Tony O'Reilly: The Real Deal

Harry Angstrom

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Doesn't seem like he bought anything, really.

You could just call him Sir because he's earned that right.

Or not.

I'm not sure he'd give a toss, really.

How has he earned that right? He became a very rich man off the backs of others. Are we supposed to be in awe of this? Is that what "success" in life boils down to? He's hardly Albert Schweitzer :rolleyes:

HeidiHeidi

hotmail.com wrote: »

Why can't he just be called Anthony?

That was the "not" option.

hotmail.com

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

That was the "not" option.

But you seem to support calling a man Sir, a title given to him by a foreign head of state and there's some offence if he's just called Anthony. Is this Victorian Britain or 21st century Ireland?

HeidiHeidi

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

How has he earned that right? He became a very rich man off the backs of others. Are we supposed to be in awe of this? Is that what "success" in life boils down to? He's hardly Albert Schweitzer :rolleyes:

Or he was a major employer of Irish and other people for donkey's years, and bankrupted himself in trying to sustain that employment. Are you saying that he shouldn't have been rewarded for that? (not by a knighthood, in earnings)

If there's no reward for entrepeneurial effort, then why would anyone bother setting up or buying or maintain any business?

SaveOurLyric

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

How has he earned that right?
He became a very rich man off the backs of others.
Are we supposed to be in awe of this? Is that what "success" in life boils down to?
He's hardly Albert Schweitzer :rolleyes:

By being exceptionally successful.
He kept no slaves.
Yes. His achievement is so far ahead of most people's that he deserves at least respect and acclaim for it.
Nor is he Pele, Buffett, Einstein. But so what. He is still one in a million and miles ahead of the rest.

HeidiHeidi

hotmail.com wrote: »

But you seem to support calling a man Sir, a title given to him by a foreign head of state and there's some offence if he's just called Anthony. Is this Victorian Britain or 21st century Ireland?

I don't "support" anything.

So what if he was given a title by a foreign head of state? If he was give some award by the Germans, or the Americans, or the Outer Mongolians, would you be so offended?

I think you're the one with the problem here, not a man who accepted an award offered for his services to business (or whatever it was for).

hotmail.com

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I don't "support" anything.

So what if he was given a title by a foreign head of state? If he was give some award by the Germans, or the Americans, or the Outer Mongolians, would you be so offended?

I think you're the one with the problem here, not a man who accepted an award offered for his services to business (or whatever it was for).

You said:

"Doesn't seem like he bought anything, really.

You could just call him Sir because he's earned that right"


Only in Ireland would you get someone defending a person's "right" to be called Sir.

Harry Angstrom

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Or he was a major employer of Irish and other people for donkey's years, and bankrupted himself in trying to sustain that employment. Are you saying that he shouldn't have been rewarded for that? (not by a knighthood, in earnings)

If there's no reward for entrepeneurial effort, then why would anyone bother setting up or buying or maintain any business?

Don't give me that baloney about bankrupting himself trying to sustain employment. His bankruptcy stems from an ego contest between himself and Denis O'Brien, and O'Reilly came off second best.

Harry Angstrom

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

By being exceptionally successful.
He kept no slaves.
Yes. His achievement is so far ahead of most people's that he deserves at least respect and acclaim for it.
Nor is he Pele, Buffett, Einstein. But so what. He is still one in a million and miles ahead of the rest.

Only if you admire capitalist egomaniacal mercenaries.

HeidiHeidi

hotmail.com wrote: »

You said:

"Doesn't seem like he bought anything, really.

You could just call him Sir because he's earned that right"


Only in Ireland would you get someone defending a person's "right" to be called Sir.

He did good stuff in the business world.

The brits saw fit to recognise this, and offered him a knighthood.

He accepted.

Since the award was offered in return for the good stuff he did in business, I would phrase that as "he earned the award". There's no hidden meaning or ulterior motive in that phrase.

If he got an award from Germany or America or Outer Mongolia would you have a problem with that?

And I'm not "defending his "right" to be called Sir". As I said before, I'm sure he'd have no problem with you not calling him Sir if it offends you so.

marienbad

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Don't give me that baloney about bankrupting himself trying to sustain employment. His bankruptcy stems from an ego contest between himself and Denis O'Brien, and O'Reilly came off second best.

