€300M Investment into Waterford City

Sosurface · 28-03-2017 10:46pm

Well I for one welcome our new Jihadi overlords. Allahu Ahkbar!

Hoffmans · 29-03-2017 12:05am

Something stinks in this "deal" and it ain't the whiff of crude oiled sheik sandles
couldn't the government give that 70 million to the hospital etc..instead
This Saudi company is in free fall profits down 80% last year and CEO jumped ship only 5 months ago....

Max Powers · 29-03-2017 6:54am

Hoffmans wrote: »

Something stinks in this "deal" and it ain't the whiff of crude oiled sheik sandles
couldn't the government give that 70 million to the hospital etc..instead
This Saudi company is in free fall profits down 80% last year and CEO jumped ship only 5 months ago....

Jeez, have a day off Hoffman, silly comments.government will only give money depending on private investment, its not rocket science, there would be no govt investment without investors.
Secondly, you can make that silly point about every non essential spend, e.g. shouldn't the govt be putting money into health, education, housing rather than squandering it on festivals, business development,IDA, roads, bin collection, the environment, etc etc...No sense.
Also, you'd do better to keep stupid and insulting stereotypes out of your posts.

Road-Hog · 29-03-2017 7:00am

Hoffmans wrote: »

Something stinks in this "deal" and it ain't the whiff of crude oiled sheik sandles
couldn't the government give that 70 million to the hospital etc..instead
This Saudi company is in free fall profits down 80% last year and CEO jumped ship only 5 months ago....

what conspiracy type theory are you suggesting? WCCC/NAMA and government are giving sweet deals to a Saudi sheik to shore up his balance sheet or something, yeah that sounds right.....

Deiseen · 29-03-2017 7:07am

Hoffmans wrote: »

Something stinks in this "deal" and it ain't the whiff of crude oiled sheik sandles
couldn't the government give that 70 million to the hospital etc..instead
This Saudi company is in free fall profits down 80% last year and CEO jumped ship only 5 months ago....

Your profits will take a hit when your spending €2 billion on shopping centres in Milan.

You got a link for the CEO news?

Wanderer78 · 29-03-2017 7:12am

Hoffmans wrote:

Something stinks in this "deal" and it ain't the whiff of crude oiled sheik sandles couldn't the government give that 70 million to the hospital etc..instead This Saudi company is in free fall profits down 80% last year and CEO jumped ship only 5 months ago....

I'm wondering if there is capital flight outta Saudi at the moment just as there is in China?

Harry Palmr · 29-03-2017 8:40am

Yeah 300m is some flight! They have been diversifying for decades. Saudi has a small population and huge revenues from a declining product.

Speckydodge · 29-03-2017 8:57am

Unfortunately some people still believe diversity was an old old wooden ship used during the civil war era ðŸ˜‚

fuzzy dunlop · 29-03-2017 11:36am

Hoffmans wrote: »

Whoo hold the lashings and beheadings, sheik sharam , these dumb paddy's give us half their city centre for free send those peasants there instead to build our cash cow malls

So go build if you think you can do better... Christ if only we had you during the crisis when jobs were being lost all around us.

gw80 · 29-03-2017 1:32pm

Hoffmans wrote: »

Whoo hold the lashings and beheadings, sheik sharam , these dumb paddy's give us half their city centre for free send those peasants there instead to build our cash cow malls

Well you know what they say,
If you mistreat your wife or husband for long enough, it will drive them into the arm's of someone who will treat them better.

Dunmoreroader · 29-03-2017 1:41pm

Did I read in the News & Star that the listed Hennebique building on the North Wharf is to come down as part of the proposed development? Just wondering, if I read correctly, how's that legal? (not that I'm a fan of the ugly pile of concrete)

Deiseen · 29-03-2017 2:29pm

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

Did I read in the News & Star that the listed Hennebique building on the North Wharf is to come down as part of the proposed development? Just wondering, if I read correctly, how's that legal? (not that I'm a fan of the ugly pile of concrete)

Did you?

Hoffmans · 30-03-2017 12:19am

Thought that building had protected status well the question beckons
If the CEO jumped ship last October and the new CEO takes office this week
Who were nama & wcc negotiating with?

The other odd thing is the complex sharia capital loan their investment arm has acquired from a string of middle east banks for real estate investment...

Deiseen · 30-03-2017 12:23am

Hoffmans wrote: »

Thought that building had protected status well the question beckons
If the CEO jumped ship last October and the new CEO takes office this week
Who were nama & wcc negotiating with?

