# Monica Leech, George Mordaunt etc on Prime Time Tuesday 12 March



## Bronte

Brendan Burgess said:


> I haven't heard of Monica Leech's group.
> 
> But I completely disagree with you on FLAC.


 

Monica Leech was on a very interesting current affairs programme with Pat Kenny (it had a segment about Irish later). I've no idea what Ms. Leech is about but it seemed like nonsense to me. 

But there was one exceedingly interesting man in the audience. He was what I call a realist. He had come to an arrangement with his own bank, a very tough deal, I could feel the pain of it (but I'm emotive) and he was a good person I thought too in that he was helping many others to deal with banks. He seemed to know his stuff. A lot of people like David Hall, Maguire, Leech seem to be on a band wagon, but it's rhetoric I think, and they keep going on about debt forgiveness for all without saying that we tax payers are going to pay for it. 

This audience member is at the coal face and to his credit he did not complain, just simply told the reality of dealing with cold bankers. His own arrangement is completely confidential, he had to sign a non-disclosure document (I presume the one that SF have been hopping up and down about). From him I've learnt that every penny of what you take in and go out will be scrutinised and they will dictate what you can and cannot purchase (he mentioned as an example Sky). That is the reality of dealing with banks and Ms. Nally Lennon had better take note (more anon).

This man would be very interesting to talk to. Pity he's not on AAM. 

As you've said FLAC are a responsible and respectable organisation. And people in debt need people on their side. It's a pity that they are not in the media more often but maybe they are too busy dealing with reality instead of becoming media prima donnas.


----------



## Delboy

Bronte/Brendan

Monica Leech featured on last Monday's Prime Time mortgage debate. She has set up yet another group to help mortgage holders in trouble or who don't fancy negative equity...it's called the Phoenix foundation.

Some of her highlights on the night:
- pleaded for a Niall Mellon philanthropist type to emerge in Ireland and bail people out at home, rather than abroad!!!
- insisted on calling repossessions 'evictions' and played the history card as to why the should be called evictions  

The audience member at the 'coal face' as you called it Bronte, who described his situation is George Mordaunt. His big play was on losing Sky Tv!!! but as I understand it he still has kept the family business and did'nt lose his home....perhaps someone on here who is closer to him in Tipp can fill in some details on how his lifestyle has being affected?
I'm not going to hold much sympathy for him just yet...he lived it up in the boom times and seems to have got out the other side of the crash fairly well intact, unless someone can tell me otherwise

Also, check out Geoff Scargill on that Prime Time debate. He's been writing a few letters to the Irish Times lately pleading for sympathy for people in mortgage trouble and in support of children attending private schools.....turns out he has 5 btl's all on interest only and now wants a deal before they come off that, as it's in the banks and the country's interests!!!! Sure did'nt he create jobs during the boom by becoming a landlord! No mention of wanting to give up any of the btl's either


----------



## Luternau

I find the above post to be a little bit tight to the bone.

I seen the programme and heard George say that he was coming to the end of discussions with a bank (AIB?). He said it was not a fun experience. He said they looked for lots of details and could check to see a sky connection had not been reconnected. It was not his main gripe!

If the bank are prepared to do a deal, it has to be in their best interest to do so-repossessing properties may leave them worse off. We don't know. So having Delboy or anyother person comment on how he may have lived it up in the boom is unfair. Not all borrowers whether owner occupier or BTL/commercial investor lived it up - the mistake they made was perhaps not living it up instead of borrowing. Bear in mind, BTL were recommended to many for pension planning etc.

What can we as a society gain from trying to veto who gets a deal or the terms of that deal?

I can't recall the other guys input, but if his kids are going to private schools, the banks are unlikely to allow that to continue as part of any deal. But maybe, if a deal can be struck, him keeping the properties is also better for the bank. I also see no reason why a bank should not have to share some of the downside with a borrower, whether Owner occupier or BTL (they had a large role in events that caused all this).

What's the alternative for them? Reposeessions, no income from the asset? Followed possibly by a bankruptcy where they get less? Again, that's a matter for the parties. There were posts about Ms Lennon personal circumstances deleted before so let's not have this with these two individuals.

