OK for Johnny Ronan to go back to being a developer?

maninasia

I'm wondering if I set up a dealership for each heart valve I sold, and then it failed I would cover my liability by busting each company.
I wonder how people would feel about that.

I don't get why that's okay with developers?

goingsolo

maninasia wrote: »

I'm wondering if I set up a new car dealership for each heart valve I sold, and then it failed I would cover my liability by busting each company.
I wonder how people would feel about that.

I don't get why that's okay with developers?

I was just reading through the thread and thinking the Same thing. Sure, you gotta hand it to him and his advisors they played the system here, but how can he hold a directorship of any future business?

I'm a director in my company for a few years now but was honestly petrified before I signed anything after reading up on how personally liable I could be made if there was problems.

On another note- who in Nama sold the Chinese interest at 2 odd million, when it was sold for a multiple of this later. Did he completely turn the company around in this time? Or did name fail to reach the full potential value of it, and as a result fail to protect the taxpayers money.

is there accountability anywhere here?

maninasia

It's crazy isn't it. They basically flipped it in just over a year after low ball buy-back from THEIR OWN company, and made a massive profit on it. This was the quote from the Independent article earlier.

Barrett sold the two companies that had the contract to manage the Chinese venture for €17.5m, having bought them from the now liquidated Treasury Holdings in 2012 for just €2.3m

What's that all about? How did they buy the Chinese interests of their own company which is now controlled by NAMA for next to nothing?


Now this scheme was so obvious in hindsight and the profits so massive that NAMA seemingly did negotiate something to the tune of getting 13 million Euro out of them for debts owed (or was it already planned? no transparency) but they were still left with a nice wedge of profit too!

gaius c

srsly78 wrote: »

Using limited liability companies to limit their liability? It's a disgrace!

I note that Scortho declined to respond to my response to his post that was very similar to yours so I'll requote it for your benefit.

gaius c wrote: »

The issue is with their byzantine corporate structure and the way they shift assets around to keep them away from their creditors. The Phoenix has covered this in detail in the past.

Also, the bulk of Anglo business used "personal guarantees" so limited liability would only go so far.

Scortho

gaius c wrote: »

I note that Scortho declined to respond to my response to his post that was very similar to yours so I'll requote it for your benefit.


Also, the bulk of Anglo business used "personal guarantees" so limited liability would only go so far.

Sorry It must have slipped down the list. Ive a large amount of threads everyday and never get to all of them.

ANyway, Id see nothing wrong with using a large corporate structure, so long as its done within the law of the land.
Can I understand why people are annoyed with it? Yes.
However Ive no problem with someone using the legal framework to work around corporate ethics.

If the debts that are in default, have been personally guaranteed, then they should be made honour those guarantees, or else a judgement awarded against them or made bankrupt. If the debts that are in default, are guaranteed and Nama treats them differently to other borrowers, then Ive an issue with that and in that case an inquest/enquiry should be held as to why they're treated differently.

srsly78

If there are loopholes being exploited, then the government should pass legislation to close the loopholes. In the meantime it's all legit.

Do remember tho, that our economy seems to be based on loopholes in international tax law.

maninasia

It's not 'based on loopholes in international law'. There is no 'international law'. There are tax treaties between states and there are tax rates decided by sovereign governments as well as tax breaks.

Slideshowbob

Touched here on personal guarantees and implications of bad debts on the tax payer:


Richard Curran: Tears over money gone up in smoke -- but it's time to move on
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/richard-curran-tears-over-money-gone-up-in-smoke-but-its-time-to-move-on-2990023

gaius c

404 error?

namenotavailablE

Article link amended:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/richard-curran-tears-over-money-gone-up-in-smoke-but-its-time-to-move-on-29900236.html

mariaalice

Why are people ( and the independent ) so obsessed with yesterdays news that article is bizarre and the independent has an Ad on the radio saying they were publishing an articular about how much Nama would have made if they had waited for the recovery of the London market even more rubbish, move on folks.


My husband is working on some massive development and redevelopment in London at the moment that's the way of the world things move on.

tipptom

mariaalice wrote: »

Why are people ( and the independent ) so obsessed with yesterdays news that article is bizarre and the independent has an Ad on the radio saying they were publishing an articular about how much Nama would have made if they had waited for the recovery of the London market even more rubbish, move on folks.


My husband is working on some massive development and redevelopment in London at the moment that's the way of the world things move on.

Well that's all right then as long as you and your husband is sorted.
Your probably Paddy Shovlins wife waiting for him to get back from the emirates after racing his prestigious cars against the Sheiks.

mariaalice

If any developer made a personal commitment or did something illegal they should pay just like everyone else it should not even be an issue, however the constant rehashing of the mess while the world has move on its very Irish I think, this rehashing is being cheerleaded by the independent who also seem to be obsessed with Nama for some reason.

