Bertie the champion of the world

oh well , okay · 13-02-2010 2:43pm

Can I blame the government when I overspend on my credit card ?

No you can't it's your responsibility , but apparently when a developer overspends on land it's the consumers fault , go figure !

Biggins · 13-02-2010 2:49pm

oh well , okay wrote: »

No you can't it's your responsibility , but apparently when a developer overspends on land it's the consumers fault , go figure !

That should be post of the week.

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 2:52pm

oh well , okay wrote: »

No you can't it's your responsibility , but apparently when a developer overspends on land it's the consumers fault , go figure !

No it isn't . . . and nor did I ever suggest it was . . . the debts rest entirely with the developers and continue to do so . . . .

I've said that the responsibility for the bubble rests with all of us . . All of us includes the consumer, the developer, the banker and the politician.

danman · 13-02-2010 2:56pm

Maybe I'm being nieve, but I thought that the developer still has to pay for his loan. If he doesn't, he get the asset taken off him.

I'm sick of hearing that he developers are getting money of the taxpayer.
His loans still have to be paid.

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 7:43pm

danman wrote: »

Maybe I'm being nieve, but I thought that the developer still has to pay for his loan. If he doesn't, he get the asset taken off him.

I'm sick of hearing that he developers are getting money of the taxpayer.
His loans still have to be paid.

Here - here . . the revisionists on here would have you believe that NAMA = Debt transfer from developer to taxpayer (except they call him Joe because they are only interested in the less well off taxpayer) . . .

. . . the reality is that NAMA = Risk transfer from bank to taxpayer but the debt stays with the developer and the state take responsibility for hunting down the payment.

Biggins · 13-02-2010 7:51pm

danman wrote: »

Maybe I'm being nieve, but I thought that the developer still has to pay for his loan. If he doesn't, he get the asset taken off him.

I'm sick of hearing that he developers are getting money of the taxpayer.
His loans still have to be paid.

I wish that was true but as in the case of Fitzpatrick, heck - he won't even pay the interests!

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/fitzpatrick-not-paying-off-euro100m-loan-interest-1901222.html

danman · 13-02-2010 7:52pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Here - here . . the revisionists on here would have you believe that NAMA = Debt transfer from developer to taxpayer (except they call him Joe because they are only interested in the less well off taxpayer) . . .

. . . the reality is that NAMA = Risk transfer from bank to taxpayer but the debt stays with the developer and the state take responsibility for hunting down the payment.

The poster on here and various media campaigners (Eamon Keane mentions this more than once on every show), bandy about the term "bailout for developers and bankers"

They either don't understand the basic principle of NAMA, in which case they shouldn't comment on it. Or they fully understand but just want to mislead those that don't bother to find out the basic principle.

The banks were given a guarentee last year, in the same way that every other country did. In fact we were the first to do it and every other country followed our lead.

The banks are loosing up to 30% on their original investments with NAMA, and the developers must still pay back the original loans.

Where do the banks and developers benifit from this arrangement?

But that wouldn't suit the naysayers now would it, so they will continue to peddle untruths.

danman · 13-02-2010 7:55pm

Biggins wrote: »

I wish that was true but as in the case of Fitzpatrick, heck - he won't even pay the interests!

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/fitzpatrick-not-paying-off-euro100m-loan-interest-1901222.html

Unless you don't understand the basics as I've just pointed out, you'll know that he will loose his original investment along with the asset.

How hard is it to understand?

Biggins · 13-02-2010 7:58pm

danman wrote: »

Unless you don't understand the basics as I've just pointed out, you'll know that he will loose his original investment along with the asset.

How hard is it to understand?

I know what your asserting and agree.
I just wish to say that I find such arrogance contemptible and should be pursued and his behaviour not let away with.
He should be held accountable in some fashion instead of being paid off - but that what we do in our country.

I digress the thread though with my useless thoughts... apologies.

IrishTonyO · 13-02-2010 7:59pm

danman wrote: »

Where do the banks and developers benifit from this arrangement?

because they lose 30%, on properties that have lost 40-80%. If the banks weren't benefiting from NAMA, what would the point of it be??????

danman · 13-02-2010 8:03pm

Biggins wrote: »

I know what your asserting and agree.
I just wish to say that I find such arrogance contemptible and should be pursued and his behaviour not let away with.
He should be held accountable in some fashion instead of being paid off - but that what we do in our country.

I digress the thread though with my useless thoughts... apologies.

Again you assert that he will "Get paid off". When and how will he be paid off?

Do you not think that he will loose a considerable amout of his own investment?

Are you saying that he will get money of NAMA?
That's what I've been say above.

He will not get paid off.

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 8:09pm

Biggins wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/fitzpatrick-not-paying-off-euro100m-loan-interest-1901222.html

I know what your asserting and agree.
I just wish to say that I find such arrogance contemptible and should be pursued and his behaviour not let away with.
He should be held accountable in some fashion instead of being paid off - but that what we do in our country.

I digress the thread though with my useless thoughts... apologies.

How is he being "let away with" or "paid off" . . Your link merely illustrates the extent to which Fitzpatrick will actually lose personally when this is fully played out . . he ought to, and very well might go to prison.

Biggins · 13-02-2010 8:11pm

danman wrote: »

He will not get paid off.

I'd like to think that your right but when he resigned from the Anglo Irish bank (info LINK) I assume he got a nice handsome payment personally as part of his employment contract(?) which would be pretty nice considering and in light of, the millions in amounts he helped squander!
I further note FitzPatrick has also resigned from the boards of Smurfit Kappa, Aer Lingus, food group Greencore and as investor, Gartmore Irish Growth Fund.
Thats a fair few employment contracts in which he is entitled to a payoff too?

