The TF "new owners"

irishgeo

I see its back in pat jennings hands again, The man must have 9 lives in a business sense.

Lots of people and i know personally one or two , still sore from the last liquidation. I doubt he will be getting much on credit.

The lack of a late bar/niteclub other than coxs is killing the town along with the bus to Westport.

Coxs is just depressing now.
I can't see the tf doing it as its not setup for it.

Xenji

With the talk of them putting in a Starbucks concession and a Ticketmaster I can see them renovating the old nightclub to accommodate them, also no word yet on any job benefit it will bring.

As you pointed out not sure how Pat has got in again, he is notorious for not paying people on time or at all in some cases and had a restraining order against going near the the TF when the bank came in.

witnessrenegade

Still though, it's nice to hear it's opening again, let's just hope the acts they get in are actually good and not just Jedward/Showbands that they have been getting the last number of years

irishgeo

witnessrenegade wrote: »

Still though, it's nice to hear it's opening again, let's just hope the acts they get in are actually good and not just Jedward/Showbands that they have been getting the last number of years

Opening again ? It never shut. The reason some of the better acts have stayed away was because some of them never got paid.

witnessrenegade

irishgeo wrote: »

Opening again ? It never shut. The reason some of the better acts have stayed away was because some of them never got paid.

Ah I know it never closed but they all stayed away once the bank came in, their is meant to be a announcement of upcoming gigs in the next while, it will be interesting to see who's billed to play

nuac

I wish Pat Jennings, his family and associates in this venture all the best.

Xenji

nuac wrote: »

I wish Pat Jennings, his family and associates in this venture all the best.

Pat is just going to be the creative director for the theater, Islandeady Properties and Lansdowne Francs have purchased all the assests from from Andrew O'Leary & Kieran Wallace, KPMG.

The acquisition includes The Royal Theatre, The Ruby Room, Mayo Conference Centre, TF Hotel, Harlequin Hotel (4 Star), Multi Storey Car Park and The Royal Quarter Retail Area incorporating Boots Chemists and other various Retail Stores, The Mosaic and other car parks.

voz es

I wonder if Pat has any family members in any of the mentoned groups that bought the hotel back..... For the record I don't know just interested.

Dudda

Xenji wrote: »

Pat is just going to be the creative director for the theater, Islandeady Properties and Lansdowne Francs have purchased all the assests from from Andrew O'Leary & Kieran Wallace, KPMG.

The acquisition includes The Royal Theatre, The Ruby Room, Mayo Conference Centre, TF Hotel, Harlequin Hotel (4 Star), Multi Storey Car Park and The Royal Quarter Retail Area incorporating Boots Chemists and other various Retail Stores, The Mosaic and other car parks.

One problem.... directors of Islandeady Properties Castlebar Ltd are Pat and Louise Jennings. The company was only set up 7 months ago to purchase the TF back. He's definitely 'creative' all right.

voz es wrote: »

I wonder if Pat has any family members in any of the mentoned groups that bought the hotel back..... For the record I don't know just interested.

Ya directors of the Islandeady Properties.

irishgeo

how does he get away with it, its the 3rd time he has gone bust now and he has got it back 3 times.

Dudda

irishgeo wrote: »

how does he get away with it, its the 3rd time he has gone bust now and he has got it back 3 times.

I think the 'Pat' Jennings is Pat Jr., the son who's in his mid 20's. Still it's a technicality. We all know who's going to be calling the shots.

Lissavane

irishgeo wrote: »

Opening again ? It never shut. The reason some of the better acts have stayed away was because some of them never got paid.

Correct.

irishgeo

irishgeo wrote: »

how does he get away with it, its the 3rd time he has gone bust now and he has got it back 3 times.

Just shows how many times the rich can screw up and get away with it. You wouldn't get past the door in there without paying.

All us taxpayers have just bailed him out again. Nice for him:rolleyes:

glic71rods46t0

Anybody know if the story reported last year of the TF being bought back by the Jennings family and others is correct. It was announced with great fanfare around May/June but I haven't heard anything since. Anyone know the truth of what's gone on there?

