NAMA owned property to be demolished at the cost of 70 jobs.

MadsL · 14-02-2014 08:10AM #1

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/popular-dublin-bakery-vows-to-fight-demolition-30007675.html

Not content with the massive exercise in dereliction for profit, and the demolition of The Royal Dublin Hotel before settling planning for the shopping centre, Chartered Land now plan to demolish a thriving business.

What a clusterfuck, enough is enough surely? Is it time to tell Joe O'Reilly's company to go jump in the Liffey?

Gummy Panda · 14-02-2014 08:45AM

Bar fx buckleys, it's the only good shop on that street. Why a shopping centre when ilac is across from them?

lazygal · 14-02-2014 08:52AM

I never had a good experience there. Awful, awful service and food was only ok. Sad to see jobs going bug I don't get the appeal of the bakery at all.

Guy:Incognito · 14-02-2014 09:12AM

So 70 jobs going and 0 being created, yeah op?

zl1whqvjs75cdy · 14-02-2014 09:18AM

Can't wait to see this fully automated shopping center that'll spring from the ground overnight employing absolutely no one in the process.

Stavros Murphy · 14-02-2014 09:21AM

Happily, no-one is going to do the demolition work, no-one is going to do the rebuilding and no-one is going to work in the new center. The entire process is going to create 0 jobs, and be done using the powers of Ju-Ju Magic. Best keep the bakery. Sure no way can it move somewhere else - all the staff are concreted in place. And Moore st is so gorgeous anyway, just as it is. Progress, down with that sort of thing.

Gatling · 14-02-2014 09:25AM

Loose 70 Jobs in a bakery,
Create several hundred construction jobs
Add several hundred retail position's ,
That have been planned long before Nama or the banking crisis ,

Much ado about nothing really

anncoates · 14-02-2014 09:26AM

I like PB. No doubt they'll set up elsewhere. They'll be able to have their pick of empty premises elsewhere in the city. Might even be a blessing in disguise.

Arthur Beesley · 14-02-2014 09:27AM

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/popular-dublin-bakery-vows-to-fight-demolition-30007675.html

Not content with the massive exercise in dereliction for profit, and the demolition of The Royal Dublin Hotel before settling planning for the shopping centre, Chartered Land now plan to demolish a thriving business.

What a clusterfuck, enough is enough surely? Is it time to tell Joe O'Reilly's company to go jump in the Liffey?

Are they just demolishing it for the sake of it, as per your title?

Any chance they could move? Or is the only location suitable for a bakery in Dublin?

I don't suppose there will be construction jobs or retail jobs.

Arthur Beesley · 14-02-2014 09:28AM

Down with progress, Joe.

uck51js9zml2yt · 14-02-2014 09:31AM

There was talk last week of them being offered an alternative location

Valetta · 14-02-2014 09:32AM

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/popular-dublin-bakery-vows-to-fight-demolition-30007675.html

Not content with the massive exercise in dereliction for profit, and the demolition of The Royal Dublin Hotel before settling planning for the shopping centre, Chartered Land now plan to demolish a thriving business.

What a clusterfuck, enough is enough surely? Is it time to tell Joe O'Reilly's company to go jump in the Liffey?

Not true.

They are consistently loss making.

From a subscription based online CRO report...

2012 2011 2010
shareholders' funds(678) (238) (35)

Triangla · 14-02-2014 09:32AM

Could Paris Bakery not just rent a unit in the new shopping centre?

Surely they can find somewhere to locate a pop up shop between now and then.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4 · 14-02-2014 09:41AM

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/popular-dublin-bakery-vows-to-fight-demolition-30007675.html

Not content with the massive exercise in dereliction for profit, and the demolition of The Royal Dublin Hotel before settling planning for the shopping centre, Chartered Land now plan to demolish a thriving business.

What a clusterfuck, enough is enough surely? Is it time to tell Joe O'Reilly's company to go jump in the Liffey?

Its not like the building is going to be torn down, and they are not going to get compensated for it. they will be moved to another location. That way everybody wins.

anncoates · 14-02-2014 10:00AM

Thankfully, anyway, there's a number of other eateries on the street in which to relax after you've bought your smuggled cigarettes and got your stolen phone unlocked.

14-02-2014 10:07AM

They moved in after planning permission had been granted and on a relatively short lease. They can't be surprised that the owner wants to progress the plans.

humanji · 14-02-2014 10:07AM

Weren't they going to have to close for a while anyway, once the restoration of the building next door got underway?

anncoates · 14-02-2014 10:12AM

Valetta wrote: »

Not true.