I'm open to be wrong - and honestly hope I am.

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 8:40pm

Biggins wrote: »

I'd like to think that your right but when he resigned from the Anglo Irish bank (info LINK) I assume he got a nice handsome payment personally as part of his employment contract(?) which would be pretty nice considering and in light of, the millions in amounts he helped squander!
I further note FitzPatrick has also resigned from the boards of Smurfit Kappa, Aer Lingus, food group Greencore and as investor, Gartmore Irish Growth Fund.
Thats a fair few employment contracts in which he is entitled to a payoff too?

I'm open to be wrong - and honestly hope I am.

I don't think he got severance payments from any of those positions. . ! Certainly cannot find anything to suggest that he did (other than your comments which seem to be without foundation)

Biggins · 13-02-2010 8:48pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I don't think he got severance payments from any of those positions. . ! Certainly cannot find anything to suggest that he did (other than your comments which seem to be without foundation)

Again, it would be normal to expect that he (or anyone for that matter) got remuneration as an executive director and was wise enough to have it included in his employment contract originally. Standard practise and all that... He would have been a fool not to and he didn't get to his position (before resignation) by being a fool.

You might want to have a look at this company website: http://www.experianannualreport.ie/governance_remuneration.asp
where Fitz' acted as a non-executive director alone for this one company. Note the finance numbers for him in the sixth graphic down ...and the Anglo (and others) I assume works on the same principle, if not the same amounts.

And again, I hope I am wrong.

Liam Byrne · 13-02-2010 8:50pm

danman wrote: »

Unless you don't understand the basics as I've just pointed out, you'll know that he will loose his original investment along with the asset.

How hard is it to understand?

It's not, however you implied earlier that NAMA will get the money from the developer.

HOWEVER, if he doesn't pay, NAMA is stuck with the asset.

An asset for which they have overpaid by approximately 25% - 30%; an asset that no-one wants (because otherwise they would have bought it).

How hard is that to understand ?

Red_Marauder · 13-02-2010 8:52pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

2) The banks sent out letters for "pre-approved loans"; and while some of us [see #1] binned those, I can't see how you object to people taking money from this and still defend Ahern for taking what was offered to him

Just on this point, 'pre-approved' means a financial product is approved from the vendor's end - i.e. underwriters have decided the potential purchaser is a safe customer. It means the financial isnstitution will take that risk.

Since banks aren't the personal Nannies of individual households, they aren't the ones to decide if an individual will buy the financial product (loan) or not. It is up to the individual to weigh up risk on his own end as well.

Anyone who took these loans made the personal decision to do so themselves. Banks now have to go about solving that problem, but they are not responsible for the fact that individuals purchased a product they cannot afford to begin with.

That situation cannot be compared with Ahern taking financial donations at all.

Liam Byrne · 13-02-2010 8:54pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Apologies, missed that . .

Handy that; it allowed you to say "answer my question first" and then ignore the question.

So I'll ask again :

If your neighbour overspends, but you don't, is it fair that you have to pay ?

I might not be an "average Irish consumer", but I know what I did and didn't do.

And buy into the bull**** about the "property ladder" was one; overspend was another.

Is it fair that I have to bail out scum that are on €600,000 a year ?

Liam Byrne · 13-02-2010 8:56pm

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Just on this point, 'pre-approved' means a financial product is approved from the vendor's end - i.e. underwriters have decided the potential purchaser is a safe customer. It means the financial isnstitution will take that risk.

Are you suggesting that people who took those loans should get off scot-free, because the financial institution will take that risk ?

And for the record, you're wrong. A bank offered me more than I explicitly told them I could afford to pay back, and I had to tell them no.

What kind of business model is that ?

Red_Marauder · 13-02-2010 9:06pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Are you suggesting that people who took those loans should get off scot-free, because the financial institution will take that risk ?

Where on Earth are you getting that?

I'm saying that in any loan agreement, the banks confidence in your ability to complete the purchase of a loan product is not enough.
They are taking a risk in you - fine.
But it is also up to you to weigh up your own personal risk having, as you do, a far more comprehensive insight into your financial affairs and also deciding how indebted you personally wish be.

The buck stops with the consumer, so the consumer must take blame.

And for the record, you're wrong. A bank offered me more than I explicitly told them I could afford to pay back, and I had to tell them no.

What kind of business model is that ?

Like any sensible business, a model that seeks to maximise return for its products.

If I were a banker I wouldn't care how hard an individual had to work or how many luxuries he'd have to forego if it meant him paying back a 100,000 euro loan instead of a 60,000 euro one. That's how business operates. Vendors cannot have a conscience.

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 9:15pm

Biggins wrote: »

Again, it would be normal to expect that he (or anyone for that matter) got remuneration as an executive director and was wise enough to have it included in his employment contract originally. Standard practise and all that... He would have been a fool not to and he didn't get to his position (before resignation) by being a fool.

You might want to have a look at this company website: http://www.experianannualreport.ie/governance_remuneration.asp
where Fitz' acted as a non-executive director alone for this one company. Note the finance numbers for him in the sixth graphic down ...and the Anglo (and others) I assume works on the same principle, if not the same amounts.

And again, I hope I am wrong.

What do you mean by remuneration . . remuneration is just pay

He might have had severance clauses in his contract at Anglo had he retired or been fired but in his case he resigned. . you have no evidence that he got any severance payment from Anglo (and if he had it probably would have been published!)

It's unlikely that he would have had severance payments from any of his non-executive directorships and again if he had, they would likely have been published. .

