Get out you feckers, Goldman Sacks owns this house now!

stoplooklisten · 13-03-2016 01:15PM #1

Over 200 families in Dublin are facing eviction, as their homes look set to be sold to meet debts by a property developer.
http://www.98fm.com/200-Families-In-Tyrrelstown-Facing-Eviction

So GS bought the debts and now wants to empty the estate and sell lit. Surely they can't do this?

Nama, for the people, by the people, of the people. vulture funds at it's best.

no word from the ptrb

GavRedKing · 13-03-2016 01:16PM

Pedant, its Goldman Sachs.

Lights On · 13-03-2016 01:17PM

His brother Andrew was always the nicer one.

elperello · 13-03-2016 01:17PM

GavRedKing wrote: »

Pedant, its Goldman Sachs.

Right first time, sacks of money!!

massdebater · 13-03-2016 01:17PM

Goldman Sucks

stoplooklisten · 13-03-2016 01:18PM

GavRedKing wrote: »

Pedant, its Goldman Sachs.

Well it'll be sacks you'll be needing to pack up your stuff and get out

Peregrine · 13-03-2016 01:21PM

stoplooklisten wrote: »

So GS bought the debts and now wants to empty the estate and sell lit. Surely they can't do this?

Sell their property? Why not?

As long as they give the minimum notice to their tenants, I don't see the problem.

elperello · 13-03-2016 01:25PM

Peregrine wrote: »

Sell their property? Why not?

As long as they give the minimum notice to their tenants then I don't see the problem.

Yes of course, anyone would think that NAMA was a pro-Bono outfit, but wait!

JohnFalstaff · 13-03-2016 01:28PM

elperello wrote: »

Yes of course, anyone would think that NAMA was a pro-Bono outfit, but wait!

Well they do seem to have given him a good deal on this hotel he bought off them...

http://www.businesspost.ie/bono-and-edge-buy-clarence-hotel-in-off-market-nama-deal/

Duckworth_Luas · 13-03-2016 01:28PM

elperello wrote: »

Yes of course, anyone would think that NAMA was a pro-Bono outfit, but wait!

Every time he claps his hands Goldman Sachs steal someones house!

nullzero · 13-03-2016 01:31PM

Peregrine wrote: »

Sell their property? Why not?

As long as they give the minimum notice to their tenants then I don't see the problem.

In light of the shortage of housing in this country currently it is understandable why people may feel peeved by this situation.

Brindor · 13-03-2016 01:32PM

Here comes the money....
Money Toss
Here comes the money....
Money, Money, Money!

Anyway, as much as it sounds like the actions of a Pantomime Villain, it isn't all that bad.
Surely, they'll find another place to stay, right ?

kneemos · 13-03-2016 01:33PM

Peregrine wrote: »

Sell their property? Why not?

As long as they give the minimum notice to their tenants then I don't see the problem.

Think they gave them 24 hours or something.
Don't see why they can't sell them with tenants in place?Saves bother for the new owners.

questionmark? · 13-03-2016 01:37PM

kneemos wrote: »

Think they gave them 24 hours or something.
Don't see why they can't sell them with tenants in place?Saves bother for the new owners.

Do you have a link to show they only gave 24 hours notice to get out? If they did the tenants don't need to leave and can lodge a claim through the PRTB.
If they gave full notice then they are perfectly entitled to ask people to leave so they can sell the property as any landlord is.

BoJack Horseman · 13-03-2016 01:42PM

We just need to elect a parliament predominately made up of left wing TD's who can form a government that will put the people first.

oh wait... that's what we did do!

Peregrine · 13-03-2016 01:43PM

nullzero wrote: »

In light of the shortage of housing in this country currently it is understandable why people may feel peeved by this situation.

They can't sell houses because there's a housing shortage?

Bear in mind that they're selling the houses, not knocking them down. Other people will move in.

They may be peeved off but, in the end, they rented a house and the owner now wants to sell the house. What can they do?

Hercule Poirot · 13-03-2016 01:45PM

Lights On wrote: »

His brother Andrew was always the nicer one.

Que?

The Moldy Gowl · 13-03-2016 01:47PM

Peregrine wrote: »

They can't sell houses because there's a housing shortage?

Bear in mind that they're selling the houses, not knocking them down. Other people will move in.

They may be peeved off but, in the end, they rented a house and the owner now wants to sell the house. What can they do?

Or the people living there can buy the house.

K.Flyer · 13-03-2016 01:50PM

Lights On wrote: »

His brother Andrew was always the nicer one.

A nice guy, but he knowz nawthing...

nullzero · 13-03-2016 01:52PM

Peregrine wrote: »

They can't sell houses because there's a housing shortage?

Bear in mind that they're selling the houses, not knocking them down. Other people will move in.

They may be peeved off but, in the end, they rented a house and the owner now wants to sell the house. What can they do?

A large number of people who rent are unable to afford their own property. These properties will most likely be rented out again at higher rates after being bought as investment properties.
Rents are far too high as it is and this I would guess won't improve that situation and will leave a lot of people struggling to an even greater degree than they already were to both find and pay for a new rented property, exacerbated in no small part by the competition they will face from each other(persons living in and now being removed from the said development).
Of course the owner has the right to sell but this situation looks likely to be slightly OTT considering the fact that the tenants could well have been left in place as the properties may likely be bought by investors or even one investor.

kneemos · 13-03-2016 01:53PM

questionmark? wrote: »

Do you have a link to show they only gave 24 hours notice to get out? If they did the tenants don't need to leave and can lodge a claim through the PRTB.
If they gave full notice then they are perfectly entitled to ask people to leave so they can sell the property as any landlord is.

No,talking about it on the wireless though.

Kintarō Hattori · 13-03-2016 01:56PM

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

Que?

The poster was joking as there's a famous actor called Andrew Sachs (Manuel in Fawlty Towers):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sachs

Sachs isn't exactly a common name.

nullzero · 13-03-2016 02:00PM

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

The poster was joking as there's a famous actor called Andrew Sachs (Manuel in Fawlty Towers):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sachs

Sachs isn't exactly a common name.

Thanks for clearing that one up...

Skylinehead · 13-03-2016 02:03PM

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

The poster was joking as there's a famous actor called Andrew Sachs (Manuel in Fawlty Towers):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sachs

Sachs isn't exactly a common name.

I believe a "whoosh" is coming your way

Kintarō Hattori · 13-03-2016 02:05PM

Skylinehead wrote: »

I believe a "whoosh" is coming your way

*Sigh*......... I haven't had breakfast yet.

I'm off to make breakfast.

*note to self......... keep trap shut in future.

stoplooklisten · 13-03-2016 02:10PM

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

*Sigh*......... I haven't had breakfast yet.

I'm off to make breakfast.

*note to self......... keep trap shut in future.

SEPT 23 1989 · 13-03-2016 02:11PM

This will get very messy

nullzero · 13-03-2016 02:14PM

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

*Sigh*......... I haven't had breakfast yet.

I'm off to make breakfast.

*note to self......... keep trap shut in future.

Kippers for breakfast?

BoJack Horseman · 13-03-2016 02:17PM

nullzero wrote: »

Kippers for breakfast?

Not till the 15th of July

Valetta · 13-03-2016 02:17PM

nullzero wrote: »

Kippers for breakfast?

Gotta have them in Texas , where everyone's a millionaire.

stoplooklisten · 13-03-2016 02:23PM

Who was the developer? I'm looking but i can't seem to find it

Get out you feckers, Goldman Sacks owns this house now!

Comments