Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Newbridge Credit Union
Options
Comments
-
It is worth reading the central bank resolution report to the high court on this. Yes it is 54 pages long but my god it is an eye opener.
http://www.centralbank.ie/press-area/press-releases/Pages/CentralBankconfirmstransferofNewbridgeCreditUniontopermanenttsb.aspx
It discusses 2 significant runs on the CU. One after the Sunday Buisness Post article in July 2013 and another after the CU made a statement. €20million in 14 weeks. It cites this as the main reason for the fast action required. There is a table showing each week over these 14 weeks and average close to €1m per week but only in 2013.
Naas contacted in 2012 but PTSB only contacted on 1st November 2013.
For PTSB, I cannot understand why they are getting a €23m incentive plus €4.25 cost of transfer costs, plus €2m liabilities (cost of staff layoff etc), plus €24.5m on the assumption of 100% loss of loans. There is a statement to the effect that they have to make a repayment of 50% cost for amounts recovered over a certain amount a defined value of loans. PTSB is covering cost of special manager approx €3m.
Seems like a lot of money to get for assets (members cash) and having the losses guaranteed. The incentive was the same amount offered to Naas CU. Action group torpedoed this and this is stated as significant local objection to the plan.
A liquidator is to be applied for the disposal of the building which was not transferred to PTSB. That is known to be going to social welfare. Value given as €3.9m.
They did consider the action group proposal but found it lacking in detail specifically about the structure of "run-off intistution". Effectively they wanted members money to be used as guarantee. A very unpopular idea here in Newbridge.
Liquidation is not considered as some members would not get all their money due to excess of €100,000 which is in breach of regulatory requirements for a CU (no member shall have monies over €100,000). 15 people with total of €2.6m. A shortfall of €1.1m under scheme that scheme. Companies, charities and schools had a total of €960,000 not covered by scheme.
Also breached the number of loans over 5 years by a signifcant amount. 20% allowed and they had over 50% of loans over 5 years.
Overall they cite the Sunday Buisness Post for creating the run which decimated the savings held and thereby breaching the capital to loan threshold required by €13.5m. Seems a bit harsh as the article only highlighted the lack of information forthcoming from the Central Bank itself on the financial state of the CU.
Not liquidated to prevent contagion in the CU sector, which is silly and unlikely.
All in all, it is a mess. But it accelerated in 2013 significantly due to press article and Central Bank article as stated in the document. Would it have occurred anyway.....very likely. The affidate on the same page linked above details the type of loans, business development loans of €14m (total loan book of €40m) which the CU should never had been involved in.
Finally we have hard facts and I am wondering if any prosecutions of directors for wreakless behavior can be pushed forward. Not one bank director has been done to date so that is unlikely.0 -
Isn't it funny that their's 32,000 members and only 60 turned up for the protest. Most at any protest was about 200. The same arseholes who protest at everything. Bailout,flouride in the water,credit union. The same types who protested the chicken ranch in Milltown and then complained that their was no local employment when they finally closed it and let off the local folk due to the drop in business.0
-
Isn't it funny that their's 32,000 members and only 60 turned up for the protest. Most at any protest was about 200. The same arseholes who protest at everything. Bailout,flouride in the water,credit union. The same types who protested the chicken ranch in Milltown and then complained that their was no local employment when they finally closed it and let off the local folk due to the drop in business.
It's not funny, it is quite sad really, That two small groups have closed down the Newbridge CU. Firstly the directors and senior management ran it into the ground, then the save Newbridge cu action group by there negative and now shown as false campaign frightened people and caused the run caused by the sbp to continue. It also seems that the fear they peddled effected Naas also leading to them to withdraw.
Its clear from the documentation that the cb had done everything possible to ensure that ncu remained as a cu.
I feel terrible for the people of Newbridge. Due to a small handful of people they now have no cu. A lesson for all.
To make matters worse this small group are now attacking the politicians to ude them as scape goats0 -
From Save Newbridge CU action on facebook. I cannot agree with this sentiment.
