Developers Son's Brass Neck

Dempo1

Interesting article in todays Indo re the colorful son of Developer Paddy Kelly, Simon.

Astonishing Outcome to an installment order attempt by ACC in the wicklow district court. Poor Simon was offering €100 per month on a €17 million debt. Typically poor Simon claimed abject poverty and has to contend with €80k a year, Rental Income from five properties in England. My heart bled when it was disclosed he had to endure substantial private school tuition fees for a number of his children.

The result of the hearing? No installment order was granted due to "Lack of Funds"

WTF is going on, I witnessed a district court hearing recently, countless citizens struggling to pay mortgages, household bills and yet installment orders were being granted, admittedly District court Judges in some districts are refusing to grant installment orders against anyone on Social welfare.

If ever there was an example of different rules for the haves and the have not's, this case proved the argument.

Absolutely astonishing stuff and it further begs the question will any of these development debts ever be paid.

The Article

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/developers-son-offers-to-pay-off-euro100-a-month-on-euro17m-debt-2523006.html

EricPraline

The court heard Mr Kelly has five children and he pays school fees of €27,000 per year.

Sickening. So he can currently pay back €100 a month. Or he could send his children to a public school and pay back €2350 a month. Still a pittance compared to what he owes, but better than what he is offering. It's frankly ludicrous to say that those school fees are anything other than discretionary spending. Although obviously the judge doesn't see it like that.

Mr Kelly said he had a credit card with Bank of Ireland and had an AIB bank account used for rent collection for five properties he had in Liverpool.

And the judge applies no pressure on him to sell those properties in an attempt to clear his debt? :mad:

paddydriver

Problem here is that this guy had a better lawyer or access to better advice than the other citizens..

Its sickening really, and No it probably is a fair assessment that all this developer debt will never be paid back - and guess who will have to foot the bill?? - yes, us the taxpayer.

Dempo1

EricPraline wrote: »

Sickening. So he can currently pay back €100 a month. Or he could send his children to a public school and pay back €2350 a month. Still a pittance compared to what he owes, but better than what he is offering. It's frankly ludicrous to say that those school fees are anything other than discretionary spending. Although obviously the judge doesn't see it like that.

And the judge applies no pressure on him to sell those properties in an attempt to clear his debt? :mad:

Yep, its absolutely appalling stuff, i had to read the article twice as i could not believe what i was reading. In fairness to the Judge, his hands are tied because of the trickery this and other developers engaged in, transfering properties etc. What i can not understand is why with a stated 80k yearly salary and rental income, why the Judge could not have granted an installment order.

As i said, i was in Portlaoise district court offering morale support to a friend just before Christmas. I was astonished at the large case list, 100's of people in real trouble with various loans and personnel debts. To be fair, the Judge was a perfect gentleman and very understanding. He refused any installment orders against anyone on Social welfare but this grant orders against people on quite small wages.

Paddysnapper

Sure now lads that not a bother, he will pay it off in two lifetimes:)

Dempo1

paddydriver wrote: »

Problem here is that this guy had a better lawyer or access to better advice than the other citizens..

Its sickening really, and No it probably is a fair assessment that all this developer debt will never be paid back - and guess who will have to foot the bill?? - yes, us the taxpayer.

Yes indeed, not withstanding us the tax payer paying these debts, ordinary citizens are being hammered!:mad:

hinault

The person in question should be declared bankrupt forthwith.

We all know that this country has had a two-tiered legal system.

jmayo

Dempo1 wrote: »

Interesting article in todays Indo re the colorful son of Developer Paddy Kelly, Simon.

Astonishing Outcome to an installment order attempt by ACC in the wicklow district court. Poor Simon was offering €100 per month on a €17 million debt. Typically poor Simon claimed abject poverty and has to contend with €80k a year, Rental Income from five properties in England. My heart bled when it was disclosed he had to endure substantial private school tuition fees for a number of his children.

The result of the hearing? No installment order was granted due to "Lack of Funds"

WTF is going on, I witnessed a district court hearing recently, countless citizens struggling to pay mortgages, household bills and yet installment orders were being granted, admittedly District court Judges in some districts are refusing to grant installment orders against anyone on Social welfare.

If ever there was an example of different rules for the haves and the have not's, this case proved the argument.

Absolutely astonishing stuff and it further begs the question will any of these development debts ever be paid.

The Article

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/developers-son-offers-to-pay-off-euro100-a-month-on-euro17m-debt-2523006.html

First off does anyone know where he lives ?
Secondly what about the money from the sale of his book ?
What about the money from his "business" column in the tribune.
Actually he was the reason I stopped buying that publication. :rolleyes:

He is one of the developers who the proponents and supporters of NAMA told us would be held accountable for their debts.
Of course this case was only ACC, who actually have been trying to get their debts paid, so imagine the scenario when NAMA finally do get their ar** in gear.

