Local hotel owner praised for cancelling auction of family farm.

red sean · 27-04-2014 10:54am #1

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/local-hotel-owner-praised-for-cancelling-family-farm-sale-628854.html

At last we see a REAL man with balls to stand up to the greedy banks etc.

Bigcheeze · 27-04-2014 10:57am

He's not standing up to anything. He's doing what's best for his own business.

Arthur Beesley · 27-04-2014 10:57am

REAL men pay their bills.

Woodville56 · 27-04-2014 11:12am

We don't know the circumstances of the sale so it's a bit harsh to suppose that only real men pay their bills. Similarly, why is it assumed that the hotel owner is acting out of self interest in refusing the auction to proceed on his premises. In his statement he indicates that the parties to the auction are known to him as neighbours and members of his community and former staff. Are we not allowed to accept that the hotel owner can have a conscience about this matter ?
It not all about the money ya know !

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 11:14am

Woodville56 wrote: »

We don't know the circumstances of the sale so it's a bit harsh to suppose that only real men pay their bills. Similarly, why is it assumed that the hotel owner is acting out of self interest in refusing the auction to proceed on his premises. In his statement he indicates that the parties to the auction are known to him as neighbours and members of his community and former staff. Are we not allowed to accept that the hotel owner can have a conscience about this matter ?
It not all about the money ya know !

The circumstances are fairly irrelevant. The bank are selling the farm they own.

I doubt its too much of a stretch to suggest someone had a mortgage on it and didn't keep up payments. Funny enough the contract everyone signs has a section about that......

How long would the hotel owner with the conscience let people stay in his rooms if they didn't pay their bills?

kylith · 27-04-2014 11:18am

I don't get it. Surely if the farm has to be sold to pay a debt then it still has to be sold. Him cancelling the auction does't magically make the farmers financial obligation go away, all he's done is put it back a bit. I'd be more impressed if he had paid off the mortgage.

Arthur Beesley · 27-04-2014 11:19am

Woodville56 wrote: »

We don't know the circumstances of the sale so it's a bit harsh to suppose that only real men pay their bills. Similarly, why is it assumed that the hotel owner is acting out of self interest in refusing the auction to proceed on his premises. In his statement he indicates that the parties to the auction are known to him as neighbours and members of his community and former staff. Are we not allowed to accept that the hotel owner can have a conscience about this matter ?
It not all about the money ya know !

You know as much or as little as we do.

Perhaps they are strategic defaulters and it backfired on them?

Perhaps they over borrowed to invest in property?

Perhaps they decided to make it big as developers?

Regardless, they made the decision to use their farm as collateral. Were they forced to do this or did they do it by choice? I'll wager that they went into whatever with their eyes wide open. And if not then they only have themselves to blame.

galwayrush · 27-04-2014 11:20am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The circumstances are fairly irrelevant. The bank are selling the farm they own.

I doubt its too much of a stretch to suggest someone had a mortgage on it and didn't keep up payments. Funny enough the contract everyone signs has a section about that......

Did the bank provide 100% of the money for the farm? If for eg, they provided 25 % of the value at the time, they should not be entitled to any more than 25% of the value now. Banks don't care about what a person puts into a place, they want it all.
Unfair.

Arthur Beesley · 27-04-2014 11:20am

kylith wrote: »

I don't get it. Surely if the farm has to be sold to pay a debt then it still has to be sold. Him cancelling the auction does't magically make the farmers financial obligation go away, all he's done is put it back a bit. I'd be more impressed if he had paid off the mortgage.

It is a fairly cynical ploy on his part. He was probably threatened with a boycott, either directly or by word of mouth.

Arthur Beesley · 27-04-2014 11:24am

galwayrush wrote: »

Did the bank provide 100% of the money for the farm? If for eg, they provided 25 % of the value at the time, they should not be entitled to any more than 25% of the value now. Banks don't care about what a person puts into a place, they want it all.
Unfair.

Not that unfair, particularly since it isn't exactly a secret.

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 11:25am

galwayrush wrote: »

Did the bank provide 100% of the money for the farm? If for eg, they provided 25 % of the value at the time, they should not be entitled to any more than 25% of the value now. Banks don't care about what a person puts into a place, they want it all.
Unfair.

