Bertie the champion of the world

danman · 13-02-2010 08:03PM

Biggins wrote: »

I know what your asserting and agree.
I just wish to say that I find such arrogance contemptible and should be pursued and his behaviour not let away with.
He should be held accountable in some fashion instead of being paid off - but that what we do in our country.

I digress the thread though with my useless thoughts... apologies.

Again you assert that he will "Get paid off". When and how will he be paid off?

Do you not think that he will loose a considerable amout of his own investment?

Are you saying that he will get money of NAMA?
That's what I've been say above.

He will not get paid off.

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 08:09PM

Biggins wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/fitzpatrick-not-paying-off-euro100m-loan-interest-1901222.html

I know what your asserting and agree.
I just wish to say that I find such arrogance contemptible and should be pursued and his behaviour not let away with.
He should be held accountable in some fashion instead of being paid off - but that what we do in our country.

I digress the thread though with my useless thoughts... apologies.

How is he being "let away with" or "paid off" . . Your link merely illustrates the extent to which Fitzpatrick will actually lose personally when this is fully played out . . he ought to, and very well might go to prison.

Biggins · 13-02-2010 08:11PM

danman wrote: »

He will not get paid off.

I'd like to think that your right but when he resigned from the Anglo Irish bank (info LINK) I assume he got a nice handsome payment personally as part of his employment contract(?) which would be pretty nice considering and in light of, the millions in amounts he helped squander!
I further note FitzPatrick has also resigned from the boards of Smurfit Kappa, Aer Lingus, food group Greencore and as investor, Gartmore Irish Growth Fund.
Thats a fair few employment contracts in which he is entitled to a payoff too?

I'm open to be wrong - and honestly hope I am.

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 08:40PM

Biggins wrote: »

I'd like to think that your right but when he resigned from the Anglo Irish bank (info LINK) I assume he got a nice handsome payment personally as part of his employment contract(?) which would be pretty nice considering and in light of, the millions in amounts he helped squander!
I further note FitzPatrick has also resigned from the boards of Smurfit Kappa, Aer Lingus, food group Greencore and as investor, Gartmore Irish Growth Fund.
Thats a fair few employment contracts in which he is entitled to a payoff too?

I'm open to be wrong - and honestly hope I am.

I don't think he got severance payments from any of those positions. . ! Certainly cannot find anything to suggest that he did (other than your comments which seem to be without foundation)

Biggins · 13-02-2010 08:48PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I don't think he got severance payments from any of those positions. . ! Certainly cannot find anything to suggest that he did (other than your comments which seem to be without foundation)

Again, it would be normal to expect that he (or anyone for that matter) got remuneration as an executive director and was wise enough to have it included in his employment contract originally. Standard practise and all that... He would have been a fool not to and he didn't get to his position (before resignation) by being a fool.

You might want to have a look at this company website: http://www.experianannualreport.ie/governance_remuneration.asp
where Fitz' acted as a non-executive director alone for this one company. Note the finance numbers for him in the sixth graphic down ...and the Anglo (and others) I assume works on the same principle, if not the same amounts.

And again, I hope I am wrong.

Liam Byrne · 13-02-2010 08:50PM

danman wrote: »

Unless you don't understand the basics as I've just pointed out, you'll know that he will loose his original investment along with the asset.

How hard is it to understand?

It's not, however you implied earlier that NAMA will get the money from the developer.

HOWEVER, if he doesn't pay, NAMA is stuck with the asset.

An asset for which they have overpaid by approximately 25% - 30%; an asset that no-one wants (because otherwise they would have bought it).

How hard is that to understand ?

Red_Marauder · 13-02-2010 08:52PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

2) The banks sent out letters for "pre-approved loans"; and while some of us [see #1] binned those, I can't see how you object to people taking money from this and still defend Ahern for taking what was offered to him

Just on this point, 'pre-approved' means a financial product is approved from the vendor's end - i.e. underwriters have decided the potential purchaser is a safe customer. It means the financial isnstitution will take that risk.