Statement on Behalf of the Board of Directors
Of Newbridge Credit Union Limited
November 12th 2013
Introduction:
The decision by the Central Bank to obtain a High Court Order to appoint a Special Manager to Newbridge Credit Union in January 2012 and now the Transfer Order were made on an ex-parte basis. This means that there was no opportunity for the Board to put forward its views.
Now after two years of direct Central Bank intervention with all management responsibility in the hands of the Special Manager, what started as debatable concerns about bad debt provisioning ended up as an acute liquidity crisis forcing an urgent transfer to a commercial bank. Without contradiction, it is difficult not to be suspicious and not to believe the rumours which say that the CBI failed to find issues in our Credit Union that warranted its destruction, when a more measured approach would have dealt with the issues without causing such damage to it.
The Resolution legislation, which was clearly designed for Banks and not Credit Unions, allows for matters to be dealt with in this fashion leaving the member elected Board with just one legal avenue open to it which is to apply to the Court to set aside its own decision.
The Board of Directors are consulting with its legal advisors and others in the Credit Union Movement to assess how best to proceed whether by way of application to set aside the Transfer Order or have it varied or amended in particular respects.
The Board is also anxious to ensure that the affidavits we filed at various junctures of the Special Management process are made available to the members and that there is a full investigation into the source of various leaks to the media at critical stages all of which have had a debilitating impact on the financial position of the Credit Union. This will also dispel offensive inaccurate remarks being made by some uninformed commentators.
It is notable that the loan book continued to generate significant income during the past two years, thanks primarily to the continued and unflagging commitment of the staff, volunteers and members. The regulatory deficit which was a direct result of the increased bad debt provisioning policy adopted by the Special Manager did not increase during the past two years which indicates that the outflow of members' savings in recent months has been entirely attributable to the mismanagement of the process and not any historical issues which prompted the intervention in the first place.
Impact of the Loss of Credit Union Services:
We fear the effects of this type of intervention will become more apparent in Communities throughout Ireland in the coming months and years. These effects will be more immediate in Newbridge, and its surrounding common bond, as a result of the Central Bank’s actions and the failure of the Government to support communities. Some of the immediate effects on ordinary people will include a lack of access to fair credit, a lack of saving facilities and a significant loss of both financial and non-financial community support. The loss to local businesses and other organisations that depend on the Credit Union will also put pressure on them and jeopardise their future viability. It is important that people realise our Credit Union is the only institution that has ever been subjected to this untested action, and therefore we are unique. People must continue to support their Credit Union by continuing saving and repaying their loans.
Points to note:
1. Prior to the Special Manager being appointed, Newbridge Credit Union was solvent and had more than adequate liquidity. As members lost confidence due to the ongoing Special Management process, they withdrew their shares which resulted in the present position.
2. The Judge did indicate that the Board, Volunteers and Staff had done no wrong in the case of Newbridge Credit Union.
3. The Board at all times tried to work through the process by engaging with the Central Bank of Ireland, difficult though it was, and proposed a number of alternative solutions, as did others, which were disregarded or not cooperatively investigated in a timely fashion when there was more scope to turn them to good account.
4. The large loans referred to do not in themselves contribute significantly to the problems at Newbridge Credit Union. It was the intervention of the Central Bank, at a time when it was proving difficult for members to survive and fulfil their commitment to the Credit Union.
5. While the Act which was used to appoint the Special Manager does apply to Credit Unions it ought to have been apparent from the outset that it was only ever appropriate for Banks.
6. The Board’s Statement issued back in January 2012 when this action started, highlighted the inappropriateness of the regulatory action, the evolution of our Credit Union, and its many, many strengths, that are still relevant today.
Conclusion:
The Board have always acted in the best interest of the Staff and Members despite the traumatic events of the past number of years.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the Members, Staff and Volunteers for their support, loyalty and understanding while the process evolved.