For the sake of clarity/balance here, I believe Ms Lennon is not currently a candidate for a deal because she is not behaving responsibly, if what she outlines tallies with her actions.


----------



## Delboy

Luternau

I never mentioned George as having BTL's....but seeing as you did, here's some further info for you which to me indicates a certain lifestyle....and 1 which I personally now resent having to bail out

http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/eating-humble-pie-174203.html
Mordaunt bought 11 houses, a retail shop unit, a crèche, a barber shop, a boutique for his wife, and a share in property consortiums in Germany and Washington. He also built a palatial new home, acquired a further two franchises, and opened four new motor dealerships with a 50-strong team of management and staff. As Mordaunt’s business profile grew, so too did his ego — “I believed I was a captain of industry” — and he began dabbling in shares like AIB and Anglo Irish Banks. 

“At one stage we were taking a family holiday to Spain and before the flight I bought AIB shares and instructed my broker to sell them if they reached a certain price. By the time I landed in Spain I was €10,000 better off.” 

Mordaunt freely admits that he lost the run of himself during the good times. Only the best fixtures and fittings were good enough for his showrooms, his staff was equipped with sports cars, and he himself drove only top of the range luxury models. His sales crew were whisked off to international conferences, and customers were wooed with helicopter rides.


----------



## Luternau

Delboy I don't think any of the above is my or anyone elses business. That a newspaper see it fit to share is a sad reflection on the voyeur culture that has resulted from the mess that is our banks.

If he had the money or had access to it, to do what you say, so be it. Making money or throwing it about or away is not new, unusual or illegal in capitalism. 

I felt his contribution on TV should be seen as a wake up call to those that think banks will forgive and forget-he said the opposite. He said it was painful! Ms Lennon could do well to listen to him.


----------



## STEINER

Has anyone read Mr Mordaunt's book?


----------



## Delboy

Luternau said:


> Delboy I don't think any of the above is my or anyone elses business. That a newspaper see it fit to share is a sad reflection on the voyeur culture that has resulted from the mess that is our banks.
> 
> If he had the money or had access to it, to do what you say, so be it. Making money or throwing it about or away is not new, unusual or illegal in capitalism.
> 
> I felt his contribution on TV should be seen as a wake up call to those that think banks will forgive and forget-he said the opposite. He said it was painful! Ms Lennon could do well to listen to him.



My understanding is that the Examiner got the facts from George's own book where he admitted to the lifestyle he had. Perhaps someone who has read the book can confirm this for me?
So there is no 'to do what I say' in my posts above...this is an article in a reputable national broadsheet paper. You may choose to not want to believe it, but the facts are there in black and white and I have not embellished them in any way.  

And of course it's all now our business....this man is seeking a debt deal that the taxpayers of this country are going to have to pay for. I am a taxpayer.

And you mention Capitalism....do you believe there's no downside to the system?


----------



## Luternau

Delboy said:


> My understanding is that the Examiner got the facts from George's own book where he admitted to the lifestyle he had. Perhaps someone who has read the book can confirm this for me?
> So there is no 'to do what I say' in my posts above...this is an article in a reputable national broadsheet paper. You may choose to not want to believe it, but the facts are there in black and white and I have not embellished them in any way.
> 
> And of course it's all now our business....this man is seeking a debt deal that the taxpayers of this country are going to have to pay for. I am a taxpayer.
> 
> And you mention Capitalism....do you believe there's no downside to the system?




Of course I am aware there is a possible downside to capitalism, which are generally losses or inability to pay back loans. Everybody makes mistakes and everybody needs to be helped get up off the floor. Other countries do this-is this another thing that works perfectly well elsewhere but does not work here?  Perhaps you think he should be flogged in public for his failure? That would be pay back for living it up? Yep-public floggings and humiliation of failed borrowers would certainly deter future recklessness. Problem solved! 

As a tax payer I have no right to be a person of interest in every action or decision that goes on in bailed out banks. Nor have you. Banks could not function with that level of scrutiny.