A bit more complicated than that , himself and his brother in law invested over 500 million of their own money in WW trying to turn the tide .

HeidiHeidi

marienbad wrote: »

A bit more complicated than that , himself and his brother in law invested over 500 million of their own money in WW trying to turn the tide .

Don't let facts get in the way of a good socialist/anti-capitalist rant though.

Harry Angstrom

marienbad wrote: »

A bit more complicated than that , himself and his brother in law invested over 500 million of their own money in WW trying to turn the tide .

Well anybody who believes that he bankrupted himself for the sake of sustaining his employees is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

SaveOurLyric

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Only if you admire capitalist egomaniacal mercenaries.

Incorrect. He is still a standout success whether you admire capitalist egomaniacal mercenaries or not.
To distinguish himself so remarkably in a field where so many try and would like to have achieved a fraction as much, should be recognised and respected.

marienbad

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Well anybody who believes that he bankrupted himself for the sake of sustaining his employees is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

I didn't say he did , but it is common knowledge that that he invested heavier and stayed in longer than anyone else was prepared to do , you have to at least give him that.

Perhaps he was guilty of hubris in thinking he could turn it round when it was clearly a basket case and had been for years. But at least he tried ,for whatever reason.

You seem to have a particularly bitter animus against him though . Is there any particular reason ?

hotmail.com

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

He did good stuff in the business world.

The brits saw fit to recognise this, and offered him a knighthood.

He accepted.

Since the award was offered in return for the good stuff he did in business, I would phrase that as "he earned the award". There's no hidden meaning or ulterior motive in that phrase.

If he got an award from Germany or America or Outer Mongolia would you have a problem with that?

And I'm not "defending his "right" to be called Sir". As I said before, I'm sure he'd have no problem with you not calling him Sir if it offends you so.

I don't come at this from an anti-British slant, many British people disagree with the rotten awards system and refuse to call the knighthood people as Sir.

I have no problem with awards and recognition but changing someone's name to put Sir before their first name? Bit mad in this day and age.

Harry Angstrom

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Incorrect. He is still a standout success whether you admire capitalist egomaniacal mercenaries or not.
To distinguish himself so remarkably in a field where so many try and would like to have achieved a fraction as much, should be recognised and respected.

He came from a privileged background and had a privileged life. I'm not sure why I should have to respect that.

marienbad

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

He came from a privileged background and had a privileged life. I'm not sure why I should have to respect that.

Who do you respect ?

Harry Angstrom

marienbad wrote: »

I didn't say he did , but it is common knowledge that that he invested heavier and stayed in longer than anyone else was prepared to do , you have to at least give him that.

Perhaps he was guilty of hubris in thinking he could turn it round when it was clearly a basket case and had been for years. But at least he tried ,for whatever reason.

You seem to have a particularly bitter animus against him though . Is there any particular reason ?

Nah, I hold "Doctor" Michael Smurfit and Denis O'Brien in similar contempt.

Harry Angstrom

marienbad wrote: »

Who do you respect ?

There are many people I respect, but I don't particularly respect rich business people whose basic raison d'être is greed and avarice.

marienbad

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

There are many people I respect, but I don't particularly respect rich business people whose basic raison d'être is greed and avarice.

With respect , that is just meaningless.

HeidiHeidi

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

There are many people I respect, but I don't particularly respect rich business people whose basic raison d'être is greed and avarice.

What about "rich business people" who keep many many others in employment and help to keep Ireland afloat?

If the Michael Smurfits and the Tony O'Reillys (and thousands of others like them who just aren't household names) were all banned or exterminated for being greedy and avaricious, where would that leave us? The majority of people in this country are employees, not employers.

Some people are talented in art, some people are talented at music, some people are very good at business. Tony O'Reilly (going on tonight's programme, which is basically all I know of him, and I assume they weren't telling outright lies) seems to have had a normal enough upbringing. Just was exceptionally talented at sport and business, and made a huge success of both. Until he ploughed everything into WW to try to save it and failed.

Why the bitterness towards him?

Harry Angstrom

marienbad wrote: »

With respect , that is just meaningless.

Why is it meaningless? Why should I feel compelled or obliged to respect rich people for the simple fact that they're rich?

