suggests that developers will be able to live the high life thanks to NAMA.supporting lavish lifestyles
suggests that developers will be able to live the high life thanks to NAMA.supporting lavish lifestyles
suggests that developers will be able to live the high life thanks to NAMA.
suggests that developers will be able to live the high life thanks to NAMA.
Hi,
can anyone shed any light on the question I asked on this?
i.e. this is hypothetical I know... but..
Say someone in the top 10 has been defaulting on bank payments but at same time had been putting other assets/money aside.
Can we (i.e. Nama I guess) go after any assets/money that have been passed by that person to their relatives in the form of houses in their relatives names, pensions etc?
Incorrect. Any quotes in it from a NAMA spokesperson does not mention lavish. Answering no to a question from a reporter such as "Will this not mean the developer will have a lavish lifestyle thanks to NAMA" does not mean they quoted the word lavish, the reporter did. Lavish lifestyle is purely for sensationalism.Er, try quoting the entire sentence:
"BAILED-OUT developers are set to receive salaries and expenses from NAMA, it has emerged, but the toxic bank last night insisted it would not be supporting lavish lifestyles. "
So, the paper is saying that developers will receive salaries and expenses. The bank denies these will be "lavish". That does not mean the paper was saying they were "lavish".
Incorrect. Any quotes in it from a NAMA spokesperson does not mention lavish. Answering no to a question from a reporter such as "Will this not mean the developer will have a lavish lifestyle thanks to NAMA" does not mean they quoted the word lavish, the reporter did. Lavish lifestyle is purely for sensationalism.
You started it ....You're indulging in semantics. The core issue is that NAMA are paying developers a salary/living expenses.
Your original statement was"BAILED-OUT developers are set to receive salaries and expenses from NAMA, it has emerged, but the toxic bank last night insisted it would not be supporting lavish lifestyles."
Which is the bit that is "sensational", exactly?
I'm not sure how NAMA can claim not to be supporting lavish lifestyles. Even developers who are currently in severe financial trouble seem to have no problem jetting to Marrakesh.
The core issue is that NAMA are paying developers a salary/living expenses.
No, the core issue with Nama is that it exists in the first place
But, if these loans were still with the banks, the banks would not be paying for the project management.