Buona Fortuna

the_pits wrote: »

Google is a very good friend

file:///C:/Users/Steve/Downloads/The+TF+Royal+Theatre+and+the+Royal+Quarter+Castlebar+has+new+owners..pdf

Steve, that's a file on your hard disc.

irishgeo

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

Anybody know if the story reported last year of the TF being bought back by the Jennings family and others is correct. It was announced with great fanfare around May/June but I haven't heard anything since. Anyone know the truth of what's gone on there?

http://www.theroyal.ie/blog/entry/good-news-for-the-royal-theatre-harlequin-hotel-and-the-royal-quarter-castlebar

Mr Jennings is only running the theatre., not the whole thing.

No sign of the starbucks or the ticketmaster retail store or the UK grocery outfit although i haven't been in the theatre in ages.

Xenji

irishgeo wrote: »

http://www.theroyal.ie/blog/entry/good-news-for-the-royal-theatre-harlequin-hotel-and-the-royal-quarter-castlebar

Mr Jennings is only running the theatre., not the whole thing.

No sign of the starbucks or the ticketmaster retail store or the UK grocery outfit although i haven't been in the theatre in ages.

He is running more than that, a friend of mine recently had a very bad experience with the Harlequin and it was clear as day to him how things have ended up being ran.

glic71rods46t0

I have seen nothing, except the press release from may/June 2014 to suggest that Pat Jennings is running the TF or any other part of his former empire.
It just seems like that press release was taken as fact and reported in many newspapers but I am starting to suspect that the press release was wishful thinking. Anyone know any different?

yop

Pat Jennings is only running the theater nothing else.

irishgeo

yop wrote: »

Pat Jennings is only running the theater nothing else.

MWR had the owner on a while back about clamping in the car parks. It wasn't pat Jennings.

yop

irishgeo wrote: »

MWR had the owner on a while back about clamping in the car parks. It wasn't pat Jennings.

Dublin company own the hotel, a relation of my missus mates brother owns it. Only talking about it this weekend.
Pats son is also involved.

glic71rods46t0

A search of the CRO reveals 3 companies:

Islandeady Properties Castlebar Ltd
HH Hotels (Castlebar) Ltd
Castlebar Royal Theatre Ltd

All 3 companies were registered in 2013 and have not, as yet, filed an annual return but they look like they are just zombie companies. If they had bought the TF there would be mortgages registered against the companies but none are registered.
The 3 companies have the same 3 directors:
Pat Jennings (jnr)
Louise Jennings
and Seamus Sutcliffe

My suspicion is that this lot "blew their load early" and announced a takeover before a deal was done and the deal fell apart. I think there would be a huge amount of press releases and photos of Pat Snr in the TF if he was back running it.
The announcement that Pat Snr would be creative director "with immediate effect" was not followed up

yop

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

A search of the CRO reveals 3 companies:

Islandeady Properties Castlebar Ltd
HH Hotels (Castlebar) Ltd
Castlebar Royal Theatre Ltd

All 3 companies were registered in 2013 and have not, as yet, filed an annual return but they look like they are just zombie companies. If they had bought the TF there would be mortgages registered against the companies but none are registered.
The 3 companies have the same 3 directors:
Pat Jennings (jnr)
Louise Jennings
and Seamus Sutcliffe

My suspicion is that this lot "blew their load early" and announced a takeover before a deal was done and the deal fell apart. I think there would be a huge amount of press releases and photos of Pat Snr in the TF if he was back running it.
The announcement that Pat Snr would be creative director "with immediate effect" was not followed up

No press as he doesn't run the TF. Sutcliffe own it and run it.

glic71rods46t0

You seem to be "in the know" on these matters. Which company did Sutcliffe use to buy the hotel?
I don't believe that he owns it by the way but I will happily do a CRO search on any company you believe was used to purchase the hotel.

yop

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

You seem to be "in the know" on these matters. Which company did Sutcliffe use to buy the hotel?
I don't believe that he owns it by the way but I will happily do a CRO search on any company you believe was used to purchase the hotel.

