taxpayer, while allegedly transferring wealth to his own family.
However, I am left with a lot of questions.

Why did the court make no findings of impropriety?
Why did the Judge in Belfast decide that Sean Quinns empire wasn't based in Derrylin? I know for a fact that Sean Quinn himself considered Derrylin to be his centre of business in 2000/2001 - long before he had any motivation to make false claims about it.
So - did his centre of business change since then in terms of revenue, while he himself still considered Derrylin to be his place of Business?
Again, I don't know - but I find the fact that only 20% of his taxes were paid in Ireland would suggest that the bulk of his business wasn't conducted in Ireland, yet it doesn't prove that his taxes were paid in the UK either.

Non-existent morning coffee aside - (I don't drink coffee, by the way:P)based on my own personal knowledge, I have questions/doubts that remain unanswered, and will probably remain so. So, I'll refrain from judgement, since I have reason to seriously doubt one court finding, and can't fathom why there would have been no finding of impropriety in the other, if the allegations were proven.
Jumping on the bandwagon to vilify Sean Quinn would be dishonest in those circumstances, so the only thing I can ethically do is refrain from judgement.

Liam Byrne · 17-01-2012 2:40am

Noreen1 wrote: »

flutered wrote: »

yet he traded a buisness for a laptop, the morning coffee must be non existant in your kitchen.

I thought it wouldn't be long before I received a response - but that was quicker than I expected.:D

Anglo claimed he traded a business for a laptop. But the court made no findings of impropriety, which I find rather strange.

So, I'm still left with the question, how much of what is commonly believed is truth?

I have no obligation of loyalty to Sean Quinn, and, as I said previously, I do not condone fraud, nor offloading debts onto the hard-pressed Irish taxpayer, while allegedly transferring wealth to his own family.
However, I am left with a lot of questions.

Why did the court make no findings of impropriety?
Why did the Judge in Belfast decide that Sean Quinns empire wasn't based in Derrylin? I know for a fact that Sean Quinn himself considered Derrylin to be his centre of business in 2000/2001 - long before he had any motivation to make false claims about it.
So - did his centre of business change since then in terms of revenue, while he himself still considered Derrylin to be his place of Business?
Again, I don't know - but I find the fact that only 20% of his taxes were paid in Ireland would suggest that the bulk of his business wasn't conducted in Ireland, yet it doesn't prove that his taxes were paid in the UK either.

Non-existent morning coffee aside - (I don't drink coffee, by the way:P)based on my own personal knowledge, I have questions/doubts that remain unanswered, and will probably remain so. So, I'll refrain from judgement, since I have reason to seriously doubt one court finding, and can't fathom why there would have been no finding of impropriety in the other, if the allegations were proven.
Jumping on the bandwagon to vilify Sean Quinn would be dishonest in those circumstances, so the only thing I can ethically do is refrain from judgement.

OK - let's forget the laptop for a second.

How about the loans that he PERSONALLY GUARANTEED that he's refusing to pay back ?

Would he not sell his mansion and buy / rent a flat somewhere in order to prevent us from footing his bills ?

shangri la · 17-01-2012 5:20am

Put yourself in his shoes...

you are in a position to make sure your great grandchildren never have to worry about money or you can spend it all on a tax bill.

you would do exactly what he did.

Tayla · 17-01-2012 5:21am

Noreen1 wrote: »

I have serious difficulty in equating the man I knew with the guy who is vilified in the media, and I tend to disbelieve that anyone could change that much in 10 years. So, I'll accept that I will probably never know the full facts, and refrain form vilifying him, based on the facts that I do know.

If you are to believe his wife then he got her to take out loans under 'undue influence'....Good woman Patricia, make your husband out to be prick who takes advantage of you and make yourself out to be a simpleton just so you don't have to repay €3 million!

So either he is a prick and she's stupid or else they're liars.

Mardy Bum · 17-01-2012 12:19pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK - let's forget the laptop for a second.

How about the loans that he PERSONALLY GUARANTEED that he's refusing to pay back ?

Would he not sell his mansion and buy / rent a flat somewhere in order to prevent us from footing his bills ?

Who would buy it now? Its in the middle of nowhere.

smash · 17-01-2012 12:26pm

Part of Quinn's proposal was that the bank lend him another €650m so he could complete some 'business' and he'll repay the €2.8b in 7 years. Has he learned nothing?

Gophur · 17-01-2012 12:30pm

Mrs Quinn claimed to know nothing about business yet was director of 91 companies and Company Secretary of 10.

A Company Secretary would have to sign off annual accounts, and is a very responsible position. Surely some offence was committed here and she should be brought before the Courts to account for herself?

It seems rules, regulations and Laws were for people other than the Quinns.

smash · 17-01-2012 12:36pm

Gophur wrote: »

It seems rules, regulations and Laws were for people other than the Quinns.

Sure the whole family claimed living expenses from the companies and never paid any BIK on it.

Liam Byrne · 17-01-2012 12:37pm

shangri la wrote: »

Put yourself in his shoes...

you are in a position to make sure your great grandchildren never have to worry about money or you can spend it all on a tax bill.

you would do exactly what he did.

IF both options were legal, which they're not.

Don't tell me what I'd do, please. You'll show yourself up when you're wrong.

Gophur · 17-01-2012 12:42pm

smash wrote: »

Sure the whole family claimed living expenses from the companies and never paid any BIK on it.

The very thought did cross my mind when I read that.
It will be interesting to see if Revenue chase them with the same vigour they are chasing the OAP at the moment.

Tayla · 17-01-2012 1:55pm

Gophur wrote: »

Mrs Quinn claimed to know nothing about business yet was director of 91 companies and Company Secretary of 10.

