On the issue of O'Briens going bust

Dannyboy83

Did anybody hear this on Morning Ireland?
http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/player.html?20091008,2624803,2624804,real,209

Basically rents couldn't be lowered, so the guy speaking figured it may be fair game in the future to lower the minimum wage as an alternative.

So the landlords would still be getting rich for nothing, while the people adding value would be getting ripped off.
Does anybody else see a flaw in that logic?


I would hope everybody here would boycott any business with such morally bankrupt ideas. (personally I boycotted O'Briens a few years back, from the day I took the GF in there and they charged me 20 yoyos for 2 cups of coffee and 2 sandwiches)

Diarmuid

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Basically rents couldn't be lowered, so the guy speaking figured it may be fair game in the future to lower the minimum wage as an alternative.

I didn't think that was his point. My understanding of his point was that employees are another expense along with rents/taxes/equipment/raw materials. All costs are falling (commercial rents included) but that there was an artificial floor on the employee expenses. And if O'Briens goes to the wall, the employee hardly benefit...

SLUSK

Diarmuid wrote: »

I didn't think that was his point. My understanding of his point was that employees are another expense along with rents/taxes/equipment/raw materials. All costs are falling (commercial rents included) but that there was an artificial floor on the employee expenses. And if O'Briens goes to the wall, the employee hardly benefit...

The O'Briens were obviously unsustainable, a true product of the boom times, when people got real they realized they could not afford to spend this kind of money on sandwiches they can make themselves for a fraction of the price.

Decreasing the minimum wage a euro or two would not make a difference.

Diarmuid

SLUSK wrote: »

The O'Briens were obviously unsustainable, a true product of the boom times, when people got real they realized they could not afford to spend this kind of money on sandwiches they can make themselves for a fraction of the price.

Decreasing the minimum wage a euro or two would not make a difference.

So their business model was to sell overpriced sandwiches. I don't know the breakdown in the costs so I can't say if cutting the employee costs would make their business model sustainable. However it doesn't invalidate his point. (or my reading of his point)

Diarmuid

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I would hope everybody here would boycott any business with such morally bankrupt ideas.

Holy sh1t I missed this the first time around. "morally bankrupt"! You don't think you are not overreacting a bit? they are not in the assassination business. Wait until you hear about these guys! €2 grand for a handbag makes you €20 sambo look like a the bargain of the century

Dannyboy83

Diarmuid wrote: »

Holy sh1t I missed this the first time around. "morally bankrupt"! You don't think you are not overreacting a bit? they are not in the assassination business. Wait until you hear about these guys! €2 grand for a handbag makes you €20 sambo look like a the bargain of the century

LOL, touche:D
I went into Brown Thomas once and the GF started explaining it to me, I was measuring it in terms of many laptops and cars I could buy. Sad stuff!

My morally bankrupt point wasn't in reference to the overpriced sandwiches, it was in reference to screwing the worker while the landlord still gets rich.
I agree with the point you made with regard to employee expense. It probably needs to be looked at.

My point is that you cannot justify pimping out your employees in order to pay your extortion fees to the landlord.
This honestly is a recipe for ruin.

Rents need to be reasonable first, then everything can be built from there.

Hydrosylator

I agree with you on that one. I wouldn't mind but property leasing isn't exactly a seller's market these days.

****ing sh1te sandwiches too, in my experience. Sandwich bar must mean "not as high standard as a café".

SkepticOne

Hydrosylator wrote: »

I agree with you on that one. I wouldn't mind but property leasing isn't exactly a seller's market these days.

A few months back I heard on the radio that commercial landlords were responding to tenants going bust and vacating premises by raising rents on the remaining tenants. That is anecdotal but if true then there's still a lot of denial among those who hold commercial property.

This probably needs to come to a head before things sort themselves out. Knowing the government and the sort of stupidity they operate under, there will probably be some measure to prop up rents (probably in an attempt to prop up property values themselves), when really what needs to happen is for rents to fall dramatically.

Hydrosylator

SkepticOne wrote: »

A few months back I heard on the radio that commercial landlords were responding to tenants going bust and vacating premises by raising rents on the remaining tenants. That is anecdotal but if true then there's still a lot of denial among those who hold commercial property.

This probably needs to come to a head before things sort themselves out. Knowing the government and the sort of stupidity they operate under, there will probably be some measure to prop up rents (probably in an attempt to prop up property values themselves), when really what needs to happen is for rents to fall dramatically.

It's all about controlling the market. It's better for landlords to let half their properties go empty while not dropping rent than to let all their properties go for half rent. Same money, half the management. And what happens if you own a business beside these properties being left idle? Less footfall, less business, maybe go bust. Think about places like Thomas St, or the area between TCD and the river. Better to let all the traders in the country go bust than lose control of the property market, that's the landlords approach.