Couldn't tell you what company, as I don't know or care to be honest. I do know that Sutcliffe owns it.

Why not pop into the TF and ask them for the details, I'm sure they would tell you if you are interested?

Out of interest why the big interest in doing CRO searches on the TF?

irishgeo

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

A search of the CRO reveals 3 companies:

Islandeady Properties Castlebar Ltd
HH Hotels (Castlebar) Ltd
Castlebar Royal Theatre Ltd

All 3 companies were registered in 2013 and have not, as yet, filed an annual return but they look like they are just zombie companies. If they had bought the TF there would be mortgages registered against the companies but none are registered.
The 3 companies have the same 3 directors:
Pat Jennings (jnr)
Louise Jennings
and Seamus Sutcliffe

My suspicion is that this lot "blew their load early" and announced a takeover before a deal was done and the deal fell apart. I think there would be a huge amount of press releases and photos of Pat Snr in the TF if he was back running it.
The announcement that Pat Snr would be creative director "with immediate effect" was not followed up

The licencing laws are pretty strict so someone must own it.

12 element

Interesting reading if you google Seamus Sutcliffe name, seems to have been in court a good few times!

irishgeo

12 element wrote: »

Interesting reading if you google Seamus Sutcliffe name, seems to have been in court a good few times!

he works for an insolvency company, what do you expect in a recession.

glic71rods46t0

irishgeo wrote: »

The licencing laws are pretty strict so someone must own it.

I suspect that the receivers to Pat Jennings company "Diorama Ltd - in receivership" own the business and that they are the ones who have the licence.

12 element

irishgeo wrote: »

he works for an insolvency company, what do you expect in a recession.

Does that explain these kinds of cases:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mansfield-worker-gets-75000-for-unfair-dismissal-26888211.html

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/you-were-hit-by-recession-not-fraud-judge-tells-mortgage-boss-27968712.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/consultant-is-awarded-damages-for-assault-in-row-over-car-26015628.html

glic71rods46t0

yop wrote: »

Couldn't tell you what company, as I don't know or care to be honest. I do know that Sutcliffe owns it.

So in other words, you don't know but you have it on sound authority froma friend of a relation of an inlaw:rolleyes:

yop wrote: »

Why not pop into the TF and ask them for the details, I'm sure they would tell you if you are interested?

Well, I don't live in Castlebar and I was rather hoping to get a credible answer from someone who knows rather than making the journey to Castlebar - that's the thing about these discussion forums - you can ask questions on the internet and hopefully get a credible answer - but unfortunately you can also attract useless replies as well

yop wrote: »

Out of interest why the big interest in doing CRO searches on the TF?

Why the big interest? To get an answer as to who owns the TF now - pretty much the entire point of this whole thread, which I didn't start. This is a discussion forum where people ask questions looking for answers from people who know, not looking for an interrogation on my motives, ta very much!

I call shenanigans on Sutcliffe et al owning the TF or related businesses

Buona Fortuna

12 element wrote: »

Does that explain these kinds of cases:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mansfield-worker-gets-75000-for-unfair-dismissal-26888211.html

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/you-were-hit-by-recession-not-fraud-judge-tells-mortgage-boss-27968712.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/consultant-is-awarded-damages-for-assault-in-row-over-car-26015628.html

In two of those cases, Sutcliffe is the plaintiff, in the other its an unfair dismissal case. Together they do not warrant the taint of

seems to have been in court a good few times!

yop

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

So in other words, you don't know but you have it on sound authority froma friend of a relation of an inlaw:rolleyes:


Well, I don't live in Castlebar and I was rather hoping to get a credible answer from someone who knows rather than making the journey to Castlebar - that's the thing about these discussion forums - you can ask questions on the internet and hopefully get a credible answer - but unfortunately you can also attract useless replies as well



Why the big interest? To get an answer as to who owns the TF now - pretty much the entire point of this whole thread, which I didn't start. This is a discussion forum where people ask questions looking for answers from people who know, not looking for an interrogation on my motives, ta very much!