Since banks aren't the personal Nannies of individual households, they aren't the ones to decide if an individual will buy the financial product (loan) or not. It is up to the individual to weigh up risk on his own end as well.

Anyone who took these loans made the personal decision to do so themselves. Banks now have to go about solving that problem, but they are not responsible for the fact that individuals purchased a product they cannot afford to begin with.

That situation cannot be compared with Ahern taking financial donations at all.

Liam Byrne · 13-02-2010 08:54PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Apologies, missed that . .

Handy that; it allowed you to say "answer my question first" and then ignore the question.

So I'll ask again :

If your neighbour overspends, but you don't, is it fair that you have to pay ?

I might not be an "average Irish consumer", but I know what I did and didn't do.

And buy into the bull**** about the "property ladder" was one; overspend was another.

Is it fair that I have to bail out scum that are on €600,000 a year ?

Liam Byrne · 13-02-2010 08:56PM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Just on this point, 'pre-approved' means a financial product is approved from the vendor's end - i.e. underwriters have decided the potential purchaser is a safe customer. It means the financial isnstitution will take that risk.

Are you suggesting that people who took those loans should get off scot-free, because the financial institution will take that risk ?

And for the record, you're wrong. A bank offered me more than I explicitly told them I could afford to pay back, and I had to tell them no.

What kind of business model is that ?

Red_Marauder · 13-02-2010 09:06PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Are you suggesting that people who took those loans should get off scot-free, because the financial institution will take that risk ?

Where on Earth are you getting that?

I'm saying that in any loan agreement, the banks confidence in your ability to complete the purchase of a loan product is not enough.
They are taking a risk in you - fine.
But it is also up to you to weigh up your own personal risk having, as you do, a far more comprehensive insight into your financial affairs and also deciding how indebted you personally wish be.

The buck stops with the consumer, so the consumer must take blame.

And for the record, you're wrong. A bank offered me more than I explicitly told them I could afford to pay back, and I had to tell them no.

What kind of business model is that ?

Like any sensible business, a model that seeks to maximise return for its products.

If I were a banker I wouldn't care how hard an individual had to work or how many luxuries he'd have to forego if it meant him paying back a 100,000 euro loan instead of a 60,000 euro one. That's how business operates. Vendors cannot have a conscience.

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 09:15PM

Biggins wrote: »

Again, it would be normal to expect that he (or anyone for that matter) got remuneration as an executive director and was wise enough to have it included in his employment contract originally. Standard practise and all that... He would have been a fool not to and he didn't get to his position (before resignation) by being a fool.

You might want to have a look at this company website: http://www.experianannualreport.ie/governance_remuneration.asp
where Fitz' acted as a non-executive director alone for this one company. Note the finance numbers for him in the sixth graphic down ...and the Anglo (and others) I assume works on the same principle, if not the same amounts.

And again, I hope I am wrong.

What do you mean by remuneration . . remuneration is just pay

He might have had severance clauses in his contract at Anglo had he retired or been fired but in his case he resigned. . you have no evidence that he got any severance payment from Anglo (and if he had it probably would have been published!)

It's unlikely that he would have had severance payments from any of his non-executive directorships and again if he had, they would likely have been published. .

You have absolutely no facts to back up your comments that Fitzpatrick got "paid off" . .

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 09:21PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Handy that; it allowed you to say "answer my question first" and then ignore the question.

So I'll ask again :

If your neighbour overspends, but you don't, is it fair that you have to pay ?

I might not be an "average Irish consumer", but I know what I did and didn't do.

And buy into the bull**** about the "property ladder" was one; overspend was another.

Is it fair that I have to bail out scum that are on €600,000 a year ?

No, if a neighbour overspends and I don't it would not be fair if I had to pay . . and I won't have to pay off my neighbours mortgage regardless of his own ability to pay it . . what is your point ? ?

On the other hand, if the country is on the verge of going bankrupt due to the toxic debts held in its banks, does the country then have a responsibility to take on the risks associated with that debt in order to avoid bankruptcy and give the economy space to recover - Yes it does . . . Is it fair, probably not . . . Is there an alternative, absolutely not !