Harry Angstrom

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

What about "rich business people" who keep many many others in employment and help to keep Ireland afloat?

If the Michael Smurfits and the Tony O'Reillys (and thousands of others like them who just aren't household names) were all banned or exterminated for being greedy and avaricious, where would that leave us? The majority of people in this country are employees, not employers.

You're very naive. The fact that they employed people is merely a by-product of their means to an end.
And if they really wanted to keep Ireland afloat, they'd stay here and pay their fair share of tax, rather than fleeing to their tax havens in Switzerland or The Bahamas. At least Michael O'Leary has chosen to live in this country and pay his taxes, unlike Messrs Smurfit and O'Reilly.

HeidiHeidi

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

You're very naive. The fact that they employed people is merely a by-product of their means to an end.
And if they really wanted to keep Ireland afloat, they'd stay here and pay their fair share of tax, rather than fleeing to their tax havens in Switzerland or The Bahamas. At least Michael O'Leary has chosen to live in this country and pay his taxes, unlike Messrs Smurfit and O'Reilly.

Fine, it's a means to an end. Bully for them. But it's a means to an end that employs people, bigtime. Where would you suggest that all these people find employment otherwise?

The tax exile thing is a side-issue distraction.

If you want to ban employers because they (shock horror) earn money for themselves, then I for one don't want to live where you're in charge.

Harry Angstrom

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Fine, it's a means to an end. Bully for them. But it's a means to an end that employs people, bigtime. Where would you suggest that all these people find employment otherwise?

The tax exile thing is a side-issue distraction.

If you want to ban employers because they (shock horror) earn money for themselves, then I for one don't want to live where you're in charge.

No it's not a distraction. Do PAYE workers have the luxury of deciding to pay their taxes to the governments of other countries? Of course they don't, so why should Smurfit and O'Reilly have the option? Because they're rich, that's why; and I'm fairly sure that if Her Madge came knocking on Michael O'Leary's door offering him a knighthood, he'd probably tell her to fook off.

HeidiHeidi

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

No it's not a distraction. Do PAYE workers have the luxury of deciding to pay their taxes to the governments of other countries? Of course they don't, so why should Smurfit and O'Reilly have the option? Because they're rich, that's why; and I'm fairly sure that if Her Madge came knocking on Michael O'Leary's door offering him a knighthood, he'd probably tell her to fook off.

I knew that line would set you off.

You seem to be a big MO'L fan. If he told Her Madge to fook off then he'd be very rude at best, IMO. Why not accept an honour graciously?

You still haven't answered my question - where would the employment come from for the majority if all the rich people (aka employers) were barred?

downonthefarm

Maybe he can start flogging ****e dodge motors with penny apples himself .im sure he won't starve .

Harry Angstrom

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I knew that line would set you off.

You seem to be a big MO'L fan. If he told Her Madge to fook off then he'd be very rude at best, IMO. Why not accept an honour graciously?

You still haven't answered my question - where would the employment come from for the majority if all the rich people (aka employers) were barred?

I'm not a big fan of Michael O'Leary, as it goes, but I acknowledge the fact that he has chosen to live permanently in this country and pay his fair share of tax, and he doesn't have his head stuck up his arse.

Employers need employees just as much as employees need employers. You seem to think it's all one-way traffic - in some sort of Victorian benevolent way of thinking.

HeidiHeidi

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I'm not a big fan of Michael O'Leary, as it goes, but I acknowledge the fact that he has chosen to live permanently in this country and pay his fair share of tax, and he doesn't have his head stuck up his arse.

Employers need employees just as much as employees need employers. You seem to think it's all one-way traffic - in some sort of Victorian benevolent way of thinking.

I'd acknowledge that fact as well. Fair play to him. Not sure I'd do the same if I were in his position, but I'll never get the chance to test that, so it's kind of moot.

I still think that's a separate issue.

I'm tempted to stay up all night and argue employment/employees and whether or not it's Victorian benevolence (!) or plain capitalist reality. But I really can't be bothered.

Back to tonight's TV programme, which is what this thread is meant to be about - as I said in my first post, I thought it was a sad end to a life which appears to have been devoted to achievement in sport, industry and family. He seems to have done harm to no-one, and a lot of good for a lot of people, bar himself in the end.

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on that.