Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Privatising ESB. Definitley a no after what happened with eircom.

  • 26-01-2005 10:52am
    #1
    JerryMcguire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭


    After what happened at EIRCOM should ESB be privatised.


Comments

  • #2
    lomb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,017 ✭✭✭lomb


    what happened with eircom was
    1.the employees of eircom got 'free shares;'this included management-nothing in life is free and the 3euro 80 float price included 1euro for the 'free shares' and every shareholder that subscribed lost 1euro straight away.

    2. the float price was too high- this was not the governments fault but a booming telecoms market at the time and optimism.

    3. the whole lot was missold by the government with lots of hoopla. reality- no one gives a toss in this world about your money if it was easy to make wed all b lying on the beach.

    4. lazy employees too used to getting paid and a strong union. these lazy people did not deserve free shares. they had been paid for the work they had done.

    5. corrupt management interested in making more than 100000euro pa ie 2million euro. again they had been paid and deserved no extra or little extra money.


  • #3
    Sarsfield
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Sarsfield


    Eircom went from public to private (effective) monopoly.

    I would be against privatisation of electricity distribution (the national grid) but in favour of privatisation of generation (power stations). Generation could be sold in lots rather than as a whole.

    Competition would be developed, but the grid would remain a key element of national infrastructure.


  • #4
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Ah enough already with the excuses. No Eircom investor had a gun to their head. Anyone who lost money did so after choosing NOT to sell their shares and take the gains that were available in the initial days/weeks. If you choose to invest money in the market, you accept the risk of losing money.

    If the masses are scared off participation in ESB or Aer Lingus privatisations as a result of Eircom, that makes it it more likely that I would participate.


  • #5
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,815 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    It's just not on the agenda to privatize ESB at this stage. The business would almost certainly have to be split into separate companies for distribution and generation to make it at all feasible.

    At the moment, the only people seriously proposing privatization (that I have heard of) are the ESB trade unions.


  • #6
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,580 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    antoinolachtnai wrote:
    It's just not on the agenda to privatize ESB at this stage. The business would almost certainly have to be split into separate companies for distribution and generation to make it at all feasible.
    Structurally, this has already happened, with separate generation and transmission divisions, although no they are not separate companies.
    antoinolachtnai wrote:
    At the moment, the only people seriously proposing privatization (that I have heard of) are the ESB trade unions.
    The unions actually appear to be quite iffy about it, other than increasing their own shareholding. This can't happen, as they would end up with shares (OK they already have 5%) in both generation and transmission.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    lomb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,017 ✭✭✭lomb


    Victor wrote:
    Structurally, this has already happened, with separate generation and transmission divisions, although no they are not separate companies.The unions actually appear to be quite iffy about it, other than increasing their own shareholding. This can't happen, as they would end up with shares (OK they already have 5%) in both generation and transmission.

    basically they want to pull an eircom and dilute out the real shareholders by 25%.get 50000 grand of shares for nothing. i think its insane as surely they have been paid market rates for work done.


  • #8
    JerryMcguire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭JerryMcguire


    I am talking about the buyout that tookplace after.


  • #9
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,815 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Victor wrote:
    Structurally, this has already happened, with separate generation and transmission divisions, although no they are not separate companies.The unions actually appear to be quite iffy about it, other than increasing their own shareholding. This can't happen, as they would end up with shares (OK they already have 5%) in both generation and transmission.

    Well, I mean that the only privatization that is actually going on is handing over shares to the employees. Employee shareholding is a sure route to privatization. If there's no market for the shares in the private sector, what on earth are the employees supposed to do with them? Paper their spare bedrooms?


Advertisement