Donie 'syrup' Cassidy wins pub deal?

joseph brand

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/senator-wins-pubs-deal-1735165.html

A contract to operate the pubs in Dublin Airport was awarded to a consortium part-owned by a Fianna Fail senator without a full tender process.

He probably needs the money. :mad:

bijapos

No tendering process?? Not much new there then. Donie couldn't comment as he was off getiing his golden Pioneer pin for being a member for 50 years.

joolsveer

Is it moral for a Pioneer to make a profit from selling alcohol?

thebman

joolsveer wrote: »

Is it moral for a Pioneer to make a profit from selling alcohol?

lol he works for FF, morales are way down his list of priorities.

The more stories you hear about them the more its like the episode of the simpsons where Mr. Burns tries to be good after losing his fortune by opening a recycling plant.

Lisa: You haven't changed at all! You're still evil and when you try to be good, you're even more evil!
Mr. Burns: I don't understand. Pigs need food, engines need coolant, dynamiters need dynamite. I'm supplying it to them at a tiny profit...and not a single sea creature was wasted. (very creepy) You inspired it all...Li'l Lisa.

bijapos

After a lot of thought I think I only know 2 pubs where the publican is a pioneer, one couldn't give a damn (honest anyway) the other would never be seen behind the bar, sticks the profit in his pocket in one of the worst (for fighting/anti social behaviour) pubs in his town and then gives out about them 'ruining the town etc etc', now that is two faced, but generally I see no problem with a pioneer running a pub.

I do see a problem with the tendering process not being properly followed through in the Dublin Airport case but I'm sure that "the interests of the public were paramount when this decision was being made" etc etc

thebman

bijapos wrote: »

After a lot of thought I think I only know 2 pubs where the publican is a pioneer, one couldn't give a damn (honest anyway) the other would never be seen behind the bar, sticks the profit in his pocket in one of the worst (for fighting/anti social behaviour) pubs in his town and then gives out about them 'ruining the town etc etc', now that is two faced, but generally I see no problem with a pioneer running a pub.

I do see a problem with the tendering process not being properly followed through in the Dublin Airport case but I'm sure that "the interests of the public were paramount when this decision was being made" etc etc

Really?

http://www.pioneerassociation.ie/who-we-are/3-our-mission

It sounds like he is doing the exact opposite of encouraging moderation when he owns a pub and gets increased profit from letting people drink to excess.

bijapos

First one I mentioned runs an oul fellas pub in a small village, kind of place that when the dog farts its the event of the weekend. (Best pub for miles around). He has his principles and I personally think he is ok, very honest though probably not perfect.

Its the other holier-than-thou fcuker I cant handle, Legion of Mary and all that and still his pub is the centre of trouble (and has been for a while) in the town where I grew up but no longer live. We all know the type, sings the loudest at mass when he's not on his novena to Knock and so on. Like I said HE is two faced.

goldenbrown

all five pubs in dublin airport are to be run by one man who can fix the price, Donie Cassidy is the party whip in the senate, and someone oj this forum needs 10 reasons to shift these people out of the running of the country?:mad:

Seth Brundle

thebman wrote: »

lol he works for FF, morales are way down his list of priorities.

ROFL

ninty9er

1. I wouldn't be so quick to believe what I read in the Herald!
2. Who are the other shareholders in this company?
3. Maybe Company A didn't help Company B, but possibly acquired all the share capital in it and continued operating it, but now under a new name.

4. I do not condone tendering processes not being followed if 3 above is not the case, however 3 being the case then I don't see an issue here

5. I'd like the Herald to elaborate on the phrase "linked to", because it's certainly very different from "owned by".

sceptre

The main shareholder in Cavtat, who are the new operators, is Thomas Anderson. Donie Cassidy owns 25% of the company. I think the distinction between "linked to" and "owned by" is explained in the same way.

The former operators, Atwell, were part of the Thomas Read group, which has gone into receivership. The DAA pulled the licence from Atwell when the TRG called in the receiver. Cassidy owns 20% of the Thomas Read group.

At your whim, you might want to revisit point 4.

ninty9er

sceptre wrote: »

The main shareholder in Cavtat, who are the new operators, is Thomas Anderson. Donie Cassidy owns 25% of the company. I think the distinction between "linked to" and "owned by" is explained in the same way.

The former operators, Atwell, were part of the Thomas Read group, which has gone into receivership. The DAA pulled the licence from Atwell when the TRG called in the receiver. Cassidy owns 20% of the Thomas Read group.

At your whim, you might want to revisit point 4.

So Cassidy controls neither company in essence, making the whole thing a big storm in a teacup.

sceptre

ninty9er wrote: »

So Cassidy controls neither company in essence, making the whole thing a big storm in a teacup.

Sorry, I assumed it was patently obvious that the issue here is benefit, not control. The possible problem here is that an Irish member of the Oireachtas is a significant beneficiary of a company that gained a contract that requires a tendering process without that tendering process being completed. Additionally when as it happens he was also a significant investor in the previous operators; incidentally the Thomas Read group owed the Revenue Commissioners 2 million euros when they went into receivership and over 4 million to AIB.

The contract is worth about 1.5 million euros in annual dividends to the owners of the operators (I'm extrapolating that from the figure of €350,000 which the Sunday Independent said was Cassidy's share of dividends last year solely from the airport operation when he owned 20% of it, as opposed to the 25% he now owns).

That's an issue irrespective of what political party to which the senator in question belongs. That it happens to be Fianna Fail isn't necessarily relevant for the purposes of the discussion. It's also a less important issue that Cassidy was a significant investor in the company that ran the bars, which lost the licence when the parent company he owned 20% of went broke, owing millions of euros than will never be recouped, but then swooped in with a different company to pick up the licences again. The issue is oversight and the implied lack of it.