I call shenanigans on Sutcliffe et al owning the TF or related businesses

Yip, its sound authority and I do know. You have your credible replies from more than just me, those who have given replies are all in Castlebar and we know what goes on it Castlebar, as you said your not in the town, so think what you will.

You asked the question we answered it.

Call it what you like, but I'm afraid the truth is there.

If you want to keep up the "shenanigans" conspiracy, work away, we don't mind.

yop

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

In two of those cases, Sutcliffe is the plaintiff, in the other its an unfair dismissal case. Together they do not warrant the taint of

And if everyone who was in court wasn't allowed to own a business then there would be a lot less businesses around

glic71rods46t0

yop wrote: »

Yip, its sound authority and I do know. You have your credible replies from more than just me, those who have given replies are all in Castlebar and we know what goes on it Castlebar, as you said your not in the town, so think what you will.

I outlined the companies that the supposed new owners of the TF have - I outlined that the 3 companies allegedly used to takeover the TF and related businesses are all just zombie companies. You have come along and said you don't know what company was used and you don't care but you have it on the authority of a friends, brothers inlaw that Seamus is the new owner. I would say that you are offering unsubstantiated hearsay as fact but you are entitled to think what you will

yop wrote: »

You asked the question we answered it.

You seem to be using the royal "we" there your majesty

yop wrote: »

Call it what you like, but I'm afraid the truth is there.

Unsubstantiated hearsay being peddled as truth is what I'll call it

yop wrote: »

If you want to keep up the "shenanigans" conspiracy, work away, we don't mind.

Back to the royal "we" again - and adding a conspiracy into the mix - a bit sensationalist there Yop. I stick by my assertion of shenanigans until someone offers a bit more than

yop wrote: »

Sutcliffe own it and run it.

12 element

yop wrote: »

And if everyone who was in court wasn't allowed to own a business then there would be a lot less businesses around

Never said he shouldn't own a business because of it. I know two different people who've had run ins with this guy and he doesn't seem like a nice character. I think the court cases also show what kind of person he is (Dispute the judge awarding money to him in the case with the Renault garage)

You might know better though Yop as he is a relation of your missus mates brother.

glic71rods46t0

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

In two of those cases, Sutcliffe is the plaintiff, in the other its an unfair dismissal case. Together they do not warrant the taint of

emm, plaintiff where his car had been repossessed and he was injured trying to stop the repossession.
And plaintiff in a case where he tried to insinuate a former employee caused damage to his business but the Judge admonished him for trying to blame someone in the wrong - case thrown out!
None of the cases linked are anything to be proud of as a plaintiff or defendant!

yop

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

I outlined the companies that the supposed new owners of the TF have - I outlined that the 3 companies allegedly used to takeover the TF and related businesses are all just zombie companies. You have come along and said you don't know what company was used and you don't care but you have it on the authority of a friends, brothers inlaw that Seamus is the new owner. I would say that you are offering unsubstantiated hearsay as fact but you are entitled to think what you will


You seem to be using the royal "we" there your majesty


Unsubstantiated hearsay being peddled as truth is what I'll call it


Back to the royal "we" again - and adding a conspiracy into the mix - a bit sensationalist there Yop. I stick by my assertion of shenanigans until someone offers a bit more than

Nah 3b5vakmtdjy9o1, have it in good authority, you mightn't be digging hard enough to find the answer, but you'll get there.


Yip "We" indeed, read the thread, you can see it there in the text by a number of users.

If you want to continue with the conspiracy I'm sure as I said, you can pick up the phone and speak to the TF or Seamus Suttcliffe and they will gladly tell you the story.
If a lack of fanfare is annoying you then maybe buzz the Mayo News or Connaught Telegraph and ask them to cover it.

