IBRC Sale of Siteserv at €100 million loss.

nice_guy80 · 22-04-2015 10:11pm #1

What is going on here then?

Siteserv was sold by tax payer owned IBRC to a company owned by Mr Denis O'Brien for a loss of €100 million to the taxpayer, based on the debts that Siteserv owed.
The minister for finance apparently knew nothing of this large deal/loss at the time.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0422/695828-siteserv/

The IRBC at the time was headed by Mr Alan Dukes (former FG minister)
Mr O'Brien, who is a well known supporter of Fine Gael (see mobile phone licences and former FG minister Michael Lowry) bought the company for a steal.

Siteserv then went on to get a lucrative major infrastructure contract, through it's subsidary Sierra, from Irish Water, set up by Fine Gael ministers.

It all looks a bit dodgy to me.
As a taxpayer I'd like to know why Siteserv can have €100 million of debt written off by a state owned bank but yet most state owned banks are chasing down families for a few hundred thousand euro owed on their houses.

Sierra Oscar · 22-04-2015 10:42pm

Very strange that the shareholders also got a €5 million payout as part of the deal even though the company was rapidly going under. Also the same legal representative acted for both the seller and the purchasers. Is that even legal? Seems like a massive conflict of interest.

washman3 · 22-04-2015 10:46pm

Basically, Fine Gael have given Denis O'Brien a €100 million gift courtesy of the Irish taxpayer.
The usual Blueshirt apologists will be along here shortly.!

mada999 · 23-04-2015 12:03am

wow no comments on this by the regular blueshirt defenders on boards, seems very strange too ?

td2008 · 23-04-2015 9:31am

This story from a few years ago makes sense all of a sudden :rolleyes:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/siemens-cheaper-water-meter-offer-snubbed-by-minister-hogan-26845507.html

FreudianSlippers · 23-04-2015 10:21am

I think we have to hear from the board as well. Something isn't right here, but I'm not prepared to jump to conclusions unless the board is also stacked with FG members.

I'm also not going for the red herring in the OP of comparing bailed out companies with hope repossessions. I do think we should fully investigate the transaction and if DOB is making a profit from this company, surely the government would have found a way to claw-back the €100m loss.

blackwhite · 23-04-2015 10:36am

TBH - the DOB link looks more and more like a red herring at this stage - the real question is who were the original shareholders, and how did they manage to get such a good deal.

The €100m "loss" was loans that SiteServ had run up prior to being taken over by IBRC.
To have any hope of finding any buyer - not just DOB - there was going to have to be a significant restructuring of the loans.

The key point that I can't understand is why, when such a restructuring was needed, was receivership or some similar strategy not followed whereby the entire proceeds of the sale to DOB or any other potential investor would flow to the creditors (i.e. IBRC and, by extension, the Irish people), instead of €5m being funneled to the original shareholders.

Chips Lovell · 23-04-2015 11:31am

IBRC still has to sign off on the haircut for the deal to go through. Presumably it agreed to the shareholders getting €5 million in order to incentivise them to OK the sale.

IBRC didn't comment at the time on why it chose this route over altneratives such as receivership:

While IBRC declined to comment on the transaction, it is understood that a sale was seen as the best alternative to the bank versus other options for getting some return back on its loan.

golfball37 · 23-04-2015 12:18pm

The real question is how did GMC Sierra win the contract for water meter instillaation when they submitted their tender 3 weeks after the closing date?

Was it a calculated business gamble* by DOB to buy Siteserve like it was to buy Esat back in the day.

* Sniggers

Chips Lovell · 23-04-2015 12:22pm

Source?

Skrynesaver · 23-04-2015 12:32pm

GMC/Sierra was registered as a company on 15 July 2013 – The closing date for bids was 30th of June...

Not sure about the tender submission date, but as the entity didn't exist at the submission closing date there is a bit of a whiff of stitch up about it.

Chips Lovell · 23-04-2015 12:36pm

It was a JV. The entity didn't have to exit prior to submission of tender.

Under EU procurement rules, it is not permissible to require groups of economic operators, bidding together as a consortium, to assume a specific legal form before a tender is awarded.

FreudianSlippers · 23-04-2015 12:37pm

It doesn't make sense for what is effectively a SPV to exist before a tender.

