Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

For Forks Sake

anewme wrote: »

I can't link the article as I'm crap at this sort of thing, the Times reported that basically they all started in fighting at the protest and shouting each other down. That's what's to be expected given the mentality involved. They'd fight with their toe nails.

It was said a small number of locals attended with most people being from outside the area.

A couple of locals asked said that the "silent majority" did not support this protest saying "we all have to pay our debts'

Splitters

Naos

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

No repayments to the capital amount, is obviously what the article refers to.

You said there was no payments. There was payments. Regardless of whether it was off the capital or the interest, he is at least engaged with the bank and paying it off.

Lefty Bicek

Naos wrote: »

You said there was no payments. There was payments. Regardless of whether it was off the capital or the interest, he is at least engaged with the bank and paying it off.

I'll link again to the post in question -

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108959077&postcount=3760

I quoted from the newspaper article -

for the years 2013 to 2017 shows that Mr Kennedy, best known for his former role as CEO of Paddy Power, owed a total of €2,823,000 throughout the period, with no reduction in the principal recorded.

Clearly, when I said 'made no payment for four years' immediately after that quote, I'm referring to the quote.

Doubtless, you didn't read the article anyway. It might have helped you to a more commonsense view of what I was referring to

I've already had words with someone else here about the so-called 'interest only' payments that were made. I'm aware of those.

pablo128

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Does that not mean he has paid the interest on the loan but has not paid money off the actual loan?

If that's the case then surely it shows he has been in contact with them over the loan, came to an agreement for that time to pay interest only (as thousands have done over the years) and has followed through on said arrangement?

Oh I pointed that out to him a couple of pages back in the thread. The below was his reply to me.

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Oh dear. Please go away.

This poster doesn't like hearing the truth no matter what.

Lefty Bicek

pablo128 wrote: »

Oh I pointed that out to him a couple of pages back in the thread. The below was his reply to me.

This poster doesn't like hearing the truth no matter what.

Your attempt at a reply was financial ignorance just for the sake of being argumentative.

Tell us - what interest rate is implied by 1,400pcm on 2.8million, over let's say... a 60-year (!) term.

Where could we get such a rate ?

Bobeagleburger

It's very hard to get evicted.

There's a selection of people that think it's ok not to pay their bills. Pay up or face the consequences.

If anything the rules should be stricter on non payments.

Lefty Bicek

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Does that not mean he has paid the interest on the loan but has not paid money off the actual loan?

I'll ask you the same question. What interest rate is implied by 1,400 pcm on 2,800,000 ?

Over forty years, it is a negative interest rate !

I mean, it's as near to an endowment mortgage as can be had today. What our betters have told us we should avoid like the plaue.

If that's the case then surely it shows he has been in contact with them over the loan, came to an agreement for that time to pay interest only (as thousands have done over the years) and has followed through on said arrangement?

In contact with them ? He ought to be, he's the bloody Chairman !

pablo128

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Your attempt at a reply was financial ignorance just for the sake of being argumentative.

Tell us - what interest rate is implied by 1,400pcm on 2.8million, over let's say... a 60-year (!) term.

Where could we get such a rate ?

Why are you determined to nitpick and deflect? The guy was paying, and has paid back millions.

Meanwhile your mate in Strokestown who you claim that you're not defending, has paid little or nothing over 14 years of his mortgage, and has tried to frustrate the bank at every turn, along with moving in his family to the house and then say they have an entitlement to the property.

A complete and utter chancer in every way possible. And you are defending him, whether you admit to it or not.

Naos

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I'll link again to the post in question -

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108959077&postcount=3760

I quoted from the newspaper article -



Clearly, when I said 'made no payment for four years', I'm referring to the quote I provided.

Doubtless, you didn't read the article anyway. It might have helped you to a more commonsense view of what I was referring to

I've already had words with someone else here about the so-called 'interest only' payments that were made. I'm aware of those.

Of course I read it, how else would I have known you were taking rubbish?

Since when does 'made no payments for four years' mean 'he made payments but only off the interest, not the principal'?