Dempo1

jmayo wrote: »

First off does anyone know where he lives ?
Secondly what about the money from the sale of his book ?
What about the money from his "business" column in the tribune.
Actually he was the reason I stopped buying that publication. :rolleyes:

He is one of the developers who the proponents and supporters of NAMA told us would be held accountable for their debts.
Of course this case was only ACC, who actually have been trying to get their debts paid, so imagine the scenario when NAMA finally do get their ar** in gear.

Could not agree more. He lives in wicklow apparently, poor chap. As an aside, what intrigues me is why ACC even bothered to get an installment order, it is clear the district courts are not granting them, particularly if the debtor is on social welfare. ACC had a top SC representing them and one would think this SC could have advised them what is happening at district court level.

I am just aghast this clown got away with no installment order and no doubt the courts can't touch his Pile in wicklow as its now in the wife's name.

At least he won't have his tribune gig for much longer!

urbanachiever1

The judge in this case should me named and shamed.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

urbanachiever1 wrote: »

The judge in this case should me named and shamed.

I'm not sure if you are being ironic. There is no secrecy over the judge's name; its printed in that article.

Judge Murrough Connellan

urbanachiever1

Same judge imprisoned a guy for seven days for wearing a "Never mind the Bollox" T-shirt to court.
What a great country we live in.
article

whiteonion

In Ireland there is one law for the rich and one law for everyone else. This country is a banana republic and it will never get any better. :mad:

later12

Dempo1 wrote: »

Typically poor Simon claimed abject poverty and has to contend with €80k a year

He neither claimed abject poverty nor did he say he 'has to contend' with that salary; he said it is very difficult to make a meaningful difference on his enormous debt based on his salary. There are thousands of families and individuals all across Ireland facing similar problems.

Simon Kelly was one of the first, if not the first developer to come out with his hands up and apologise for all of the unintended negative consequences that his business, and those of his contemporaries, have exercised on the Irish economy. I know next to nothing about the guy apart from who his father is and that he wrote a book about his debt, but apart from the size of the loan, his experience of an unapayable debt and easy credit is probably something that many people can feel familiar with.

Nehaxak

If however he didn't pay and couldn't afford to pay his TV licence - he'd have been fined and possibly jailed without a second thought.

Go figure...

urbanachiever1

later10 wrote: »

his experience of an unapayable debt and easy credit is probably something that many people can feel familiar with.

I doubt many feel any empathy with this guy. The big difference is that many people are paying off their debts, difficult as it is. This man has, according to the article, made no payment on a debt of €17,163,913.44
He claims that it is "very difficult on his annual income of €80,000 a year to make a meaningful difference to the €17m he owes"
Well he could sell any of five properties in the UK - that would make a start. His true intention is evident in this line from a breathtakingly self-serving article he wrote in the Tribune "...until a process is put in place to write off debt for companies and individuals, a lasting recovery cannot take place."
Still feel a sense of familiarity with this guy?

later12

urbanachiever wrote:

I doubt many feel any empathy with this guy. The big difference is that many people are paying off their debts, difficult as it is. This man has, according to the article, made no payment on a debt of €17,163,913.44

That's because he's focusing on paying off his mortgage. If I were in his position I would focus on my family home instead of payinga 17 million euro debt that would eventually be a failed debt anyway, wouldn't everyone in that position do the same?

He claims that it is "very difficult on his annual income of €80,000 a year to make a meaningful difference to the €17m he owes"
Well he could sell any of five properties in the UK - that would make a start.

I'm not defending that, and I don't know what sort of implications that would have for his relationship with NAMA or his current mortgage debt. All that I'm saying is that he is obscenely indebted, with no hope of meeting his commitments, and that is a situation that many people can identify with - not just developers.

His true intention is evident in this line from a breathtakingly self-serving article he wrote in the Tribune "...until a process is put in place to write off debt for companies and individuals, a lasting recovery cannot take place."
Still feel a sense of familiarity with this guy?

I think I remember the article you're talking about, the one about writing down commercial property loans as quickly and aggressively as the RTC? In that he is completely correct, the very same message has been put forward by many eminent analysts and economists over the past 2 years. I wish NAMA were unnecessary, but its real downfall is that it is only a half measure.

EricPraline

later10 wrote: »

his experience of an unapayable debt and easy credit is probably something that many people can feel familiar with.

