A Solicitor whinges over 71.5 million award against him and his doctor wife

myflipflops

Is the fact that his wife is a doctor relevant here in any way?

BostonB

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

i am amazed at all those who defend O Donnell, if he was just an ordinary chap in ne from buying a house, would there be so many rallying to the cause. Irish touching the forelock again ?

No it makes no sense to cut the branch your standing on, just because you don't like it.

You're defending the bank. Is that better.

Paddy De Plasterer

myflipflops wrote: »

Is the fact that his wife is a doctor relevant here in any way?

It might well be - maybe loans were based on that fact, as well as ability to (re)pay . And the papers saw fit to include that in reports.

KERSPLAT!

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

Are you sure oif that ? Justice Peter Kelly is a good judge and if that was true I am sure he would have acted on it. I think from reading the papers O Donnell did not turn up to the court hearing, or was not represented, hardly a wise thing to do especially high flying solcitor !

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

You are correct, what a way to treat the court, and Justice Peter Kelly is a very fair man.

Is that you Judge??

Snakeblood

BostonB wrote: »

Its a bit more complicated than that isn't it. Property all over the world, much of it leased to good tenants as long term investment, but the mistake was they consolidated all loans to the Irish bank, so once the bank got into trouble they pulled the rug from under him.

According to a favourable article written about them, which has direct quotes from him and very little from the bank, yeah. He blames Lehmann's for the disaster, which is theoretically possible, but smells like the standard FFer property collapse excuse.

Paddy De Plasterer

BostonB wrote: »

No it makes no sense to cut the branch your standing on, just because you don't like it.

You're defending the bank. Is that better.

No I am not, as i as a taxpayer may end up paying in the end !

BostonB

Snakeblood wrote: »

According to a favourable article written about them, which has direct quotes from him and very little from the bank, yeah. He blames Lehmann's for the disaster, which is theoretically possible, but smells like the standard FFer property collapse excuse.

I thought he blames the bank.
I also made the point of the poor reporting earlier.

See if the banks at fault for giving the loan, and its therefore the fault of whomever gave the banks the loan. So where did all this money go at the end of the day? The people who loaned it to the banks in the first place. Who is looking to bankrupt everyone and their countries to get their hands on this money? The people who made bad investments, loans in the first place.

Who will end up paying for it. The people who by and large didn't borrow the bulk of these debts.

So my point is, I don't see why they can't wait for their money. They caused the problem in the first place.

fits

BostonB wrote: »

So my point is, I don't see why they can't wait for their money. They caused the problem in the first place.

Because he has high value assets which are still worth a lot of money, and they want this money now.

Paddy De Plasterer

I am sure if he turned up in court and made a reasoned argument, things might have turned out differently.

smash

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

I am sure if he turned up in court and made a reasoned argument, things might have turned out differently.

"The O'Donnells have been Bank of Ireland customers since 1974. But Mr O'Donnell claims the bank has rejected all proposals he has made to repay his massive loans, and that its aggressive behaviour has wrecked his property business.

Instead of considering how to get the best return from their assets, he claims the bank has given them 24-hour notice to pay back everything they owe."

It doesn't matter what the amount was, this is happening all too often!

reprazant

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

I am sure if he turned up in court and made a reasoned argument, things might have turned out differently.

Fcuking LOL!

Paddy De Plasterer

smash wrote: »

"The O'Donnells have been Bank of Ireland customers since 1974. But Mr O'Donnell claims the bank has rejected all proposals he has made to repay his massive loans, and that its aggressive behaviour has wrecked his property business.

Instead of considering how to get the best return from their assets, he claims the bank has given them 24-hour notice to pay back everything they owe."

It doesn't matter what the amount was, this is happening all too often!

But the point i want to make again is that if he tutned up in court and made that argument he might have obtained a far better result for himself. Courts have no great love for Banks.