Naos

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I'll ask you the same question. What interest rate is implied by 1,400 pcm on 2,800,000 ?

Over forty years, it is a negative interest rate !

I mean, it's as near to an endowment mortgage as can be had today. What our betters have told us we should avoid like the plaue.

In contact with them ? He ought to be, he's the bloody Chairman !

He's on different terms to a normal mortgage. You're basing that off an online calculator.

Lefty Bicek

Naos wrote: »

Since when does 'made no payments for four years' mean 'he made payments but only off the interest, not the principal'?

Since I was commenting on the quote I provided.

And since I already had acknowledged the issue of the so-called 'interest portion' separately.

Here -

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108957266&postcount=3678

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108957278&postcount=3681

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108957305&postcount=3686

You might not want to accept that clarification, but that's a reflection on you and your attitude to discussion. I don't care though.

If I had couched everything in strict legal terms, you'd be just as lost.

And have some basic courtesy - read the thread.


.

Lefty Bicek

Naos wrote: »

He's on different terms to a normal mortgage. You're basing that off an online calculator.

We know it's different terms ! That's the whole point.

Where could you get those terms ?

zimmermania

There is a lot of money owed,some to the revenue which involves V.A.T AND THAT IS MONEY WHICH BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY.

Whatever side one takes one fact should not be overlooked.

If a bank cannot take posession of a farm and a house on the farm having secured a court order,the bank might look twice at lending money to farmers and if they do wont they be entitled to charge very high rate of interest? The practice of putting up the deeds of a farm including the house as a guarantee against defaulting on a loan may not be acceptable in future if armed and masked men can attack ,injure and eject anyone lawfully occupying the house.

Lefty Bicek

pablo128 wrote: »

Why are you determined to nitpick and deflect? The guy was paying, and has paid back millions.

Meanwhile your mate in Strokestown who you claim that you're not defending, has paid little or nothing over 14 years of his mortgage, and has tried to frustrate the bank at every turn, along with moving in his family to the house and then say they have an entitlement to the property.

A complete and utter chancer in every way possible. And you are defending him, whether you admit to it or not.

You think that because I am against you, that I am for him ?

Don't be so puerile.

Lefty Bicek

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

We know it's different terms ! That's the whole point.

Where could you get those terms ?

The rich getting richer is hardly surprising?
I as an average punter depending on my job to pay back a mortgage am not going to get as good a deal as mo dhuine who presumably has more assets that are easier to turn into cash than my family home would be.

Lefty Bicek

Deleted User wrote: »

The rich getting richer is hardly surprising?
I as an average punter depending on my job to pay back a mortgage am not going to get as good a deal as mo dhuine who presumably has more assets that are easier to turn into cash than my family home would be.

Fair enough.

But as I've already said, many people get agitated by perceived soft treatment eg Garret and the whole social and professional network around that. A headline like that article doesn't help. Nothing ever changes, etc etc

But at the same time, people can 'admire' a Charvet shirt chancer. Or support a guy who is not, it seems, a nice piece of work in his business dealings, and get up in arms about evictions.

It's a real double standard in the Irish mindset. I don't care much, I just observe it.

Lefty Bicek

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Fair enough.

But as I've already said, many people get agitated by perceived soft treatment eg Garret and the whole social and professional network around that. A headline like that article doesn't help. Nothing ever changes, etc etc

But at the same time, people can 'admire' a Charvet shirt chancer. Or support a guy who is not, it seems, a nice piece of work in his business dealings, and get up in arms about evictions.

It's a real double standard in the Irish mindset. I don't care much, I just observe it.

There’s no double standard. There’s a huge difference between someone paying something eg interest only and someone paying nothing and making no attempt to deal with their lenders.

gordongekko

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Can the McGanns defenders on here please have read of the below pertaining to the case of the mortgage (and that's before the VAT fraud and the string of other bad debts) and please enlighten me as to why they should be allowed keep their home.