We would ask that they continue to support the Credit Union, its co-operative ethos and principles.
Board of Newbridge Credit Union Ltd
12th November 20130 -
[
4. The large loans referred to do not in themselves contribute significantly to the problems at Newbridge Credit Union. It was the intervention of the Central Bank, at a time when it was proving difficult for members to survive and fulfil their commitment to the Credit Union.
]
I'm sorry, but I find that very hard to believe. The quantity and value of loans issued was and is the problem. Any similar sized Credit Union could have inflated their loan book, and the result would be the same, regulatory intervention. To turn around and declare itself blameless is a little rich.
Feel this statement was rushed and not thought out.0 -
Advertisement
-
4. The large loans referred to do not in themselves contribute significantly to the problems at Newbridge Credit Union. It was the intervention of the Central Bank, at a time when it was proving difficult for members to survive and fulfil their commitment to the Credit Union
Are these people for real. The 3 2 million loan was in direct contravention of the credit union act. The 26 development loans averaging €550k each and totaling 14 3 millions are not credit union type loans. Over 50% of loans were for greater than 5 years. Again another breach of the act.
These uncalled for decisions gave the Central Bank no choice but to go in.
Based on the news report very few of the 38000 members turned up for Mondays protest. The Board should wake up to the fact the not only do they not have the support of the majority the members their actions have robbed a community of its credit union
In 2008 the dividend and interest rebate cost the cu 11m. If a typical dividend was declared the insolvency would not have been as severe.
This statement is a 'Seanie' Fitzpatrick / David Drumm type statement.0 -
Now that the dust has settled i would like to make a few points regarding the credit union. Firstly i have being a member since the early seventies and got numerous loans over the years mainly car loans, holidays and home improvements. I knew most of the staff on a first name basis as i was a weekly saver and have always found them friendly and courteous I supported the save Newbridge Credit union committee since its inception and attended all its protests and marches in the belief that there was nothing untold went on there.
I am now led to believe that it was only the manager and three of the thirteen directors were aware of the excessive loans being granted. The rest of the directors were kept in the dark about them and even the loan committee were never told. When questions about the loan book were raised they were told that 90% of loans were performing,what they were not told was that the other 10% of loans comprised over 90% of the loan book.
Its time that the members, staff and the Save Newbridge credit union committee got an apology for this criminal deception.
At this stage i wont go in to the two week all expenses paid junkets for up to twelve and fourteen people to places like Cape Town and other exotic places around the world.0 -
'At this stage i wont go in to the two week all expenses paid junkets for up to twelve and fourteen people to places like Cape Town and other exotic places around the world. '
Having reviewed the Annual Reportsfor NCU I noticed a line in the expenses for Personal Development and the figures seem large for a CU
Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Professional Development 39,530 29,643 39,782 54,414 76,724
Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Professional Development 76,340 114,158 144,991 130,893 142,657
Is this related to trips toCape Town etc ??????0 -
I am now led to believe that it was only the manager and three of the thirteen directors were aware of the excessive loans being granted. The rest of the directors were kept in the dark about them and even the loan committee were never told.
Do you mean the special manager appointed by the central bank.
How could the other directors not see the excess loans ? Is this due to lack of financial background ? The loans were so out of kilter with everything else and not masked if you look at average loan amounts over the years.
The save Newbridge CU group were made to look very foolish once the real data arrived. What worries me is the Facebook page continues to say the truth will come out and they will be proven right. And create a new CU. They claimed to have inside knowledge and that has proven to be misguided.
I would'nt touch another CU if any of the outgoing directors were in any way involved. I am not alone in that feeling. It is widespread in the town.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I would'nt touch another CU if any of the outgoing directors were in any way involved. I am not alone in that feeling. It is widespread in the town.
I completely agree. Does anyone know how many people actually turned up to the meeting on November 13th to create a new credit union? We had detailed numbers from the original protest gatherings but none lately. I suspect that support for the protest group has been reduced to a hard core of individuals.