You have absolutely no facts to back up your comments that Fitzpatrick got "paid off" . .

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 9:21pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Handy that; it allowed you to say "answer my question first" and then ignore the question.

So I'll ask again :

If your neighbour overspends, but you don't, is it fair that you have to pay ?

I might not be an "average Irish consumer", but I know what I did and didn't do.

And buy into the bull**** about the "property ladder" was one; overspend was another.

Is it fair that I have to bail out scum that are on €600,000 a year ?

No, if a neighbour overspends and I don't it would not be fair if I had to pay . . and I won't have to pay off my neighbours mortgage regardless of his own ability to pay it . . what is your point ? ?

On the other hand, if the country is on the verge of going bankrupt due to the toxic debts held in its banks, does the country then have a responsibility to take on the risks associated with that debt in order to avoid bankruptcy and give the economy space to recover - Yes it does . . . Is it fair, probably not . . . Is there an alternative, absolutely not !

Biggins · 13-02-2010 9:22pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

It's unlikely that he would have had severance payments from any of his non-executive directorships and again if he had, they would likely have been published. .

You have absolutely no facts to back up your comments that Fitzpatrick got "paid off" . .

I'm not helping by getting the thread off track but I will just add the following:
As payments are normal of some sort upon leaving a company I would expect most to gain some sort of finance benefit.
As to it being made public, in most cases are such payments automatically exposed into the public domain by private businesses?
I'm sure he'd expect some form of privacy as to earnings, severance payments and company exposure.

The point is, if he gained nothing from any or all of the companies he resigned from, it would be extremely unprecedented and rare for it to happen. Thats all.
Can we agree to differ?

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 9:26pm

Biggins wrote: »

I'm not helping by getting the thread off track but I will just add the following:
As payments are normal of some sort upon leaving a company I would expect most to gain some sort of finance benefit.
As to it being made public, in most cases are such payments exposed into the public domain by private businesses?
I'm sure he'd expect some form of privacy as to earnings, severance payments and company exposure.

The point is, if he gained nothing from all of the companies he resigned from, it would be extremely unprecedented, rare for it to happen. Thats all.

Nonsense . . payments to directors have to be disclosed in the company reports . . just like the one you linked to earlier . . Further, I presume that given that Anglo is now a public company such payments (if they existed) would probably be available under the Freedom of Information Act.

Your argument has now reduced to . . "I have no evidence whatsoever that he received any payments when he resigned his positions, but sure he must have done, the sneaky divil . . sure they all do . . ." Its complete and utter conjecture . . .

IrishTonyO · 13-02-2010 9:34pm

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Like any sensible business, a model that seeks to maximise return for its products.

.

Like all the sensible banks who now would be bust except for government intervention? How sensible is that? I am sure if you ask their shareholders who have lost a fortune, they wouldn't describe them as have been a sensible business

Biggins · 13-02-2010 9:35pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Nonsense . . payments to directors have to be disclosed in the company reports . . just like the one you linked to earlier . . Further, I presume that given that Anglo is now a public company such payments (if they existed) would probably be available under the Freedom of Information Act..

Well I look forward to the exposure of those details as soon as someone can come up with the €700 fee for those documents.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Your argument has now reduced to . . "I have no evidence whatsoever that he received any payments when he resigned his positions, but sure he must have done, the sneaky divil . . sure they all do . . ."

They are your words in your form of summary - they are not my words!

I have made my thoughts out clear and the basis to why I have come to this somewhat natural assumption.
I don't wish to continue on with this vein of the thread as it might end up with me being seen to be trolling and non-advantageous to the theme of the thread.

Red_Marauder · 13-02-2010 10:24pm

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Like all the sensible banks who now would be bust except for government intervention?

The banks are not bust because they went out offering loans or because the underwriters calculated that the loan recipients were viable... the banks (almost) went bust because these loans were taken up when customers took them and were unable to repay them. Nobody forced anyone to take out a loan, be they a developer or an entrepreneur or the guy next door.

hallelujajordan · 14-02-2010 12:46am

Biggins wrote: »

Well I look forward to the exposure of those details as soon as someone can come up with the €700 fee for those documents.

Are you seriously suggesting that we don't know about Fitzpatricks pay offs (which you cite to prove that 'the bankers are being bailed out and paid off') because no one can afford the €700 for the FoI request. . . ? ?

Your "somewhat natural assumption" has absolutely no basis in fact . . and honestly, having read some of your earlier posts I'm amazed that you are willing to peddle such nonsense. .

Biggins · 14-02-2010 12:56am

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that we don't know about Fitzpatricks pay offs (which you cite to prove that 'the bankers are being bailed out and paid off') because no one can afford the €700 for the FoI request. . . ? ?

Your "somewhat natural assumption" has absolutely no basis in fact . . and honestly, having read some of your earlier posts I'm amazed that you are willing to peddle such nonsense. .

Look, I'm tired of your downright rude aggressiveness towards me and frankly from what I read of your previous posts and tones towards others, who also sometimes disagree with you in other posts.
I've stated my point, its background, and its validity based on previous standard employment contracts.
If thats not good enough for you - I'm not going to satisfy your attempts to get me to troll.

PS: Anyone else interested in the "cost" of the freedom of Information start reading here to begin with:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/how-freedom-of-information-has-become-a-farce-1558264.html
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/information-is-taxpayers-right-1951157.html
Since then the prices have gone up even more.