Big C · 23-04-2015 12:38pm

I can't believe anybody is surprised by the crooks running this sh*t hole

Streetwalker · 23-04-2015 12:43pm

This is unravelling fast for the government. Joan Burton digging the hole deeper and deeper.

FreudianSlippers · 23-04-2015 1:06pm

Joan Burton's statements are successfully defending FG on the subject and seemingly shifting the blame to Labour. Did she forget which party she's the leader of?

uck51js9zml2yt · 23-04-2015 1:16pm

Big C wrote: »

I can't believe anybody is surprised by the crooks running this sh*t hole

Lets not foget who dug the hole in the first place.!!!

Since its not been said ( and is expected).... Its a conspiracy to tarnish FG by those who led the country into owing billions and a group of murders and tax / prsi dodgers.:)

But seriously.. It leaves a lot of questions to be answered by Dukes and Noonan....any maybe MLMD can name some names under privilege for the hell of it.

jimmycrackcorm · 23-04-2015 1:40pm

washman3 wrote:

Basically, Fine Gael have given Denis O'Brien a â‚¬100 million gift courtesy of the Irish taxpayer. The usual Blueshirt apologists will be along here shortly.!

Fine Gael are also responsible for Murdoch selling MySpace at a loss. Bought for $580m and sold for $35m. Sure there must be connection because both Murdoch and Denis O'Brien have something to do with newspapers.

hfallada · 23-04-2015 3:08pm

There was always going to be a write down. However the level of a write down was going to be important. The fact another company had an offer for Siteserv of €60, meant the write down could have only been €90 million (or 85 Million if the shareholders didnt get anything)

I think there needs to a brief enquiry about this. To ensure it doesn't happen again to the remainder of any state owned banks assets. But the last thing we need is another Moriarty tribunal running on for years, costing tens of million to actually achieve nothing. Tribunals in this country is just lip service and a great way to line a few solicitors/barristers pockets.

I do believe Irish people currently have an unhealthy obsession with the use of Isle of Man companies. Most large companies in the last decade have a IoM connection to create secrecy eg all bin companies, construction companies, luxury houses being bought by IoM companies.

Muahahaha · 23-04-2015 4:52pm

golfball37 wrote: »

The real question is how did GMC Sierra win the contract for water meter instillaation when they submitted their tender 3 weeks after the closing date?

Was it a calculated business gamble* by DOB to buy Siteserve like it was to buy Esat back in the day.

* Sniggers

not only that but around the same time the GMC Sierra website 'About Us' webpage got updated to state that they had expertise in the installation of water meters, despite no mention of it before the sale to Denis O'Brien

laugh · 23-04-2015 9:47pm

This guy is very shifty.

Baggy Trousers · 23-04-2015 9:49pm

laugh wrote: »

This guy is very shifty.

Extremely! His eyes are all over the shop. His body language is deceptive.

ABlur · 23-04-2015 9:52pm

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Extremely! His eyes are all over the shop. His body language is deceptive.

Missed the beginning, who is he??

Baggy Trousers · 23-04-2015 10:02pm

ABlur wrote: »

Missed the beginning, who is he??

Independent expert involved in the sale: Walter Hobbs

K-9 · 23-04-2015 10:13pm

washman3 wrote: »

Basically, Fine Gael have given Denis O'Brien a €100 million gift courtesy of the Irish taxpayer.
The usual Blueshirt apologists will be along here shortly.!

mada999 wrote: »

wow no comments on this by the regular blueshirt defenders on boards, seems very strange too ?

Mod: If people want to get their retaliation in first the politics cafe might be more your thing, we expect a higher standard here. It's pretty basic really, try and add something to the thread other than just personalising it and making digs.

laugh wrote: »

This guy is very shifty.

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

Extremely! His eyes are all over the shop. His body language is deceptive.

As above.

Streetwalker · 23-04-2015 10:15pm

This is unravelling fast for FG.

hatrickpatrick · 23-04-2015 10:29pm

laugh wrote: »

This guy is very shifty.

Shifty indeed. He didn't strike me as a crook or anything, more like someone who's been blindsided and may not have been aware of all the facts when this was happening. Either way though his remarks will only further the crisis - on the shareholders, he effectively stated that they shouldn't have been paid, but that they had to be bribed to accept the deal.

This makes little sense to me - if the deal hadn't worked out, as he said himself, the company would have collapsed anyway and the shareholders would have got nothing. So what vested interest would they have had in blocking it? Taking the ship down with them or something?