Im sure if they only own 25% (or any other amount)they'd be more than happy to have the money they are owed paid to them if that's the way the farmer wants to go. I have a feeling hes not offering them their money though.

dubrov · 27-04-2014 11:26am

galwayrush wrote: »

Did the bank provide 100% of the money for the farm? If for eg, they provided 25 % of the value at the time, they should not be entitled to any more than 25% of the value now. Banks don't care about what a person puts into a place, they want it all.
Unfair.

If the farm had gone up in value, would the farmer pay back 25% of the higher value?

They lent money. They didn't invest in a farm.

osarusan · 27-04-2014 11:28am

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

It is a fairly cynical ploy on his part.

I don't see how you can reconcile the apparent certainty of this statement with your earlier comment that nobody really knows what's actually going on.

Frank Lee Midere · 27-04-2014 11:31am

Hilarious reaction from the locals there. They applauded him when he stopped the auction. But they were there for the auction.

wes · 27-04-2014 11:33am

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

REAL men pay their bills.

Ok, but seeing as the tax payer is paying the banks bills, we really shouldn't be surprised, when the average person think they should get the same treatment.

Zamboni · 27-04-2014 11:34am

The value Irish people place on allowing folks to renege on debts is simply astounding.
Actively assisting and campaigning for people to retain assets that have not been paid - flabbergasting.
There is no emphasis on the actual agreed contract but instead the focus is on negatively personifying a credit institution.
The greedy banks indeed.

Arthur Beesley · 27-04-2014 11:35am

osarusan wrote: »

I don't see how you can reconcile the apparent certainty of this statement with your earlier comment that nobody really knows what's actually going on.

Not really. I said no one knows why particular properties were being repossessed and sold.

I'd be very surprised if he didn't know about the booking in advance. The fact that he cancelled it at the very last minute strongly suggests that he had misjudged the potential for a backlash against his hotel, only realising that it was a problem when so many protestors showed up.

Had the protestors not shown up then I would imagine that the event would have gone ahead as planned.

Arthur Beesley · 27-04-2014 11:36am

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Hilarious reaction from the locals there. They applauded him when he stopped the auction. But they were there for the auction.

In fairness, I assumed they were there to protest / disrupt the auction. Could be wrong though.

Zamboni · 27-04-2014 11:36am

wes wrote: »

Ok, but seeing as the tax payer is paying the banks bills, we really shouldn't be surprised, when the average person think they should get the same treatment.

Does the article mention which bank?
How do you know if the tax payer is "paying the banks bills"?

27-04-2014 11:37am

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Hilarious reaction from the locals there. They applauded him when he stopped the auction. But they were there for the auction.

Perhaps they were going to do what people did in the past and put in a low ball bid to buy it back for the farmer and "bully" out all outsider buyers.
Then sell it back to the farmer.

So the farmer would keep his farm and the bank would get short changed.

Arthur Beesley · 27-04-2014 11:38am

Zamboni wrote: »

Does the article mention which bank?
How do you know if the tax payer is "paying the banks bills"?

Bank Of Ireland I think.

Zamboni · 27-04-2014 11:41am

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Bank Of Ireland I think.

Ok so considering the states holding in BOI, as a tax payer, I applaud the repossession and sale of an unsustainably mortgaged asset.
Bravo!

sillyoulfool · 27-04-2014 11:41am

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps they were going to do what people did in the past and put in a low ball bid to buy it back for the farmer and "bully" out all outsider buyers.
Then sell it back to the farmer.

So the farmer would keep his farm and the bank would get short changed.

No.
The bank would still be owed the difference between the selling price and the outstanding loan amount by the farmer.

Arthur Beesley · 27-04-2014 11:46am

It would be interesting to hear the background here. Are these farmers who got into difficulty due to day to day farming expenditure / working capital issues etc, or did they use the farm as collateral for something else?

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 11:51am

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps they were going to do what people did in the past and put in a low ball bid to buy it back for the farmer and "bully" out all outsider buyers.
Then sell it back to the farmer.

So the farmer would keep his farm and the bank would get short changed.

and what if he doesn't pay that debt either? It'd be a bit hypocritical to try force him to.

Pro Hoc Vice · 27-04-2014 11:52am

galwayrush wrote: »

Did the bank provide 100% of the money for the farm? If for eg, they provided 25 % of the value at the time, they should not be entitled to any more than 25% of the value now. Banks don't care about what a person puts into a place, they want it all.
Unfair.