Other examples employment contracts used today and their obligations that had to be filled contractually and legally...
FAS Rody Molloy - resigned - 1 million payoff - he even got to keep the job car!
Mr Patrick Neary (former financial regulator) - resigned - payoff of package €600,000 and pension 3 times the national wage
Dermot Gallager (foreign affairs secretary) - undisclosed bumper package and a new job worth €150,000 a year!
Former AIB chairman Dermot Gleeson - exact figures undisclosed!
AIB group's chief executive Eugene Sheehy - exact figures undisclosed!
John O'Donague... and on and on...

Why is Fitz' all of a sudden different and not gaining a contractual payment upon leaving?
What makes him all of a sudden SO different that he don't get the full benefits of usual agreed (when starting) employment contracts?
As has been shown just by a few names, leaving payments are contractually standard more so than not - so where does the onus lie to show something???

...and by the way hallelujajordan - you haven't actually show that Fitz' DIDN'T get a leaving package either!
Good day sir.

hallelujajordan · 14-02-2010 1:10am

Biggins wrote: »

Look, I'm tired of your downright rude aggressiveness towards me and frankly from what I read of your previous posts and tones towards others, who also sometimes disagree with you in other posts.
I've stated my point, its background, and its validity based on previous standard employment contracts.
If thats not good enough for you - I'm not going to satisfy your attempts to get me to troll.
Good day sir.

If you think I am rude and aggressive, report the relevant posts and let the mods sort it out.

I have not been rude or aggressive to you or anyone else (but if you want to talk about rude and aggressive I can point you towards plenty of aggression directed towards me or anyone else who supports FF - within this thread and on several others)

Look . . . you made a ridiculous allegation earlier this evening which is based on nothing other than your own imagination . . You try to back it up by quoting 'normal employment contracts' and 'privacy' neither of which stand up to any level of scrutiny. . Your point has no validity whatsoever and when backed into a corner, instead of accepting you are wrong, you attack me !

There are plenty of people willing to spout the populist nonsense about the bankers and developers being bailed out at the expense of our good friend Mr Soap . . there is nothing either rude or aggressive about me correcting them.

Biggins · 14-02-2010 1:35am

hallelujajordan wrote: »

If you think I am rude and aggressive, report the relevant posts and let the mods sort it out.

I have not been rude or aggressive to you or anyone else (but if you want to talk about rude and aggressive I can point you towards plenty of aggression directed towards me or anyone else who supports FF - within this thread and on several others)

Look . . . you made a ridiculous allegation earlier this evening which is based on nothing other than your own imagination . . You try to back it up by quoting 'normal employment contracts' and 'privacy' neither of which stand up to any level of scrutiny. . Your point has no validity whatsoever and when backed into a corner, instead of accepting you are wrong, you attack me !

There are plenty of people willing to spout the populist nonsense about the bankers and developers being bailed out at the expense of our good friend Mr Soap . . there is nothing either rude or aggressive about me correcting them.

My final word on this is the following and addressed to the the rest of the forum - not to hallelujajordan where I feel no answers will suffice:

1. Whats "ridiculous" about a man being expected to use standard employment contract law? A contract by the way that had been entered into while the "Tiger" was still good. If Anglo didn't live up to any possible sections of their employment conditions (again assuming all legal angles were covered while everything was running supposedly smoothly) Fitz' would have a serious case for litigation. Indeed this reason alone is why others previous hired by FF themselves, were handsomely paid off by the government - who stated they HAD to stick with the dictates originally signed by both sides when such employments commenced!

2. "Your point has no validity whatsoever" Really? - so previous cases of similar payouts upon resignation of high profile others are in my imagination and I clearly must be taking rubbish.

3. "you attack me !" Seriously? I responded to your questions and requests for answers. Maybe someone would point out where I "attacked" hallelujajordan in particular and not just responded to his questions.

4. I tried to come to a point where we could "agree to differ" (post no: 224) with hallelujajordan. Nope, wasn't enough.

As I now repeat for the third and last time, I've no wish to troll further and any further rebuffs from hallelujajordan will go un-answered. He can rebuff and have a go at my posts and what I've stated, tried to explain (again and again), clarify with data and links. I won't be responding to him. I think its very obvious to all by now there is no point.

..so I'm out of here as far as pleasant discussion with hallelujajordan is concerned.

hallelujajordan · 14-02-2010 1:42am

Biggins wrote: »

My final word on this is the following and addressed to the the rest of the forum - not to hallelujajordan where I feel no answers will suffice:

1. Whats "ridiculous" about a man being expected to use standard employment contract law? A contract by the way that had been entered into while the "Tiger" was still good. If Anglo didn't live up to any possible sections of their employment conditions (again assuming all legal angles were covered while everything was running supposedly smoothly) Fitz' would have a serious case for litigation. Indeed this reason alone is why others previous hired by FF themselves, were handsomely paid off by the government - who stated they HAD to stick with the dictates originally signed by both sides when such employments commenced!

Where in standard employment contract law does it state that a director who resigns his position is entitled to severance pay ?

2. "Your point has no validity whatsoever" Really? - so previous cases of similar payouts are in my imagination and I clearly must be taking rubbish.

There is a big difference when someones resignation is "negotiated" . . Fitzpatrick left under his own steam. . . both from Anglo and his other non exec directorships . .

3. "you attack me !" Seriously? I responded to your questions and requests for answers. maybe someone would point out where I "attacked" hallelujajordan in particular.

Here . . .

Biggins wrote:

Look, I'm tired of your downright rude aggressiveness towards me and frankly from what I read of your previous posts and tones towards others, who also sometimes disagree with you in other posts.

4. I tried to come to a point where we could "agree to differ" (post no: 224) with hallelujajordan. Nope, wasn't enough.
As I now repeat for the third and last time, I've no wish to troll further and any further rebuffs from hallelujajordan will go on answered. He can rebuff and have a go at my post and what I've stated, tried to explain (again and again), clarify with data and links. I won't be responding to him. I think its very obvious to all by now there is no point.