I had the RTE player paused (was already recording two programs on TV) and apparently if you pause for too long the next program begins regardless of whether you've finished watching what you had paused, so I didn't get to see any of the reactions to his interview apart from the very beginning of Catherine Murphy's response in which she said she'd be even more concerned having just watched that interview. Did anyone see the rest of the show? What else did she say and did anyone else speak on it?

For Reals · 23-04-2015 10:50pm

Look, when both Kenny and Noonan state they knew nothing about it from the get go, you just know it's going to be a shame on all involved, but of course no laws will be found to have been broken.
Noonan sold himself as a fiscal watchdog pre-election now he's bringing in changes to ensure he's told what's going on in the future...after the horse?
Nothing will come of this. No jail, no fines, no savings for tax payers. It'll be another earner for some legal folks.

As a person who helped get them in, I'm disgusted and feel fooled, once again.

michael999999 · 23-04-2015 10:53pm

For Reals wrote: »

Look, when both Kenny and Noonan state they knew nothing about it from the get go, you just know it's going to be a shame on all involved, but of course no laws will be found to have been broken.
Noonan sold himself as a fiscal watchdog pre-election now he's bringing in changes to ensure he's told what's going on in the future...after the horse?
Nothing will come of this. No jail, no fines, no savings for tax payers. It'll be another earner for some legal folks.

As a person who helped get them in, I'm disgusted and feel fooled, once again.

Remember what happened to the fine Gael heads involved in the Rehab scandal?

Exactly!

B2theT · 23-04-2015 11:06pm

I am genuinely concerned when it comes to Dennis, he controls topaz, large parts of the news paper he owns radio stations, has a large construction firm winning handsome contacts, and can pump vast money into things like the FAI ..Got away with the hike mobile licence thing... is this just a outstanding business man or does he just always seem to be in the know and happen to always land's on his feet..

michael999999 · 23-04-2015 11:08pm

B2theT wrote: »

I am genuinely concerned when it comes to Dennis, he controls topaz, large parts of the news paper he owns radio stations, has a large construction firm winning handsome contacts, and can pump vast money into things like the FAI ..Got away with the hike mobile licence thing... is this just a outstanding business man or does he just always seem to be in the know and happen to always land's on his feet..

Coincidence hes fine Gaels largest financial backer!

B2theT · 23-04-2015 11:17pm

It kills me that I voted for Fg and Labour last time round and it sounded so genuine that they would change politics in this country but they they Do all the stupid things like water, can't they realize most people genuinely believe water should have some cost, but th ey won't pay now because of the beast and excessive cost it's become and that's before one pipe is fixed.. I've tried FF, then FG and Labour, only option now is the non-Looney independents and SF sure it couldn't get worse. And they deserve a go, everyone else has..

hatrickpatrick · 23-04-2015 11:35pm

michael999999 wrote: »

Remember what happened to the fine Gael heads involved in the Rehab scandal?

Exactly!

And this one sentence explains in one sentence what others including myself have attempted to explain in paragraphs upon paragraphs of analysis - the establishment in this country has destroyed our trust beyond all possibility of repair. They have, as the saying goes, "lost their jury".

Eugene Norman · 23-04-2015 11:40pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Fine Gael are also responsible for Murdoch selling MySpace at a loss. Bought for $580m and sold for $35m. Sure there must be connection because both Murdoch and Denis O'Brien have something to do with newspapers.

That's an extremely weak deflection.

Good loser · 24-04-2015 12:51am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And this one sentence explains in one sentence what others including myself have attempted to explain in paragraphs upon paragraphs of analysis - the establishment in this country has destroyed our trust beyond all possibility of repair. They have, as the saying goes, "lost their jury".

So you're one of the 'pure of heart'!

I'm just a practical sinner and will vote FG in 2016, if I'm around.

Catherine Murphy is a longwindbag.

My name is URL · 24-04-2015 1:37am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And this one sentence explains in one sentence what others including myself have attempted to explain in paragraphs upon paragraphs of analysis - the establishment in this country has destroyed our trust beyond all possibility of repair. They have, as the saying goes, "lost their jury".

