Nama developer bankrupts café owner over £10,000 debt..

donegal__road

Just read this in the Times.. hard to believe.

http://bit.ly/16JCThO

I suppose they will try and justify this by using the old cliché, business is business.

Dravokivich

But it is a matter of business is business.

mathie

"Cuppa-licious café"

It was closed for crimes against naming.

K-9

donegal__road wrote: »

Just read this in the Times.. hard to believe.

http://bit.ly/16JCThO

I suppose they will try and justify this by using the old cliché, business is business.

I wonder was it declared to NAMA at the time? But really, the rent was agreed initially and the landlord is irrelevant really.

buck65

This is happening all over Ireland as well. Just a little curious about the outrage from the resisdents - it's a coffee shop ffs not a hospital or a library. Maybe if a few more supported it when it counted?

Wibbs

Yep it's a funny old world where one guy bankrupts to the tune of hundreds of millions, but the state, IE us take on that debt and pay the guy to manage his assets, yet another guy a few grand down goes to the wall with no support. Lesson is folks, 1) if you get into debt get in deep and 2) live in Ireland and know the right people.

mitosis

£100,000.00 invested into a coffee shop in a village of 2,000 people? Without actually buying the premises from that. And he calls himself a business man?

He agreed to pay the rent, failed to do so. The circumstances of his landlord are immaterial. Zero sympathy here

donegal__road

Yes, the lease was signed and the rent was agreed, but for PR purposes alone, you would have thought that Gannon's company would have allowed a little flexibility and rearranged the terms of the lease for the struggling business owner. Especially considering that Gannon has had an enormous debt handed over to the Irish State to burden.
Gannon & co. obviously aren't too worried about public opinion.

donegal__road

mitosis wrote: »

£100,000.00 invested into a coffee shop in a village of 2,000 people? Without actually buying the premises from that. And he calls himself a business man?

He agreed to pay the rent, failed to do so. The circumstances of his landlord are immaterial. Zero sympathy here

A local coffee shop where I live (approx 4,000 people), spent €100,000 on the premises before it opened. It closed after the first year. (dont know if rent was the issue)

Sir Humphrey Appleby

K-9 wrote: »

I wonder was it declared to NAMA at the time? But really, the rent was agreed initially and the landlord is irrelevant really.

I fail to see what NAMA has to do with it. Billions in performing loans were transferred to NAMA, just because NAMA holds a persons or company's loans does not mean that the loans are not being paid on time.
I feel sorry for the café guy, but that is what a lot of people in small businesses face all the time.

K-9

donegal__road wrote: »

A local coffee shop where I live (approx 4,000 people), spent €100,000 on the premises before it opened. It closed after the first year. (dont know if rent was the issue)

Sounds expensive but with H&S regulations and all that, mightn't be that far of.

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

I fail to see what NAMA has to do with it. Billions in performing loans were transferred to NAMA, just because NAMA holds a persons or company's loans does not mean that the loans are not being paid on time.
I feel sorry for the café guy, but that is what a lot of people in small businesses face all the time.

Well some performing loans would have gone to NAMA all right but that would logically mean that others didn't perform. Basically if Gannon had 3 loans doing fine and 5 struggling he'd still get transferred. I haven't heard of anybody that was paying back all their loans as agreed with the bank getting taken over by NAMA. That wasn't the point of NAMA. Hate to say it, but I'd need to see a link to believe it!

spyderski

Incorrect. Being transferred to NAMA has nothing to do with whether your loans are performing or not. Denis O'Brien and many others have had fully performing loans transferred to NAMA. If the overall indebtedness was over €5m to an Irish bank, the loan/s was automatically eligible to be transferred to NAMA, regardless of the performance of the loans. Loans were transferred to NAMA on a debt basis, i.e. the biggest loans got transferred first. Does not mean they were not performing (although many were not).

K-9

spyderski wrote: »

Incorrect. Being transferred to NAMA has nothing to do with whether your loans are performing or not. Denis O'Brien and many others have had fully performing loans transferred to NAMA. If the overall indebtedness was over €5m to an Irish bank, the loan/s was automatically transferred to NAMA, regardless of the performance of the loans.

So basically you are saying banks just handed loads of performing loans over €5 Million to NAMA? That makes no sense as you are worsening the very problem you are trying to solve.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

K-9 wrote: »

Sounds expensive but with H&S regulations and all that, mightn't be that far of.



Well some performing loans would have gone to NAMA all right but that would logically mean that others didn't perform. Basically if Gannon had 3 loans doing fine and 5 struggling he'd still get transferred. I haven't heard of anybody that was paying back all their loans as agreed with the bank getting taken over by NAMA. That wasn't the point of NAMA. Hate to say it, but I'd need to see a link to believe it!

I would be happy to study your evidence that Gerry Gannons loans are not performing, otherwise (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) I will presume that are performing.
Didn't Paddy Mc killen win a Supreme Court action to stop NAMA taking over his performing loan btw?