. . nope, its not enough. . if you continue with a ludicrous allegation then i will continue to correct you . . It isn't about whether you and I agree, its about whether something happened or didn't happen.

BTW, you posted no data to back up your claims .. .

hallelujajordan · 14-02-2010 1:10pm

Biggins wrote: »

...and by the way hallelujajordan - you haven't actually show that Fitz' DIDN'T get a leaving package either!
Good day sir.

Nice Edit . . allows you to respond while keeping your promise not to . .

Since when has the burden of proof been to prove that something didn't happen ? ?

And surely the examples you gave of all the severance payments that are in the public domain show that if Fitzpatrick's severance payments are not in the public domain then they probably didn't happen ...

And as I have said before, a "negotiated" resignation is a very different situation . .

Your argument still has not progressed beyond conjecture.

hallelujajordan · 14-02-2010 1:56pm

Biggins wrote: »

As has been shown just by a few names, leaving payments are contractually standard more so than not - so where does the onus lie to show something???

It's very hard for me to keep up if you only respond through edits . . . Not to mention the fact that it gives a distorted impression to others of the discussion that actually happened.

The answer to your question is that if you want to make an allegation that Fitzpatrick received a severance payment in support of an argument then the onus is on you to prove that this actually happened. .

Liam Byrne · 14-02-2010 8:35pm

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Where on Earth are you getting that?

You said that "the financial institution takes the risk".

If they take risks, then it's their tough.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

But it is also up to you to weigh up your own personal risk having, as you do, a far more comprehensive insight into your financial affairs and also deciding how indebted you personally wish be.

The buck stops with the consumer, so the consumer must take blame.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Like any sensible business, a model that seeks to maximise return for its products.

Any "sensible business" would also ensure that they would get paid. Anything else is irresponsible to their shareholders.

It's gas......if I sold something someone that I knew they couldn't afford, and then came on here and complained that they couldn't pay me for it, I'd be told I was a right eejit. And rightly so.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

If I were a banker I wouldn't care how hard an individual had to work or how many luxuries he'd have to forego if it meant him paying back a 100,000 euro loan instead of a 60,000 euro one. That's how business operates. Vendors cannot have a conscience.

Sickening outlook. You sell someone what they need, at a reasonable price, ensuring they can pay you back. Both sides happy. Return customer.

You won't make millions, but who needs millions ? You'll get by, have "enough", and have job satisfaction.

Also, I love the way you mention only "luxuries", as if a money shortage only applied to them. What about the basics (food, heat, etc) ?

Shea O'Meara · 14-02-2010 11:22pm

If Bertie is proven pure as the driven snow and all the, lets say strange things he did with friends, money and seemingly selective memory loss turn out to be just stuff that happened to happen, it will be the first time in Irish history a Fianna Fail politician accused of so many wrong doings, crimes against the very people they swore to represent...turned out to be innocent and an all-round nice guy.
So you can see why people lean towards this way of thinking. So he's either a first class Mr. Bean type character that made lots of bad choices and deals, which accidentally went in his favour, or he's a lying man with no honour and no respect for the Irish people. Time may tell.
If he is found to be completely clean, just a bit of an ejitt...I'll eat my hat, hell I'll eat the hat of everyone on here.
You never know though, I guess there's a first time for everything.

paddyland · 14-02-2010 11:57pm

Even if Bertie was innocent of the raft, the RAFT, of accusations against him on a host of different things, and was simply, as you describe him, a Mr. Bean type character, bumbling his way innocently through, well it hardly says much for him either way as a man of integrity and ability to lead a nation.

He is ON THE RECORD personally as having admitted handing out plum state positions to his friends. Even if there is no tie between that and alleged moneys received, that alone is moral corruption if nothing else. That, and the horrendous gallery of people he associated with and promoted throughout his career, point to a man who was very far from being a Mr. Bean character.

The more recent whitewash campaign shows there are still plenty of strings to be pulled, plenty of favours to be called in. It's a dirty business, and predicated on having a majority of gullible voters who are happy to be bought with short term electoral gimmicks, and to hell with the long term.

You don't have to fool everyone, just enough of them.

jmayo · 15-02-2010 12:08am

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Thank you for the NAMA lesson but I do already understand the principles. . . Guess what . . . that land that you are talking about that the developers borrowed money to buy . . . . they wanted to build houses and apartments on it . . . and it cost so much because there was huge demand for those houses . . . and that huge demand, was driven by consumers and speculators who began to treat property not as someone else described as "a basic right" but rather as an investment . . .

Did you ever consider the reason people were buying property as an investment vehicle was because your ff party in government did nothing to persuade them otherwise.
In fact under ff investors were encouraged into the market what with section23, section50 grnats as good example.
FTBS were facing investors and speculators as they tried to get on this mythical proeprty ladder.
Thus prices went up higher and higher.
If property taxes were introduced for second and subsequent properties, mortage interest relief cut for investors, and taxes introduced to removed flippers form the market then some of the hest would have been taken out of the bubble.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You still haven't answered my question . . Can I blame the government when I overspend on my credit card?

No you can't blame someone for overspending on your credit card, you can't blame someone for you taking out a big mortgage, but you can blame the government for using your taxes past, present and future in a very wreckless manner that doesn't beenfit you, your family or the general society, but does benefit a certain tranch of people within the country.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'll repeat MY question.

If your neighbour overspends, is it fair that you have to pay ?

"collective responsibility" does not exist.

In fact, given that you choose to overlook all of FF's actions to date in evaluating whether or not they are competent, I don't even think you know the meaning of the word "responsibility".