We have no right to be judge and jury as to what our taxes are spent on either.  We all have to hope that they are spent in the best interest of all concerned! If that does not happen there are PAC to investigate this.

I fail to grasp what it is about this man that irks you so much! He does not deserve to have you second guess his actions when he had money or indeed what his circumstances are now. Unless he owes you money, his life and finances are not your concern.


----------



## Delboy

Luternau said:


> Of course I am aware there is a possible downside to capitalism, which are generally losses or inability to pay back loans. Perhaps you think he should be flogged in public for his failure?
> 
> As a tax payer I have no right to be a person of interest in every action:decision that goes on in bailed out banks. Nor have you.
> 
> We have no right to be judge and jury as to what our taxes are spent on either.  We all have to hope that they are spent in the best interest of all concerned! If that does not happen there are PAC to investigate this.
> 
> I fail to grasp what it is about this one man irks you so much! He does not deserve to have you second guess his actions when he had money or indeed what his circumstances are now. Unless he owes you money, his life and finances are not your concern.



I have no real interest in this person at all and he has come across my radar a few times over the past 2 years...but he puts himself in the media in front of everyone, he writes a book outlining his story, he sets up a group to 'advise' people on mortgage debt.
So he's out there in the public. It's you who seems intent on defending him no matter what detail is provided on here or in the public domain. But thats your right.

I find your arguments a bit emotive and nonsensical to be honest. I'm 2nd guessing nothing....I base my point of view on facts while you seem to be going on generalities about everyone doing their own thing and worrying about no one else, etc.

Never the twain shall meet so I'll leave it there on this one with you


----------



## Luternau

Tha's fine Delboy. I was not going to add anymore.

Up to last week, I had never heard of this guy. Not being emotive- I am just tired of the pettiness about debts that seems to be so prevalent now. Debts have to be forgiven if we are to move on as a society/economy. In the process, some people who dont deserve forgiveness will get it, but that's life.


----------



## Dermot

Quote from Luternau. "In the process, some people who dont deserve forgiveness will get it, but that's life."

That is one of my concerns and I would love to see a provision inserted in the insolvency legislation to revisit the original write down where it is subsequently found that people who have availed of write downs "magically" have recovered in subsequent years. There should be specific and significant penalties inserted in this legislation where it is found that there was not full disclosure at the outset.


----------



## Luternau

As far as I can recall there is a provision for the banks to apply for extension on period of PIA or Bankrupcy etc if the means of those improves dramatically or they have hidden money/assets. 
Added: Private deals with banks are not subject to the new insolvency schemes.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

The bankruptcy period of 3 years can be extended, to 8 I  think, if the bankrupt was found to have not disclosed assets. 

If a bankrupt's earnings improve during bankruptcy, the bankruptcy period is not changed, but the Trustee (?) can apply for a bankruptcy payment order which could commit the bankrupt to make payments to his creditors for a further 5 years. 

But just to be clear, none of the people mentioned in this thread have been declared bankrupt.


----------



## Luternau

Yes, the new regime does not apply to the likes of those named here ad they have done or hoping to do deals with the bank. Such deals do not mean they are insolvent or bankrupt.


----------



## Dermot

My post was in relation to people who got write offs and "magically" reinvented themselves. Everyone has a fair idea of what I am talking about.
BTW is it going to be the case that where some one avails of a write off legitimately and their circumstances improve like employment situation, promotion, partner starts work, etc etc, that there is no comeback for the financial institution.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

George Mordaunt and I appeared on _Saturday with Claire Byrne_ today. You can listen to the podcast here 

It begins at 5.20 
  
He said that people who had never missed a repayment on their home loan faced losing their homes.  I said that if people were making their repayments, they were not in arrears and not subject to the new Mortgage Arrears Plan. But apparently he was talking about people with large personal debts for buy to lets and businesses. I thought it perfectly reasonable that if they lived in trophy homes, they should lose them as part of the settlement. 

Because he was signing a non-disclosure agreement with his lender, he didn't want to talk about his own case.