Lando Griffin

donegal__road wrote: »

A local coffee shop where I live (approx 4,000 people), spent €100,000 on the premises before it opened. It closed after the first year. (dont know if rent was the issue)

Food is where the markup is, if your in the industry and not selling grub then your no businessman.:mad:

Sir Humphrey Appleby

K-9 wrote: »

So basically you are saying banks just handed loads of performing loans over €5 Million to NAMA? That makes no sense as you are worsening the very problem you are trying to solve.

That is exactly what happened.

buck65

donegal__road wrote: »

A local coffee shop where I live (approx 4,000 people), spent €100,000 on the premises before it opened. It closed after the first year. (dont know if rent was the issue)

They spent way too much. Put themselves under pressure from the start. In a town that size you really should start small and build up.

I would imagine a new business would probably be loss making or break even at best for the first 2 or 3 years even without a big investment - Just the day to day running and rent,rates etc.

spyderski

Well, they didn't just "hand them over" they got paid for them. Otherwise, that's what happened alright.

K-9

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

I would be happy to study your evidence that Gerry Gannons loans are not performing, otherwise (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) I will presume that are performing.
Didn't Paddy Mc killen win a Supreme Court action to stop NAMA taking over his performing loan btw?

Well I'm not making any claim, I'm just doubting it because it doesn't make much sense. You are asserting this is true so it would be good form to provide a link giving an example.

You seem to be suggesting McKillen had no bad loans at all, I'm not doubting some of his loans were good.

spyderski wrote: »

Well, they didn't just "hand them over" they got paid for them. Otherwise, that's what happened alright.

Well I assume NAMA paid 100% value for developers who had performing loan portfolios? NAMA bought loans at discounts so they got great value if they got them at 60% of value. That isn't something NAMA has ever been accused of!

Jester252

Gerry Gannon didn't screw Sean O’Riordan. Sean O’Riordan screwed Sean O’Riordan

Sir Humphrey Appleby

K-9 wrote: »

Well I'm not making any claim, I'm just doubting it because it doesn't make much sense. You are asserting this is true so it would be good form to provide a link giving an example.

You seem to be suggesting McKillen had no bad loans at all, I'm not doubting some of his loans were good.



Well I assume NAMA paid 100% value for developers who had performing loan portfolios? NAMA bought loans at discounts so they got great value if they got them at 60% of value. That isn't something NAMA has ever been accused of![/QUOTE]

If you did even the most basic research then you would know that NAMA bought portfolios of mixed loans at a haircut of about 40%. The logic claimed was that by buying the performing loans at a discount this would help offset the losses on the non performing loans.
This was a matter of widespread political and civil debate at the time and is a matter of recorded fact.
Consequently many so called NAMA developers actually had performing loans transferred to NAMA, which is why the pejorative "NAMA developer" is oft times a misrepresentation.

K-9

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

If you did even the most basic research then you would know that NAMA bought portfolios of mixed loans at a haircut of about 40%.

That's what I'm saying, some loans would be performing fine, others not. If Nama takes over Gannon as an example they don't take over 5 bad loans and leave the 2 good ones to AIB or whoever, it would be pointless and a nightmare to work out.

I'm well aware of the 40% discount, that was more the initial tranches transferred, ended up being more 50/60%.

The logic claimed was that by buying the performing loans at a discount this would help offset the losses on the non performing loans.
This was a matter of widespread political and civil debate at the time and is a matter of recorded fact.
Consequently many so called NAMA developers actually had performing loans transferred to NAMA, which is why the pejorative "NAMA developer" is oft times a misrepresentation.

They also had bad loans. You are stating developers who had no problems whatsoever got transferred to NAMA, I'm disputing that and you can't back your claim up. You could be right or it could be misinformed stuff read in newspapers, I don't know which.

spyderski

K-9 wrote: »

That's what I'm saying, some loans would be performing fine, others not. If Nama takes over Gannon as an example they don't take over 5 bad loans and leave the 2 good ones to AIB or whoever, it would be pointless and a nightmare to work out.



They also had bad loans. You are stating developers who had no problems whatsoever got transferred to NAMA, I'm disputing that and you can't back your claim up. You could be right or it could be misinformed stuff read in newspapers, I don't know which.

It's actually both - he's right AND you're misinformed.
Don't know why you keep coming back commenting on things you admit yourself you know nothing about, and doubting those who do.
How many people need to tell you the facts before you believe them?
If you want to learn the facts for yourself there's a great thing called Google....

K-9

spyderski wrote: »

It's actually both - he's right AND you're misinformed.
Don't know why you keep coming back commenting on things you admit yourself you know nothing about, and doubting those who do.
How many people need to tell you the facts before you believe them?
If you want to learn the facts for yourself there's a great thing called Google....

Well it wouldn't be that hard to provide a link seeing as you know so much about it.

I'm hardly going to take the word of 2 guys on the internet as proof.

spyderski

Google Paddy McKillen vs Anglo/IBRC

K-9

spyderski wrote: »

Google Paddy McKillen vs Anglo/IBRC

Yep, they stopped the good loans transferred. You are saying McKillen had no bad loans whatsoever and Nama just wanted his loans for the heck of it.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/only-one-in-five-loans-with-nama-being-repaid-29220725.html

Only 18% of NAMA owned loans are performing, as Sir Humphrey posted NAMA takes over mixed loan portfolios, not just bad loans.