So if I borrow €20,000 from you to buy say gold. Say I refuse to pay you back the loan, the courts order the sale of the gold now worth €5,000 then you will be happy to take the loss of the €15,000. If you are happy can I borrow €20,000 to buy bitcoins. You provide the money I win if they go up you take all the risk, sounds really good to me.

galwayrush · 27-04-2014 11:58am

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So if I borrow €20,000 from you to buy say gold. Say I refuse to pay you back the loan, the courts order the sale of the gold now worth €5,000 then you will be happy to take the loss of the €15,000. If you are happy can I borrow €20,000 to buy bitcoins. You provide the money I win if they go up you take all the risk, sounds really good to me.

That's the way investments work.

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 11:59am

galwayrush wrote: »

That's the way investments work.

The bank weren't making an investment though. They loaned someone money to be paid back.

Rhyme · 27-04-2014 12:02pm

I'm waiting for Sean Bean to get run off a cliff by some cows now.

Teyla Emmagan · 27-04-2014 12:03pm

red sean wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/local-hotel-owner-praised-for-cancelling-family-farm-sale-628854.html

At last we see a REAL man with balls to stand up to the greedy banks etc.

Oh yeah, cause now it won't be sold at all, is that it??

galwayrush · 27-04-2014 12:05pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The bank weren't making an investment though. They loaned someone money to be paid back.

I know, I said it was unfair that the bank can get 100% of their investment and the original owner can lost 100% of theirs, despite the banks share may only be a small % of the overall value.
If it was a limited company the bank may have to take the hit.

Zamboni · 27-04-2014 12:08pm

galwayrush wrote: »

I know, I said it was unfair that the bank can get 100% of their investment and the original owner can lost 100% of theirs, despite the banks share may only be a small % of the overall value.
If it was a limited company the bank may have to take the hit.

I am sure all this is covered in the contract the farmer willingly entered into at time of draw down.

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 12:09pm

galwayrush wrote: »

I know, I said it was unfair that the bank can get 100% of their investment and the original owner can lost 100% of theirs, despite the banks share may only be a small % of the overall value.
If it was a limited company the bank may have to take the hit.

The owner is free to find the money to buy the bank out any other way he likes. In the absence of that the property has to be sold though. Unless theres a big market for the back corner 10% of a farm or the upstairs portion of a house.

tritium · 27-04-2014 12:09pm

galwayrush wrote: »

Did the bank provide 100% of the money for the farm? If for eg, they provided 25 % of the value at the time, they should not be entitled to any more than 25% of the value now. Banks don't care about what a person puts into a place, they want it all.
Unfair.

You need to learn the difference betWeen debt and equity

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 12:11pm

Zamboni wrote: »

I am sure all this is covered in the contract the farmer willingly entered into at time of draw down.

Maybe he thought he was signing one of those freeman loan applications where everything is above board and legal till they don't want to pay, then all of a sudden the bank is a sham, the borrower isn't a legal entity, the "created money" he accepted doesn't exist and the contract isn't enforceable under maritime law.

osarusan · 27-04-2014 12:12pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The bank weren't making an investment though. They loaned someone money to be paid back.

That's an interesting one.

I'm not joking, but asking a genuine question here (albeit one that might highlight my lack of understanding): what's the practical difference between an investment and a loan?

In both cases a certain amount of money is parted with, in the belief/expectation that more than that amount will eventually be recouped.

The Backwards Man · 27-04-2014 12:12pm

Free nationwide exposure for doing something that makes sweet fcuk all difference in the long run.

Well played sir.

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 12:14pm

osarusan wrote: »

That's an interesting one.

I'm not joking, but asking a genuine question here: what's the practical difference between an investment and a loan?

In both cases a certain amount of money is parted with, in the belief/expectation that more than that amount will eventually be recouped.

The loan has to be paid back as per the details of the legally binding contract or the property is forfeited. Investing money is gambling and can all be lost.

osarusan · 27-04-2014 12:15pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The loan has to be paid back as per the details of the legally binding contract or the property is forfeited. Investing money is gambling and can all be lost.

I know that difference, but is a loan not just an investment with collateral?

Or is the presence or absence of specific and binding collareral what differentiates the two?