I'm going to take a wild swing and say it was other members of the board???????

Jesus Christ man, come on.

Max Powers · 30-03-2017 8:21am

Hoffmans wrote: »

Thought that building had protected status well the question beckons
If the CEO jumped ship last October and the new CEO takes office this week
Who were nama & wcc negotiating with?

The other odd thing is the complex sharia capital loan their investment arm has acquired from a string of middle east banks for real estate investment...

Think the building is on some protected list yeah, don't know how stringent that is though, could be altered, kept, built around or knocked, who knows at this stage. I don't know what second bit of that post is about and I doubt you do too, I'm worried you are drifting into silly stereotypes of previous posts.

BBM77 · 30-03-2017 8:47am

Hoffmans wrote: »

Something stinks in this "deal" and it ain't the whiff of crude oiled sheik sandles
couldn't the government give that 70 million to the hospital etc..instead
This Saudi company is in free fall profits down 80% last year and CEO jumped ship only 5 months ago....

These Suadi’s have crazy amounts of cash from selling oil to us oil hungry westerns that in the current financial environment actually costs them money to keep in the bank. So they invest in property developments in places like Waterford city that has been highlighted a number of times by the Financial Times as one of the best cities of its size in Europe for FDI potential in order make some return or at least maintain the value of their cash. Yes something really stinks about that!

TheQuietFella · 30-03-2017 8:51am

Max Powers wrote: »

Think the building is on some protected list yeah, don't know how stringent that is though, could be altered, kept, built around or knocked, who knows at this stage. I don't know what second bit of that post is about and I doubt you do too, I'm worried you are drifting into silly stereotypes of previous posts.

Put a bomb under it. Nothing more then an eye sore!

JupiterKid · 30-03-2017 9:14am

This sounds almost too good to be true. For Waterford's sake, I really hope it comes to fruition. There has been talk of redeveloping the North Quays for 20+ years to no avail.

On a side note, what's happening with the shell of the Ard Ri hotel?

Hoffmans · 30-03-2017 10:02am

JupiterKid wrote: »

This sounds almost too good to be true. For Waterford's sake, I really hope it comes to fruition. There has been talk of redeveloping the North Quays for 20+ years to no avail.

On a side note, what's happening with the shell of the Ard Ri hotel?

It was bought by the front man for a local consortium , some Chinese think he's called "lei ying lo"

Road-Hog · 30-03-2017 2:12pm

Max Powers wrote: »

Think the building is on some protected list yeah, don't know how stringent that is though, could be altered, kept, built around or knocked, who knows at this stage. I don't know what second bit of that post is about and I doubt you do too, I'm worried you are drifting into silly stereotypes of previous posts.

There are thousands of buildings
classified as 'listed' but It doesn't necessarily mean they have 'protection' orders associated with them. I think the one left on the north quays may be the 'listed' type!

Max Powers · 30-03-2017 2:46pm

Road-Hog wrote: »

There are thousands of buildings
classified as 'listed' but It doesn't necessarily mean they have 'protection' orders associated with them. I think the one left on the north quays may be the 'listed' type!

Yeah fair enough, limited knowledge on categories of listed myself, as mentioned who knows at this stage, maybe classification means it can be demolished, changed, whatever.I don't know difference between listed or protected and what the one we are talking about is.

robtri · 30-03-2017 7:19pm

List of protected structures in waterford city

http://www.waterfordcouncil.ie/departments/culture-heritage/heritage/built-heritage.htm

Built Heritage & Conservation
Our built heritage is part of the environment we live and work in. This heritage is a physical reminder of the culture, ideals, and history of previous generations. Castles, country houses, churches and public buildings, some of which were designed by architects, immediately come to mind. However, more modest structures such as town houses, thatched cottages and farm complexes also contribute to the character of the county. Waterford also has a rich industrial and maritime heritage, that includes structures such as mills, lighthouses, quays which tend to be overlooked. Our built heritage is an irreplaceable record which contributes to our understanding of both the present and the past. It is ours to enjoy, to enhance and to hand on to future generations.

The importance of our architectural heritage is recognised through legislation. Part IV of The Planning and Development Act 2000 deals with Architectural Heritage and each local authority has a duty to protect structures or parts of structures which are of special interest. This is done by compiling and maintaining a Record of Protected Structures (RPS) for each local authority area.