Its very difficult to gauge support for a new credit union but its likely that most people are so horrified by what went in Newbridge Credit Union that they would probably support extension of the common bond from other credit unions instead of a new autonomous credit union in Newbridge. I think that most people would support a credit union presence in Newbridge but might well have concerns about who would manage it.0 -
I find it hard to believe that only a select few knew the full story. A work colleague of mine has a wife working in there as a clerk. Over a year ago he was able to tell me about the 3 million loan to a developer.0
-
I find it hard to believe that only a select few knew the full story. A work colleague of mine has a wife working in there as a clerk. Over a year ago he was able to tell me about the 3 million loan to a developer.
It could easily happen. Staff have access to software system and in a small work environment talk to each other. It's no doubt but these type of loans were frequently discussed at tea break.
On the other hand the majority of directors would only be in the credit union once a month for the board meeting and would have no access to the system. They would rely on the quality of the reporting in the board pack for their information.
If there was a small powerful click made up of one or two directors and the manager it would not be unheard of for this group to keep the rest in the dark. Just remember how Fingleton controlled the board in Irish Nationwide.
Question: Did the one group of two-three control the position of chair and treasurer for a number of years.
The new Credit Union act restricts the length an individual can serve on the board and as chair. Unfortunately the final act was watered down to allow a director serve for 12 years in a15 year period instead of 9 out of 15 years and the chair can serve for 4 consecutive years instead of 3.
The new act is trying to target powerful clicks on board and also make the manager accountable as the ceo under the act. Unfortunately if this was the case in Newbridge, which is believable they are not the only cu with this problem. In many cu's cronyism is rife.0 -
Damming Irish Irish Independent article:
THE volunteer directors of Newbridge Credit Union, which was bailed out at a cost of €54m to the taxpayer, were warned more than eight years ago that they were breaking the law.
Leaked documents obtained by the Sunday Independent reveal how the board of the credit union failed to rein in its lending policies in apparent defiance of the regulators.
The credit union had lent huge sums to builders and developers during the boom but the documents reveal that when they were warned that they were breaking the law, the board claimed that it was the law that was at fault.
The credit union had to be bailed out by State-owned Permanent TSB following a dramatic High Court hearing last Sunday, landing taxpayers with a bill for €54m.
The confidential minutes and letters reveal how the regulatory authorities had tried to force the board of the credit union to tow the line since 2005.
At one fractious meeting with the then Financial Regulator, Liam O'Reilly, on December 15, 2005, the volunteer directors were told that they were "way outside" lending limits and had to "comply with the law".
The exchanges are contained in correspondence leading up to the meeting on December 5, 2005, and minutes of what transpired during it. They show how:
* The volunteer directors refused to meet the overall Financial Regulator in Dublin to discuss the breaches, forcing him to travel to Newbridge instead.
* One director suggested the law, not the credit union, was at fault and said the financial regulator "hadn't done enough" to get it changed.
* Another director accused the financial authorities of making "threats" to volunteers and "dictating" to the credit union in "a manner that was unacceptable".
* The Financial Regulator and his team had to repeatedly point out that they were responsible for implementing the law, not changing it, saying: "The law is in place and it is being flouted."
The letter reveals how the registrar of credit unions, Brendan Logue, caused upset when he telephoned volunteer directors at their homes to discuss the breaches. Mr Logue explained that he "did so in order to explain to them informally our position on the breaches ... Contacting volunteers at home for such an informal discussion is the only effective means open to me."
Mr Logue, who is now retired, confirmed the meeting with the Financial Regulator but said that it "achieved little or nothing".
Asked to comment on the minutes, he told the Sunday Independent: "Newbridge continued to trade outside the scope of the Credit Union Act and was in breach of the act. Eventually, we had to appoint investigators, third-party investigators, to look into the matter."
The investigation was conducted by MKO, an accountancy firm. The report was never published but the credit union had to pay half the estimated €300,000 cost.