They are consistently loss making.

From a subscription based online CRO report...

2012 2011 2010
shareholders' funds(678) (238) (35)

Can''t see the accounts but they're definitely thriving in terms of being busy from what I can see. Maybe, like some businesses, they're still trying to get past start-up costs and whatnot.

That's why a move to somewhere else might actually benefit the business because - even though I like Moore Street - it's probably not to everybody's taste.

Valetta · 14-02-2014 10:23AM

anncoates wrote: »

Can''t see the accounts but they're definitely thriving in terms of being busy from what I can see. Maybe, like some businesses, they're still trying to get past start-up costs and whatnot.

That's why a move to somewhere else might actually benefit the business because - even though I like Moore Street - it's probably not to everybody's taste.

Fair point.

It does annoy me when the media or vested interests (ISME I'm looking at you) try and sensationalise things when any mention of small businesses in trouble is made.

"The banks are not lending to small businesses".

Well, yes they are. But to viable businesses, not loss making ones who are looking to the banks to keep them afloat.

A busy business means nothing if they are not making a profit.

14-02-2014 10:47AM

Given that the owner seems to owe money to NAMA we should be encouraging the redevelopment to help the recovery of the money owed.

Robbo · 14-02-2014 10:59AM

Valetta wrote: »

Not true.

They are consistently loss making.

From a subscription based online CRO report...

2012 2011 2010
shareholders' funds(678) (238) (35)

They were also in a bit of bother with their accountants trying to wind the company up last year. Source and further info on figures.

Personally, I love the food their but can't stand the service and cramped conditions. It would benefit from a modern building.

Also, I know we all like a good sensational thread title but can we not just have "5 Year Commercial Lease to end, not be renewed"?

MadsL · 14-02-2014 04:23PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So 70 jobs going and 0 being created, yeah op?

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Can't wait to see this fully automated shopping center that'll spring from the ground overnight employing absolutely no one in the process.

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

Happily, no-one is going to do the demolition work, no-one is going to do the rebuilding and no-one is going to work in the new center. The entire process is going to create 0 jobs, and be done using the powers of Ju-Ju Magic. Best keep the bakery. Sure no way can it move somewhere else - all the staff are concreted in place. And Moore st is so gorgeous anyway, just as it is. Progress, down with that sort of thing.

Gatling wrote: »

Loose 70 Jobs in a bakery,
Create several hundred construction jobs
Add several hundred retail position's ,
That have been planned long before Nama or the banking crisis ,

Much ado about nothing really

How many real jobs (other than a bloke driving a wrecking ball) did the demolition of the Royal Dublin Hotel in 2009 create?? Chartered Land (aka Joe O'Reilly) are one of NAMA's greatest debtors. They haven't created jobs, they have had a fairly significant hand in destroying Ireland's prosperity.

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Down with progress, Joe.

The history of the Moore Street development is a exercise in huge levels of corruption, dereliction for profit and outright lies told to leaseholders. Why is Moore St such a kip, because developers have been driving standards down since 1998 as they know the value of the land.

Short term rents equals an excuse for 'redevelopement and progress'.

Included in that progress is scant regard for the place that Moore Street plays in the birth of the Irish nation, a place in history that should be celebrated and protected, not dumped on with a temple to crass commercialism and failed greed.

Deleted User wrote: »

They moved in after planning permission had been granted and on a relatively short lease. They can't be surprised that the owner wants to progress the plans.

The owner is 49% The Irish State. NAMA.

Deleted User wrote: »

Given that the owner seems to owe money to NAMA we should be encouraging the redevelopment to help the recovery of the money owed.

'Seems to owe money' is an understament. Try €3 billion! And now the owner IS NAMA.

I cannot see why O'Connell Street needs a shopping centre, in a recession with no flagship anchor tenant. 100s of units that will lie empty or create and even bigger set of hair extension shops and mobile unlocking shops.

I'm baffled that people appear to have learnt nothing from the greed of these Golden Circle developers.

I await the inevitable double dip false recovery bubble in Ireland over the next 5 years.

Guy:Incognito · 14-02-2014 04:29PM

MadsL wrote: »

The history of the Moore Street development is a exercise in huge levels of corruption, dereliction for profit and outright lies told to leaseholders. Why is Moore St such a kip, because developers have been driving standards down since 1998 as they know the value of the land.
.

The value of the land as what? Development maybe? What profit lies in dereliction without eventual development? Cos here we are at the development stage.