Biggins · 13-02-2010 09:22PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

It's unlikely that he would have had severance payments from any of his non-executive directorships and again if he had, they would likely have been published. .

You have absolutely no facts to back up your comments that Fitzpatrick got "paid off" . .

I'm not helping by getting the thread off track but I will just add the following:
As payments are normal of some sort upon leaving a company I would expect most to gain some sort of finance benefit.
As to it being made public, in most cases are such payments automatically exposed into the public domain by private businesses?
I'm sure he'd expect some form of privacy as to earnings, severance payments and company exposure.

The point is, if he gained nothing from any or all of the companies he resigned from, it would be extremely unprecedented and rare for it to happen. Thats all.
Can we agree to differ?

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 09:26PM

Biggins wrote: »

I'm not helping by getting the thread off track but I will just add the following:
As payments are normal of some sort upon leaving a company I would expect most to gain some sort of finance benefit.
As to it being made public, in most cases are such payments exposed into the public domain by private businesses?
I'm sure he'd expect some form of privacy as to earnings, severance payments and company exposure.

The point is, if he gained nothing from all of the companies he resigned from, it would be extremely unprecedented, rare for it to happen. Thats all.

Nonsense . . payments to directors have to be disclosed in the company reports . . just like the one you linked to earlier . . Further, I presume that given that Anglo is now a public company such payments (if they existed) would probably be available under the Freedom of Information Act.

Your argument has now reduced to . . "I have no evidence whatsoever that he received any payments when he resigned his positions, but sure he must have done, the sneaky divil . . sure they all do . . ." Its complete and utter conjecture . . .

IrishTonyO · 13-02-2010 09:34PM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Like any sensible business, a model that seeks to maximise return for its products.

.

Like all the sensible banks who now would be bust except for government intervention? How sensible is that? I am sure if you ask their shareholders who have lost a fortune, they wouldn't describe them as have been a sensible business

Biggins · 13-02-2010 09:35PM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Nonsense . . payments to directors have to be disclosed in the company reports . . just like the one you linked to earlier . . Further, I presume that given that Anglo is now a public company such payments (if they existed) would probably be available under the Freedom of Information Act..

Well I look forward to the exposure of those details as soon as someone can come up with the €700 fee for those documents.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Your argument has now reduced to . . "I have no evidence whatsoever that he received any payments when he resigned his positions, but sure he must have done, the sneaky divil . . sure they all do . . ."

They are your words in your form of summary - they are not my words!

I have made my thoughts out clear and the basis to why I have come to this somewhat natural assumption.
I don't wish to continue on with this vein of the thread as it might end up with me being seen to be trolling and non-advantageous to the theme of the thread.

Red_Marauder · 13-02-2010 10:24PM

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Like all the sensible banks who now would be bust except for government intervention?

The banks are not bust because they went out offering loans or because the underwriters calculated that the loan recipients were viable... the banks (almost) went bust because these loans were taken up when customers took them and were unable to repay them. Nobody forced anyone to take out a loan, be they a developer or an entrepreneur or the guy next door.

hallelujajordan · 14-02-2010 12:46AM

Biggins wrote: »

Well I look forward to the exposure of those details as soon as someone can come up with the €700 fee for those documents.

Are you seriously suggesting that we don't know about Fitzpatricks pay offs (which you cite to prove that 'the bankers are being bailed out and paid off') because no one can afford the €700 for the FoI request. . . ? ?

Your "somewhat natural assumption" has absolutely no basis in fact . . and honestly, having read some of your earlier posts I'm amazed that you are willing to peddle such nonsense. .

Biggins · 14-02-2010 12:56AM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that we don't know about Fitzpatricks pay offs (which you cite to prove that 'the bankers are being bailed out and paid off') because no one can afford the €700 for the FoI request. . . ? ?

Your "somewhat natural assumption" has absolutely no basis in fact . . and honestly, having read some of your earlier posts I'm amazed that you are willing to peddle such nonsense. .

Look, I'm tired of your downright rude aggressiveness towards me and frankly from what I read of your previous posts and tones towards others, who also sometimes disagree with you in other posts.
I've stated my point, its background, and its validity based on previous standard employment contracts.
If thats not good enough for you - I'm not going to satisfy your attempts to get me to troll.