I'll be in the TF later tonight, I'll give Pat Jennings your regards if I see him, though since he hasn't anything to do with the hotel chances are slim.

You could drop in yourself sometime your down this way.

Anyway probably best to leave the discussion if your in Jim Corr mode

yop

12 element wrote: »

Never said he shouldn't own a business because of it. I know two different people who've had run ins with this guy and he doesn't seem like a nice character. I think the court cases also show what kind of person he is (Dispute the judge awarding money to him in the case with the Renault garage)

You might know better though Yop as he is a relation of your missus mates brother.

lol, he is no relation of mine

glic71rods46t0

yop wrote: »

Nah Fencer, have it in good authority, you mightn't be digging hard enough to find the answer, but you'll get there.


Yip "We" indeed, read the thread, you can see it there in the text by a number of users.

If you want to continue with the conspiracy I'm sure as I said, you can pick up the phone and speak to the TF or Seamus Suttcliffe and they will gladly tell you the story.
If a lack of fanfare is annoying you then maybe buzz the Mayo News or Connaught Telegraph and ask them to cover it.

I'll be in the TF later tonight, I'll give Pat Jennings your regards if I see him, though since he hasn't anything to do with the hotel chances are slim.

You could drop in yourself sometime your down this way.

Anyway probably best to leave the discussion if your in Jim Corr mode

So you have no evidence at all - the rest of your post is just deflection from the fact that you are peddling unsubstantiated hearsay as proof.
Why not hold off replying until you have some evidence to back up your "have it in good authority" nonsense

Buona Fortuna

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

emm, plaintiff where his car had been repossessed and he was injured trying to stop the repossession.
And plaintiff in a case where he tried to insinuate a former employee caused damage to his business but the Judge admonished him for trying to blame someone in the wrong - case thrown out!

The point I was making was that those three links did not support the claim originally made.

It is quite easy on here to make some claim, stick up a couple of links and say Bingo.

None of the cases linked are anything to be proud of as a plaintiff or defendant!

When is it ever? Look Ma I made bail?

12 element

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

The point I was making was that those three links did not support the claim originally made.

It is quite easy on here to make some claim, stick up a couple of links and say Bingo.




When is it ever? Look Ma I made bail?

I think you should re-read the thread. I was never posting the links in response to the claim that Seamus doesn't own the hotel. I couldn't care less who owns it!

Buona Fortuna

12 element wrote: »

Interesting reading if you google Seamus Sutcliffe name, seems to have been in court a good few times!

12 element wrote: »

Does that explain these kinds of cases:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/mansfield-worker-gets-75000-for-unfair-dismissal-26888211.html

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/you-were-hit-by-recession-not-fraud-judge-tells-mortgage-boss-27968712.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/consultant-is-awarded-damages-for-assault-in-row-over-car-26015628.html

12 element wrote: »

I think you should re-read the thread. I was never posting the links in response to the claim that Seamus doesn't own the hotel. I couldn't care less who owns it!

I have re-read the thread. Your links were posted to support the disparaging claim that "he seemed to have been in court a good few times".

I similarly have little interest in the matter, but I can spot a snow job when I see one.

glic71rods46t0

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

I similarly have little interest in the matter

There are lots of issues and topics on Boards that I have no interest in. You can tell I have no interest because I don't post in such threads. But if I post in a thread entitled "TF New owners" then it would be a bit disingenuous to assert that I "have little interest in the matter".

Buona Fortuna

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

There are lots of issues and topics on Boards that I have no interest in. You can tell I have no interest because I don't post in such threads. But if I post in a thread entitled "TF New owners" then it would be a bit disingenuous to assert that I "have little interest in the matter".

FFS are you two a little double act?

As you seem to have an interest in semantics, there is a difference between little interest and no interest.

I have little interest. I have some interest but it does not keep me awake at night.