It's a significant stretch of the imagination to say that the average Irish debtor will empathise with somebody who owes €200m to a bank which they subsidise, while somehow continuing to spend €27k a year on discretionary school fees.

later12

EricPraline wrote: »

It's a significant stretch of the imagination to say that the average Irish debtor will empathise with somebody who owes €200m to a bank which they subsidise, while somehow continuing to spend €27k a year on discretionary school fees.

It's also a significant stretch so suggest that the above is what I am suggesting people can empathise with.

If Simon Kelly sold his home, his car, his properties, sent his kids to public schools and made them live on Dairlea slices their whole lives, he still wouldn't come remotely close to paying what he owes. Families and individuals all around the country are facing up to similar unachievable debt repayments based on their expenditure cuts. Property developers are not immune.

amacca

later10 wrote: »

It's also a significant stretch so suggest that the above is what I am suggesting people can empathise with.

If Simon Kelly sold his home, his car, his properties, sent his kids to public schools and made them live on Dairlea slices their whole lives, he still wouldn't come remotely close to paying what he owes. Families and individuals all around the country are facing up to similar unachievable debt repayments based on their expenditure cuts. Property developers are not immune.

imo he should be made make a start anyway and made feel uncomfortable.

He gambled....he lost...or did he?

if others feel very nasty and real consequences for reckless borrowing on small amounts then why shouldn't he?

no more money for tuition fees, put it towards your massive debt instead after all its better than nothing isn't it and has he not forfeited the right to provide luxuries like that for his family given that he doesn't really have the money

I couldn't afford to send my kids to private school (assuming I had them) and on paper I'm worth a hell of a lot more than him now so why should he hold on to this

It should surely be achievable to make him pay off something given 27k alone seems to be going on private tuition fees

just wondering if you would agree or not?

I take your point about a lot of peoples situations mirroring his to some degree albeit on a much smaller scale but I'm wondering if you think he should continue to enjoy luxuries afforded to a successful businessman or be made pay back what he can?

Abraham

Decisions like this one handed down by Judge Connellan serve to drive the ordinary people into great despair because they can see that they will never be able to get that kind of treatment when they get into financial difficulty.

This Judge should be made aware that this decision is utterly disgraceful and no mealy mouthed words dressed up in some kind of smarmy legalese alters that. Wonder who he's electioneering for ? C'mon someone, tell us, so we can position him properly in the Pantheon of Irish Rogues.

Dempo1

later10 wrote: »

He neither claimed abject poverty nor did he say he 'has to contend' with that salary; he said it is very difficult to make a meaningful difference on his enormous debt based on his salary. There are thousands of families and individuals all across Ireland facing similar problems.

Simon Kelly was one of the first, if not the first developer to come out with his hands up and apologies for all of the unintended negative consequences that his business, and those of his contemporaries, have exercised on the Irish economy. I know next to nothing about the guy apart from who his father is and that he wrote a book about his debt, but apart from the size of the loan, his experience of an unapayable debt and easy credit is probably something that many people can feel familiar with.

Just choking on my cornflakes reading your post, are you for real, this guy is a smug git who took responsibility when it suited him "Namely in advance of publishing is absurd book regarding breakfast with Anglo. Mother of god how anyone could defend this guy beggars belief. I suggest you take the time to visit any district court "civil listings, normally Friday" and witness for yourself the outrageous bias being shown towards normal citizens caught up in spiraling debt, i can guarantee you said citizens who have pittance compared to Simon Kelly are have installment orders granted against them.

Dempo1

urbanachiever1 wrote: »

The judge in this case should me named and shamed.

Just for the record, the Judge as with all District Court Judges maintain very high public profiles. As with most installment order cases, the Judge can only make a judgment based on statement of means submitted by defendants. I agree it is bizarre that the Judge was not able to act on a stated €80k annual income and indeed 5 rental properties but i suspect like all other clever developers, said earnings are tied to their spouses. Already Poor Simon was clever enough to transfer his home deeds into his spouses name. On the upside, it looks like NAMA maybe one step ahead of this ****es, it appears a property can not be transferred within a two year period prior to bankruptcy so hopefully all those colorful developers will be caught with their trousers down and we may finally find a use for unfinished ghost estates "social housing for developers and families"

jmayo

later10 wrote: »

He neither claimed abject poverty nor did he say he 'has to contend' with that salary; he said it is very difficult to make a meaningful difference on his enormous debt based on his salary. There are thousands of families and individuals all across Ireland facing similar problems.