At that time, there was no legal mechanism to take sanctions, despite the ongoing serious concerns of the financial authorities. New powers allowing enforcement action against directors and managers of credit unions only came in to effect last August.
The regulator accused Newbridge of breaching sections 27 and 35 of the Credit Union Act, which include limits on the size of individual credit union loans and which cap the number of loans that can be repaid over five and 10 years.
One local builder received loans totalling €3.2m over several years, which exceeded the legal limits. As of September, €2.8m was still owing on the loan.
The Dail's Public Accounts Committee plans to question the Central Bank Governor Patrick Honohan about the Newbridge bailout.
Mr Honohan has defended the regulation of the credit union, especially since 2009, when the Central Bank became aware of the scale of loans and lending practices.
He told RTE's Prime Time last week: "We put in a special manager when it was clear that the existing management and directors were not capable or willing to do what was necessary."
A former board member, who asked not to be named, insisted that Newbridge Credit Union was compliant with the rules within a year of meeting the Financial Regulator, forcing members with large savings to remove them.
"The registrar, instead of helping credit unions to help their members, increasingly tightened the noose around members and their loan repayments," the former director said.
"Volunteers in credit unions across the country have been targeted by the registrar and Central Bank. They know of the crippling regulation and reserve control practised by a Central Bank against people who work for the good of their communities without pay."
A group calling itself 'Concerned Members Action Group' has highlighted "professional development" expenses in the credit union's annual reports, which amount to more than €800,000 over 10 years. More than €142,000 was spent on professional development in 2010, €130,893 in 2009 and €144,991 in 2008.
The group has also highlighted loans to directors of the credit union. According to the 2010 annual report, loans to directors stood at €967,881 in 2009 and €688,966 in 2010.0 -
"Breda Reid (a director) then stated that in other words we should use an artificial stroke of the pen just to achieve compliance with an Act that is obsolete and doesn't meet the needs of credit unions. Brendan Logue then stated that it was not their fault but the law was in place and it was being flouted. Breda Reid said it was unfair and good credit unions were being penalised."
Very hard to reconcile this (extract from Sunday Independent) with the letter at the start of this forum. The article is utterly damning in terms of the information given through the Save Newbridge CU Action Group and which we were all asked to believe. These articles indicate the Board knew for a long time the Regulator was asking them to cease and desist. Also, a poster asks earlier whether it was true that only a few Directors knew of the big loans, this article is clear the entire Board was hauled before the Regulator so they must have known there were inappropriate loans.
I'm not inclined to make stark judgements on what they did, as I believe the entire country lost the run of themselves. There were few exceptions and there are probably a few Board members who were asking questions but were afraid they would be told (or were told) where to get off, just as Bertie told the naysayers around the same time. But the article again slams the whinging of the CU people who howl about heavy-touch regulation - it is there for worst case scenario, and just like in Anglo, the Regulator failed in his duty. People felt that light touch regulation was what was making the country so successful in the mid noughties but it brought down Anglo and it brought down NCU. Having said that, there is a need for flexible loans to allow for the really valuable work being done by MABS who work with people in trouble, but that can be done within the current system with a little bit of innovation.
Unfortunately despite the huge number of Catholic and other religious-run schools, we have been utterly destitute as a nation in developing people with any sense of ethics or right and wrong. Those who stand up are sidelined and marginalised as being cranky pessimists or worse 'left-wing pinkos'. And ironically the 'Fine Gael Four' who dared question the prevailing belief in Newbridge in the last few months got the same treatment.
I hope some solution is found to get a Credit Union back into the town as I think every town needs one, but I think it will be a while before Newbridge can hold its head up among the towns of the country. Once again people on low incomes are being asked to bail out developers except this time it wasn't on the back of poor decision making by highly paid bank officials but on the back of poor decision making by volunteers.