FFS Liam he is ff.
As I said many times ff is not in the ff dictionary.

danman wrote: »

Maybe I'm being nieve, but I thought that the developer still has to pay for his loan. If he doesn't, he get the asset taken off him.

I'm sick of hearing that he developers are getting money of the taxpayer.
His loans still have to be paid.

But what happens when develoepr can't pay the loans ?
The Carroll Zoe case was interesting in that it pointed how the NAMA destined institutions were willing to further back a developer that was proven to be a busted flush in court by the ACC bank who is not party to the NAMA safety net.

danman wrote: »

The poster on here and various media campaigners (Eamon Keane mentions this more than once on every show), bandy about the term "bailout for developers and bankers"

They either don't understand the basic principle of NAMA, in which case they shouldn't comment on it. Or they fully understand but just want to mislead those that don't bother to find out the basic principle.

The banks were given a guarentee last year, in the same way that every other country did. In fact we were the first to do it and every other country followed our lead.

The banks are loosing up to 30% on their original investments with NAMA, and the developers must still pay back the original loans.

Where do the banks and developers benifit from this arrangement?

But that wouldn't suit the naysayers now would it, so they will continue to peddle untruths.

I could accuse you of pedalling uninformed drivel but I will be kind :rolleyes:

FFS Banks benefit from NAMA.
It takes most of the toxic debts sh** off their balance sheets.
Thus they get rid of the cra*, henece benefit.

You do know what a balance sheet is ?

Here is reason commerce or whatever they call it these days should be mandatory school subject upto junior cert and unless you pass it you shoudl never be allowed get a loan.

Oh dear God the more I read posts around here the more I despair coughlans wonderful smart economy won't come to pass :rolleyes:

hallelujajordan · 15-02-2010 12:39am

jmayo wrote: »

Did you ever consider the reason people were buying property as an investment vehicle was because your ff party in government did nothing to persuade them otherwise.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility . . . ? See, I agree (and have done throughout this debate) that the government should have done more to take the heat out of the property bubble and I hold them partly responsible for where we are today . . but to hold them solely responsible and to absolve the consumer of any blame or responsibility just doesn't sit well with me. . . We have to take responsibility for our own actions.

jmayo wrote:

FFS Liam he is ff.
As I said many times ff is not in the ff dictionary.

That's a bit glib . . particularly as I had already answered Liam Byrnes question and acknowledged that the FF need to take a level of responsibility for the situation.

jmayo wrote:

FFS Banks benefit from NAMA.
It takes most of the toxic debts sh** off their balance sheets.
Thus they get rid of the cra*, henece benefit.

You do know what a balance sheet is ?

Here is reason commerce or whatever they call it these days should be mandatory school subject upto junior cert and unless you pass it you shoudl never be allowed get a loan.

Oh dear God the more I read posts around here the more I despair coughlans wonderful smart economy won't come to pass :rolleyes:

I completely agree ... of course the banks benefit, and if they didn't what would be the point ? ... The whole purpose of NAMA is to free up the banking system to operate because without a banking system we don't have an economy !

hallelujajordan · 15-02-2010 12:44am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You said that "the financial institution takes the risk".

If they take risks, then it's their tough.

Any "sensible business" would also ensure that they would get paid. Anything else is irresponsible to their shareholders.

It's gas......if I sold something someone that I knew they couldn't afford, and then came on here and complained that they couldn't pay me for it, I'd be told I was a right eejit. And rightly so.

Sickening outlook. You sell someone what they need, at a reasonable price, ensuring they can pay you back. Both sides happy. Return customer.

You won't make millions, but who needs millions ? You'll get by, have "enough", and have job satisfaction.

Also, I love the way you mention only "luxuries", as if a money shortage only applied to them. What about the basics (food, heat, etc) ?

In the same post you seem to acknowledge the capitalist principles of risk, shareholders and profit yet still espouse the socialist principles of 'getting by', having 'enough' and having 'job satisfaction' . .

Like it or not, we live in a capitalist society and the two just don't go hand in hand. . . If an organisation is not steadily growing its profits, the shareholders won't make any money, will drop their shares and slowly the organisation will cease to be viable . .

In truth the banks had little choice because the shareholders demanded increased profits year on year. 'Getting-by' was never an option.

Liam Byrne · 15-02-2010 1:49am

hallelujajordan wrote: »

In truth the banks had little choice because the shareholders demanded increased profits year on year. 'Getting-by' was never an option.

Yes, it's true that it sickens me that profit is viewed as the be-all and end-all.

That's a personal view.

But likewise, the fact remains that the banks (a) not only did have a choice - I said as much that their responsibility is to ensure that they got paid and (b) the Financial Regulator's job should have damn-well ensured that they didn't overdo it and land in the mess that they did.

But of course the fact that he was crap at his job and didn't bother doing it was irrelevant, because he was Bertie's mate.

spj1960 · 15-02-2010 11:38am

It will be interesting to see the findings of the investigations into Anglo. As for Sean Fitzpatrick, he may or may not have received a payment on exiting however he has not been repaying any of his loans.

Mr FitzPatrick used the secret loans to invest in Anglo shares, property funds, wealth management products, investment property, film finance and pension products.

The Anglo shares obviously are now worthless, Property Funds have dropped but not obliterated, wealth management products - the value would be dependant on the underlying assets so is anybody's guess. But the final two are the most interesting, Film Finance and Pensions. The Film Finance I would say is "Film Relief whereby Tax Relief on 100% of the investment is available. The Pension, well this is still within whatever pension product he choose and in his name. If he gets away without paying his loans, that is some severance package. Wonder what security, if any, is attached to these loans.

