Bowie wrote: » Has it? I recall yourself trying to divert with the same absolute nonsense alright. What private developer/builder keeps a team of bricklayers, plumbers, carpenters and electricians on salary?We would hire a developer to build. He would give a price, we would pay it. This would be the costs Blanch. When you need a plumber, do you keep one on salary or hire when needed? If you ask someone to build you a house they will either accept the job and give you a price, or they won't. FG leprechaun economics at play Maybe that's how FG do it, that would explain a lot. The tender process requires a detailed costing of materials, labour etc., (I know not FG's strong point, see NCH). If they factored in what profit they might get selling themselves they'd be told where to go. The developer would give a price including his/her fee. Everybody gets paid, the state gets a house. Back to our friend you keep mansplainin' for. He says: What difference? Selling at profit is selling at profit once costs are covered. Who is being forced to sell at below market price? Chap thinks FF had nothing to do with the crash. Hitched your wagon to a dud Blanch.
Truthvader wrote: » I give up. Either just too thick or running on the Francie principal of just repeating whatever comes into your head again and again in the belief that if you say it often enough it becomes true
blanch152 wrote: » So the State puts out a tender. Developers respond to the tender. A developer will say, I can build a house myself for 200k and sell it for 250k making 50k profit for myself. So I will tender for the government to build houses for 250k because then I will get the same profit. That is how the system works. No developer would ever tender for 200k because they would make nothing for themselves. The only companies capable of responding to the tender are developers. Your proposal doesn't save a penny.
blanch152 wrote: » The bit in bold I have highlighted is the key.Your naive assumption is that the developer would give us a price which is the same as the cost to him of building the houses!!!!! It is farcical.The developer would only build houses for the State if he is getting the same profit as if he sold them himself!!! Why else would he do it. Even your suggestion of a "fee" for the developer means the "fee" would equal his previous profit. There is no saving, in fact your proposal would cost more, because there would inevitably be a whole group of civil servants employed to monitor the developer. I have no problem with social housing being built in this way, it is just posts that think it can be done cheaper.
The developer would give a price including his/her fee.
Geuze wrote: » AFAIK, there is a developer's margin, and there is the builder's margin. The development margin is to compensate for the risk. Why can't the State contract directly with contractors? So the development margin disappears, as the risk is now with the State?
Bowie wrote: » You missed: Japers Blanch, are you pretending to be this uninformed? I hope for your sake you are. If a developer is building an estate, he'll still need pay everyone, taxes, himself. Does he have that money, can he get that loan, is he arsed? A tender to build is a tender for paid work. You either accept it as such or you don't. No adult in the real world, (except maybe in FG land) will pay a developer to build and allow that developer include the amount of profit he/she might get if they were building to sell themselves. It does not happen. For it is lunacy. Paying someone to build is cheaper than buying off market. That's a fact. You've been shown this. Especially so in larger numbers. You are defying the laws of this reality to justify FG paying 25 year leases and buying to use as social. If what you say is true, nobody would be building privately either. Complete spin and nonsense. See here and here. You've been told, again. No doubt you'll raise this nonsense again down the road claiming I was 'torn apart' :rolleyes:
satguy wrote: » I can remember back to the old days when FF TD's had back bones.. What Happened ?
FrancieBrady wrote: » They got rehabilitated by FG. I can see Michael creeping up the popularity ladder, he has been a steady hand so far - even if it pains me to say it. Chaos has reigned but he's holding on and looking far more dignified than Leo tbh.
Bowie wrote: » If a developer is building an estate, he'll still need pay everyone, taxes, himself. Does he have that money, can he get that loan, is he arsed? A tender to build is a tender for paid work. You either accept it as such or you don't.
No adult in the real world, (except maybe in FG land) will pay a developer to build and allow that developer include the amount of profit he/she might get if they were building to sell themselves. It does not happen. For it is lunacy.
markodaly wrote: » Interesting call, as the polls are showing the opposite, that MM is doing very badly, while Leo is excelling.... Ill bookmark this post anyway. :pac:
FrancieBrady wrote: » Leo is in freefall...10points down. What wheeze will he come up with to arrest that. Cue some self aggrandising PR
markodaly wrote: » Why are you so obsessed with Leo Francie. Honest question. In fact most SF types are obsessed with him. Like here we are in another FG thread, dedicated to FG, even though we have FF and the Greens in Government, with FF being the bigger party and MM as Taoiseach. No threads on them..... Yet, its Leo this, Leo that... I said it before, but there is don't doubt there is a soft unconscious element of xenophobia and homophobia at play on social media and that noise can extend to boards.ie as well. Its all a bit odd that some lads seem so obsessed with the guy.
tobsey wrote: » I don’t think anyone, anywhere, has agreed with a word you’ve just said there. Nobody says FG did anything for FF, or that MM is performing better the LV. What you said there is a fantasy in your own head
smurgen wrote: » FG getting fact checked again. Christ these lads are an embarrassment. No idea what's really going on. Just wear suits, parrot the party line and maybe just maybe you'll sound believable.https://twitter.com/Aidan_Regan/status/1314517390986809344?s=19
christy c wrote: » And what are Ireland rates now? And what were they in the years gone by? Why the difference? Amazing what the SF fans will swallow if it suits their agenda.
smurgen wrote: » Record rate cuts by the ECB. You have no idea how this works do you?
christy c wrote: » Unable or unwilling to answer the three questions I asked, unsurprisingly. Typical BS.
smurgen wrote: » The interest rates are due to the ECB. What part don't you understand? FG are taking credit for anything positive that happens under their watch. Thing that have nothing to do with them.
smurgen wrote: » Could be squeeky bum time for Simon "Covid18" Harris though. Looks like the deaths in the care homes is being looked into. All those unanswered calls emails and letters. The clown all but had his out of office on.https://www.thejournal.ie/nursing-homes-inquiry-committee-5228750-Oct2020/
christy c wrote: » I understand perfectly, seems you are posting tweets without looking beyond your nose. Afraid to answer my questions because you will end up looking like an even bigger clown.
smurgen wrote: » You always do this stuff. Making up the avoidance of questions.i answered your question. You ignored. I suppose that's type of nonsense is necessary or to be expected if if you're of the limited intellectual capacity to think FG drive the European wide interest rates lol.
christy c wrote: » I asked you three questions, which you have run away from. You even said you answered my question singular. I dont think that FG drive EU wide rates, that's your imagination.
smurgen wrote: » So you're in agreement so? Neale Richmond made a stupid comment?