He said that banks are insisting that people live in appropriate accommodation and said that they expected "a family of two adults and two(?) children to live in a  3 bed semi-d" . I was taken aback by this as I see nothing wrong with requiring people who are insolvent to live in a 3 bed semi-d. (Actually I see nothing wrong with solvent people living in 3 bed semi-ds)   I said that while I was happy enough to pay more taxes to pay for MIS or Rental Supplement for people living in modest houses,  I was not happy to be paying for his losses while he lived in a trophy home. He was furious, saying that he could not believe that I raised his personal circumstances on "national radio" and that he was not living in a trophy home. 

I then asked if he was living in a modest 3 bed semi-d but he would not discuss his own circumstances.  But he was happy enough to tell us that he was required to get rid of Sky Sports. 

I asked if he agreed that people in living in homes worth more than €500k should be required to sell them and he said that he did not agree.  People should not be required to take the posters off their childrens' walls and move them, apparently, irrespective of how much these borrowers have cost the taxpayer and irresespective of how much their homes are worth.


----------



## Dermot

Brendan, I have read your last post and for what it is worth the views you have expressed would totally coincide with my own views.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Dermot said:


> for what it is worth the views you have expressed would totally coincide with my own views.



The rest of the panel today did not seem to think that people living in big homes should sell them, so I was beginning to wonder whether I was totally out of step.  

People seem to think in the abstract that bust developers should no longer live in their trophy homes, but they have difficulty saying it to someone's face like George Mordaunt who comes across as a plausible, nice guy who is being bullied by the banks. 

So actually, it is nice to hear that at least one other person agrees with me.  

Brendan


----------



## advice pls

Regular reader though I'm not a big poster and I agree fully. I'm keeping the roof of a three bed semi over my head and I do not wish to pay for the debts of those who owe without expecting them to experience some reasonable changes in lifestyle.


----------



## Joe_90

Listened to the programme.  

Have to agree with Brendan on all counts. Personally I think it's disingenuous of mr mordant to hide behind a confidentially agreement (although I understand the need for one).  He is there talking about all the people coming into him but can't tell us about his own situation.

While he may argue differently its the average borrower, taxpayer and citizen who will pay to cover the losses.

In a normal economy his losses would not bother me but as the margin on my loan, the 52% tax and cuts in public services is paying for his losses, I am interested.


----------



## Luternau

Mr Mordaunt is no different to any other person looking for a deal - they have to re-adjust their spending and lifestyle. That includes living in a normal house. I was obviously mistaken that that was the point he was making on Prime Time! Obvioulsy he also feels hard done by the support and forebearance of his bank through his difficult times. And there was me thinking you were grateful George!


----------



## losttheplot

Two adults and two children in a 3 bed semi D, I grew up in a 3 bed semi D, 2 adults and 3 children. Our neighbors had 6 children. Who does he thinks lives in 3 bed semi Ds.

We didn't have Sky sports either. Sounds a bit like the woman "cramped" in the 4 seasons with her 2 children, dogs and parrots.


----------



## RichInSpirit

I've heard George Mordaunt speaking before. He has lost properties and some of his previous businesses. 
He was also very depressed about things when the writing was on the wall. But he recovered himself and is fighting his own battles with the banks. 
He could take the easy insolvency route but he is continuing to try and run a business and live his life. 
I know people who have lost their family homes and property in previous bad times and it leaves a permanent scar on their lives.


----------



## RichInSpirit

RichInSpirit said:


> .
> I know people who have lost their family homes and property in previous bad times and it leaves a permanent scar on their lives.



I also know people who fought tooth and nail against repossessions sheriffs etc. and held onto their property.


----------



## reddanmm

Hi Brendan i heard you on the radio on Saturday and i nearly fell off the chair when George mourdant said his piece about 4 people expected to live in a semi d with only 3 bedrooms .
I was cringing for him when you challenged him about his trophy house, he did not expect that line of questioning . I was disappointed with the panel though as i felt he was not challenged on the issue. So well done for bringing up the issue


----------



## Brendan Burgess

reddanmm said:


> Hi Brendan i heard you on the radio on Saturday and i nearly fell off the chair when George mourdant said his piece about 4 people expected to live in a semi d with only 3 bedrooms .