It appears that the Civil Service ignore contracts when making severance payment for their high profile people. In the case of Rody Molloy, he contract did not allow him to receive such a payment, they choose to give it to him. There is still a questions as to whether they could legally do this.

jmayo · 15-02-2010 12:38pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Whatever happened to personal responsibility . . . ? See, I agree (and have done throughout this debate) that the government should have done more to take the heat out of the property bubble and I hold them partly responsible for where we are today . . but to hold them solely responsible and to absolve the consumer of any blame or responsibility just doesn't sit well with me. . . We have to take responsibility for our own actions.

That's a bit glib . . particularly as I had already answered Liam Byrnes question and acknowledged that the FF need to take a level of responsibility for the situation.

I completely agree ... of course the banks benefit, and if they didn't what would be the point ? ... The whole purpose of NAMA is to free up the banking system to operate because without a banking system we don't have an economy !

I am all in favouir of personal responsibility.
Check out my posts stating the same when people raise the concept of a personal NAMA.

But the fact is the country's budget deficit is not down to individual people buying property they could not afford.
It is down to ff led governments increasing public spending based on short term transactional taxes that they shoudl have known would come to an end some day.

The fact that the banks are insolvent is not because ff ran the banks and actualyl gave out the loans themsevles.
The primary reason the banks are insolvent is down to the greedy bankers, but the hige secondary reasons are becuase the regulatory authorities and Dept of Finance, all answerable to government in some shape or form played along with the bankers.

Also the bubble was allowed go on unabated because the ff led government refused to introduce taxes or remove investor/speculator tax incentives that would take some of the heat out of the market.
If you can't see that then you are blind.

A government has to do things for the good of the country, for the good of society as a whole and not just for short terms gains for a portion of society.
An example of this was the brave decision of bringing in the smoking ban.
Maybe they should have considered investors, developers, vested interests as the equivalent of the smokers and thought about the long term health of the rest of society just once during the years 2002-2007 ?

I am all for people taking responsibility for their own actions.
What pis***me off is that I (and all the other tax payers still left in the country today and all the future taxpayers of the country) are being asked to take responsibility for the actions of bertie, biffo, michael neary, seanie fitzpatrick, david drumm, eugene sheedy, brian goggins, liam o'reilly, hurley, liam carroll, bernard mcnamara, paddy kelly, mr fleming, sean dunne, etc, etc.

Maybe when I see them really suffering for their actions then I might not be so pi**ed off.
Until then I wish them nothing but the bad luck they deserve for leaving us carrying their crocks of sh**.
They didn't share their personal profits or bonuses with us, so why should they share their losses now.

I know we need banks for an economy to function, but I have asked on another thread somewhere recently what ultimate price to we put on that.
Are we willing to pay any price ?

Are we willing to mortgage our future and our childrens' futures so that maybe some of them some day may actually get a mortgage from one of these banks that we are going to save ?

I actually think the same question is going to be asked about bailing out countries. These quesitons are being faced by the French and more particularly the German taxpayers as they now know that they are affectively going to be bailing out their less frugal contemporaries firstly in Greece and then maybe some other Eurozone countries.

Red_Marauder · 15-02-2010 12:50pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You said that "the financial institution takes the risk".
If they take risks, then it's their tough.

Yes. They are paying for that risk now. Nobody is suggesting they get off scot free or that they have got off scot free so far. Those who risked taking out the loans have to pay for that as well.

Any "sensible business" would also ensure that they would get paid. Anything else is irresponsible to their shareholders.

Even George Lee and David McWilliams did not predict anything close to the scale of economic collapse that has toppled down since the Summer of 2008. In that climate, those risks were deemed as reasonably safe, inasmuch as any risk is ever safe. Banks and financial markets cannot operate in a system of total certainity - that's the whole point of a free market system.

It's gas......if I sold something someone that I knew they couldn't afford, and then came on here and complained that they couldn't pay me for it, I'd be told I was a right eejit. And rightly so.

I sincerely doubt that they "knew" you couldn't afford it. Even if you said (x) is my salary, i can afford (x-(a+b+c)), the natural assumption is that you would cut out b and c from your spending if it came to the crunch. Like I said, banks don't have consciences, they don't care if you have to sell your car or your pet rabbit or your grandmother to get by. Nor should they.

Sickening outlook. You sell someone what they need, at a reasonable price, ensuring they can pay you back. Both sides happy. Return customer.

No. You sell someone what they want but don't need for as much as they will reasonably pay, and they come back. Both sides happy. Capitalism.

You won't make millions, but who needs millions ?

If nobody wanted to be millionaires in this society, we would be doomed.

Be thankful that people want to get rich, or you wouldn't have a boss to pay wages. Who needs millionaires? Capitalism. Be glad it does.

paddyland · 15-02-2010 1:18pm

Will you at least agree that when somebody buys a house for purely speculative reasons, they feck up the market on another somebody who needs that house to live in, whether it be through buying or renting?

One allows that there will always be a bit of horse trading going on, and kept to a reasonable level, the market will remain healthy enough.

What we had was a market gone completely mad, where far, far too many houses were being bought by speculators, putting them out of reach of the people who actually wanted them to live in. Add to that a glut of new houses built by speculative developers in completely unrealistic locations (Leitrim, anybody?) built purely to feed the speculation frenzy. There was no desire for people to live in such numbers in out of the way places, nor ever likely to be.

Government should have had control over that market, using taxes and regulation in a way to calm the market and keep things at a reasonable level. Unfortunately government through this period were the glutinous and corrupt FF party, who saw an opportunity for selfish advancement, and did EVERYTHING wrong, to feed the fire instead of controlling it.