That's crazy talk! /s

An Assistant Garda commissioner has claimed he was asked by Garda Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan during interviews for the position of deputy commissioner about his views on “left wing political extremism in Ireland” and on left wing politicians.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/garda-taken-aback-at-political-questions-in-job-interview-1.2186832

hatrickpatrick · 24-04-2015 2:35am

Good loser wrote: »

So you're one of the 'pure of heart'!

I'm just a practical sinner and will vote FG in 2016, if I'm around.

Catherine Murphy is a longwindbag.

Not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this post O_o
If it's that you're happy to vote for the corrupt as long as they fix the economy, that's your prerogative. Personally, prosperity means nothing to me if I have to bring up my future children by telling them we don't live in a democracy in which there is nobody who is above the law and nobody who is given preferable treatment by the government.

Some would undoubtedly regard me as foolish in this regard, personally I regard those who are willing to suffer endless scandals in exchange for a decent economy as foolish, just as I'm sure some would regard me as foolish for favouring less security over less privacy, while I would regard others as foolish for voting for those who promise safety as long as we let them access all of our emails, phone calls, etc.

Personally I don't believe we have to make the choice between prosperity and an honest political system, and I regard it as quite sad that we've reached a point at which evidently some believe the two are mutually exclusive. I'm just saying if they were, personally I'd choose living in a decent, honest and fair society.

But that's just me.

nice_guy80 · 24-04-2015 8:21am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not entirely sure what you're trying to say with this post O_o
If it's that you're happy to vote for the corrupt as long as they fix the economy, that's your prerogative. Personally, prosperity means nothing to me if I have to bring up my future children by telling them we don't live in a democracy in which there is nobody who is above the law and nobody who is given preferable treatment by the government.

Some would undoubtedly regard me as foolish in this regard, personally I regard those who are willing to suffer endless scandals in exchange for a decent economy as foolish, just as I'm sure some would regard me as foolish for favouring less security over less privacy, while I would regard others as foolish for voting for those who promise safety as long as we let them access all of our emails, phone calls, etc.

Personally I don't believe we have to make the choice between prosperity and an honest political system, and I regard it as quite sad that we've reached a point at which evidently some believe the two are mutually exclusive. I'm just saying if they were, personally I'd choose living in a decent, honest and fair society.

But that's just me.

Exactly

Or that it is ok to fleece the public with more taxes, levies, and other crap while enriching certain people and businesses

julie385 · 24-04-2015 8:47am

Good loser wrote: »

I'm just a practical sinner and will vote FG in 2016, if I'm around.

After all what's happened in recent years, you are still going to vote FF/FG?

rrpc · 24-04-2015 1:48pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Shifty indeed. He didn't strike me as a crook or anything, more like someone who's been blindsided and may not have been aware of all the facts when this was happening. Either way though his remarks will only further the crisis - on the shareholders, he effectively stated that they shouldn't have been paid, but that they had to be bribed to accept the deal.

This makes little sense to me - if the deal hadn't worked out, as he said himself, the company would have collapsed anyway and the shareholders would have got nothing. So what vested interest would they have had in blocking it? Taking the ship down with them or something?

If the company collapsed then there would have been nothing to sell. I haven't seen their accounts, but as a service company they would have had very little in the way of assets; certainly nothing close to the eventual sales figure and the only other significant asset would have been their customer base which would have gone the minute it collapsed.

That's what you get when you buy a company as a going concern; its customer base, its staff and its reputation. The minute you liquidate, that's all gone.

seamus · 24-04-2015 2:08pm

Yeah, I'm not sure there's anything majorly dodgy about the DOB link here. Like it or not he's a successful and shrewd businessman. No doubt he spotted that infrastructural outsourcing was the way the world was heading and had excellent contacts (and interests) in several companies who were looking to outsource their infrastructural teams. Not to mention water meters being imminently on the horizon.
But he lacked a company who did that, and then was given a nudge about SiteServ - a company with a strong business history and an experienced workforce, just on the verge of collapse due to their debt burden.

He sweeps in with an offer to allow IBRC take *some* cash out of the company (rather than see it collapse) and on he goes.

It's not uncommon for takeovers/buyouts to include a sweetener for the shareholders, the major question here is why the shareholders had any say at all given the company's debt burden, who approved such an enormous sweetener amount (considering that's €5m out of the public purse), and who were the beneficiaries of this?