Frank Black

smash wrote: »

My point is they paid €9.3m this year and the bank did not deduct it from their loans. Who cares about the figure? If you have a loan of 10k and paid off 3 and the bank said no you still owe 10, would you be pissed off?

Would a calculator not sort this out?

I have a small casio model which I'm willing to lend the bank/judge if it would help.

Ellis Dee

My heart bleeds for two people who lived off the pig's back, with a luxury ski chalet in France, a multimillion palace in Ireland, etc., etc., and helped puff up the property bubble that inevitably burst and brought the country to its knees. They clearly have not yet shaken off the greed and hubris that gave them such a sense of entitlement.:rolleyes:

Now they whinge because they may have to live in just one house with fewer than half a dozen bathrooms and no heated swimming pool. They will never be as badly off as the vast majority of people in Ireland, who are now in the bizzare position of having to pay off the debts that these greedy people incurred. :mad::mad:

I wish we had debtor's prison - with hard labour, mouldy bread and dirty water - for parasites like them.:)

smash

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

But the point i want to make again is that if he tutned up in court and made that argument he might have obtained a far better result for himself. Courts have no great love for Banks.

Yea, that was not going to happen.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Now they whinge because they may have to live in just one house with fewer than half a dozen bathrooms and no heated swimming pool. They will never be as badly off as the vast majority of people in Ireland, who are now in the bizzare position of having to pay off the debts that these greedy people incurred.

No, they could end up worse off. Their company has gone down the tubes and they're at risk of having all assets taken from them. They'll be left with nothing, just so people like you can be happy knowing that.

Wile E. Coyote

Ellis Dee wrote: »

My heart bleeds for two people who lived off the pig's back, with a luxury ski chalet in France, a multimillion palace in Ireland, etc., etc., and helped puff up the property bubble that inevitably burst and brought the country to its knees. They clearly have not yet shaken off the greed and hubris that gave them such a sense of entitlement.:rolleyes:

Now they whinge because they may have to live in just one house with fewer than half a dozen bathrooms and no heated swimming pool. They will never be as badly off as the vast majority of people in Ireland, who are now in the bizzare position of having to pay off the debts that these greedy people incurred. :mad::mad:

I wish we had debtor's prison - with hard labour, mouldy bread and dirty water - for parasites like them.:)

I'm not sure what annoys me more. People with a mistaken sense of entitlement or people like you who sit there with a smug grin and enjoy watching someone else lose everything they have.

Paddy De Plasterer

Ellis Dee wrote: »

My heart bleeds for two people who lived off the pig's back, with a luxury ski chalet in France, a multimillion palace in Ireland, etc., etc., and helped puff up the property bubble that inevitably burst and brought the country to its knees. They clearly have not yet shaken off the greed and hubris that gave them such a sense of entitlement.:rolleyes:

Now they whinge because they may have to live in just one house with fewer than half a dozen bathrooms and no heated swimming pool. They will never be as badly off as the vast majority of people in Ireland, who are now in the bizzare position of having to pay off the debts that these greedy people incurred. :mad::mad:

I wish we had debtor's prison - with hard labour, mouldy bread and dirty water - for parasites like them.:)

I agree with you totally, and loss of the ski chalet in France must be a terrible blow !

Snakeblood

BostonB wrote: »

I thought he blames the bank.
I also made the point of the poor reporting earlier.

See if the banks at fault for giving the loan, and its therefore the fault of whomever gave the banks the loan. So where did all this money go at the end of the day? The people who loaned it to the banks in the first place. Who is looking to bankrupt everyone and their countries to get their hands on this money? The people who made bad investments, loans in the first place.

Who will end up paying for it. The people who by and large didn't borrow the bulk of these debts.

So my point is, I don't see why they can't wait for their money. They caused the problem in the first place.

Everything was going well according to Mr O'Donnell, until Lehman Brothers collapsed and eventually the Irish banks buckled.

Here's the dude complaining that Lehmann's sank everyone, which is Bertietalk.