PS: Anyone else interested in the "cost" of the freedom of Information start reading here to begin with:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/how-freedom-of-information-has-become-a-farce-1558264.html
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/information-is-taxpayers-right-1951157.html
Since then the prices have gone up even more.

Other examples employment contracts used today and their obligations that had to be filled contractually and legally...
FAS Rody Molloy - resigned - 1 million payoff - he even got to keep the job car!
Mr Patrick Neary (former financial regulator) - resigned - payoff of package €600,000 and pension 3 times the national wage
Dermot Gallager (foreign affairs secretary) - undisclosed bumper package and a new job worth €150,000 a year!
Former AIB chairman Dermot Gleeson - exact figures undisclosed!
AIB group's chief executive Eugene Sheehy - exact figures undisclosed!
John O'Donague... and on and on...

Why is Fitz' all of a sudden different and not gaining a contractual payment upon leaving?
What makes him all of a sudden SO different that he don't get the full benefits of usual agreed (when starting) employment contracts?
As has been shown just by a few names, leaving payments are contractually standard more so than not - so where does the onus lie to show something???

...and by the way hallelujajordan - you haven't actually show that Fitz' DIDN'T get a leaving package either!
Good day sir.

hallelujajordan · 14-02-2010 01:10AM

Biggins wrote: »

Look, I'm tired of your downright rude aggressiveness towards me and frankly from what I read of your previous posts and tones towards others, who also sometimes disagree with you in other posts.
I've stated my point, its background, and its validity based on previous standard employment contracts.
If thats not good enough for you - I'm not going to satisfy your attempts to get me to troll.
Good day sir.

If you think I am rude and aggressive, report the relevant posts and let the mods sort it out.

I have not been rude or aggressive to you or anyone else (but if you want to talk about rude and aggressive I can point you towards plenty of aggression directed towards me or anyone else who supports FF - within this thread and on several others)

Look . . . you made a ridiculous allegation earlier this evening which is based on nothing other than your own imagination . . You try to back it up by quoting 'normal employment contracts' and 'privacy' neither of which stand up to any level of scrutiny. . Your point has no validity whatsoever and when backed into a corner, instead of accepting you are wrong, you attack me !

There are plenty of people willing to spout the populist nonsense about the bankers and developers being bailed out at the expense of our good friend Mr Soap . . there is nothing either rude or aggressive about me correcting them.

Biggins · 14-02-2010 01:35AM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

If you think I am rude and aggressive, report the relevant posts and let the mods sort it out.

I have not been rude or aggressive to you or anyone else (but if you want to talk about rude and aggressive I can point you towards plenty of aggression directed towards me or anyone else who supports FF - within this thread and on several others)

Look . . . you made a ridiculous allegation earlier this evening which is based on nothing other than your own imagination . . You try to back it up by quoting 'normal employment contracts' and 'privacy' neither of which stand up to any level of scrutiny. . Your point has no validity whatsoever and when backed into a corner, instead of accepting you are wrong, you attack me !

There are plenty of people willing to spout the populist nonsense about the bankers and developers being bailed out at the expense of our good friend Mr Soap . . there is nothing either rude or aggressive about me correcting them.

My final word on this is the following and addressed to the the rest of the forum - not to hallelujajordan where I feel no answers will suffice:

1. Whats "ridiculous" about a man being expected to use standard employment contract law? A contract by the way that had been entered into while the "Tiger" was still good. If Anglo didn't live up to any possible sections of their employment conditions (again assuming all legal angles were covered while everything was running supposedly smoothly) Fitz' would have a serious case for litigation. Indeed this reason alone is why others previous hired by FF themselves, were handsomely paid off by the government - who stated they HAD to stick with the dictates originally signed by both sides when such employments commenced!

2. "Your point has no validity whatsoever" Really? - so previous cases of similar payouts upon resignation of high profile others are in my imagination and I clearly must be taking rubbish.