I am really curious to know why Des Diver has not been mentioned in discussion of the current situation - was he removed when the Special Manager came in or did he transfer to PTSB under TUPE like the other employees?0 -
In light of the new information that has come into the public domain about who knew what about the development loans issud through Newbridge CU, were any of these Directors of Newbridge CU also directors of property development or real estates companies?
If anyone has any information relating to this they might like to share it with the members of Boards0 -
Where is the action group's Facebook page gone, i cant locate it.0
-
They have removed their Facebook page and started a new one. Look for Droichead Nua Credit Union.
I noticed earlier today that a former supporter posted a comment in which he was very critical of one of the main leaders and this was taken down or removed almost immediately.
Transparency eh! Yeah right.
'Its my site and if I don't like what you say them I'm not letting you play.'
Did this person when he was young take his football home when the others wouldn't let him score a goal?0 -
Very hard to reconcile this (extract from Sunday Independent) with the letter at the start of this forum. The article is utterly damning in terms of the information given through the Save Newbridge CU Action Group and which we were all asked to believe. These articles indicate the Board knew for a long time the Regulator was asking them to cease and desist. Also, a poster asks earlier whether it was true that only a few Directors knew of the big loans, this article is clear the entire Board was hauled before the Regulator so they must have known there were inappropriate loans.
Being familiar with cu figures from around the country I never believed the propaganda from the action group. The loan book growth, the average loan size etc seemed completely out of line with the average cu.
When you hear claims of conspiracy theories that the Central Bank was owned by the banks and the banks wanted to get their hands on all the cu money then you should suspect some rotten eggs.
Following the independent judicial decision of the high Court The politicians were then attacked for being complicit with this and that the electorate of Newbridge would remember this come the next elections.
Willie Crowley at one stage was looking for a vote of no confidence in the minister. Now it appears that the minister and the Tànaiste are hero's the fact that they said they would support the formation of a new cu.
I can't see how the Central Bank could have confidence in the formation of a new cu when the same people who were behind the action group are behind the new campaign also.
Let's be clear, what did the action group achieve:
- Similar to the board of NCU they misinformed the cu members as to what relay went wrong;
- Despite the best efforts of the Central Bank to find a cu solution the action group prevented this by their attack of Naas CU. Remember their protest at the opening of Naas CU new sub office in the Monread shopping centre. A day of celebration for the members of Naas CU, ruined by the action group.
- Naas had no choice but to walk away which led to the over night transfer of 37000 cu members to ptsb customers.
- As the truth emerged and tough questions were being asked on the the action group Facebook Page they removed numerous posts and then closed the Page.
I wouldn't get my hopes up about having a new cu in the town as long as these people are involved.0 -
Yes, I'm surprised at the FB page having been taken down so quickly. There were over 2,000 likes on it and they should have spent a few weeks posting on it getting people to like the new page, where there are only about 500 - it will be hard to get back up to that number on the new page, now that the heat has gone out of the situation. Also, I'm wondering was that the only place that Breda Reid had posted her letter, the one that started this thread?
I was going to go back and have a look at some of the conversations I had on that FB page, having read the Sindo articles. I got into a bit of heated (on their side) discussion when I asked questions that were considered out of order and I was told I should leave the page. I thought their behaviour was unethical and lacked values and told them so. I couldn't see how you couldn't say 'boo' about the Directors and staff, yet they f'd Luke Charlton, the Fine Gael 4 and all the pols, journalists and generally anyone who had another tale to tell.
I also questioned the valuation of the building, as an indication of whether it showed there were other things going on in the Financial Statements. I asked for the detail of their 'value in use' calculations that they insisted were a safe alternative to market value. That one died a quick death too.
Still no-one has mentioned Des Diver, is there any information about his current status?0 -
Advertisement
-
SINDO piece is so damning. The Board suggested it was the law that was wrong, and not them. Wow. Without being too harsh, who the hell do these people think they are? Very clear that greed took over here.
Professional Development costs - Outrageous, not quite sure what to say about the alleged Cape Town trip, but this is really starting to stink, Anglo style.