You don't see why the bank can't wait for the money because all you have is a property speculator explaining why he is good for it, really. He made the decision to solidify all his loans in the one bank, which seems to me, at best a terrible decision. He didn't overstretch on credit, Lehmann's collapsed according to him. They struck an agreement, but that broke down. How did it break down? Dunno, this guy won't say. So on balance, it's probably because he couldn't repay the money.

I think he probably was given a good solid reason why the 9.3 million wasn't counted, but he didn't think it would make him look good for the article, so he didn't say it. I think that he overstretched, and got burned, and he became rich in a credit rich environment, which is now gone. I think if the banks genuinely thought he had a good plan, they'd go with it, but they don't.

I'm not asking that the guy live in penury for the rest of his life, but business deals don't work out sometimes. Sell what you have and pay your debts, don't get to sit in your mansion moving money around that you don't have and hoping that the property market un****s itself.

reprazant

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I wish we had debtor's prison - with hard labour, mouldy bread and dirty water - for parasites like them.:)

And if we did it would be full with the people who are too poor to pay off the most basic of debts.

People like yourself, who take smug satisfaction in watching people's world crash around them make me sick.

BostonB

I think some of you are missing the point. Its not siding with the couple, or punishing them. It would just make more sense, if the bank got better value for money with these assets, as the slash and burn in 24 hrs hurts primarily the taxpayer.

Ellis Dee

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

I'm not sure what annoys me more. People with a mistaken sense of entitlement or people like you who sit there with a smug grin and enjoy watching someone else lose everything they have.

How do you know I have a smug grin? Ever consider the possibility that I have a look of stern annoyance at the thought of millions of ordinary people having to contribute to paying off the massive debts that those two ran up while they lived a lavish lifestyle and probably looked down on ordinary "little people" like us who don't have ski chalets in France?

I can't help wondering whether they would even have paid any tax if the massive and utterly irresponsible gambles they took had paid off. Probably not, as long as offshore havens exist, but now that their flush is well and truly busted, it is left to the eejits - us - to pay their debts.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

And you have to be really naive if you believe they will ever be down to the lifestyle of a family that now owns nothing and is dependent on the social welfare for their livelihood.

Snakeblood

BostonB wrote: »

I think some of you are missing the point. Its not siding with the couple, or punishing them. It would just make more sense, if the bank got better value for money with these assets, as the slash and burn in 24 hrs hurts primarily the taxpayer.

I think you're missing my point. I don't believe the couple. I think they're presenting an image of themselves as one thing, and the absences in what they are saying are more telling to me. I think it's highly debateable whether there's any chance the couple could get better value than the banks, seeing as they were making their empire at the same time as the banks were lending them huge amounts of money, and as soon as the bank stopped lending, they went tits up at the same time. It doesn't speak well of their economic nous.

I think we're relying on them telling the truth about their ability to pay when they can't explain why 9.3 million is taken off the bill. It beggars belief.

Ellis Dee

reprazant wrote: »

And if we did it would be full with the people who are too poor to pay off the most basic of debts.

People like yourself, who take smug satisfaction in watching people's world crash around them make me sick.

I wouldn't be among them, because I have always been careful to live within my means and avoided debts greater than the national income of some countries. It might have been nice to have a ski chalet in France, but I never acquired one, because I knew I couldn't afford it. It now appears O'Donnell couldn't either. The difference between him and me is that I knew it. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

smash

Ellis Dee wrote: »

How do you know I have a smug grin? Ever consider the possibility that I have a look of stern annoyance at the thought of millions of ordinary people having to contribute to paying off the massive debts that those two ran up while they lived a lavish lifestyle and probably looked down on ordinary "little people" like us who don't have ski chalets in France?

The banks gave them the money, take it out on the banks, not the people who are now going to be in debt until they die. Back when times were good, there was a forecast to show that the loans could be repaid. No need to begrudge people who tried to make something from it.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I can't help wondering whether they would even have paid any tax if the massive and utterly irresponsible gambles they took had paid off. Probably not, as long as offshore havens exist, but now that their flush is well and truly busted, it is left to the eejits - us - to pay their debts.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

That's a really stupid statement.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

And you have to be really naive if you believe they will ever be down to the lifestyle of a family that now owns nothing and is dependent on the social welfare for their livelihood.