3. "you attack me !" Seriously? I responded to your questions and requests for answers. Maybe someone would point out where I "attacked" hallelujajordan in particular and not just responded to his questions.

4. I tried to come to a point where we could "agree to differ" (post no: 224) with hallelujajordan. Nope, wasn't enough.

As I now repeat for the third and last time, I've no wish to troll further and any further rebuffs from hallelujajordan will go un-answered. He can rebuff and have a go at my posts and what I've stated, tried to explain (again and again), clarify with data and links. I won't be responding to him. I think its very obvious to all by now there is no point.

..so I'm out of here as far as pleasant discussion with hallelujajordan is concerned.

hallelujajordan · 14-02-2010 01:42AM

Biggins wrote: »

My final word on this is the following and addressed to the the rest of the forum - not to hallelujajordan where I feel no answers will suffice:

1. Whats "ridiculous" about a man being expected to use standard employment contract law? A contract by the way that had been entered into while the "Tiger" was still good. If Anglo didn't live up to any possible sections of their employment conditions (again assuming all legal angles were covered while everything was running supposedly smoothly) Fitz' would have a serious case for litigation. Indeed this reason alone is why others previous hired by FF themselves, were handsomely paid off by the government - who stated they HAD to stick with the dictates originally signed by both sides when such employments commenced!

Where in standard employment contract law does it state that a director who resigns his position is entitled to severance pay ?

2. "Your point has no validity whatsoever" Really? - so previous cases of similar payouts are in my imagination and I clearly must be taking rubbish.

There is a big difference when someones resignation is "negotiated" . . Fitzpatrick left under his own steam. . . both from Anglo and his other non exec directorships . .

3. "you attack me !" Seriously? I responded to your questions and requests for answers. maybe someone would point out where I "attacked" hallelujajordan in particular.

Here . . .

Biggins wrote:

Look, I'm tired of your downright rude aggressiveness towards me and frankly from what I read of your previous posts and tones towards others, who also sometimes disagree with you in other posts.

4. I tried to come to a point where we could "agree to differ" (post no: 224) with hallelujajordan. Nope, wasn't enough.
As I now repeat for the third and last time, I've no wish to troll further and any further rebuffs from hallelujajordan will go on answered. He can rebuff and have a go at my post and what I've stated, tried to explain (again and again), clarify with data and links. I won't be responding to him. I think its very obvious to all by now there is no point.

. . nope, its not enough. . if you continue with a ludicrous allegation then i will continue to correct you . . It isn't about whether you and I agree, its about whether something happened or didn't happen.

BTW, you posted no data to back up your claims .. .

hallelujajordan · 14-02-2010 01:10PM

Biggins wrote: »

...and by the way hallelujajordan - you haven't actually show that Fitz' DIDN'T get a leaving package either!
Good day sir.

Nice Edit . . allows you to respond while keeping your promise not to . .

Since when has the burden of proof been to prove that something didn't happen ? ?

And surely the examples you gave of all the severance payments that are in the public domain show that if Fitzpatrick's severance payments are not in the public domain then they probably didn't happen ...

And as I have said before, a "negotiated" resignation is a very different situation . .

Your argument still has not progressed beyond conjecture.

hallelujajordan · 14-02-2010 01:56PM

Biggins wrote: »

As has been shown just by a few names, leaving payments are contractually standard more so than not - so where does the onus lie to show something???

It's very hard for me to keep up if you only respond through edits . . . Not to mention the fact that it gives a distorted impression to others of the discussion that actually happened.

The answer to your question is that if you want to make an allegation that Fitzpatrick received a severance payment in support of an argument then the onus is on you to prove that this actually happened. .

Liam Byrne · 14-02-2010 08:35PM

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Where on Earth are you getting that?

You said that "the financial institution takes the risk".

If they take risks, then it's their tough.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

But it is also up to you to weigh up your own personal risk having, as you do, a far more comprehensive insight into your financial affairs and also deciding how indebted you personally wish be.

The buck stops with the consumer, so the consumer must take blame.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Like any sensible business, a model that seeks to maximise return for its products.