I'm sorry, but if this was a story about any bank in the country (and don't get me wrong, the banks have messed up too) people would be calling for criminal investigations and labelling senior management (in this case board members) crooks, greedy fat cats etc etc.
I find it a shame that CB didn't act sooner, NCU (because of utter incompetence and ignorance) was a sick animal and should have been put down sooner.0 -
Seen something in the Business Post yesterday about Des Diver. Says he was still manager when the special manager was there and is still employed there (I assume he has transferred to PTSB).
Mentioned some other stuff about him but I don't have the paper to hand and it is behind a paywall so can't post a link.
I will post it later.0 -
"Breda Reid (a director) then stated that in other words we should use an artificial stroke of the pen just to achieve compliance with an Act that is obsolete and doesn't meet the needs of credit unions. Brendan Logue then stated that it was not their fault but the law was in place and it was being flouted. Breda Reid said it was unfair and good credit unions were being penalised."
Very hard to reconcile this (extract from Sunday Independent) with the letter at the start of this forum. The article is utterly damning in terms of the information given through the Save Newbridge CU Action Group and which we were all asked to believe. These articles indicate the Board knew for a long time the Regulator was asking them to cease and desist. Also, a poster asks earlier whether it was true that only a few Directors knew of the big loans, this article is clear the entire Board was hauled before the Regulator so they must have known there were inappropriate loans.
I'm not inclined to make stark judgements on what they did, as I believe the entire country lost the run of themselves. There were few exceptions and there are probably a few Board members who were asking questions but were afraid they would be told (or were told) where to get off, just as Bertie told the naysayers around the same time. But the article again slams the whinging of the CU people who howl about heavy-touch regulation - it is there for worst case scenario, and just like in Anglo, the Regulator failed in his duty. People felt that light touch regulation was what was making the country so successful in the mid noughties but it brought down Anglo and it brought down NCU. Having said that, there is a need for flexible loans to allow for the really valuable work being done by MABS who work with people in trouble, but that can be done within the current system with a little bit of innovation.
Unfortunately despite the huge number of Catholic and other religious-run schools, we have been utterly destitute as a nation in developing people with any sense of ethics or right and wrong. Those who stand up are sidelined and marginalised as being cranky pessimists or worse 'left-wing pinkos'. And ironically the 'Fine Gael Four' who dared question the prevailing belief in Newbridge in the last few months got the same treatment.
I hope some solution is found to get a Credit Union back into the town as I think every town needs one, but I think it will be a while before Newbridge can hold its head up among the towns of the country. Once again people on low incomes are being asked to bail out developers except this time it wasn't on the back of poor decision making by highly paid bank officials but on the back of poor decision making by volunteers.
I am really curious to know why Des Diver has not been mentioned in discussion of the current situation - was he removed when the Special Manager came in or did he transfer to PTSB under TUPE like the other employees?
I am a member of a left wing party in the town and I got savaged by them for daring to question our support of the action group.
The independent article is damning.0 -
'I am a member of a left wing party in the town and I got savaged by them for daring to question our support of the action group.'
Sorry but I don't understand, was the party savaged or was it you personally?
I have been following the story from the start and haven't seen any left wing party savaged, in fact they would seen to me they have been supporting the Action group all along.
Apologies if I have mis-read your post, but would be grateful if you could clarify your position.0 -
Theclockface wrote: »'I am a member of a left wing party in the town and I got savaged by them for daring to question our support of the action group.'
Sorry but I don't understand, was the party savaged or was it you personally?
I have been following the story from the start and haven't seen any left wing party savaged, in fact they would seen to me they have been supporting the Action group all along.
Apologies if I have mis-read your post, but would be grateful if you could clarify your position.
All parties in Newbridge are supporting the action group,left wing,right wing etc
If questions are asked or if there is a disagreement with them then you are the one left out.The parties in the town all jumped on the bandwagon without question
That disappoints me0 -
Theclockface wrote: »'I am a member of a left wing party in the town and I got savaged by them for daring to question our support of the action group.'