Hardly. It's not like the can transfer anything to their spouse. What they do have going for them is a good education so they should be able to make money again, but you probably begrudge that too.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

It might have been nice to have a ski chalet in France, but I never acquired one, because I knew I couldn't afford it. It now appears O'Donnell couldn't either. The difference between him and me is that I knew it. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

No, the difference is that he could afford it at the time.

Wile E. Coyote

Ellis Dee wrote: »

How do you know I have a smug grin? Ever consider the possibility that I have a look of stern annoyance at the thought of millions of ordinary people having to contribute to paying off the massive debts that those two ran up while they lived a lavish lifestyle and probably looked down on ordinary "little people" like us who don't have ski chalets in France?

I can't help wondering whether they would even have paid any tax if the massive and utterly irresponsible gambles they took had paid off. Probably not, as long as offshore havens exist, but now that their flush is well and truly busted, it is left to the eejits - us - to pay their debts.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

And you have to be really naive if you believe they will ever be down to the lifestyle of a family that now owns nothing and is dependent on the social welfare for their livelihood.

Maybe it's just me but the :cool:, :rolleyes: and from your original post gave the impression of someone who's taking enjoyment in seeing this couple brought to their knees.

Who said you or anyone else is going to have to pay off their debts for them? The article clearly states he's put forward numerous proposals to clear off the debt but they have all been rejected by the bank. The same bank who were only too happy throw money at people so why isn't your stern annoyance aimed at them?

Why not let them maintain one of the proposals he's put forward? Selling off all the assets now is obviously going to result in a loss so why not hold off?

Snakeblood

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Why not let them maintain one of the proposals he's put forward? Selling off all the assets now is obviously going to result in a loss so why not hold off?

Maybe his ideas are stupid and unrealistic?

Wile E. Coyote

Snakeblood wrote: »

Maybe his ideas are stupid and unrealistic?

And maybe the bank is looking to gain a €10-20mil cash windfall in the short term to make it look like they're actually doing something and not thinking longterm.

Snakeblood

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

And maybe the bank is looking to gain a €10-20mil cash windfall in the short term to make it look like they're actually doing something and not thinking longterm.

Possibly, but the solicitor won't explain why the bank isn't counting the 9.3 million in the interview he gave the newspaper, so I think he's at best hiding the truth. The story is completely done from his side in the article, and it still makes him look like an evasive moron.

BostonB

Snakeblood wrote: »

I think you're missing my point. I don't believe the couple. I think they're presenting an image of themselves as one thing, and the absences in what they are saying are more telling to me. I think it's highly debateable whether there's any chance the couple could get better value than the banks, seeing as they were making their empire at the same time as the banks were lending them huge amounts of money, and as soon as the bank stopped lending, they went tits up at the same time. It doesn't speak well of their economic nous.

I think we're relying on them telling the truth about their ability to pay when they can't explain why 9.3 million is taken off the bill. It beggars belief.

You expected the couple to know the banks were going to fail. Very few predicted that right. Even if you did know. The getting in and out before the bank went boom, and making a quick buck wouldn't be that daft. You just don't want to be caught out when the lights come on and the music stops.

Snakeblood wrote: »

Maybe his ideas are stupid and unrealistic?

Maybe. You won't find that info in that article though. Your premise is based on the banks being right. Thats even more suspect premise than the couple being wrong. They lost millions. The bank lost billions.

smash

Snakeblood wrote: »

Possibly, but the solicitor won't explain why the bank isn't counting the 9.3 million in the interview he gave the newspaper, so I think he's at best hiding the truth. The story is completely done from his side in the article, and it still makes him look like an evasive moron.

I'm guessing because it was interest repayments, not capital.