This interesting post from Ixelles made me realise that we don't really have a dedicated thread to discus the motives of the good people at New Beginnings/New Beggings. So what is their game exactly? How do they expect to benefit from their campaign?

We can broadly identify two types of motive: selfless motives, and selfish motives.

1. Selfless motives: they are running their campaign for some ideological, social or religious reason. The first seems unlikely. The second is possible, and the third only occurred to me when I heard Laura White give the big man so much credit (no pun etc.) for her debt relief - does anyone know if the people involved are particularly Christian or something?

2. Selfish motives: Ixelles suggests that perhaps they see an opportunity for a lot of work in the coming years -

This sounds plausible. Another motive I'd like to throw into the pot is that - if I'm not mistaken - legal types cannot practice if they are bankrupted, so if you are in the legal business and you have borrowed heavily for property investments you are at risk of losing not only all of your assets but your job too. And I can't help thinking that there are plenty in the legal profession who did just that. So convincing the public (and more importantly, the government) that debt forgiveness/sharing is the 'only game in town', they can handily sidestep losing their careers and possibly hold onto some assets too. Note that they need not be doing this on their own account - I'm sure they could be acting on behalf of legal colleagues. If I were behind this, I certainly wouldn't risk discrediting the campaign by being exposed as a massive debtor myself.

http://ie.linkedin.com/pub/david-hall/12/129/426

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/bre ... ing54.html



Ok so HSE contractor. And made 7 million turnover with 10 employees!
I assume they must sub-contract themselves?

From Linkedin:


Make a Wish Foundation? An idealist?

This dude has some extremely interesting directorships that don't show up on his linkedin or in the Irish Times puff piece

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/wee ... 05434.html

The Golden Horseshoe Limited
Fitzwilliam Card Club Limited
Fitzwilliam Casino Limited
New Beginning Concepts Limited
Gandon Hall Management Company Limited

Him and wife took out 269k in directors remuneration in year to June 2010 and 437k in previous year from Life line Ambulance Service Limited.
Interesting Note 18 to accounts Related Party Transactions
"Premises owned by the managing director/shareholder were used by the company. The related rent charged was €122,625, previous year €110,857"

Lost money in year to 30 June 2010, but had about a million in shareholders funds. No accounts filed yet for 30 June 2011, but they're not really late. I wonder how the UK acquisition went?

Between the emoluments and the rent he was certainly drawing a lot of money from the business. I wonder what he invested it in?

Edit
Business and Finance June 2006
http://www.businessandfinance.ie/index. ... 402&a=1603



He puts it up to McDowell!!!!!

So, to sum up, former? advocate for Casino industry. Current advocate for debt write-offs.

Sweet stuff BiffBang.

When I read that first I thought no way is anyone that arrogant and flicked off to vision net to check Mr Hall. And yes that man is the house winner. I usta woulda banged my head agin the keyboard but you know, greedy dudes like this are part of the ride.

Here are the accs (the casino in Fitzwilliam seems to be in the first co)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92030234/Gold ... mited-2010

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92030248/Life ... ances-2010

Put up the Annual Return B1 while you're at it. Is he a shareholder of the Casino or just a director?

That'd be in the accounts

I'm being picky now but...he misspells 'Beaumont' on his LinkedIn profile. Twice.
As noted by others above, the chunk of his career which he omits is far more telling than what he includes.

The legal profession were handling property transactions during the boom. They saw the money that was being made and wanted a piece of the action. The sinking BTL brigade is rife with them. Hence the sudden "social interest" in debt forgiveness.

Those charities he is involved with are a very particular sort of charity that would allign with his directorship of a casino.

I'm glad someone started this thread, I've been wondering about them as well. They are getting a free ride in the press but I am deeply suspicious of them. What possible motivation could they have as top rate taxpayers for forcing more losses on to the state owned banks? Why give up their time freely to help this particular section of society?


I noticed that Ross Maguire was for a time the counsel for the guy in Monaghan who borrowed €32 million to build a shopping centre in Castleblaney as his first foray into the property market. Mr McConnon decided it was the bank's fault for valuing the site too high and loaning him the money, and doesn't want to pay him back.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0217/mcconnon-business.html


Although when McConnon went totally loopy and sought court orders against all and sundry, including one for the Garda to investigate the bank's modus operandi he had to apply for legal aid.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/1123/1224307999030.html

Vincent P. Martin, a barrister and former Green Party Councillor, also seems to be heavily involved.

Debt forgiveness will happen one way or another simply because the old adage of blood from a stone will apply in many cases. Are new beginings suggesting you should be allowed keep your assets or are they saying if you do default that you shouldnt be made bankrupt etc. i.e. they accept you lose the asset but you shouldnt be pursued for 12 years for the shortfall? Gut feeling would be that this is a group of concerned proffessionals who met on the SCD dinner party circuit and realised they are all fcuked and needed to do something about it i.e. change the rules via a lobby group. I cant see any ideological basis for their stance.

By the way there is another motivation that is less nefarious and deliberate. It's the 'where's my NAMA' motivation. It's the idea that the people who bought in the boom were risk takers and that they are somehow the entrepreneurial types we need to protect and reward. I can imagine a mindset of people who think that all mortgages should be retrospectively converted to non-recourse and the plucky investor from the bubble era be allowed to move on unencumbered. It's the ideological argument I suppose

In terms of how thy might benefit, I suppose pro bono work is expected to generate paid work? Getting the market moving again will generate more work for them?

Originally it was "How dare the bank presume to discuss our credit card spending or whether we should be paying private school fees ahead of mortgages". The aim was clearly blanket forgiveness with no surrender of assets. The latest position is encouraging people to hand back the keys and force the bank to the table so they seem to have lowered their sights somewhat.