wobbles-grogan wrote: » Is that not kind of the defination of a bad business man?
Noreen1 wrote: » wobbles-grogan wrote: » Is that not kind of the defination of a bad business man? In fairness, there is a difference between running your own company, and investing in bank shares. You can check the accounts in your own company - or even have an accountant check them for you if you have reason to believe the figures may be inaccurate. (Yet many successful businessmen have been victims of fraud.) Investors don't have the same access to information. Sean Quinn may have been naive and foolish - I don't believe he ever had evil intent. He wasn't the only one to be suckered by Anglo, either. Quite a few "experts" believed the spin, too.
Liam Byrne wrote: » Naive & foolish doesn't quite cover taking out a €2,800,000,000 loan Naive & foolish certainly doesn't cover breaking the law by borrowing money from a bank to invest in its shares. All that aside, the contempt for Quinn is based on his CURRENT actions in giving assets off to family members while expecting those far less well off to foot his bill; that is absolutely despicable and if I used the word I want to use to describe that mindset I would probably be banned. Suffice to say it's beyond contempt.
Mardy Bum wrote: » Liam Byrne wrote: » Naive & foolish doesn't quite cover taking out a €2,800,000,000 loan Naive & foolish certainly doesn't cover breaking the law by borrowing money from a bank to invest in its shares. All that aside, the contempt for Quinn is based on his CURRENT actions in giving assets off to family members while expecting those far less well off to foot his bill; that is absolutely despicable and if I used the word I want to use to describe that mindset I would probably be banned. Suffice to say it's beyond contempt. He didn't take out a loan it was mainly through contracts for difference.
Liam Byrne wrote: » Naive & foolish doesn't quite cover taking out a €2,800,000,000 loan Naive & foolish certainly doesn't cover breaking the law by borrowing money from a bank to invest in its shares.All that aside, the contempt for Quinn is based on his CURRENT actions in giving assets off to family members while expecting those far less well off to foot his bill; that is absolutely despicable and if I used the word I want to use to describe that mindset I would probably be banned. Suffice to say it's beyond contempt.
Noreen1 wrote: » I never said I condoned giving assets to family members since his business fell apart - if that is what has been happening. I'm not inclined to believe everything I read in the media. Facts tend to get distorted a little too often, in my experience. I don't know what the truth is. I haven't spoken to Sean Quinn in years. What I can say, is that back in 2000/2001, he was a quiet, shy, unassuming man. He never tried to be anything other than what he was - a man who started digging out the back of his fathers house, at the age of 15, and who got laughed at for believing he could ever create a successful business. He went on to build a business empire, and never looked down on either his workforce, or your average working Joe. As a matter of fact, he was happiest driving a cement lorry, in a pair of working boots, and chatting to working class people. By his own admission, he disliked the Boardroom. I liked him. Did he change since? I don't know. I do know that the man I knew then doesn't sound like the man I read about in the media. I do not condone fraud. I do, however, wonder how much truth there is in what I read, and whether Sean Quinn is being used as a scapegoat to divert attention from others. I suspect, strongly, that the "upstart newcomer" was setup for a fall to save other skins. I have no insider knowledge of what went on in the Quinn Empire over the last 10 years. I do know that Sean Quinn considered Derrylin to be his place of business 10 years ago, despite what you may read in the media, and what the learned judge may have decided. I have serious difficulty in equating the man I knew with the guy who is vilified in the media, and I tend to disbelieve that anyone could change that much in 10 years. So, I'll accept that I will probably never know the full facts, and refrain form vilifying him, based on the facts that I do know.
flutered wrote: » yet he traded a buisness for a laptop, the morning coffee must be non existant in your kitchen.