Any "sensible business" would also ensure that they would get paid. Anything else is irresponsible to their shareholders.

It's gas......if I sold something someone that I knew they couldn't afford, and then came on here and complained that they couldn't pay me for it, I'd be told I was a right eejit. And rightly so.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

If I were a banker I wouldn't care how hard an individual had to work or how many luxuries he'd have to forego if it meant him paying back a 100,000 euro loan instead of a 60,000 euro one. That's how business operates. Vendors cannot have a conscience.

Sickening outlook. You sell someone what they need, at a reasonable price, ensuring they can pay you back. Both sides happy. Return customer.

You won't make millions, but who needs millions ? You'll get by, have "enough", and have job satisfaction.

Also, I love the way you mention only "luxuries", as if a money shortage only applied to them. What about the basics (food, heat, etc) ?

Shea O'Meara · 14-02-2010 11:22PM

If Bertie is proven pure as the driven snow and all the, lets say strange things he did with friends, money and seemingly selective memory loss turn out to be just stuff that happened to happen, it will be the first time in Irish history a Fianna Fail politician accused of so many wrong doings, crimes against the very people they swore to represent...turned out to be innocent and an all-round nice guy.
So you can see why people lean towards this way of thinking. So he's either a first class Mr. Bean type character that made lots of bad choices and deals, which accidentally went in his favour, or he's a lying man with no honour and no respect for the Irish people. Time may tell.
If he is found to be completely clean, just a bit of an ejitt...I'll eat my hat, hell I'll eat the hat of everyone on here.
You never know though, I guess there's a first time for everything.

paddyland · 14-02-2010 11:57PM

Even if Bertie was innocent of the raft, the RAFT, of accusations against him on a host of different things, and was simply, as you describe him, a Mr. Bean type character, bumbling his way innocently through, well it hardly says much for him either way as a man of integrity and ability to lead a nation.

He is ON THE RECORD personally as having admitted handing out plum state positions to his friends. Even if there is no tie between that and alleged moneys received, that alone is moral corruption if nothing else. That, and the horrendous gallery of people he associated with and promoted throughout his career, point to a man who was very far from being a Mr. Bean character.

The more recent whitewash campaign shows there are still plenty of strings to be pulled, plenty of favours to be called in. It's a dirty business, and predicated on having a majority of gullible voters who are happy to be bought with short term electoral gimmicks, and to hell with the long term.

You don't have to fool everyone, just enough of them.

jmayo · 15-02-2010 12:08AM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Thank you for the NAMA lesson but I do already understand the principles. . . Guess what . . . that land that you are talking about that the developers borrowed money to buy . . . . they wanted to build houses and apartments on it . . . and it cost so much because there was huge demand for those houses . . . and that huge demand, was driven by consumers and speculators who began to treat property not as someone else described as "a basic right" but rather as an investment . . .

Did you ever consider the reason people were buying property as an investment vehicle was because your ff party in government did nothing to persuade them otherwise.
In fact under ff investors were encouraged into the market what with section23, section50 grnats as good example.
FTBS were facing investors and speculators as they tried to get on this mythical proeprty ladder.
Thus prices went up higher and higher.
If property taxes were introduced for second and subsequent properties, mortage interest relief cut for investors, and taxes introduced to removed flippers form the market then some of the hest would have been taken out of the bubble.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You still haven't answered my question . . Can I blame the government when I overspend on my credit card?

No you can't blame someone for overspending on your credit card, you can't blame someone for you taking out a big mortgage, but you can blame the government for using your taxes past, present and future in a very wreckless manner that doesn't beenfit you, your family or the general society, but does benefit a certain tranch of people within the country.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'll repeat MY question.

If your neighbour overspends, is it fair that you have to pay ?

"collective responsibility" does not exist.

In fact, given that you choose to overlook all of FF's actions to date in evaluating whether or not they are competent, I don't even think you know the meaning of the word "responsibility".

FFS Liam he is ff.
As I said many times ff is not in the ff dictionary.

danman wrote: »

Maybe I'm being nieve, but I thought that the developer still has to pay for his loan. If he doesn't, he get the asset taken off him.