Well wouldn't the 27 grand being spend on school fees make a little start ?

later10 wrote: »

Simon Kelly was one of the first, if not the first developer to come out with his hands up and apologise for all of the unintended negative consequences that his business, and those of his contemporaries, have exercised on the Irish economy.

Ah jaysus are you goign to be recommending him for person of the year next ?

later10 wrote: »

I know next to nothing about the guy apart from who his father is and that he wrote a book about his debt, but apart from the size of the loan, his experience of an unapayable debt and easy credit is probably something that many people can feel familiar with.

And we all know how his daddy was a big friend of bertie, ex leader of ff, and seanie fitz.
Hell daddy even agreed to partially fund national college of ireland (NCI) if he got a dance with NCI head one joyce fitzpatrick (sister of seanie).
And then he got the gig of building it, all funded by seanie and supported by bertie.

Dempo1 wrote: »

Just choking on my cornflakes reading your post, are you for real, this guy is a smug git who took responsibility when it suited him "Namely in advance of publishing is absurd book regarding breakfast with Anglo. Mother of god how anyone could defend this guy beggars belief. I suggest you take the time to visit any district court "civil listings, normally Friday" and witness for yourself the outrageous bias being shown towards normal citizens caught up in spiraling debt, i can guarantee you said citizens who have pittance compared to Simon Kelly are have installment orders granted against them.

Well the kellys were good ff supporters. :rolleyes:

later12

amacca wrote: »

imo he should be made make a start anyway and made feel uncomfortable.

I'm not sure that isn't happening already, he is being dealt with seperately by NAMA so we haven't heard the last of his financial problems.

I couldn't afford to send my kids to private school (assuming I had them) and on paper I'm worth a hell of a lot more than him now so why should he hold on to this

Lots of parents can't afford pruvate education but engage in it anyway. My parents were normal working parents... completely broke but when managed to get my siblings and I a decent education privately; Simon Kelly's decision to have his kids educated in very good schools is not his luxury, nor ought it be considered a luxury for any parent in my opinion. But hey that is just an opinion and I can fully understand why someone would say that his kids should be made to move schools, though considering the size of Kelly's debt, it's quite an irrelevant suggestion in terms of the difference he could make to the debt, and I'm sure the judge took that into account.

Dempo1 wrote:

. Mother of god how anyone could defend this guy beggars belief

Who is defending him?

i can guarantee you said citizens who have pittance compared to Simon Kelly are have installment orders granted against them

When they have the ability or the money to repay a debt, yes; Simon kelly has no real ability to repay his debts to ACC.

JMayo I presume that was a party political broadcast, since I have no idea why the Kellys relationship with Ahern are relevant to this case, are you suggesting that the Judge was biased in favour of Simon Kelly because his Dad is a mate of a former Taoiseach? Come on.

Strata

later10 wrote: »

I'm not sure that isn't happening already, he is being dealt with seperately by NAMA so we haven't heard the last of his financial problems.

Lots of parents can't afford pruvate education but engage in it anyway. My parents were normal working parents... completely broke but when managed to get my siblings and I a decent education privately; Simon Kelly's decision to have his kids educated in very good schools is not his luxury, nor ought it be considered a luxury for any parent in my opinion. But hey that is just an opinion and I can fully understand why someone would say that his kids should be made to move schools, though considering the size of Kelly's debt, it's quite an irrelevant suggestion in terms of the difference he could make to the debt, and I'm sure the judge took that into account.

Who is defending him?
When they have the ability or the money to repay a debt, yes; Simon kelly has no real ability to repay his debts to ACC.

JMayo I presume that was a party political broadcast, since I have no idea why the Kellys relationship with Ahern are relevant to this case, are you suggesting that the Judge was biased in favour of Simon Kelly because his Dad is a mate of a former Taoiseach? Come on.

Couple of questions based on the bolded paragraph:

1. Are you suggesting that because repaying €27k a year won't make significant inroads into a €17million debt then he shouldn't even bother trying to repay it? If he was choosing to spend say 1million a year on his childrens education, is that material or relevant enough?

(Also I think his creditor (ACC) might beg to differ that €27k a year is irrelevant).

2. How is paying for an education, when a perfectly adequate education is available for free, not a luxury? What, in your opinion, is a luxury then?

3. If paying for his childrens education is not Simon Kelly's luxury then whose is it?

jmayo

later10 wrote: »

I'm not sure that isn't happening already, he is being dealt with seperately by NAMA so we haven't heard the last of his financial problems.