Muahahaha · 24-04-2015 2:19pm

B2theT wrote: »

It kills me that I voted for Fg and Labour last time round and it sounded so genuine that they would change politics in this country but they they Do all the stupid things like water, can't they realize most people genuinely believe water should have some cost, but th ey won't pay now because of the beast and excessive cost it's become and that's before one pipe is fixed.. I've tried FF, then FG and Labour, only option now is the non-Looney independents and SF sure it couldn't get worse. And they deserve a go, everyone else has..

I'm in the same boat except I've never voted FF. At this stage I'd seriously consider voting SF purely becaause every other party has let me down and they're the only ones who I have. I dont agree with some SF policies but at this stage I see them as having more integrity that FF/FG/Lab put together. Perhaps thats because they're always in opposition but thats more to do with how badly FF/FG/Lab have done in govt than how good SF have done in opposition.

rrpc · 24-04-2015 2:23pm

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not sure there's anything majorly dodgy about the DOB link here. Like it or not he's a successful and shrewd businessman. No doubt he spotted that infrastructural outsourcing was the way the world was heading and had excellent contacts (and interests) in several companies who were looking to outsource their infrastructural teams. Not to mention water meters being imminently on the horizon.
But he lacked a company who did that, and then was given a nudge about SiteServ - a company with a strong business history and an experienced workforce, just on the verge of collapse due to their debt burden.

He sweeps in with an offer to allow IBRC take *some* cash out of the company (rather than see it collapse) and on he goes.

It's not uncommon for takeovers/buyouts to include a sweetener for the shareholders, the major question here is why the shareholders had any say at all given the company's debt burden, who approved such an enormous sweetener amount (considering that's €5m out of the public purse), and who were the beneficiaries of this?

From what I've read and from people I've asked, the shareholder agreement was quite unusual and basically gave them a say in any sale. The beneficiaries are listed in the FOI documents (I think). The sale had to be voted on at an EGM and this was held and the motion to sell carried by almost 99%.

I suspect given the number of different entities involved in the sale that there is unlikely to be anything untoward found in an investigation. It clearly was on its last legs (Walter Hobbs said it only had cash flow to run for another eight weeks beyond the sale date) and had to be sold quickly to get any value back for the bank.

I'm assuming from the reports that the total loan value was €150 million, I'd be interested to know if there were any provisions against this in the IBRC accounts. In other words, had some of the loan already been written off or was the €150 million a written down value?

Muahahaha · 24-04-2015 2:24pm

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not sure there's anything majorly dodgy about the DOB link here. Like it or not he's a successful and shrewd businessman. No doubt he spotted that infrastructural outsourcing was the way the world was heading and had excellent contacts (and interests) in several companies who were looking to outsource their infrastructural teams. Not to mention water meters being imminently on the horizon.
But he lacked a company who did that, and then was given a nudge about SiteServ - a company with a strong business history and an experienced workforce, just on the verge of collapse due to their debt burden.

He sweeps in with an offer to allow IBRC take *some* cash out of the company (rather than see it collapse) and on he goes.

It's not uncommon for takeovers/buyouts to include a sweetener for the shareholders, the major question here is why the shareholders had any say at all given the company's debt burden, who approved such an enormous sweetener amount (considering that's €5m out of the public purse), and who were the beneficiaries of this?

Its a fair point but what about the bidders offering more than DOB? FG/IBRC are trying to claim that these bidders had T&Cs attached whereas DOB didnt.
The sale of Siteserve was a negotiation where the best price for the taxpayer was the objective. So why didnt IBRC go back to the French company and tell them that if they drop T&Cs then they're open to the €60m bid? Why just hand it over to the underbidder without trying to go back and get better terms from the other bidders? Surely thats what a negotiation is all about?

rrpc · 24-04-2015 2:33pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

Its a fair point but what about the bidders offering more than DOB? FG/IBRC are trying to claim that these bidders had T&Cs attached whereas DOB didnt.
The sale of Siteserve was a negotiation where the best price for the taxpayer was the objective. So why didnt IBRC go back to the French company and tell them that if they drop T&Cs then they're open to the €60m bid? Why just hand it over to the underbidder without trying to go back and get better terms from the other bidders? Surely thats what a negotiation is all about?

Apparently the French bid was made after the closing date for bids (actually at the EGM to approve the sale). This is mentioned in the article I linked above. It also says that the French company wanted to do investigations as part of their bid that would take eight weeks and which would have meant the company would have been out of cash before it was completed (even if they'd been allowed jump in at the last minute). There were other bids that were close to DOB's but had strings attached that would have resulted in their price ending up lower.

