Developer Ray Grehan admits he won't be repaying €650m

Slideshowbob

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/0907/1224303634698.html

Some cheek he has - the neck of him.

Making out if stuff was left in his hands and not NAMA's all would be dandy.

Taxpayer to pick up the tab?

Nice one Ray

Welease

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Making out if stuff was left in his hands and not NAMA's all would be dandy.

I didn't get the impression that he was saying thatat all ...

Is he actually that wrong? If you strip all his assets how is he supposed to repay the €650m.. NAMA have shown they will do nothing productive with the asset, whereas some (not all!) asset and developer combinations could over time have provided significant gains to help repay their debts. Not all of their investments were toxic.

Slideshowbob

Welease wrote: »

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Making out if stuff was left in his hands and not NAMA's all would be dandy.

I didn't get the impression that he was saying thatat all ...

Is he actually that wrong? If you strip all his assets how is he supposed to repay the €650m.. NAMA have shown they will do nothing productive with the asset, whereas some (not all!) asset and developer combinations could over time have provided significant gains to help repay their debts. Not all of their investments were toxic.

Mckillen was able to avoid NAMA by proving in court his loans could wash their face.

Didn't the Grehans try some legal stalling tactic?

Was it along the same lines just that their figures didn't stack up?

Are you saying if they got the properties back then the Market would recover and they could service the loans as they stood? Get real

It's rich to hear Ray quibbing about the very organisation that allows him to go off and apply his "skills" elsewhere

Debtors prison, where art thou? Might have pricked some consciences!!!

Welease

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Are you saying if they got the properties back then the Market would recover and they could service the loans as they stood? Get real

Get real???? Where did he or I state anything of the sort?
Why don't you try and read what people have actually said..

I said.. He is correct.. if you remove all of his assets then there is no real chance he can repay the debts.. That was his point.. and it is essentially correct, or do you believe he can actually repay €650m without any assets to his name?????

Beyond that.. there were some properties that developers had which were not as toxic as some of the Irish developments, and those could have been used as a basis for ongoing development to help repay some of the more toxic loans over time (which is essentially what NAMA is doing with contracting some NAMA developers to complete their developments)..

In this particular case it looks as though as choice was being made to remove all his assets..

ChRoMe

Welease wrote: »

I said.. He is correct.. if you remove all of his assets then there is no real chance he can repay the debts.. That was his point.. and it is essentially correct, or do you believe he can actually repay €650m without any assets to his name?????

The point is even with the assets he doesnt have a ****ing hope of paying it back anyway.

Welease

ChRoMe wrote: »

The point is even with the assets he doesnt have a ****ing hope of paying it back anyway.

I would tend to agree, but he never stated what the OP posted

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Making out if stuff was left in his hands and not NAMA's all would be dandy.

If people want to comment on what he said.. then comment on what he said.. It's rediculous to make up what he said, then have a problem with it..

swordofislam

If he can't pay it back ruin him and take the shirt off [of] his back.

Liam Byrne

Welease wrote: »

I said.. He is correct.. if you remove all of his assets then there is no real chance he can repay the debts.. That was his point.. and it is essentially correct, or do you believe he can actually repay €650m without any assets to his name?????

In this particular case it looks as though as choice was being made to remove all his assets..

We'll if enough of his assets were paying / performing then he wouldn't be in NAMA.

He's basically been given a gift by the state to pay back some of his bills, because NAMA paid far too much more than the assets are worth.

And if that includes taking some of the remotely performing assets in order to ensure that we - the taxpayers who didn't borrow silly money - at least get something out of this fiasco, then so be it.

He borrowed far too much to pay for stuff that wasn't worth what he paid for it. His tough.

Welease

Liam Byrne wrote: »

We'll if enough of his assets were paying / performing then he wouldn't be in NAMA.

He's basically been given a gift by the state to pay back some of his bills, because NAMA paid far too much more than the assets are worth.

And if that includes taking some of the remotely performing assets in order to ensure that we - the taxpayers who didn't borrow silly money - at least get something out of this fiasco, then so be it.

He borrowed far too much to pay for stuff that wasn't worth what he paid for it. His tough.

....again... I don't believe anyone has said anything different.. and I doubt he has many tears of sympathy being shed for him..

The OP in best Indo style was ranting about something that was never said.. The developer never said all would be dandy if his assets were left in tact.. he said without those assets he had no way to pay back the sums owned. Which is essentially true..