Lots of parents can't afford pruvate education but engage in it anyway. My parents were normal working parents... completely broke but when managed to get my siblings and I a decent education privately; Simon Kelly's decision to have his kids educated in very good schools is not his luxury, nor ought it be considered a luxury for any parent in my opinion. But hey that is just an opinion and I can fully understand why someone would say that his kids should be made to move schools, though considering the size of Kelly's debt, it's quite an irrelevant suggestion in terms of the difference he could make to the debt, and I'm sure the judge took that into account.

Ehh it is an expense that he can't afford becuase he owes millions.
Do you think a normal mortgage holder, who claims he can't pay the bank back, can claim his kids have a right to private education ?

later10 wrote: »

Who is defending him?
When they have the ability or the money to repay a debt, yes; Simon kelly has no real ability to repay his debts to ACC.

Ehh 27 grand a month would be a start, would it not ?
Or should the banks and the taxpayers just forget about these people's debts ?

later10 wrote: »

JMayo I presume that was a party political broadcast, since I have no idea why the Kellys relationship with Ahern are relevant to this case, are you suggesting that the Judge was biased in favour of Simon Kelly because his Dad is a mate of a former Taoiseach? Come on.

The kellys relationship to ff have a large bearing in this case, because they were the class of people who did very well out of the property bubble fueled by ff policies.
It also seems they are still considered to be in a priviledged position, because they get to continue in their lifestyles even though they now owe around a billion, mostly indeed to the rest of us taxpayers.

I am not suggesting the judge is biased, I am suggesting YOU are.
You have actually condoned and defended them in this thread.

The one common point I find is both of you have supported the ff party.

later12

jmayo wrote: »

Do you think a normal mortgage holder, who claims he can't pay the bank back, can claim his kids have a right to private education ?

But this is not a 'normal mortagage', it's to do with comercial lending; however yes a mortgage holder would be perfectly within his rights to put forward such a defence.

Ehh 27 grand a month would be a start, would it not ?

Where would he get 27k per month?

Or should the banks and the taxpayers just forget about these people's debts ?

Taxpayer is not contributing to the ACC debt, ACC are not in NAMA, their loans are exempt from NAMA, and they are not part of a bailout nor a recapitalisation programme. That's part of the trouble with this case and Kelly's loans, he is in 'limbo' as he says, with NAMA.

The kellys relationship to ff have a large bearing in this case, because they were the class of people who did very well out of the property bubble fueled by ff policies.

So what? What bearing does that have on the case?

I am not suggesting the judge is biased, I am suggesting YOU are.
You have actually condoned and defended them in this thread.

No, I'm not, but I'm sure you're happier believing that so be my guest.

The one common point I find is both of you have supported the ff party.

We also both have brown hair and his Dad's name is Paddy and that's my dogs name, where will the coincidences ever end????????

Dempo1

Who is defending him?
When they have the ability or the money to repay a debt, yes; Simon Kelly has no real ability to repay his debts to ACC.

Hmmmm, perhaps you did not read the article, let me remind you

€80k per annum
Rental income from 5 properties in Liverpool
Squandering €27k Per annum on private tuition fees.

I am not suggesting he will realistically be able to pay off the entire debt but the ****er should be forced to pay something weekly based on his stated earnings for the rest of his life!

later12

Strata wrote: »

1. Are you suggesting that because repaying €27k a year won't make significant inroads into a €17million debt then he shouldn't even bother trying to repay it?

It isn't up to me, all I can say is that if I were in his position, I wouldn't even have offered 100 euro per month. I wouldn't pay it.

If he was choosing to spend say 1million a year on his childrens education, is that material or relevant enough?

1 million would of course be relevant; not taking account of interest, it would take him 17 years to pay back his loans. Disregarding interest, based on the tuition fees being handed over to ACC, it would take him 630 years to repay his loans.

2. How is paying for an education, when a perfectly adequate education is available for free, not a luxury? What, in your opinion, is a luxury then?

Perfectly adequate education? Perhaps we differ there, but like I said I can understand why people would suggest that his kids should move schools. I just don't think it would achieve anything for anyone, including the taxpayer.

3. If paying for his childrens education is not Simon Kelly's luxury then whose is it?

I would say it is his childrens good fortune, as opposed to their 'luxury'.

later12

Dempo1 wrote: »

€80k per annum
Rental income from 5 properties in Liverpool
Squandering €27k Per annum on private tuition fees.

Look that will probably be covered under NAMA, we haven't heard the last of Kelly. I'm sure most people would prefer he gave all of his money and assets to the foreign owned ACC and the taxpayer got nothing back through NAMA, but there you go.

Strata

later10 wrote: »

It isn't up to me, all I can say is that if I were in his position, I wouldn't even have offered 100 euro per month. I wouldn't pay it.
1 million would of course be relevant; not taking account of interest, it would take him 17 years to pay back his loans. Disregarding interest, based on the tuition fees being handed over to ACC, it would take him 630 years to repay his loans.