I'm sick of hearing that he developers are getting money of the taxpayer.
His loans still have to be paid.

But what happens when develoepr can't pay the loans ?
The Carroll Zoe case was interesting in that it pointed how the NAMA destined institutions were willing to further back a developer that was proven to be a busted flush in court by the ACC bank who is not party to the NAMA safety net.

danman wrote: »

The poster on here and various media campaigners (Eamon Keane mentions this more than once on every show), bandy about the term "bailout for developers and bankers"

They either don't understand the basic principle of NAMA, in which case they shouldn't comment on it. Or they fully understand but just want to mislead those that don't bother to find out the basic principle.

The banks were given a guarentee last year, in the same way that every other country did. In fact we were the first to do it and every other country followed our lead.

The banks are loosing up to 30% on their original investments with NAMA, and the developers must still pay back the original loans.

Where do the banks and developers benifit from this arrangement?

But that wouldn't suit the naysayers now would it, so they will continue to peddle untruths.

I could accuse you of pedalling uninformed drivel but I will be kind :rolleyes:

FFS Banks benefit from NAMA.
It takes most of the toxic debts sh** off their balance sheets.
Thus they get rid of the cra*, henece benefit.

You do know what a balance sheet is ?

Here is reason commerce or whatever they call it these days should be mandatory school subject upto junior cert and unless you pass it you shoudl never be allowed get a loan.

Oh dear God the more I read posts around here the more I despair coughlans wonderful smart economy won't come to pass :rolleyes:

hallelujajordan · 15-02-2010 12:39AM

jmayo wrote: »

Did you ever consider the reason people were buying property as an investment vehicle was because your ff party in government did nothing to persuade them otherwise.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility . . . ? See, I agree (and have done throughout this debate) that the government should have done more to take the heat out of the property bubble and I hold them partly responsible for where we are today . . but to hold them solely responsible and to absolve the consumer of any blame or responsibility just doesn't sit well with me. . . We have to take responsibility for our own actions.

jmayo wrote:

FFS Liam he is ff.
As I said many times ff is not in the ff dictionary.

That's a bit glib . . particularly as I had already answered Liam Byrnes question and acknowledged that the FF need to take a level of responsibility for the situation.

jmayo wrote:

FFS Banks benefit from NAMA.
It takes most of the toxic debts sh** off their balance sheets.
Thus they get rid of the cra*, henece benefit.

You do know what a balance sheet is ?

Here is reason commerce or whatever they call it these days should be mandatory school subject upto junior cert and unless you pass it you shoudl never be allowed get a loan.

Oh dear God the more I read posts around here the more I despair coughlans wonderful smart economy won't come to pass :rolleyes:

I completely agree ... of course the banks benefit, and if they didn't what would be the point ? ... The whole purpose of NAMA is to free up the banking system to operate because without a banking system we don't have an economy !

hallelujajordan · 15-02-2010 12:44AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You said that "the financial institution takes the risk".

If they take risks, then it's their tough.

Any "sensible business" would also ensure that they would get paid. Anything else is irresponsible to their shareholders.

It's gas......if I sold something someone that I knew they couldn't afford, and then came on here and complained that they couldn't pay me for it, I'd be told I was a right eejit. And rightly so.

Sickening outlook. You sell someone what they need, at a reasonable price, ensuring they can pay you back. Both sides happy. Return customer.

You won't make millions, but who needs millions ? You'll get by, have "enough", and have job satisfaction.

Also, I love the way you mention only "luxuries", as if a money shortage only applied to them. What about the basics (food, heat, etc) ?

In the same post you seem to acknowledge the capitalist principles of risk, shareholders and profit yet still espouse the socialist principles of 'getting by', having 'enough' and having 'job satisfaction' . .

Like it or not, we live in a capitalist society and the two just don't go hand in hand. . . If an organisation is not steadily growing its profits, the shareholders won't make any money, will drop their shares and slowly the organisation will cease to be viable . .

In truth the banks had little choice because the shareholders demanded increased profits year on year. 'Getting-by' was never an option.

Bertie the champion of the world

Comments