Landlords aren't in denial, they know exactly what they're doing. They're in control and they're not going to start a price war when they're still in profit. We're subject to their every whim, and if we don't like it, we can just f*ck off.

Joseph Connolly had one going years ago, something along the (paraphrased) lines of,
"There is absolutely no point in Ireland undergoing a revolution, if we do so only to hand over the control of the people from English landlords to Irish landlords". It's an interesting idea, and fairly topical.

jimmmy

Even if rent was free the other overheads in this country ( rates, payable to the Corporation / County Council ), insurance, accountancy fees, labour ( eg the minimum wage is 50% more than in N. Ireland ), would probably still make many sandwich bars unviable in the current economic climate.
Plus those who designed, built and paid for the materials in the shop had to be paid . They did not live on fresh air either. Plus plenty of tax ( income tax, stamp duty etc ) was paid to the govt during the buildings construction. Too easy just to blame "the landlord" when many are in negative equity themselves.

SkepticOne

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Better to let all the traders in the country go bust than lose control of the property market, that's the landlords approach.

That does not make sense. How are you going to make money if there's no tenants? That's why I say it is denial.

Hydrosylator

SkepticOne wrote: »

That does not make sense. How are you going to make money if there's no tenants? That's why I say it is denial.

As I see it, if you're fleecing everybody until the very last and the economy collapses, you'll have amassed vast wealth, and, with the Euro, it won't affect the value of that wealth as much as it would in an autonomous state.

I'll be honest. I'm speculating. I know what you mean though.

As in, you could swan off to stable EU state and invest there after the irish economy dies.

Hydrosylator

jimmmy wrote: »

Even if rent was free the other overheads in this country ( rates, payable to the Corporation / County Council ), insurance, accountancy fees, labour ( eg the minimum wage is 50% more than in N. Ireland ), would probably still make many sandwich bars unviable in the current economic climate.
Plus those who designed, built and paid for the materials in the shop had to be paid . They did not live on fresh air either. Plus plenty of tax ( income tax, stamp duty etc ) was paid to the govt during the buildings construction. Too easy just to blame "the landlord" when many are in negative equity themselves.

You are right of course. I don't just blame landlords. Doesn't mean there aren't some real ba5tards out there controlling property though.

jimmmy

Hydrosylator wrote: »

As I see it, if you're fleecing everybody until the very last and the economy collapses, you'll have amassed vast wealth... .

most of the property developers I know are bust / in negative equity. Most reinvested whatever profits they made back in to property , as a deposit on further properry borrowings, and have lost that.

Its like on frontline tv last Monday night week...someone said tax / confinscate the developers ...Colm McCarthy ( who hasd studied the figures ) said that would pay enough tax only to run the country for one and a half hours !t ( seeing as most developers are bust ) . Not all landlords are developers of course. To some people its just their pension.
( well that was their bright idea - did not work out like that ).

Hydrosylator

jimmmy wrote: »

most of the property developers I know are bust / in negative equity. Most reinvested whatever profits they made back in to property , as a deposit on further property borrowings, and have lost that.

Talking about landlords. Though there is an overlap.

However, if somebody over-reaches and gambles everything they have in a property investment, without holding back anything for safety. That's unfortunate for them, but I have no sympathy. If you're **** at business, you shouldn't be in business.

They got greedy and bet the farm, and they lost. No tears here. I'm part of the other 95%+ of the country who was ruled out of that game, but still has to suffer the loss.

jimmmy

Hydrosylator wrote: »

However, if somebody over-reaches and gambles everything they have in a property investment, without holding back anything for safety. That's unfortunate for them, but I have no sympathy.

Nice little rant, and I have no sympathy for them either. But not everyone who invested in property "gambled everything they had in a property investment, without holding back anything for safety."

Many people who did not gamble everything they had in a property investment, without holding back anything for safety, also have lost money / see much of their pension decimated ( along with shares etc ).

Hydrosylator

jimmmy wrote: »

Nice little rant, and I have no sympathy for them either. But not everyone who invested in property "gambled everything they had in a property investment, without holding back anything for safety."

Many people who did not gamble everything they had in a property investment, without holding back anything for safety, also have lost money / see much of their pension decimated ( along with shares etc ).

I do like a rant on these issues.

I do have sympathy for people whose pensions ****ed up on them, wouldn't wish that on anyone.

cyclopath2001

jimmmy wrote: »

/ see much of their pension decimated ( along with shares etc ).