Perfectly adequate education? Perhaps we differ there, but like I said I can understand why people would suggest that his kids should move schools. I just don't think it would achieve anything for anyone, including the taxpayer.
I would say it is his childrens good fortune, as opposed to their 'luxury'.

So you're saying that because it will take Simon Kelly (SK) a long time to pay back his loan then he shouldn't have to?

In your opinion, what is the monetary value that is relevant before SK has to repay his loan (somewhere between €27k and €1million I'm assuming)?

Instead of paying €27k per annum on private education for his children SK could repay ACC the loan he borrowed from them. No this will not benefit the taxpayer but it will benefit ACC Bank i.e. the organisation he owes the money to.

He borrowed €17million and undertook to repay this money. He now claims to not be able to afford repayments yet can afford to pay €27k on private education, which is discretionary expenditure.

Indeed, it is the good fortune for SK's children that they can receive a private education notwithstanding that their father cannot afford it!

later10 wrote: »

Look that will probably be covered under NAMA, we haven't heard the last of Kelly. I'm sure most people would prefer he gave all of his money and assets to the foreign owned ACC and the taxpayer got nothing back through NAMA, but there you go.

As far as I'm aware this loan is a personal loan. I can't speak for most people but I'd like it if SK repaid his debts like everyone else has to. If that involves liquidating all his assets to repay these loans then so be it.

I'm not sure what ACC being foreign owned has to do with anything. If he owes money he owes money and should have the integrity to repay the loan to the best of his ability. If that means a change of lifestyle then so be it.

later12

Strata wrote: »

So you're saying that because it will take Simon Kelly (SK) a long time to pay back his loan then he shouldn't have to?

A long time? 630 years? There is no chance that he will be able to pay that loan in his lifetime barring some sort of lottery win; you could say the same for anyone up against enormous loans comapred with a relatively tiny income (note: relatively tiny, not tiny)

what is the monetary value that is relevant before SK has to repay his loan (somewhere between €27k and €1million I'm assuming)?

yes something in there, I couldn't put an arbitrary figure on it that would be something for the court to evaluate.

Instead of paying €27k per annum on private education for his children SK could repay ACC the loan he borrowed from them. No this will not benefit the taxpayer but it will benefit ACC Bank i.e. the organisation he owes the money to.

He couldn't repay the loan, he could repay 27,000 euro, 0,16% of the loan not including interest and fees.

Indeed, it is the good fortune for SK's children that they can receive a private education notwithstanding that their father cannot afford it!

He is a father who pours 1 in 3 euros he earns into his kids' education, so no he probably cannot afford it; I actually think that's commendable and I wouldn't call it a luxury on his behalf.

beeno67

If he only earns 80K a year before tax, how does he afford to spend 27K on education? Indeed he says he has outgoings of €120,000 a year. How does he do this on an 80k income?

Strata

later10 wrote: »

A long time? 630 years? There is no chance that he will be able to pay that loan in his lifetime barring some sort of lottery win; you could say the same for anyone up against enormous loans comapred with a relatively tiny income (note: relatively tiny, not tiny)

yes something in there, I couldn't put an arbitrary figure on it that would be something for the court to evaluate.

He couldn't repay the loan, he could repay 27,000 euro, 0,16% of the loan not including interest and fees.

He is a father who pours 1 in 3 euros he earns into his kids' education, so no he probably cannot afford it; I actually think that's commendable and I wouldn't call it a luxury on his behalf.

I cant' get my head around your logic.

I understand he can't repay the full €17million in one lump sum but he would be repaying part of the loan by paying €27k per annum, no?

Out of curiosity, on what basis do you think he shouldn't have to repay the loan?

Also out of curiosity, what do you think is so horrific about our education system that you consider private education to be a necessity?

tweedledee

What a ****hole this place is......................:mad:

Citizen_Cutback

I read his book. He is quite descriptive in his writing. He regards himself as being quite clever. Spreadsheets seem to have been his main tool of trade.

He learnt quite early about how the British Banks were quite willing to take a settlement of 10% and write off debts during the property crash in the UK in the late eighties. However, NAMA has been setup here to stop this happening and to keep the Banks afloat.

Simon and his father "Posh Paddy" seem to have been trapped by their fondness for the partnership model which in the end undid them because their partners both refused to sell or buy out the Kelly's share.

Simon sees the equity financing from investors as the most stable platform for future development financing although it could be considered another form of Partnership but with a defined exit mechanism.