Sorry but I don't understand, was the party savaged or was it you personally?
I have been following the story from the start and haven't seen any left wing party savaged, in fact they would seen to me they have been supporting the Action group all along.
Apologies if I have mis-read your post, but would be grateful if you could clarify your position.
I see they are deleting posts on the new site as well. Someone posted about Sinn Fein deleting posts if they don't agree with the general view of the facebook page and that post has been deleted!!
I hope that's not the left wing party you are associated with!0 -
"4. The large loans referred to do not in themselves contribute significantly to the problems at Newbridge Credit Union. It was the intervention of the Central Bank, at a time when it was proving difficult for members to survive and fulfil their commitment to the Credit Union."
Can't get over this from the board. How could they possibly believe this. Fitness and Probity standards obviously not what they should have been, all the cash spent on "Professional Development" and they still don't get it.0 -
Raven135
'All parties in Newbridge are supporting the action group,left wing,right wing etc'
This is most centinly not the case, most parties supported the idea of a new CU in the town, though not necessarly the Action Group case.
This is the Action Group that went about its business by cyber bullying any individual, group, or party who didn't absolutely agree with its position shows that.
I for one would not want to be associated with a group of bullies like that and would have to wonder why anyone else would, political party or otherwise.0 -
maxwell smart wrote: »I see they are deleting posts on the new site as well. Someone posted about Sinn Fein deleting posts if they don't agree with the general view of the facebook page and that post has been deleted!!
I hope that's not the left wing party you are associated with!Theclockface wrote: »Raven135
This is most centinly not the case, most parties supported the idea of a new CU in the town, though not necessarly the Action Group case.
This is the Action Group that went about its business by cyber bullying any individual, group, or party who didn't absolutely agree with its position shows that.
I for one would not want to be associated with a group of bullies like that and would have to wonder why anyone else would, political party or otherwise.
It was a facebook page which is for your friends. It is not a discussion forum. They are entitled to remove any post they don't like. A few of mine were deleted also.
The action group did themselves damage by blindly supporting the directors and still continue to do so. There is a bit of the "sure don't I know the family and they are lovely", without questioning their competence. Running a CU into the ground is not a qualification.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think it is correct to say that ALL local political parties supported the Save NCU Action Group - there was such an outcry in the town, why wouldn't they. Everyone (including me) supported the broad concept of the campaign. Where I parted ways was when I suggested they link up with the Fine Gael 4 and work with them as they seemed to have the figures done and financial analysis was thin on the ground (or plain wrong as in the 'value in use' issue) with Save NCU. They were having none of it and I was told the 'Concerned' Action Group were Fine Gaelers (so couldn't be trusted, I guess), and this was despite the fact that Martin Heydon was giving his full support. When I said I didn't care what party they were with, that I was a Sinn Féin voter, it still didn't wash and after a bit of verbal abuse I said, good luck. The hysteria was somewhat off-putting.
And Damien360, I don't think they have the right to delete posts (except if they were personally abusive) if they are a community group - communities are and should be diverse, and it is by questioning and challenging each other (albeit in a friendly way) that we find out new things and become robust in our arguments.
I heard they were personally abusive towards Martin Heydon which I have no time for. I've worked on several community campaigns in the past few years (in Newbridge also, although I don't live there) and I wouldn't touch this group with a barge pole. I think they owe a lot of apologies to people, and while their media presence in general is positive, some of the stuff on the FB pages is nothing but delusional.
I'm surprised not more people have called for Des Diver to come out of hiding and explain himself - I've no doubt but that he was on a salary which reflected his position in one of the biggest CU's in the country. Perhaps the local factor has kicked in, he suffered a personal bereavement relatively recently and perhaps this is the reason. I would have no wish to cause him more personal stress but I think the CU Board and senior management should be held to account - nothing can be undone now, but some truth and reconciliation would help.0
Advertisement