Ordinary people were used as fodder to create a super race of multi millionaire speculators, with the whole hearted backing of a corrupt government who should have had ordinary people's interests at heart, instead of joining in the mass rape. Ordinary people just want to get on with life, they will grab such opportunities as they get, however ill advised. The purpose of government is to manage that situation, not to fan a spark into a forest fire.

I buy a few potatoes, sell them to you, make a profit. Maybe you sell a few on, make a profit too. Good, healthy capitalism.

I buy up every potato in the nation, and hold you all to ransom for ten times their value. That is not capitalism, that is sick.

hallelujajordan · 15-02-2010 1:28pm

paddyland wrote: »

Ordinary people were used as fodder to create a super race of multi millionaire speculators, with the whole hearted backing of a corrupt government who should have had ordinary people's interests at heart, instead of joining in the mass rape. Ordinary people just want to get on with life, they will grab such opportunities as they get, however ill advised. The purpose of government is to manage that situation, not to fan a spark into a forest fire.

I buy up every potato in the nation, and hold you all to ransom for ten times their value. That is not capitalism, that is sick.

I don't agree with the way you distinguish 'ordinary people' from 'multi-millionaire speculators' . . The reality is a little different. Many 'ordinary people' became speculators, sometimes in their own properties but often in a second or third property . . . most of them never became millionaires of any description and a lot of them have now lost out hugely in the property crash.

paddyland · 15-02-2010 1:39pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I don't agree with the way you distinguish 'ordinary people' from 'multi-millionaire speculators' . . The reality is a little different. Many 'ordinary people' became speculators, sometimes in their own properties but often in a second or third property . . . most of them never became millionaires of any description and a lot of them have now lost out hugely in the property crash.

An unhealthy amount of those 'ordinary people' would turn into speculators too, if only they got half a chance. The point is that government should step in and manage that situation.

FF did everything to encourage the 'mini speculator' frenzy, and as such are far more culpable, because too many ordinary people did not understand what they were doing. The government DID, or SHOULD HAVE, and should have stepped in and took control. They didn't, and that's why I blame FF much more than the ordinary person who didn't know any better.

You suggest people need to take full responsibility for their own actions. I suggest if people were that smart, there would be no need for a government at all. The whole purpose of government is to manage a people who cannot manage themselves.

Fianna Fáil the Bertie Party have failed utterly.

Red_Marauder · 15-02-2010 2:03pm

paddyland wrote: »

Will you at least agree that when somebody buys a house for purely speculative reasons, they feck up the market on another somebody who needs that house to live in, whether it be through buying or renting?

Absolutely not.

Every sale has an effect on the market. To say that investors 'F it up' by making property investments suggests there is something wrong with investing in commodities because it might increase their value.

Do you realise how backwards that is? Nobody owes anybody a house. You compete on an open market for one.

What we had was a market gone completely mad, where far, far too many houses were being bought by speculators, putting them out of reach of the people who actually wanted them to live in.

You seem unable to let go of this idea of 'deserving' something. People don't automatically deserve to own their own homes, they are entitled to purchase them as long as they have the money.

Add to that a glut of new houses built by speculative developers in completely unrealistic locations (Leitrim, anybody?) built purely to feed the speculation frenzy

Hang on, built purely to feed speculation frenzy?

Now you are just engaging in language for dramatic effect... 'purely to feed speculation frenzy? Get real, individual schemes were built to make money for an individual investor. Fair enough. They were not built as some elaborate plan to further speculation frenzy. Nobody goes into business with such a pointless plan as their goal. The goal is profit, as it should be.

Ordinary people were used as fodder to create a super race of multi millionaire speculators, with the whole hearted backing of a corrupt government who should have had ordinary people's interests at heart, instead of joining in the mass rape.

Where are you getting this from?

People chose to buy all of these houses - ordinary people - for extraordinary prices. That was their choice. Why don't you understand that? There was no forced purchase.

I buy a few potatoes, sell them to you, make a profit. Maybe you sell a few on, make a profit too. Good, healthy capitalism.

I buy up every potato in the nation, and hold you all to ransom for ten times their value. That is not capitalism, that is sick.

That is typical potato famine mentality.

Eat apples.

hallelujajordan · 15-02-2010 2:18pm

paddyland wrote: »

An unhealthy amount of those 'ordinary people' would turn into speculators too, if only they got half a chance. The point is that government should step in and manage that situation.

FF did everything to encourage the 'mini speculator' frenzy, and as such are far more culpable, because too many ordinary people did not understand what they were doing. The government DID, or SHOULD HAVE, and should have stepped in and took control. They didn't, and that's why I blame FF much more than the ordinary person who didn't know any better.

I think the whole 'ordinary person, didn't know any better' line is just the most enormous cop-out . .

First, I don't believe it and second, whether or not they knew no better does nothing to diminish their responsibility. . . Apart from which, according to you guys, the dogs on the street knew about the impending crash.

The reality is they didn't care because they believed they were going to make a quick buck . . and that's ok . . as long as you are willing to take responsibility for the consequences when it doesn't work out.

Liam Byrne · 15-02-2010 2:23pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The reality is they didn't care because they believed they were going to make a quick buck . . and that's ok . . as long as you are willing to take responsibility for the consequences when it doesn't work out.

Interesting concept. Any chance you could get the banks to abide by it so that we don't have to pay for bank shares in incompetent banks that no-one wants ?

As for the "make a quick buck" - yet AGAIN you're ignoring all of the many, many people who just wanted a home, myself included.

Bertie the champion of the world

Comments