My husband is an engineer and it is interesting to here of new redevelopment and things moving on instead of the constant rehashing of the past.

tipptom

mariaalice wrote: »

If any developer made a personal commitment or did something illegal they should pay just like everyone else it should not even be an issue, however the constant rehashing of the mess while the world has move on it very Irish I think, this rehashing is being cheerleaded by the independent who also seem to be obsessed with Nama for some reason.

My husband is an engineer and it is interesting to here of new redevelopment and things moving on instead of the constant rehashing of the past.

Ah,sure that's us,arent ye lucky to be out of the place.
Mastered the accent yet?

mariaalice

What do you want to happen exactly?, we have been affected by the collapse in construction because my husband now works in London instead of Dublin, should we blame some property developer because my husband has to work in London instead of Dublin.

Brussels Sprout

mariaalice wrote: »

this rehashing is being cheerleaded by the independent who also seem to be obsessed with Nama for some reason.

I don't know about the daily paper but the Sunday Independent has an axe to grind with NAMA because it's stopping Roland Quinlan from writing sycophantic pieces about the property developers. The coverage of the case between NAMA and Treasury Holdings last year was nauseating in that paper.

maninasia

NAMA is the biggest property development company in the world by some estimates. It's also shrouded in secrecy, and the movement of former executives into other property development companies doesn't look too good, along with the information that they transferred before they left.

NAMA is supposedly not allowed sell property to developers back to them at a low price , however they let Treasury Holdings sell it's holdings to the original investors at a low ball price.

Don't get that. Questions need to be asked.

tipptom

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I don't know about the daily paper but the Sunday Independent has an axe to grind with NAMA because it's stopping Roland Quinlan from writing sycophantic pieces about the property developers. The coverage of the case between NAMA and Treasury Holdings last year was nauseating in that paper.

They are on about NAMA on the front page again,some sh*t that they cant stand up and have as much as said so from our old mate Ronald.
If he crawls up his old colleges'Gayle behind any further the Dunner will have to bring back a couple of his old foremen to extract him.


Not a big fan of Nama myself and its "national security"secrecy but I think Niall Mellon made a fairly compelling case for developers being able to buy back some of their properties again on the Marian Finnucane show which I would have been completely against before.

realitykeeper

Johnny Ronan, isn`t he half of the pair who got a few million for not repaying a massive debt pertaining to a convention center in Dublin. I thought he went to Hong Kong. Personally speaking I hold no animosity toward the guy because the debt was foisted upon the taxpayer by FF/FG/Lab and not the man himself. Similarly, his lump sum payment was not his fault, it was the fault of those who gave it to him. It is imperative that the Irish electorate do not give the retrospective nod to the government bailout of the banks by condemning those who profited from it or those who were shielded by government stupidity. Blame should remain at the feet of the culpable - FF/FG/Lab. It is only the fool who turns the blame on others such as Ronan and Quinn. They did not give the tax payer their debt, the government did so that is where the blame should stay until a competent party emerges and re-privatizes the bank debt.

Slideshowbob

realitykeeper wrote: »

It is only the fool who turns the blame on others such as Ronan and Quinn.

Sorry call me a fool but at the end of the day (or the start of the deal) these were they the guys (developers in particular, will have to await the full story re Quinn) who actually signed on the dotted line and got the property valuations horrendously wrong - they take alot of the blame as this poll testified:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68649974

Slideshowbob

http://indo.ie/uDdCK

Dob74

Slideshowbob wrote: »

http://indo.ie/uDdCK

It reads like a piss take.
Someone still has enough money to have a story planted is the spindo.

tipptom

Dob74 wrote: »

It reads like a piss take.
Someone still has enough money to have a story planted is the spindo.

Hey,he is the darling of the Independent and made them a lot of money in advertising and social storys and Niamh Horan is involved in the story so you are probably right

gaius c

The word around MIPIM is that Mr Ronan also has, or is about to, make Nama an offer to repay 100 per cent of his loans.

Smell a rat here.
It's probably an offer for:
1. 100% of some of the loans, leaving the toxic sludge with NAMA.
2. Or alternatively, 100% of the price NAMA paid for the loans and not the original book value, i.e. Ronan buys back the loans at an enormous discount.

I'm inclined to think #2 because that's what Harry Crosbie thinks he owes NAMA.
The story is probably a plant by either or both of Ronan & NAMA to soften people up for the wonderful good news of him buying his loans back at an enormous discount.

Markcheese

Is it not more likely to be the small chunk of treasury holdings (a limited company) debt that he is personally on the hook for ... Ie. Treasury(part owned by Ronan) owe a billion
But Ronan himself only directly owes 100 million or so

maninasia

What a country!