Thanks red

I had planned to say that people should be required to sell their trophy homes and move into a 3 bed semi-d , so it was astonishing when he dismissed the idea before I had even proposed it. In fact, I had wondered if I had misheard him. 

On The Late Debate Caroline Lenny Nally refused to pay interest-only on her mortgage as it would make her a "glorified renter". 

I think we have become so used to hear about the banks' supposedly unreasonable behaviour that people are indignant when the banks are perfectly reasonable such as asking a family of 4 to move into a three bed semi-d. 

Brendan


----------



## Redhouse

George mordaunt is very selective with his disclosure. If you check his public twitter account you will find that AIB obviously sanctioned a trip to Old Trafford so not only are the posters still on the wall ~ they are probably autographed! Well done Brendan for exposing this hypocrisy.


----------



## Bronte

I listened to the podcast. 

I completely get why he would not talk about his own personal circumstances as he is in confidential negotiations with is bank so that is fair enough.

Here is a man who had a lot of different business', created employment etc. He admits he made mistakes and he is now paying for those mistakes. And probably quite severely. If they are telling him he can and cannot have sky you can be sure they have told him if he can shop in Dunnes or Aldi and what car he can have etc. Presumable he is working his way though his debts. That may involve the bank agreeing to some write offs etc. If he is able to get back on his feet and continue in business and continue employment that is a good thing surely. 

I imagine the home was a deal breaker for him. (I have my own theory on that - marriage over if home lost). But he probably said to the bank, I'll do my best to repay but you've got to let me stay in the family home. And why not. If the bank are ok with it we should be too. We have got to incentivise people to get back on track. 

I also admire him for helping others. And he was unable to tell us fully (due to time constraints) and it would have been interesting but he is dealing with other businessmen in their tough negotiations with banks. Either we say it's good to negotiate and get back something for the banks/taxpayers or we watch as ever more entreprenurs head ot the UK with a zero result for us all. And the badly needed skills of these businesspeople will be lost. I did not hear the man complain about his own situation, he didn't ask for debt write down for all as some others are constantly doing. And if I understand him correctly the people dealing with the banks are in extemely stressful situations. Sometimes suicidal. And we don't want any more of those either.

The only people I've seen stay in large homes are the wonderful developers who have gone UK bankrupt and miraculously transferred assets into wives names etc and who seemingly can continue the same lifestyle as previously. I'm going to reserve my ire for those and the won't pays.


----------



## demoivre

Bronte said:


> Monica Leech was on a very interesting current affairs programme with Pat Kenny (it had a segment about Irish later). I've no idea what Ms. Leech is about but it seemed like nonsense to me.
> 
> But there was one exceedingly interesting man in the audience. He was what I call a realist. He had come to an arrangement with his own bank, a very tough deal, I could feel the pain of it (but I'm emotive) and he was a good person I thought too in that he was helping many others to deal with banks. He seemed to know his stuff. A lot of people like David Hall, Maguire, Leech seem to be on a band wagon, but it's rhetoric I think, and they keep going on about debt forgiveness for all without saying that we tax payers are going to pay for it.
> 
> This audience member is at the coal face and to his credit he did not complain, just simply told the reality of dealing with cold bankers. His own arrangement is completely confidential, he had to sign a non-disclosure document (I presume the one that SF have been hopping up and down about). From him I've learnt that every penny of what you take in and go out will be scrutinised and they will dictate what you can and cannot purchase (he mentioned as an example Sky). *That is the reality of dealing with banks **.*



If you're clueless.


----------



## Delboy

Monica is starting to steal a bit of the available airtime from David Hall et al. She was on George Hook this evening debating against Moore McDowell today's story in the Indo about people getting mortgage deals having to lose the 2nd car, stop private schools etc.
When it was put to her that if you were to get a a deal, that you then should'nt be spending on items like that, she said people shouldn't be judged on how they spend their money....people had various reasons for sending kids to private schools and so be it. That should have nothing to do with the terms of a deal.