ChRoMe

Welease wrote: »

The OP in best Indo style was ranting about something that was never said.. The developer never said all would be dandy if his assets were left in tact.. he said without those assets he had no way to pay back the sums owned. Which is essentially true..

In fairness its a reasonable paraphrasing.

Slideshowbob

Welease wrote: »

....again... I don't believe anyone has said anything different.. and I doubt he has many tears of sympathy being shed for him..

The OP in best Indo style was ranting about something that was never said.. The developer never said all would be dandy if his assets were left in tact.. he said without those assets he had no way to pay back the sums owned. Which is essentially true..

From the horse's mouth via the Irish Times: "They have taken the opportunity away from me to repay my borrowings."

tad da

Note dandy is a feeling as much as a noun. What's dandy for one may not be dandy for the other.

But by all means Welease, do get hung up on my minor errors in parlance while Ray cries over the €650m he won't get the chance to repay.

I heard he started out as a tiler btw ... credible financial acumen for sure

And he talks of the "skills" he can bring to other countries !! spare us please!!

Welease

Slideshowbob wrote: »

From the horse's mouth via the Irish Times: "They have taken the opportunity away from me to repay my borrowings."

tad da

erm.. thats not what you said...

Opportunity to try and fix something != everything will be fixed

What he said was.. without any assets he does not have the opportunity to fix the problem.. He did not say "with my assets everything is dandy" which is what you are trying to imply..

Lets look at this another way..

Do you believe he is incorrect in his statements? If not, then what is wrong with his statement...

Welease

Slideshowbob wrote: »

But by all means Welease, do get hung up on my minor errors in parlance while Ray cries over the €650m he won't get the chance to repay.

Not at all, I'm not hung up on anything.. I am just questioning your need to imply something that was never said..

Is the €650m issue not enough on it's own?

He owes the money.. he has no means to repay it.. thats what the article is about.. and none of that seems in anyway incorrect to me given thats the way NAMA has been implemented..

Without your dandy addition, you have no need to talk about the cheek of him etc.. So it just seems like the whole basis of the post was to get outraged about something he never said.. what he actually said and was linked to was factually correct.

ronan45

Ah all those developers are still driving around in their mercs in their big fancy houses

its joe public that took it in the neck

foxyboxer

€650m is just over $900,000,000 debt owed by ONE man.
Words fail me.

Slideshowbob

Welease wrote: »

erm.. thats not what you said...

Opportunity to try and fix something != everything will be fixed

What he said was.. without any assets he does not have the opportunity to fix the problem.. He did not say "with my assets everything is dandy" which is what you are trying to imply..

Lets look at this another way..

Do you believe he is incorrect in his statements? If not, then what is wrong with his statement...

What I believe about him ... well let's not go there. This is a forum about the Irish economy so I am trying to effectively look at the effect his actions have on the taxpayer. Not sure what your agenda is!

Welease

Slideshowbob wrote: »

What I believe about him ... well let's not go there. This is a forum about the Irish economy so I am trying to effectively look at the effect his actions have on the taxpayer. Not sure what your agenda is!

lol this forum cracks me up sometimes

My "agenda" was to point out that the single statement you made regarding this developer was neither in the article linked nor factually correct..

If that means that I rather than you have an "agenda" then /shrug

Wertz

What in hell's name was any bank doing lending that amount of money to a feckin' tiler?
Whoever signed off on that needs a trip to the poorhouse themselves...

Good loser

The difference between Ray Grehan and many other Irish property owners is only a matter of scale - not principle.

His matter of fact statement about not having the wherewithal to repay his huge debts is entirely sensible.

I'm sure RTE were delighted to have him contribute to their poxy show.

jimmycrackcorm

foxyboxer wrote: »

€650m is just over $900,000,000 debt owed by ONE man.
Words fail me.

And billions in bitcoins, numbers fail me. I too have no opportunity to repay a €650m debt because:
A. I never borrowed it in the first place
B. It never went to Nama
C: I didn't buy a Merc

Side Show Bob

Liam Byrne wrote: »

We'll if enough of his assets were paying / performing then he wouldn't be in NAMA.

So you dont understand NAMA?

Slideshowbob

Side Show Bob wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

We'll if enough of his assets were paying / performing then he wouldn't be in NAMA.

So you dont understand NAMA?

Think I do. What am I missing?

Side Show Bob

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Think I do. What am I missing?

With the exception of one case mentioned above, all loans above 5 million whether properly performing or not go into nama!

Mr.Micro

If only we could package and export chancers......because we have them aplenty in Ireland, we practically grow them, all types who lack honour, morality and shame.