Zamboni · 27-04-2014 12:15pm

osarusan wrote: »

That's an interesting one.

I'm not joking, but asking a genuine question here (albeit one that might highlight my lack of understanding): what's the practical difference between an investment and a loan?

In both cases a certain amount of money is parted with, in the belief/expectation that more than that amount will eventually be recouped.

One is a contractual agreement.
The other is gambling.

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 12:20pm

osarusan wrote: »

I know that difference, but is a loan not just an investment with collateral?

Or is the presence or absence of specific and binding collareral what differentiates the two?

The bank are guaranteed their return. Either in the form of the payments or the property. They cant be left empty handed.

There is no guarantee of any return from gambling.

Woodville56 · 27-04-2014 12:23pm

Seems like the apologists for the banks are in the majority in this thread! The Richie Boucher supporters club up and about on this Sunday morning - thought ye guys would be on the golf course by now with your banker buddies and developer friends! We all pay taxes ya know but don't all carry around the same degree of self righteous indignation posted here !

Zamboni · 27-04-2014 12:28pm

Woodville56 wrote: »

Seems like the apologists for the banks are in the majority in this thread! The Richie Boucher supporters club up and about on this Sunday morning - thought ye guys would be on the golf course by now with your banker buddies and developer friends! We all pay taxes ya know but don't all carry around the same degree of self righteous indignation posted here !

Here is some light Sunday reading for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

You'll note the word - voluntary

shruikan2553 · 27-04-2014 12:29pm

Woodville56 wrote: »

Seems like the apologists for the banks are in the majority in this thread! The Richie Boucher supporters club up and about on this Sunday morning - thought ye guys would be on the golf course by now with your banker buddies and developer friends! We all pay taxes ya know but don't all carry around the same degree of self righteous indignation posted here !

Some of us read our contracts. I haven't found any that says if there is a bailout the contract is void.

tritium · 27-04-2014 12:30pm

Woodville56 wrote: »

Seems like the apologists for the banks are in the majority in this thread! The Richie Boucher supporters club up and about on this Sunday morning - thought ye guys would be on the golf course by now with your banker buddies and developer friends! We all pay taxes ya know but don't all carry around the same degree of self righteous indignation posted here !

Funny the amount of folks who go on about how they pay taxes as though it gives you a get out of jail card on paying your debts. Funny too how no one seems to have had this ethical dilemma with debt during the good times.

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 12:31pm

Woodville56 wrote: »

Seems like the apologists for the banks are in the majority in this thread! The Richie Boucher supporters club up and about on this Sunday morning - thought ye guys would be on the golf course by now with your banker buddies and developer friends! We all pay taxes ya know but don't all carry around the same degree of self righteous indignation posted here !

So fill us in as to why he shouldn't have to pay his mortgage.

hatrickpatrick · 27-04-2014 12:32pm

Bigcheeze wrote: »

He's not standing up to anything. He's doing what's best for his own business.

Ah, AH. So beautifully, predictably, reliably cynical.

tritium · 27-04-2014 12:32pm

osarusan wrote: »

That's an interesting one.

I'm not joking, but asking a genuine question here (albeit one that might highlight my lack of understanding): what's the practical difference between an investment and a loan?

In both cases a certain amount of money is parted with, in the belief/expectation that more than that amount will eventually be recouped.

There are several differences but essentially debt is low risk and relatively low (but secure) reward, equity is higher risk but gives you a stake in the asset and hence potentially much higher reward.

hatrickpatrick · 27-04-2014 12:33pm

tritium wrote: »

Funny the amount of folks who go on about how they pay taxes as though it gives you a get out of jail card on paying your debts. Funny too how no one seems to have had this ethical dilemma with debt during the good times.

When the people saved the banks' asses by paying THEIR debts, it hardly seems unreasonable to demand that they cut those people some slack.

hatrickpatrick · 27-04-2014 12:34pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Investing money is gambling and can all be lost.

*coughcoughbondholderscoughcough*

Guy:Incognito · 27-04-2014 12:35pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When the people saved the banks' asses by paying THEIR debts, it hardly seems unreasonable to demand that they cut those people some slack.

I've paid plenty of tax and never taken out a mortgage. Is there a form I fill out or do I just search daft and pick out my free house?

Local hotel owner praised for cancelling auction of family farm.

Comments