----------



## Bronte

Bronte said:


> As you've said FLAC are a responsible and respectable organisation. And people in debt need people on their side. It's a pity that they are not in the media more often but maybe they are too busy dealing with reality instead of becoming media prima donnas.


 

I take back my comments on FLAC. After hearing Noleen Blackwell on Pat Kenny yesterday, another pointless body of no real help to people in debt and haven't a clue.  What hope is there for people with that and the likes of Monica Leech and her theory that a philantropist like those in Haiti (I think it's Haiti) is needed to sort out debt problems for people.


----------



## WaterWater

Bronte said:


> Here is a man who had a lot of different business', created employment etc. He admits he made mistakes and he is now paying for those mistakes. And probably quite severely. If they are telling him he can and cannot have sky you can be sure they have told him if he can shop in Dunnes or Aldi and what car he can have etc. Presumable he is working his way though his debts. That may involve the bank agreeing to some write offs etc. If he is able to get back on his feet and continue in business and continue employment that is a good thing surely.
> 
> I imagine the home was a deal breaker for him. (I have my own theory on that - marriage over if home lost). But he probably said to the bank, I'll do my best to repay but you've got to let me stay in the family home. And why not. If the bank are ok with it we should be too. We have got to incentivise people to get back on track.


 
Were we listening to the same show? There are a huge amount of assumptions made by you here.


----------



## Bronte

WaterWater said:


> Were we listening to the same show? There are a huge amount of assumptions made by you here.


 
My brain is obviously wired differently because you're at least the third person that's hinted I'm getting it wrong on this guy.  Even Burgess tackled him.  What am I missing.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Bronte said:


> Here is a man who had a lot of different business', created employment etc. He admits he made mistakes and he is now paying for those mistakes. And probably quite severely. If they are telling him he can and cannot have sky you can be sure they have told him if he can shop in Dunnes or Aldi and what car he can have etc. Presumable he is working his way though his debts. That may involve the bank agreeing to some write offs etc. If he is able to get back on his feet and continue in business and continue employment that is a good thing surely.
> 
> .



Hi Bronte

My view is very clear. Even if someone has made mistakes, maybe even if they have been reckless, if they engage in good faith with the bank, they deserve a fresh start.  That goes for the big property developers as well, by the way.

 I might even live with them retaining their trophy home which is why I  kicked off a discussion "Is there a case for an insolvent person staying in the family trophy home?"

My problem with George is that he still has the big house but talks on Prime Time about the terrible pain he has gone through including getting rid of Sky. Something just does not add up here.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Good to know that George is Back in the Driving Seat



> George has just launched his second book, 'Back in the Driving Seat',  a sequel to the much acclaimed Shepherd’s Pie, which received  international media attention for its excruciating honesty on how  recession devastated his business and personal life and his first steps  to recovery. 'Back in the Driving Seat' is a natural follow on, written  in response to the phenomenal reaction that George received from other  business people who were privately suffering, people who were inspired  by his story and were seeking help and advice on how they too could be  an active participant in their own recovery, a mantra that George lives  by.


----------



## Delboy

you can't keep a good 'entrepreneur' down!


----------



## Brendan Burgess

George was on Today with Pat Kenny on Monday  
It's 16 minutes long 

The following are extracts - not a complete transcript. 

3.20 Pat: You say that it's only a matter of time before someone takes a case against a bank for the suicide of a loved one.
George: I have come through a debt resolution process 

5.07  George:   Youve got bankruptcy. Youv'e got  personal insolvency. There is a third choice - one to one resolution.  Back in the Driving Seat is about evoking your own Chapter 11.  Don't go bankrupty. Don't go personal insolvency. Evoke your own Chapter 11. 
In Americal it's one year. In Ireland , because of Begrudgery it's 3 years for bankruptcy, or it would be 6 years in my case, because it would be a PIA.
Pat: So have you avoided that? 
George: Yes I have.