But, like most private sector workers, they still can count on a gold-plated, index linked, state-guaranteed social welfare pension, mostly paid for by the taxpayer.

jimmmy

Not all people qualify for the state pension of a few hundred a week. The " gold-plated, index linked, state-guaranteed social welfare pension" which most people in the state get should of colurse be reduced, given current govt borrowing etc. However far bigger reductions should be made in the other type of state pensions, those given to the public sector + politicians - these are many times higher.

MysticalRain

[QUOTE=Hydrosylator;62463717
Joseph Connolly had one going years ago, something along the (paraphrased) lines of,
"There is absolutely no point in Ireland undergoing a revolution, if we do so only to hand over the control of the people from English landlords to Irish landlords". It's an interesting idea, and fairly topical.[/QUOTE]

It makes me wonder why we drove out the English in the first place. And to think the FF government wants to reinflate the property bubble. It just goes to show where their loyalties really lie.

jimmmy

MysticalRain wrote: »

It makes me wonder why we drove out the English in the first place.

I often wonder that as well ( as I look at some parts of our infrastructure that were the same or better 95 years ago than now ).

population

jimmmy wrote: »

I often wonder that as well ( as I look at some parts of our infrastructure that were the same or better 95 years ago than now ).

This is something that I have been playing over in my head quite a bit lately. Are we actually not capable of governing ourselves??? Sorry off topic but has been plauging me of late

AlekSmart

This is something that I have been playing over in my head quite a bit lately. Are we actually not capable of governing ourselves???

Population,you are not alone in this thinking ( Cue theme tune from The Outer Limits).

I am coming around to the belief that one of the results of the current deepening depression will be a revisiting of the ENTIRE issue of Ireland as an Independent Self-Governing entity.

I believe it goes far deeper than any supposed Anglo-Saxon vs Celtic theme,the existance of which morphed into Republican vs Monarchist in order to satisfy a national need for simplicity in all things.

As Jimmmmy posts ....

( as I look at some parts of our infrastructure that were the same or better 95 years ago than now ).

This simple point has largely sailed right over the collective Irish consciousness except for a few weeks after Pádraig agus Páidrigín returned from their annual hol`s in Blackpool or Barcelona.

Perhaps the Romans had a clearer vision of the struggle which lay ahead before limiting their ambitions back in the day....:)

One this IS for sure,Population,your mind ain`t the only one plauged by a set of such questions :eek: :eek:

Hydrosylator

population wrote: »

This is something that I have been playing over in my head quite a bit lately. Are we actually not capable of governing ourselves??? Sorry off topic but has been plauging me of late

I know someone with a theory on this. He says that, as a nation, we possess the slave mentality.

Loosely speaking, we were under a power which shafted us for hundreds of years. In the national psyche, this kind of manipulation became synonymous with power, even with greatness. Post-independence, we kept these bad ideas about the world, and continued to select governments based on misconceptions of what power is and should be.

It's a possible explanation for why Bertie Ahern still has a job, and why we don't have a culture of officials resigning as soon as they're caught acting the bo11ox.

SkepticOne

AlekSmart wrote: »

I am coming around to the belief that one of the results of the current deepening depression will be a revisiting of the ENTIRE issue of Ireland as an Independent Self-Governing entity.

We just need to grow up as a nation and start realising that who we vote into power has consequences. This depression is part of that learning process.

thebman

Hydrosylator wrote: »

I know someone with a theory on this. He says that, as a nation, we possess the slave mentality.

Loosely speaking, we were under a power which shafted us for hundreds of years. In the national psyche, this kind of manipulation became synonymous with power, even with greatness. Post-independence, we kept these bad ideas about the world, and continued to select governments based on misconceptions of what power is and should be.

It's a possible explanation for why Bertie Ahern still has a job, and why we don't have a culture of officials resigning as soon as they're caught acting the bo11ox.

I'd believe that, I don't believe the "celtic tiger" generation shares this though so I think the seeds of political change are sewn. People now expect success and for Ireland to do well.

People my age simply do not accept what FF are up to. It seems to be the mentality of the older generations. Unfortunately they are the most vocal in politics (ie. they tend to vote). Given FF try to minimise young voter turn out, you can see that they are probably aware of this or consider young people an unknown.

MysticalRain

population wrote: »

This is something that I have been playing over in my head quite a bit lately. Are we actually not capable of governing ourselves??? Sorry off topic but has been plauging me of late

Evidently not. That's why I changed my mind and voted yes in Lisbon referendum. At this point I would prefer to have more power in the hands of bureaucrats in Brussels than the kind of idiots the people here keep re-electing into power. I also don't think this country has any social cohesion anymore. Every segment of society is pulling against every other segment and only looking out for their own narrow interests.

jimmmy

MysticalRain wrote: »

Evidently not. That's why I changed my mind and voted yes in Lisbon referendum. At this point I would prefer to have more power in the hands of bureaucrats in Brussels than the kind of idiots the people here keep re-electing into power. I also don't think this country has any social cohesion anymore. Every segment of society is pulling against every other segment and only looking out for their own narrow interests.

