Great & good aka High Profile Persons (HPP) debtor review


Don’t be confused. Communist murdering fuckers is my personal synonym for sinn fein. Bastards.


He who laughs last laughs loudest.
He who laughs most is usually off his head on crack.


Did they kill Communists? I don’t think they did.

Here’s a picture of the President of Sinn Fein (the man with the beard) with a famous Communist.

No sign of any animosity there.

Here’s your man trying to catch a goose.


Yes & No. As you rightly pointed out the same person now owns siteserv as was found to have dodgedly won the ESAT licence (allegedly). That’s accepted.

However, what has the terms & conditions of his loans from Anglo in 2013 (balances, repayment terms, legal advice, negotiation details etc) got to do with (i) a Tribunal investigating events from the turn of the century, and (ii) his purchase of siteserv (which was part funded with AIB debt if what I read is right)?

From what I understand, RTE have tried to tart up their Siteserv program some juicy gossip i.e. insider, confidential & privileged info on DOB’s banking relationship with Anglo. Under no circumstances can private banking information be released to the public. You hear the hysteria from the usual Bank bashers when someone receives a statement for their neighbors (or vice versa).

The fact that this is even a discussion shows how ridiculous Ireland has gotten. The levels of common place begrudgery & noseyness are through the roof.

I know Tom Lyons was tweeting bits from the courts - this is tabloid, lowest denominator journalism. Have a look at the responses from his “followers” - almost all the meaningful court information was redacted yet his “followers” believe this to be proof of wrong doing (what exact wrong doing they don’t seem to be able to put their finger on). I would hazard a guess that less than 50% of those watching this on their twitter feeds a clue what the details of the case involved.

Again, your post includes “raises questions” as a reason to pry into a private individuals banking relationships. This is in line with the “peculiar concerns” posted by Daniel Plainview earlier in the thread.

These are cop outs. What specific questions? Or is this the old bar stool commentary - “I’m too lazy to think about it, but the mob is baying for blood & I don’t like the rich ba*t**d so I’ll side with the conspiracy theorists”.

Personally, having only a cursory interest in this I would have 1 question:

  1. Why did Anglo sell it at such a low multiple? in the region of 3.0x to 4.0x EBITDA

This is a question for Anglo - not for O’Brien and his 2013 Anglo loans.

If you, along with the RightToEverything mob, want to question the Irish Water contract, then that is a question for those that awarded the contract. Which also has nothing to do with O’Briens’ 2013 Anglo loans.


Thanks for your response Andy which is thoughtful and considerate in my opinion.

I’ve got very much concerns however that there is going to be redaction aspects relating to the hearing.

I’ll be interested to see what exactly gets redacted and what does not. For now I’ll let it be.


The day will come when a franker exchange of views will be possible.


Let me repeat myself:

I made this statement on a standalone basis with no reference to Mr OBriens previous (alleged) behaviour. I don’t think it is relevant.

This decision needs to be challenged.


Right and likewise when you receive large public tender contracts (even small contracts to be honest). The country has a history of corruption between HPPs and agencies of the state. The suspicion is that there is still a level of back-slapping that goes on. This is not begrudgery, I mean, who could begrude someone becoming a billionaire on the back of a government contract?


But shouldn’t they have phrased this differently - that statement by his own lawyers sounds very damaging and in it’s vagueness allows for all sorts of worst case scenarios to form in the mind of the suspicious.


Depends on the reporting of the context of what was being expressed.

Would be entirely reasonable to be concerned about the ability of anyone to go to any third party to do a transaction when the threat of publication of private business would make the party concerned about dealing with such an individual. No DOB fan but believe that RTE are wrong and the way that this particular article was composed as potentially defamatory.


I already posted this in the Newspapers threard but it’s worth posting here too. Broadsheet has gone rogue and published statements made by Catherine Murphy in the Dail today in spite of legal threats from DOB. … rest-rate/


This is some country…a TD talks in the Dail and it cant be reported. pulled their story from earlier, rte, IT, Indo all dancing around it. Everyone on alluding to some of the figures in question, but none can say it outright.

And all because a Maltese citizen has an army of legal heads ready to go to war in Ireland. Fook him


Jesus wept, a TD talks in the dail? Really? How about a TD abuses Dail Privilege to exposure confidential private information about a private citizen? Nah, you don’t like the guy involved so its fair game to trample on his rights.

Dail Privilege is a joke nowadays. Between Alan Shatter, McDonald and now we add Catherine Murphy to the list. is a fair reflection of the highbrow nature of irish political & economic discussion. A support group for trolls, conspiracy theorists, the never-do-wells with chips on their shoulders and party activists. Shame, as 4 years ago it was a decent website.


Away with ya

A private citizen of Malta, who appears to have gotten an almighty sweet rate on his loans from a State bank and you don’t think that’s newsworthy…your some cowboy!

Good job you weren’t around when O’Malley named Cahill in the Dail all those years ago. You’d have had a fit. Or do you just come out to bat for the Tax Dodger


It’s on

I remember at the time he was under a fair bit of pressure because, when you look at his entire corporate body, he’s massively leveraged.


I find that part hilarious. She’d be up in arms if some of the INBS mortgages transferred to IBRC were charged 7.5%. I’d love to know where she got that figure from and I’d love to know if the 1% she cites is margin or all-in.

So your moral compass tells you that because loads of other politicians abused dail privilege previously its grand? Regardless, your reference is probably a little before my time. :laughing:


So if it’s all-in then you accept there’s an issue?
Or will you try to wriggle out then too?

And you think that his term extension and rate review not going to credit committee (on a c. €500mln facility) is not suspicious and worthy of political investigation, considering the bank was a state asset (liability) at that time?


I thought there was absolute privilege when reporting on Dail proceedings?


What have I tried to wriggle out of? Please answer this.

if it’s all-in then it was badly priced.
Re loan committee - Mike Ansley has subsequently implied that all transactions did go to loan committee - suitably worded as he’S precluded from discussing individual borrowers. Who do you believe?

Again, Similar to the sale of siteserv, a breach of practice, if material, is for ibrc to answer, not the borrower. Murphy rejects the idea she is electioneering, yet why has she brought the specific borrowers name into the public domain? Why not “Borrower A”?

I still fail to see where the 7% comes from. If the loan expired it would’ve incurred interest as was plus the default rate - most likely 2.5% (Default rate that is).


Newstalk is gas this morning. Being listening to the B’fast show and can hear no mention of any of this hoo-haa.
And to think of the fine journalists that are Chris and Ivan (in fairness, he calls himself an entertainer)!!! They should stick to the Ploughing Championship or getting frantic about their support for the Yes campaign in the Marriage referendum.

He who pays the piper