6.33  Pat: There is a code of conduct which was issued by  the Central Bank in 2009 very interesting
George: and revised in 2011.
People in SMEs are entitled to a whole load of rights. For example, you can decide how many times a month a bank can contact you
You can sit with your bank official and you can determine quite a lot with that official     as long as you are open and transparent and they must reciprocate that.
A lot of people who are struggling who are under pressure with banks, not having researched the code who don't understand that they can protect themselves and that they   don't know that they can control the situation

Pat: So what other protections  besides 
George: The bank can't touch you until you are in arrears over 90 days. You are not officially in arrears until 90 days.  And once you make a formal commitment to make any element of a payment and you can justify       it's back to the Chapter 11 issue
Pat: if you can justify that it's sustainable
George - absolutely and they have got to give you the time and the space to process that. 

Pat : So why are SMEs using this

George:  Because people haven't educated themselves. The press haven't picked up on it the way that they should

The question you must ask yourself as a business man or even as a homeowner is "What is it you are prepared to do in order to survive?"
e ?
So I evoked my decision to invoke my Chapter 11

Pat: So talk to me about your ethical dilemma. Where ethically have you strayed where you would not have strayed before?
(9 minutes) George: Park one company on a Friday evening and open a new one on a Monday morning
Pat: Which you would not have done before

George: I needed to improve the quality of my life
I had to force the issue with the bank through bankruptcy, through foreclosure or through an agreed process 

If I had a debt laden company, which I did, that had to be dumped
Pat: But you had the protection of limited liability?
George: Yes I did 
Pat: What do you say to people who would say : Look you have written off your debt, so you have managed to escape your debt. in the case of a limited company by limited liability   and by a personal resolution process, you have managed to write off some debt.
But the state owned banks - that is the taxpayer paying for your debt.
11.00 George:  I will continue to pay for my debts for many many years, and so be it, that's the way it should be
If we do not evoke a Ch 11 type process 

Pat: you had this company which you decided to shut down. It owed the Revenue a lot of money. It owed creditors a lot of money . You start a new company doing exactly what the old company did.  

George:  I should say that the secured creditors were the only people who were affected. That is very important.  Because there were suppliers of mine that were families and they  had to be looked after. 

It was't the same as the old compay. We have reinvented the wheel. 

Pat: so you have a new business plan... Some of the checklist: Decide which staff you want to rehire. Decide what salaries you would like to pay them. Decide which clients you are keeping. Advise your landlord that you are terminating the lease. Tell your staff you can't pay redundancy - tell them how to claim their statutory. 
(At14.0) Call a Creditors Meeting for a Friday evening for somewhere which will take an effort to get to - That is dirty tricks. You have justified why you have done that, because it gets you back to work.

George: I must stress that for many years, a decade at the very minimum , I will continue to fund my mistakes from the past.


----------



## Delboy

he gets some airtime from rte

he has just 'completed a debt resolution programme' and 'the banks have shared the pain with him' so that could explain the old company closing and new one opening. But the old company has'nt being liquidated.
Didn't hear mention of downsizing from the big country house or driving an old and ordinary car.
As for moral hazard 'if we don't let the entrepreneurs flourish in this country....allowing people like me to get back to work and start employing people again' the country will never get going again.

Pat Kenny really pushing the 'debate' on debt, especially mortgage debt whenever he gets a chance


----------



## Brendan Burgess

That is an extraordinary interview from so many angles. 

*His advice seems contradictory and very poor 

*


> In America it's one year. In Ireland , because of Begrudgery it's 3  years for bankruptcy, or it would be 6 years in my case, because it  would be a PIA.
> Pat: So have you avoided that?
> George: Yes I have.
> 
> ...
> 11.00 George:  I will continue to pay for my debts for many many years, and so be it, that's the way it should be
> ...
> I must stress that for many years, a decade at the very minimum , I will continue to fund my mistakes from the past.


Would bankruptcy not be a much better option?  3 years versus at least 10 years. 

