NAMA, Wallace & the Robinsons


I’ll bite.

In what way were Fine Gael acting against the interests of the Taxpayer…


Seriously? It was up to NAMA to secure the best return for the Irish taxpayers, yet here we have our Minister for Finance assuring the DUP that there would only be only one potential buyer? Why was this deal done with the DUP? Why was the Deputy First Minister not informed about these meetings? Why did Michael Noonan deliberately mislead the Dáil when directly asked questions about these meetings? It has subsequently been alleged that the leader of the DUP was set to benefit by millions of euros of kick backs and that the sales price received resulted in a massive loss to the taxpayer.

Was Fine Gael channeling taxpayers money to the DUP and why?


Where does it say he ensured there would only be one bidder?

Odd considering the potential bidder at the time was Pimco yet there were over 10 bidders in the process before the 3 final preferred bidders were chosen and then cerberus ended up winning it.

Edit; there’s enough to slate the govt over without having to make stuff up.



Who is making stuff up?! Can you apply another meaning to the phrase ‘only one potential buyer’? What was Michael Noonan up to?



You are making stuff up.

You stated

The article never states noonan gave any assurances. It states that Noonan said there was only 1 potential buyer, most likely because, at the time, Pimco was the only company that had expressed an interest in buying the portfolio. This meeting occurring before Nama’s sale process kicked off.

Article also stated Nonnan said nama would not put conditions on a sale (i.e. release PGs like the DUP wanted) as it would affect it’s return to the taxpayer.



What complete nonsense! It’s all there for everyone to see.

It was Michael Noonan’s duty to secure the best price for the taxpayers, not to stitch up a deal for the DUP. Why was it any concern of Michael Noonan about ‘social obligations’ towards anyone except the Irish taxpayers?



And was it sold to cerberus? A fund not exactly known for its social awareness.


Yes, but the DUP have no interest in ‘social obligations’. The same fixers were in place for both Pimco and Cerberus. The same deal was done regardless of who bought it and the taxpayer got stuffed regardless.

Michael Noonan has a lot of questions to answer. Why did he just deal with the DUP and not with both the First and Deputy First Minister as he should have? Why did he mislead the Dáil over and over again?

#109 … -1.2405514

well, this is awkward… eh, Mick, any chance you can pay us the money you borrowed?


On a more serious note, why was NAMA not trying to collect on the loan? Sounds like NAMA was being exceedingly nice to Mick, which pisses me off as a taxpayer.


didn’t he said he didn’t owe anything to Irish banks? 'cos they wouldn’t lend to him - him being a rebel and all?

he originally said he’d no personal guarantees either

he wouldn’t lie would he?



At least we know why he was so perturbed by Cerberus acquiring the loans from NAMA.


Why? Did Cerberus just acquire this loan? If they already had it, then what has changed? If not then whoever else might have bought it would also be in the same position in call it in, no? So what has changed?

So what’s your point again except to smear Mick Wallace?

Fascinating to watch the usual suspects trying to attack one of the only TDs who has raised the veil on the murky dealings surrounding NAMA. Laughable really. What good will it do?


To me a big question is whether slicing the northern Irish loan book into smaller chunks would have put within more bidders reach and extracted higher value.
Selling to a single buyer suits politicians more than the taxpayer.


Also given the focus on forgiving personal guarantees - did this northern advisory committee act as a break on taking judgements against northern borrowers for the years Nama was managing the loans.


This was covered elsewhere a few weeks ago. In the SBP I think. Wallace’s loans were bought from another bank which was winding up its Irish loan book (I don’t remember which, maybe ACC?). They weren’t bought from NAMA.


Got a link out of interest? It seems he was into all the Irish banks (article here from 2011 which also touches on him transferring assets to his brother) and it’s hard to figure out which bank this particular loan relates to.

This statement from Wallace says that ACC is not the bank owed money in relation to the bars.

Edit: Looks like it was Ulster Bank: … 46584.html


So Coles, do you still think the threat that Cerberus would “sort” Wallace was a death threat, as you said earlier?


I’m fairly sure I said ‘debt threat’? But ‘sorting out’ someone is a threat either way, and it’s a shame that our TDs get threatened for doing their job.

I notice you’ve avoided answering a question in my last contribution by the way…? :angry:

And why are you so gleeful about the massive loss the taxpayer has made on the Project Eagle deal? Seems you’ve chopped off your nose to spite your face?


Well not before you edited it.

Oh sorry, didn’t realise that was a contribution. To answer your question, it appears that Cerberus just acquired that loan in the last month or so, but as pointed out above they acquired it from UB, not NAMA.

The loss was made the day the banks were guaranteed. They are only being crystallised now due to the dodgy warehousing that NAMA has been doing, but the loss was always there.