If I could thank this post twice I would

Lefty Bicek

Deleted User wrote: »

There’s no double standard. There’s a huge difference between someone paying something eg interest only and someone paying nothing and making no attempt to deal with their lenders.

Of course there is.

It's hypocritical to condemn the excesses of the big bankers and demand their heads, yet march in support of a blatant defaulter.

It's irrational behaviour, and we're probably only going to see an upsurge in demonstrations.

expectationlost

gordongekko wrote: »

If I could thank this post twice I would

you could buy the newspaper

Naos

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

We know it's different terms ! That's the whole point.

Where could you get those terms ?

I couldn't get those terms because I don't have as much earnings or assets as he has.

But I can get more than others. I can qualify for exemptions that someone in a sub 30k job couldn't.

It's all relative.

A bank is a business. I know someone getting a new kitchen. Their plumber went off and came back with four different taps for the sink. He didn't buy then, the shop gave them to him and told him to bring back whichever ones he didn't want and then pay for the one he keeps. If I walked into the same shop, they wouldn't do that for me.

It's all relative.

368100

Dillosk412 wrote: »

My mortgage rate is 3.7%

If I was in Denmark it would be about 2%.



If I was like McGann and similar people, then in Denmark if I did not come to an agreement with my bank, my house would be repossessed within 3 or 4 months and would be sold to a new owner within 6 months.

In Ireland I can employ delay tactics, cost the bank a fortune in legal fees and live scott free for up to 10 years. Then when the day of reckoning comes I can get my mates in Sinn Fein to organise protests.


For those who support people like the McGanns, remember it not the banks that are losing the money. They very simply pass ALL the costs onto other borrowers. So your credit card rate, your car loan rate, your mortgage rate and your bank charges are all higher than most other EU countries in order to pay for scroungers like the McGanns.

YOU are paying for his free living.

On top of that, your taxes paid for his scamming of VAT.

McGann has screwed to ordinary decent Irish person left right and centre. Yet some STILL support him (mostly unemployed, social welfare types)

This is the most sense I've read on this thread

Snickers Man

Irish Times is reporting that a Strokestown man is "missing" having last been seen at about 5am on December 19th.

The man appears to have an Eastern European name so he is clearly one of the "New Irish".

Is this an ominous development in the case or a completely unrelated issue?

Wheeliebin30

Hearing rumour that the security firm that tried to evict these lads last week were hired by Sinn Fein to do security at the feile a few months ago.

Rumours of course but sure the shinners never wait for credible evidence themselves...

gandalf

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Hearing rumour that the security firm that tried to evict these lads last week were hired by Sinn Fein to do security at the feile a few months ago.

Rumours of course but sure the shinners never wait for credible evidence themselves...

Oh man that would be perfect. Here's hoping it's true

Thanks Santa!

dense

Happenstance led me to be in the company of some local dissidents during the week.First thing that came out of one of their mouths by way of conversation was "We taught 'em a lesson in Roscommon, wha?"


The rest of their conversation during our short time of shared space was something something state, the usual whinging.


These are all living in modern council houses provided by the state.

expectationlost

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Hearing rumour that the security firm that tried to evict these lads last week were hired by Sinn Fein to do security at the feile a few months ago.

in the sunday life https://twitter.com/pauldelaney2012/status/1077328184096505856 https://twitter.com/pauldelaney2012/status/1076999032717955077

For Forks Sake

expectationlost wrote: »

in the sun https://twitter.com/pauldelaney2012/status/1077328184096505856

Oh please let that be true

dense

expectationlost wrote: »

in the sunday life https://twitter.com/pauldelaney2012/status/1077328184096505856

I, eh, thought O'Doherty was a major Sinn Fein fan?


Or is it that they're all fans of hers, at least during her Mary Boyle phase........

gandalf

dense wrote: »

I, eh, thought O'Doherty was a major Sinn Fein fan?


Or is it that they're all fans of hers, at least during her Mary Boyle phase........

Naw they got in her sh!t list when they didn't help with her (self thought) ascendency to the Presidency.