Noreen1 wrote: » flutered wrote: » yet he traded a buisness for a laptop, the morning coffee must be non existant in your kitchen. I thought it wouldn't be long before I received a response - but that was quicker than I expected.:D Anglo claimed he traded a business for a laptop. But the court made no findings of impropriety, which I find rather strange. So, I'm still left with the question, how much of what is commonly believed is truth? I have no obligation of loyalty to Sean Quinn, and, as I said previously, I do not condone fraud, nor offloading debts onto the hard-pressed Irish taxpayer, while allegedly transferring wealth to his own family. However, I am left with a lot of questions. Why did the court make no findings of impropriety? Why did the Judge in Belfast decide that Sean Quinns empire wasn't based in Derrylin? I know for a fact that Sean Quinn himself considered Derrylin to be his centre of business in 2000/2001 - long before he had any motivation to make false claims about it. So - did his centre of business change since then in terms of revenue, while he himself still considered Derrylin to be his place of Business? Again, I don't know - but I find the fact that only 20% of his taxes were paid in Ireland would suggest that the bulk of his business wasn't conducted in Ireland, yet it doesn't prove that his taxes were paid in the UK either. Non-existent morning coffee aside - (I don't drink coffee, by the way:P)based on my own personal knowledge, I have questions/doubts that remain unanswered, and will probably remain so. So, I'll refrain from judgement, since I have reason to seriously doubt one court finding, and can't fathom why there would have been no finding of impropriety in the other, if the allegations were proven. Jumping on the bandwagon to vilify Sean Quinn would be dishonest in those circumstances, so the only thing I can ethically do is refrain from judgement.
Noreen1 wrote: » I have serious difficulty in equating the man I knew with the guy who is vilified in the media, and I tend to disbelieve that anyone could change that much in 10 years. So, I'll accept that I will probably never know the full facts, and refrain form vilifying him, based on the facts that I do know.
Liam Byrne wrote: » OK - let's forget the laptop for a second. How about the loans that he PERSONALLY GUARANTEED that he's refusing to pay back ? Would he not sell his mansion and buy / rent a flat somewhere in order to prevent us from footing his bills ?
Gophur wrote: » It seems rules, regulations and Laws were for people other than the Quinns.
shangri la wrote: » Put yourself in his shoes... you are in a position to make sure your great grandchildren never have to worry about money or you can spend it all on a tax bill. you would do exactly what he did.
smash wrote: » Sure the whole family claimed living expenses from the companies and never paid any BIK on it.
Gophur wrote: » Mrs Quinn claimed to know nothing about business yet was director of 91 companies and Company Secretary of 10. A Company Secretary would have to sign off annual accounts, and is a very responsible position. Surely some offence was committed here and she should be brought before the Courts to account for herself? It seems rules, regulations and Laws were for people other than the Quinns.
wrote: 2.1 A company secretary’s main functions are to oversee thecompany’s day to day administration and to ensure specifically that the company complies with the law and observes its own regulations. Every person should , on or before appointment as a company secretary, familiarise themselves with the duties and obligations attaching to the position.
wrote: 2.2 companies, the directors have a statutory duty to ensure that the company secretary is a person who appears to them to have the requisite knowledge and experience to discharge the functions of company secretary
wrote: 2.3 Duties include: statutory duties, duty of disclosure, duty to exercise due care, skill and diligence and administrative duties.
wrote: 2.4.1 Where a secretary is reckless in the conduct of his or her duties, he or she is in breach of the companies act
wrote:
withless wrote: » Did he ever build school or a hospital? Anything of that nature?
bicardi19 wrote: » He gave substantial donations to the new build of the primary school his kids went to.
Mardy Bum wrote: » He literally built half the facilities, business and social amenities included, of west Cavan over the past two decades.....
Noreen1 wrote: » I'm not infallible, and my judgement about Sean Quinn might have been entirely wrong - yet his staff, and his neighbours, are loyal to him to an extent that can only be described as astonishing. It makes me pause for thought, that's all.
smash wrote: » Part of Quinn's proposal was that the bank lend him another €650m so he could complete some 'business' and he'll repay the €2.8b in 7 years. Has he learned nothing?
ScumLord wrote: » That's not at all uncommon. What the public see's as one business could technically be two or more with one of the businesses doing manufacturing for example that then sells the product onto another company to sell to the public.
Noreen1 wrote: » Since he's been made bankrupt, then I think that's likely to happen anyway - and I have no problem with that. My problem is with the fact that he is being portrayed as some form of modern gangster in the media, where a whole page is devoted to Anglo allegations, with one-liners added confirming that the Court made no finding of impropriety - and Joe Public is swallowing it, hook, line, and sinker. I'm not infallible, and my judgement about Sean Quinn might have been entirely wrong - yet his staff, and his neighbours, are loyal to him to an extent that can only be described as astonishing. It makes me pause for thought, that's all.