Incidentally today is St Knuts day, I had been wondering at its significance until now.

yop

No have evidence just as free to me as it is to yourself. All public knowledge. All there to you to find.
They question was asked and it's been answered.
many threads on boards where questions are asked and answered, like this one. No need for concrete evidence in links or printouts but people have the ability to accept that answer.
If the detail is freely available then you will be able to find it and it is.
threads looking like you just want to babble on than accept the answer or move on to another source if your not happy.
no point in getting in a heap over it though and I'm sure pat jennings isn't either.
I am sure we'd be interested to see your links and evidence of so called shenanigans, so post it up there, otherwise it's a case of you make daft claims as you'd say yourself.

glic71rods46t0

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

FFS are you two a little double act?

As you seem to have an interest in semantics, there is a difference between little interest and no interest.

I have little interest. I have some interest but it does not keep me awake at night.

Haha that's a laugh. You are probably the only one in the English speaking world that doesn't know that using the phrase "little interest" in the context you used it means no interest e.g. I have little interest in knitting = I have no interest in knitting.

I take it that English is not your mother tongue;)

glic71rods46t0

yop wrote: »

No have evidence just as free to me as it is to yourself. All public knowledge. All there to you to find.
They question was asked and it's been answered.
many threads on boards where questions are asked and answered, like this one. No need for concrete evidence in links or printouts but people have the ability to accept that answer.
If the detail is freely available then you will be able to find it and it is.
threads looking like you just want to babble on than accept the answer or move on to another source if your not happy.
no point in getting in a heap over it though and I'm sure pat jennings isn't either.
I am sure we'd be interested to see your links and evidence of so called shenanigans, so post it up there, otherwise it's a case of you make daft claims as you'd say yourself.

Haha, nice try, now I know you have no proof at all and you're just spoofing with some hearsay but no proof. You're the one making the claim that Sutcliffe owns the hotel, I say you're wrong, I have done a CRO search for all companies owned by this guy and none has a mortgage charge on the TF (anyone buying the premises would have to raise a mortgage on the premises - that's how business works).

I say Sutcliffe does not own the TF - I say that there is no evidence to show that he owns it.
You say, as a fact, that he does own it.
The ball is in your court to present the evidence that he owns it.
Put up the evidence you claim to have or I call BS.

yop

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

Haha, nice try, now I know you have no proof at all and you're just spoofing with some hearsay but no proof. You're the one making the claim that Sutcliffe owns the hotel, I say you're wrong, I have done a CRO search for all companies owned by this guy and none has a mortgage charge on the TF (anyone buying the premises would have to raise a mortgage on the premises - that's how business works).

I say Sutcliffe does not own the TF - I say that there is no evidence to show that he owns it.
You say, as a fact, that he does own it.
The ball is in your court to present the evidence that he owns it.
Put up the evidence you claim to have or I call BS.

Nah its sound, we know who owns it, I'm in here at the minute, If I head down to the theatre I'll let them know there is a lad awful concerned about them on a public forum, I'm sure it will give them a good laugh.

At the end of the you believe what you want, it makes no odds to me or anyone else, those who know it and its common knowledge, knows who owns it. Very simple logic to anyone really.
No BS at all, just pointing out the facts and entertaining a dog with a bone.

Its simples really.

glic71rods46t0

yop wrote: »

Nah its sound, we know who owns it, I'm in here at the minute, If I head down to the theatre I'll let them know there is a lad awful concerned about them on a public forum, I'm sure it will give them a good laugh.

At the end of the you believe what you want, it makes no odds to me or anyone else, those who know it and its common knowledge, knows who owns it. Very simple logic to anyone really.
No BS at all, just pointing out the facts and entertaining a dog with a bone.

Its simples really.

Now you have shown your true colours. It didn't take me long to show you up:cool:

yop

3b5vakmtdjy9o1 wrote: »

Now you have shown your true colours. It didn't take me long to show you up:cool:

LOL go on, tell us, since you have all the evidence. We'd be delighted to know

Or am I Pat Jennings or Seamus Sutticliffe now lol

Jim Corr was never in it.