A Company Secretary would have to sign off annual accounts, and is a very responsible position. Surely some offence was committed here and she should be brought before the Courts to account for herself?

It seems rules, regulations and Laws were for people other than the Quinns.

The principal duties and powers of company secretaries

wrote:

2.1 A company secretary’s main functions are to oversee thecompany’s day to day administration and to ensure specifically that the company complies with the law and observes its own regulations.

Every person should , on or before appointment as a company secretary,
familiarise themselves with the duties and obligations attaching to the position.

wrote:

2.2 companies, the directors have a statutory duty to ensure that the company secretary is a person who appears to them to have the requisite knowledge and experience to discharge the functions of company secretary

wrote:

2.3 Duties include: statutory duties, duty of disclosure, duty to exercise due care, skill and diligence and administrative duties.

wrote:

2.4.1 Where a secretary is reckless in the conduct of his or her duties, he or she is in breach of the companies act

wrote:

According to her she was just a housewife and the only money she was ever in charge of was the weekly shopping.:rolleyes:

Is she still company secretary of any of these companies?

bicardi19 · 17-01-2012 2:05pm

withless wrote: »

Did he ever build school or a hospital? Anything of that nature?

He gave substantial donations to the new build of the primary school his kids went to.

Mardy Bum · 17-01-2012 2:11pm

bicardi19 wrote: »

He gave substantial donations to the new build of the primary school his kids went to.

He literally built half the facilities, business and social amenities included, of west Cavan over the past two decades. Hes the only reason the place was not an economic black spot.

Noreen1 · 17-01-2012 2:43pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK - let's forget the laptop for a second.

How about the loans that he PERSONALLY GUARANTEED that he's refusing to pay back ?

Would he not sell his mansion and buy / rent a flat somewhere in order to prevent us from footing his bills ?

Since he's been made bankrupt, then I think that's likely to happen anyway - and I have no problem with that.
My problem is with the fact that he is being portrayed as some form of modern gangster in the media, where a whole page is devoted to Anglo allegations, with one-liners added confirming that the Court made no finding of impropriety - and Joe Public is swallowing it, hook, line, and sinker.

I'm not infallible, and my judgement about Sean Quinn might have been entirely wrong - yet his staff, and his neighbours, are loyal to him to an extent that can only be described as astonishing.
It makes me pause for thought, that's all.

Gophur · 17-01-2012 2:45pm

Mardy Bum wrote: »

He literally built half the facilities, business and social amenities included, of west Cavan over the past two decades.....

And that, is not true.

Why post such sheer unadulterated BS?

withless · 17-01-2012 3:12pm

Yeah, that's not true. Is there anything with a plaque with his name on it?

Tayla · 17-01-2012 3:35pm

Noreen1 wrote: »

I'm not infallible, and my judgement about Sean Quinn might have been entirely wrong - yet his staff, and his neighbours, are loyal to him to an extent that can only be described as astonishing.
It makes me pause for thought, that's all.

People are just as loyal to Bertie, people were just as loyal to Brian Lenihan.
It doesn't mean that they are amazing people. It means people are stupid.

It also means that anyone who voted for Fianna Fail in the last election was selfish, rather than acknowledge that they were wrong about the party once it all started to unfold, they decided to vote for them again almost as an act of stubborness and a **** you to the rest of us.

At the end of the day, someone has to pay it, either Sean or the taxpayer and Seans supporters want the taxpayer to foot the bill, they clearly can't think rationally because they're blinded out of love for their hero Sean.

ScumLord · 17-01-2012 5:14pm

smash wrote: »

Part of Quinn's proposal was that the bank lend him another €650m so he could complete some 'business' and he'll repay the €2.8b in 7 years. Has he learned nothing?

The only way he could pay back the money is by starting another successful business. He wono't do it with your average 9 to 5. In some ways preventing him from doing business is just a guaranty he'll never be able to pay it back.

Gophur wrote: »

Mrs Quinn claimed to know nothing about business yet was director of 91 companies and Company Secretary of 10.

A Company Secretary would have to sign off annual accounts, and is a very responsible position. Surely some offence was committed here and she should be brought before the Courts to account for herself?

It seems rules, regulations and Laws were for people other than the Quinns.

That's not at all uncommon. What the public see's as one business could technically be two or more with one of the businesses doing manufacturing for example that then sells the product onto another company to sell to the public.

Tayla · 17-01-2012 5:17pm

ScumLord wrote: »

That's not at all uncommon. What the public see's as one business could technically be two or more with one of the businesses doing manufacturing for example that then sells the product onto another company to sell to the public.

That doesn't explain anything about the fact that she was company secretary for 10 companies and then claimed herself that she wasn't fit to fulfil the duties.

MagicSean · 17-01-2012 5:21pm

Noreen1 wrote: »

Since he's been made bankrupt, then I think that's likely to happen anyway - and I have no problem with that.
My problem is with the fact that he is being portrayed as some form of modern gangster in the media, where a whole page is devoted to Anglo allegations, with one-liners added confirming that the Court made no finding of impropriety - and Joe Public is swallowing it, hook, line, and sinker.

I'm not infallible, and my judgement about Sean Quinn might have been entirely wrong - yet his staff, and his neighbours, are loyal to him to an extent that can only be described as astonishing.
It makes me pause for thought, that's all.

Have you ever met his wife? Id love to know if she is as stupid and under his thumb as she pretended to be in court.

davet82 · 17-01-2012 5:26pm

Who thinks Sean Quinn is a great businessman now?

Captain Hindsight to the rescue!

Who thinks Sean Quinn is a great businessman now?

Comments