I think that Simon now seems to be consoled by a Buddhist type mentality and is very much a family man above all; Maybe it could be said that he has found religion. I think that Simon looks forward to being born again but the next time as a financier.

whiteonion

His kids should be sent to public school like everyone else and presto he can repay more.

urbanachiever1

later10 wrote: »

all I can say is that if I were in his position, I wouldn't even have offered 100 euro per month. I wouldn't pay it.

I think you are showing your true colours here. Would you be prepared to go to jail rather than pay? I’m guessing not. The difference between ordinary people and Simon Kelly is that ordinary people are being jailed for (much smaller) unpaid debts. Maybe it’s a symptom of the private school system to which you and SK’s kids are familiar that leads you to think that you are above the law.
“All that I'm saying is that he is obscenely indebted, with no hope of meeting his commitments, and that is a situation that many people can identify with - not just developers.”
Yes, people can identify with being obscenely in debt but the vast majority are paying or are being made to pay that debt. He is not! So that is why the vast majority of people will not identify with him. Ordinary people would feel a lot better off paying their debts if they felt that they lived in a fair society where the wealthy are made to pay or suffer the same consequences as they do.

later12

Strata wrote: »

I
I understand he can't repay the full €17million in one lump sum but he would be repaying part of the loan by paying €27k per annum, no?

Do you realise that ruling an instalment order on this 27000 euro, it being 0,16% of the man's debt, would be the equivalent of a judge ordering that a woman cease paying 40 euros per month on broadband in order to discharge a 300,000 euro mortgage? That sort of judgement would be farcical.

Out of curiosity, on what basis do you think he shouldn't have to repay the loan?

I don't think he 'shouldn't have to'; I'm saying that he clearly can't pay it, and on that basis, were I him, I wouldn't contribute anything to it at all since to do so is to throw away dead money. He might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, since he's going to be hung out to dry, financially, in either case.

I would say the same for an individual struggling to pay a mortgage that they know they will end up defaulting on anyway: cut your losses and walk away from it.

Also out of curiosity, what do you think is so horrific about our education system that you consider private education to be a necessity?

Mainly classroom sizes, academic facilities, quality of teaching/ teacher education, league tables and sports facilities. I don't blame him for wanting better facilities for his kids. Not that I think it's very relevant to this discussion because it is a contentious enough topic in itself.

urbanachiever1 wrote:

Would you be prepared to go to jail rather than pay? I’m guessing not.

On what basis would I be imprisoned? It isn't that I would refuse to pay an instalment order by judgement of the court, I'm saying I wouldn't have even offered to pay 100 euro in the month.

People don't go to jail in Ireland for not paying private debts, they go to prison for contempt of court.

whiteonion

later10 wrote: »

A long time? 630 years? There is no chance that he will be able to pay that loan in his lifetime barring some sort of lottery win; you could say the same for anyone up against enormous loans comapred with a relatively tiny income (note: relatively tiny, not tiny)

yes something in there, I couldn't put an arbitrary figure on it that would be something for the court to evaluate.

He couldn't repay the loan, he could repay 27,000 euro, 0,16% of the loan not including interest and fees.

He is a father who pours 1 in 3 euros he earns into his kids' education, so no he probably cannot afford it; I actually think that's commendable and I wouldn't call it a luxury on his behalf.

Someone who refuses to pay what they owe is nothing more than a simple thief. I believe thieves should go to jail.

hobochris

This boils my blood, a bullet would be to good for a prick like this.. :mad:

Liam Byrne

later10 wrote: »

I don't think he 'shouldn't have to'; I'm saying that he clearly can't pay it, and on that basis, were I him, I wouldn't contribute anything to it at all since to do so is to throw away dead money. He might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, since he's going to be hung out to dry, financially, in either case.

I would say the same for an individual struggling to pay a mortgage that they know they will end up defaulting on anyway: cut your losses and walk away from it.

He clearly can pay significantly more.

The differences with your scenario are that (a) the bank can take back the house and sell it, getting something back, and (b) the taxpayer isn't footing the bill.

Walking away from your debts and expecting others to pick up the tab is disgraceful! Do you walk away from a dinner table having had a meal and expect everyone else to pay for your meal ?

If not, why is this different ? Simply because an anonymous taxpayer is being forced to pay his bills ?

I cannot for the life of me see how the courts have refused to act in the interests of the people they are supposed to protect.

But I'll tell you what, considering that his €17,000,000 equates to about €15 for every single working person in this country, I'll "walk away" from my next tax bill of €15 too.......let's see where it gets us when everyone puts their foot down.

later12

Liam Byrne wrote: »

(a) the bank can take back the house and sell it

This is not a private mortgage, it isn't clear upon what guarantees the credit was extended to Kelly in this case. The application was for an instalment order, presumably ACC will now move further to recourse their loss.