The documents are a mechanism for the statutory protection of architectural heritage and these RPS documents form part of the County and City Development Plans. There are almost 2000 structures on the RPS in the City and County of Waterford, including a variety of buildings from country houses, churches, bridges, houses, shops, thatched houses and stone depots and so on. The Record of Protected Structures can be updated at any stage during the life of the Development Plan.

They are an irreplaceable record, which contributes to our understanding of both the present and the past. The built fabric of our past is to be valued and we have a duty to ensure that it is conserved and passed on the future generations as a central part of our common cultural heritage.

This is done by compiling and maintaining a Record of Protected Structures (RPS) for the area. Please contact Rosemary Ryall, Executive Conservation Officer with regard to these documents.

Record of Protected Structures for Waterford City
Record of Protected Structures for Waterford County
Record of Protected Structures for Dungarvan Town
See our comprehensive list of Conservation and Built Heritage FAQs here.
Copyright © Waterford City & County Council 2017

TheQuietFella · 30-03-2017 9:26pm

Some holes under lock and key in that list!
Are they really for real in their selections?

Alexander St. for example! Can someone tell me what is so unique about it?

It's no wonder the town is in the state that it's in!

Harry Palmr · 30-03-2017 10:19pm

Not sure as the one side was largely rebuilt only about 20 years ago.

TheQuietFella · 30-03-2017 10:25pm

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Not sure as the one side was largely rebuilt only about 20 years ago.

I would have suggested a little more then that Harry but would it really matter
if the entire street was demolished and improved upon?

mooseknunkle · 31-03-2017 1:03am

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Some holes under lock and key in that list!
Are they really for real in their selections?

Alexander St. for example! Can someone tell me what is so unique about it?

It's no wonder the town is in the state that it's in!

Didnt you suggest levelling Barracks Street up to Morrisons Road not long ago...just because something isnt unique doesnt mean it needs to knocked down for more modern buildings...Alexander street,Barracks street and everything else on that list are Waterford they are our history our identity...

Seriously what do you want you give out about everything in Waterford yet you're still here :rolleyes:

Max Powers · 31-03-2017 8:18am

mooseknunkle wrote: »

.....

Seriously what do you want you give out about everything in Waterford yet you're still here :rolleyes:

You see and hear this a bit on here and out and about, generally comes from people who have never left, never lived elsewhere for period of time and generally a bit miserable eeking out life.part of it is like a teenage immaturity, you're scared of leaving the comfort zone so in order to feel in control, you tar everything as rubbish so you have a semblance of control in yourself.Bit of pop psychology there form me with no psychological training but I have heard it before from people who know more and it makes sense.
Same people in my experience often say things like nothing to do here, yet go to same pub or 2 every weekend...i love it when someone says it to me,I ask: you been to garter lane, theatre royal or central hall anytime recently, been to see any local music, the cinema, gone to see a foreign film in garter?been out to tramore or on greenway? Have you been in all the museums? Etc etc.
Usually get the yeah but yeah but they are all sh1t comments or something else silly.

TheQuietFella · 31-03-2017 11:21am

mooseknunkle wrote: »

Didnt you suggest levelling Barracks Street up to Morrisons Road not long ago...just because something isnt unique doesnt mean it needs to knocked down for more modern buildings...Alexander street,Barracks street and everything else on that list are Waterford they are our history our identity...

Seriously what do you want you give out about everything in Waterford yet you're still here :rolleyes:

I'm not here anymore MK! I moved on but my heart still resides there!

And yes, the city needs to be levelled, whole blocks of it demolished.

If they want the City to succeed and develop they need to bring in youth,

young working families and better quality homes that will make a bold

statement about prosperity. Create a new identity for the City.

Why does it have to be new investors to change the face of Waterford?

Wanderer78 · 31-03-2017 11:56am

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I'm not here anymore MK! I moved on but my heart still resides there!

And yes, the city needs to be levelled, whole blocks of it demolished.

If they want the City to succeed and develop they need to bring in youth,

young working families and better quality homes that will make a bold

statement about prosperity. Create a new identity for the City.

Why does it have to be new investors to change the face of Waterford?

'a bold statement about prosperity' hmmm, now thats an odd statement! why must this be so?

TheQuietFella · 31-03-2017 1:03pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

'a bold statement about prosperity' hmmm, now thats an odd statement! why must this be so?

Christ '78 we've lived under austerity long enough! I've been through three recessions. Is it an Irish thing where we enjoy the sufferance, the pity and the misery?
We'll write more f**king laments about this era! Paint a new picture!

€300M Investment into Waterford City

Comments