*What is the SME Code he is talking about? *


> 6.33  Pat: There is a code of conduct which was issued by  the Central Bank in 2009 very interesting
> George: and revised in 2011.
> People in SMEs are entitled to a whole load of rights. For example, you can decide how many times a month a bank can contact you
> 
> George:  Because people haven't educated themselves. The press haven't picked up on it the way that they should




*Is a company allowed pay some creditors but not others? *


> George:  I should say that the secured creditors were the only people  who were affected. That is very important.  Because there were suppliers  of mine that were families and they  had to be looked after.


Did he pay the woman who won compensation for unfair dismissal? 
Did he pay the Revenue? 

The company is still listed on the CRO website. There is no liquidator appointed.


----------



## Delboy

he's 'writing' his own laws!


----------



## Bronte

Delboy said:


> he's 'writing' his own laws!


  Well it must be working for him if he has managed to stay in the family home etc.  (I haven't listened to the podcast yet).


----------



## Delboy

Georgie getting plenty of publicity for his latest book

An article in today's SBP, but behind a paywall

Interview with Ryan Tubridy recently on his radio show
[broken link removed]
"I was'nt a flashy guy"....ehm, what about the helicopter rides, 5 star family holidays, 150k beamers offloaded after a year or 2 for a 1/5th of their value!
"I stood no chance buying shares" as after having listened to the Anglo tapes, he now knows the banks were stitching everyone up. Maybe a bit more time studying the share you were buying rather than rushing to buy 10k worth of shares on the airport tarmac whilst heading to the Sth of France.

Tubridy even played a montage of the Anglo phone calls with the Fugees music, with rte news announcements of cuts to health services and special needs assistants in schools...and Drumm and Bowe laughing in the background.
An unbelievable bit of public service broadcasting again there from rte

An article in the Journal.ie last month
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/george-mordaunt-back-in-the-driving-seat-894731-May2013/
"Don’t give in and don’t be swayed by slick marketing and advertising campaigns..."!!!!!!

Ya gotta love him


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Thanks Delboy

He hadn't a clue and he still hasn't a clue.  He comes across as a bit of a clown in the SBP article 



> Mordaunt will continue "servicing" part of the debt. He will pay  penalties on another part, and a third part will be written off. He  estimates that he will be repaying debt for the next 15 years.





> "It's great to do a speech and get €3,000. But I'm on the road 24-7.  Driving home at 12.30am, eating Kentucky Fried Chicken. You do the day  job, you do the speeches, you take the pay and hand it all over."



What is wrong with repaying debt for 15 years?  Many people have 30 year mortgages and repaying debt to acquire an asset is perfectly legitimate. 

It sounds to me though as if AIB has made an idiot out of him. He would have been much better going bankrupt in the UK and he would be debt-free now. He could keep the proceeds of the sales of his book and the €3,000 speakers fees instead of handing them over to AIB. I certainly would not recommend anyone to go to him for debt advice. 





> "When you go whitewater rafting in Canada . . . I don't know if you've read this? I've said it a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> "Anyway,  when you get into the dinghy, you put on the lifejacket and helmet. And  the last thing you hear the guy say before he pushes you off is that,  if you fall out, you've got to become an active participant in your own  rescue. Nobody's going to do it for you - you've got to fight."
> 
> 
> 
> What was whitewater rafting like?
> 
> 
> 
> "I've never done it, never did it," he replies, unruffled.


But he is still getting publicity 



> a documentary TV series featuring Mordaunt, Taking Care Of Business, will air on RTE One in the coming weeks.


His self-perception is accurate enought though



> "I see myself as a dumb-ass, dyslexic car salesman in Clonmel,"


----------



## Brendan Burgess

This article is referred to on [broken link removed] where one contributor says



> Full page puff piece on George Mordaunt in SBP today. Explains how he's re-invented himself.



I have to say that I agree with the other contributor who said



> I didn't see it as a puff piece at all. I thought the journalist  skewered him in quite a delightful and subtle way. I don't think he came  out of the piece that well really.



I suspect that Mordaunt was pleased with the piece himself, not appreciating the subtlety of it.


----------