(b) the taxpayer isn't footing the bill.

Simply because an anonymous taxpayer is being forced to pay his bills ?

Eh, can you explain how the taxpayer is footing his bill here?

Strata

later10 wrote: »

Do you realise that ruling an instalment order on this 27000 euro, it being 0,16% of the man's debt, would be the equivalent of a judge ordering that a woman cease paying 40 euros per month on broadband in order to discharge a 300,000 euro mortgage? That sort of judgement would be farcical.
I don't think he 'shouldn't have to'; I'm saying that he clearly can't pay it, and on that basis, were I him, I wouldn't contribute anything to it at all since to do so is to throw away dead money. He might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, since he's going to be hung out to dry, financially, in either case.

I would say the same for an individual struggling to pay a mortgage that they know they will end up defaulting on anyway: cut your losses and walk away from it.

.

I think we must have different principles so Later10. You seem to think SK shouldn't repay his loan because he can get away with not paying it, nothwithstanding that he CAN afford to make some kind of a repayment.

For me, the fact that he may never repay the full amount is not the point.

later10 wrote: »

This is not a private mortgage, it isn't clear upon what guarantees the credit was extended to Kelly in this case. The application was for an instalment order, presumably ACC will now move further to recourse their loss.


Eh, can you explain how the taxpayer is footing his bill here?

The taxpayer is not footing the bill but you can be sure ACC Bank's customers will be shouldered with the bill if the bank has to write off this €17million.

Sesshoumaru

This is a tough one. I'd actually agree with the judgement at this point in time. He can't make any meaningful dent on that debt, so why reduce him and his family to poverty? It's like he's a defeated gladiator with the victors sword poised above his neck and now the mob is baying for his blood!

The 27k per year spent on private education, that's harder for me to stomach. On his income he can't afford that! Where is he getting the money to pay for it?

later12

Strata wrote: »

You seem to think SK shouldn't repay his loan because he can get away with not paying it

This isn't the end of the game, do you think ACC are going to stop here on recourse to their money? They simply failed in the application for an instalment order to secure a cash repayment; presumably they have recourse to guarantees.

Would you, if you knew you were about to default on your house, keep paying your mortgage? Principles don't, nor ought they, attempt to confuse common sense or simple arithmetic (would that Simon Kelly had such common sense, perhaps, earlier).

Hopefully Simon Kelly, despite his misadventures, is bright enough to know when to stop beating a dead horse. Hopefully Irish mortgage holders who face an unfortunate inevitability with regards to their own personal finances are similarly wise.

whiteonion

later10 wrote: »

This isn't the end of the game, do you think ACC are going to stop here on recourse to their money? They simply failed in the application for an instalment order to secure a cash repayment; presumably they have recourse to guarantees.

Would you, if you knew you were about to default on your house, keep paying your mortgage? Principles don't, nor ought they, attempt to confuse common sense or simple arithmetic (would that Simon Kelly had such common sense, perhaps, earlier).

Hopefully Simon Kelly, despite his misadventures, is bright enough to know when to stop beating a dead horse. Hopefully Irish mortgage holders who face an unfortunate inevitability with regards to their own personal finances are similarly wise.

Simon Kelly is a disgusting man and he deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail. He should be stripped of everything he owns and not even be left with any clothes on his back. People who cannot repay their debts deserve harsh punishment.

whiteonion

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

This is a tough one. I'd actually agree with the judgement at this point in time. He can't make any meaningful dent on that debt, so why reduce him and his family to poverty? It's like he's a defeated gladiator with the victors sword poised above his neck and now the mob is baying for his blood!

The 27k per year spent on private education, that's harder for me to stomach. On his income he can't afford that! Where is he getting the money to pay for it?

If you cannot repay your debt poverty is what you deserve to be in. It would also teach his kids a good lesson about not taking loans you can never repay. His kids would learn alot from living in poverty.

Sesshoumaru

whiteonion wrote: »

Simon Kelly is a disgusting man and he deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail. He should be stripped of everything he owns and not even be left with any clothes on his back. People who cannot repay their debts deserve harsh punishment.

f&*k that's harsh! Do you mean everybody who can't repay debts? or just the once mighty who have now fallen?

whiteonion

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

f&*k that's harsh! Do you mean everybody who can't repay debts? or just the once mighty who have now fallen?

If you can't repay your debts you deserve a pound of flesh taken from you.:mad:

Never borrow more than you can repay.