It's entirely possible that the decision was entirely innocent and that the DAA are telling the truth when they say that the licence was granted for ease of continuance. However, in that case they could have granted a temporary licence while the tendering process was continued. Given the decisions taken at government level in recent years about the future of Dublin airport, one would assume that the DAA would have the cop-on to realise that, in the absence of the process being completed, this was going to look to some like a kick-back to someone who had the influence to do them a favour (and regardless of how much influence he has in his own political party, he's obviously got influence as a senator). That's why the issue is one of benefit in the companies, not one of control of them.

Again, there's a duty to be clean and be seen to be clean. The only debate here is who failed in the second aspect and why.

joseph brand

ninty9er wrote: »

So Cassidy controls neither company in essence, making the whole thing a big storm in a teacup.

Donie? Is that you?

incidentally the Thomas Read group owed the Revenue Commissioners 2 million euros when they went into receivership and over 4 million to AIB.

Is any of that money in Donies' matress could anybody find out?

the parent company he owned 20% of went broke, owing millions of euros than will never be recouped, but then swooped in with a different company to pick up the licences again.

This shrewd businessman sure is a smooth operator. I for one will be drinkin solely in the duty free next time I fly.

jmayo

thebman wrote: »

lol he works for FF, morales are way down his list of priorities.

Correction, he is a prominent member of FF, not somebody that works for them.
He is one of them...he is the leader of the senate contingent since another failed TD.

ninty9er

sceptre wrote: »

Sorry, I assumed it was patently obvious that the issue here is benefit, not control.

Benefit is defined by those in control, and since control is binary, the level of benefit to all investors rests with those who make up >50% of the business.

sceptre wrote: »

Again, there's a duty to be clean and be seen to be clean. The only debate here is who failed in the second aspect and why.

I never argued there wasn't, but the implication is that the contract was awarded because Donie Cassidy is involved in the company. If anyone can show me proof of this, I will categorically condemn the action.

jmayo

ninty9er wrote: »

Benefit is defined by those in control, and since control is binary, the level of benefit to all investors rests with those who make up >50% of the business.

Jeeze didn't know you had to have over 50% of a company to actually have any say in running a company or deriving any benefit from it :rolleyes:

If you use that reasoning, can you tell me why the Irish government chose to retain a shareholding in Aer Lingus ?

ninty9er wrote: »

I never argued there wasn't, but the implication is that the contract was awarded because Donie Cassidy is involved in the company. If anyone can show me proof of this, I will categorically condemn the action.

BTW that appears to be a stock excuse for a lot of weird, questionable FF members little deals.
There may be nothing at all wrong or questionabale about this deal, but there is just a stink surrounding a lot of the deals involving ff and their fellow travellers. Too many unanswered and weird occurrences ...

Anyway corruption or insider deals are very hard to prove, unless of course you have idiots like Flynn that antagonise the protagonists who start spilling the beans

Liam Byrne

jmayo wrote: »

If you use that reasoning, can you tell me why the Irish government chose to retain a shareholding in Aer Lingus ?

That's a question that probably deserves its own thread, jmayo......it definitely wasn't for voting rights or anything, considering FF's stance was that the Government shouldn't "interfere" with the running of a commercial business.

At least, that's what they said when they ignored the country's interest and allowed AL to move to Belfast....

MikeC101

thebman wrote: »

Really?

http://www.pioneerassociation.ie/who-we-are/3-our-mission

It sounds like he is doing the exact opposite of encouraging moderation when he owns a pub and gets increased profit from letting people drink to excess.

Ah well you see he has a plan.

In order for him to ecourage moderation in drinking he needs to first have some sort of control over the sales of it, so he owns a pub. Now, following on logically from that, the more pubs he owns, the more moderation he can encourage. In order to own more pubs, he needs to make more profits, in order to finance the purchase of more pubs, in order for him to encourage more moderation.

So really, the more booze he sells, the more pubs he can own, and the more moderation he can encourage. The man is a saint! (perhaps his halo burnt away his hair, hence the toupee?)

sceptre

ninty9er wrote: »

Benefit is defined by those in control, and since control is binary, the level of benefit to all investors rests with those who make up >50% of the business.

This has nothing to do with accounting standards. The question is as simple as whether he's making money out of it. He's received profits from the last company that ran the operation and there's no particular reason to believe he won't receive profits from the new company running the operation. You can't make a rational case that he receives no benefit merely because he doesn't sit at the big chair and receives only a smaller piece of the pie (the smaller piece of the pie being, incidentally as a tangential note, a bigger smaller piece of the pie than before).

I never argued there wasn't, but the implication is that the contract was awarded because Donie Cassidy is involved in the company. If anyone can show me proof of this, I will categorically condemn the action.

I don't care whether you condemn it or not. The problem here is that because the tendering process wasn't followed, it can't be demonstrated that the contract was awarded irrespective of Donie Cassidy's involvement in the company. Being able to defend the awarding of a contract as entirely legitimate is part of the reason the tendering process exists in the first place.

The trouble is that even if it's innocent, it smells like it's not. It may well be innocent but it just looks as though nothing has changed even with all the highlighting of the corruption of elected officials and appointed quangos and quagos/NDPBs over the past decade or two. While I've long been a fan of the notion that one should never automatically ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity, at a glance this has all the attributes of the kickbacks we've become almost immune to over the past decade and a bit since McCracken started poking around. And this is where it fails the quick test on being seen to be above board. Because by definition, given that the tendering process wasn't merely fast-tracked and was simply abandoned, it can't be seen to be above board.

Obviously it's totally open to you to make the case that the DAA merely acted stupidly when they ignored the rules they are bound by.