These are reports from the time of the sale, before it became the controversy it is now.

Timberrrrrrrr · 24-04-2015 2:42pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

Its a fair point but what about the bidders offering more than DOB? FG/IBRC are trying to claim that these bidders had T&Cs attached whereas DOB didnt.
The sale of Siteserve was a negotiation where the best price for the taxpayer was the objective. So why didnt IBRC go back to the French company and tell them that if they drop T&Cs then they're open to the €60m bid? Why just hand it over to the underbidder without trying to go back and get better terms from the other bidders? Surely thats what a negotiation is all about?

Because the French bid wasn't binding

"The board notes that the Altrad proposal is indicative, non-binding, governed by French law and conditional on an exclusivity period of eight weeks," Siteserv said in a statement.

“The Altrad proposal is subject to due diligence and legal contract. Consequently, and having regard to these factors and the preliminary nature of the proposal, the Board's considered view is that there is no certainty that a legally binding offer at a price and conditions capable of recommendation to shareholders and stakeholders as a whole will emerge."

So better to take 45 million now than MAYBE get 60 million 2 or 3 months down the line, meanwhile siteserve is losing money and hundreds of jobs are on the line.

Muahahaha · 24-04-2015 2:47pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Because the French bid wasn't binding

So better to take 45 million now than MAYBE get 60 million 2 or 3 months down the line, meanwhile siteserve is losing money and hundreds of jobs are on the line.

But why not go back to the French company and say right we'll accept your €60m if you drop T&Cs and sign on the dotted line within 14 days? IBRC didn't do this whatsoever, making the bidding process seem like it was predetermined. I dont know anyone in business who would sell something and not try to bounce one bidder off the other to get a better deal, you see it over on Adverts all day long so why not the same level of negotiation for the Irish taxpayer ?

rrpc · 24-04-2015 2:48pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So better to take 45 million now than MAYBE get 60 million 2 or 3 months down the line, meanwhile siteserve is losing money and hundreds of jobs are on the line.

Indeed. And interestingly, what exactly did Altrad want?

A couple of days later (after having threatened to make a complaint to the Competitions Authority) they withdrew it and instead made overtures to DOB to buy the UK arm of SiteServ.

If that was their target all along, what chance of saving the Irish jobs, had they managed to buy SiteServ?

Timberrrrrrrr · 24-04-2015 2:53pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

But why not go back to the French company and say right we'll accept your €60m if you drop T&Cs and sign on the dotted line within 14 days? IBRC didn't do this whatsoever, making the bidding process seem like it was predetermined. I dont know anyone in business who would sell something and not try to bounce one bidder off the other to get a better deal, you see it over on Adverts all day long so why not the same level of negotiation for the Irish taxpayer ?

Because there is a time limit on the bid, If they had not sold when they did there was a chance that the French bid could fall through and then there is no buyer and a possibility that it could end up being sold for even less.

rrpc · 24-04-2015 2:54pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

But why not go back to the French company and say right we'll accept your €60m if you drop T&Cs and sign on the dotted line within 14 days? IBRC didn't do this whatsoever, making the bidding process seem like it was predetermined. I dont know anyone in business who would sell something and not try to bounce one bidder off the other to get a better deal, you see it over on Adverts all day long so why not the same level of negotiation for the Irish taxpayer ?

You get a very bad reputation when you do things like that. It's easy on adverts where you're selling one item, but a business that continually plays one bidder against another ends up with suppliers losing patience and agreeing amongst themselves to screw you.

The Altrad bid could easily have been made purely to close the company down. Delay the sale and run it out of cash so you can pick up the pieces in a fire sale for a song. Or just pick off the customers as they are left looking for a new supplier.

I'm not saying they were doing this, but there's always a suspicion about trade buyers (those in the same trade) just wanting the customer base and maybe some of the employees without having to spend anything.

blackwhite · 24-04-2015 3:02pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

you see it over on Adverts all day long so why not the same level of negotiation for the Irish taxpayer ?

Because haggling over selling a table on adverts is exactly the same as negotiating a multi-million euro sale with hundreds of jobs at stake.

IBRC Sale of Siteserv at €100 million loss.

Comments