True enough. Good leadership in the country should come from the top down. Despite years of handouts from the EEC / EC ( Germany + Britain mainly ), and despite inheriting world class infrastructure ( eg universities, architectiure, harbours, canals, legal system, hopitals etc, ) approximately 9 decades ago, we are still borrowing much more from the world than giving to it. Our politicans and government pay themselves among the highest pay + pensions in the world, if not the highest ....the sad thing is their sense of superiority is such that they have fooled themselves and their employees in to thinking they are worth it.

Tipp Man

MysticalRain wrote: »

It makes me wonder why we drove out the English in the first place. And to think the FF government wants to reinflate the property bubble. It just goes to show where their loyalties really lie.

Am i reading you correctly in saying that Ireland would be a much better country if it was currently under British Rule?

If that is what you are saying then that's a load of rubbish to be honest, they are in as big, if not bigger, financial mess than we are, are printing money like its going out of fashion to try and spend they're way out of it. Their banks are in a mess just as much as ours, and they had a property bubble as well (not quite as out of sync as ours)

With regards to infastructure, they have a decent 1 but it is way overused, the underground is like something from the dark ages compared to most undergrounds worlwide and their motorways have some of the worst gridlock anywhere

They also have the politicians spending scandals, in fact some of their spending habits were even worse then our own beloved Mr O'Donoghue.



I have no idea why anyone would say we'd be better off under British rule, i just can't fathom it

(If i have completely misunderstood your post then apologies but please explain what you mean)

jimmmy

Tipp Man wrote: »

Am i reading you correctly in saying that Ireland would be a much better country if it was currently under British Rule?

not necessarily "much better"....just would we be as badly off ? Would Ireland have had as much money transfered in handouts / structural funds etc from overseas ( mainly from Germany + Britain ....over € 100,000,000,000.00 through the EC alone )
Would we be borrowing nearly as much as its taking in taxes, which it is now ?
90 years ago it was the same amount of time to travel on a train journey to a destination in Ireland as it does now. A letter posted in the morning from Dublin to London arrived next day then, it usually takes 2 days now.
Is it viable for a country our size ( that of a small to medium city in world terms ) to have embassies all around the world, to have the highest paid central banker in the world, to have one of the highest paid prime ministers in the world, etc. Lack of economy of scale comes to mind .

Tipp Man wrote: »

They also have the politicians spending scandals, in fact some of their spending habits were even worse then our own beloved Mr O'Donoghue.

Do you not think the excesses of Haughey and O'Donoghue , never mind the nod nod wink wink stuff with all the planners + tribunals , was in a different league to the odd mp claiming for something like a tv for expenses. The population of the UK is approx 30 times us, they do not seem to have had 30 times the scandals.

solas geal

I'm with Tipp Man on this that I can't actually believe that some of you are suggesting that we'd be better off under British Rule? And that that would magically solve all problems? That's even tho Britain has far higher instances of gang, gun and knife crime than in Ireland - oh yeh sure we'd love a bit of that. Oh and it must have a fantastic health system - no wait I'm pretty sure the NHS is never touted as such. Must have great traffic systems too - but then how does that fit in with the "M5 carpark" that I hear English complaining of. Really good government then - nope they're also involved in an expenses scandal at the moment, with the prime minister being ordered to pay money back.
Yeh I see now why you'd want to be under British rule. Apart from the fact that this is our own country and you should have a bit of pride in your nationality.
Really can't get my head around you guys - solution to the recession - sure just join Britain - way to be dramatic! (and pretty stupid too).
It's a recession people. it's crap - yes, probably managed poorly - yes, most likely some corruption, we need to clean these things up, but guess what recessions happen ALL the time. Economic cycles almost always depict peaks and troughs - it's nothing unusual. It doesn't mean you have to start running out singing God Save the Queen. Get a bit of perspective for crying out loud!

Mr Benevolent

jimmmy wrote: »

The population of the UK is approx 30 times us, they do not seem to have had 30 times the scandals.

The UK has roughly 13 times our population, nowhere near 30 times.

Fol20

Diarmuid wrote: »

So their business model was to sell overpriced sandwiches. I don't know the breakdown in the costs so I can't say if cutting the employee costs would make their business model sustainable. However it doesn't invalidate his point. (or my reading of his point)

As far as i know tax on sandwiches etc is less because its made by staff

meathstevie

I'd be surprised if O'Briens wouldn't have gone to the wall once people needed to start making sense with their money. For flip's sake, a ham and cheese sambo in O'Briens nearly costs the same as a good carvery lunch in a nice pub.