At the end of the day, the person or company that owns the land calls the shots, as it should be. If they want a bakery out then once any legally binding agreements (rents and the like) are no more legally binding or can be bought out, then its bye bye time.

MadsL wrote: »

I cannot see why O'Connell Street needs a shopping centre, in a recession with no flagship anchor tenant. 100s of units that will lie empty or create and even bigger set of hair extension shops and mobile unlocking shops.
.

Yeah, **** future planning, lets wait till we need the space next week, sure we can throw the buildings up in a few days.

if a nice new shiney shopping centre is left empty then the grimey ****hole that's there now hasn't much hope anyway. Just because something is old doesn't mean it necessarily should be protected forever. Theres plenty of rundown old ****holes full of junkies and squatters that cant get sorted because of stupid preservation orders like the house next door to me that I eventually had to take action myself and chuck them out and board up.

MadsL · 14-02-2014 04:39PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The value of the land as what? Development maybe? What profit lies in dereliction without eventual development? Cos here we are at the development stage.

The point is that the dereliction was caused, and whilst plenty of people have called DCC and Chartered Land out on the dodgy deals and CPOs that were handed over to CL down the years, all with lies being told to councillors that they would lose their own homes in a lawsuit if they voted against it. The sheer scale of the corruption and hubris (€3 billion owed!) is staggering.

And yet here we are in 2014 with the same people clinging to this deal, supported by the State (€200k a year I think), debts unimportant, no criminal charges brought against a member of the Anglo Golden Circle, business as usual.

All this on one of the most significant sites of the Rising, the site of the surrender, with less than two years before the Centenary celebrations.

I feel physically sick at the thought of people describing allowing these people to proceed in their plans as "progress". Ugggh.

At the end of the day, the person or company that owns the land calls the shots, as it should be. If they want a bakery out then once any legally binding agreements (rents and the like) are no more legally binding or can be bought out, then its bye bye time.

The Irish People own the land now, efectively, through NAMA.

Guy:Incognito · 14-02-2014 04:43PM

MadsL wrote: »

T

The Irish People own the land now, efectively, through NAMA.

And Irish people, through NAMA, are getting a nice shiney shopping centre that they like.

SimonQuinlank · 14-02-2014 04:46PM

That whole area of Moore Street,Parnell Street,the adjacent laneways and the old Carlton Cinema site on Upper O'Connell Street badly need the regeneration.

Valetta · 14-02-2014 04:48PM

I note the opening post has been amended.

Maybe the tactic of pulling at the heartstrings by bringing in the red herring of the "viable business" didn't work.

MadsL · 14-02-2014 04:48PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yeah, **** future planning, lets wait till we need the space next week, sure we can throw the buildings up in a few days.

Planning, planning???!!?? If you had any clue as to the clusterfuck this development has been all the way back to 1998, the insane plans to 'slide' the Carlton cinema along OCS, the corruption and sheer scale of the mismanagement of this by DCC you would not use the word planning.

if a nice new shiney shopping centre is left empty then the grimey ****hole that's there now hasn't much hope anyway. Just because something is old doesn't mean it necessarily should be protected forever. Theres plenty of rundown old ****holes full of junkies and squatters that cant get sorted because of stupid preservation orders like the house next door to me that I eventually had to take action myself and chuck them out and board up.

You are aware that much of the street is not just 'old' but is in fact a National Monument? Does that mean nothing?

MadsL · 14-02-2014 04:51PM

Valetta wrote: »

I note the opening post has been amended.

Maybe the tactic of pulling at the heartstrings by bringing in the red herring of the "viable business" didn't work.

No it hasn't. Not by me (the OP) anyway. What do you feel has changed in the OP??

SimonQuinlank wrote: »

That whole area of Moore Street,Parnell Street,the adjacent laneways and the old Carlton Cinema site on Upper O'Connell Street badly need the regeneration.

No-one doubts that. A good question is however how a former member of the Gardai manages to run a public casino and slot machine arcade in full view.

MadsL · 14-02-2014 04:53PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

And Irish people, through NAMA, are getting a nice shiney shopping centre that they like.

Nauseating attitude.

Reward those that bankrupt you, fuck those that died for you.

Astonishing.

MadsL · 14-02-2014 04:57PM

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/04/01/staying-in-tonight-3/

Striking paragraph here about how CL were given €250k by NAMA to gain ministerial consent.

So in 2007, the State declared 14-17, Moore St a national monument and four years later, in 2011, the State paid €250,000 towards an application for consent to demolish a national monument.

NAMA owned property to be demolished at the cost of 70 jobs.

Comments