The Kingston story: Bidders fail to pay up for auctioned cows

Panch18

kowtow wrote: »

But having said all that, God bless every last one of them.

Because I have a feeling it was an idealist who temporarily ignored the realities of life and decided that a cluster and a vacuum pump would lead to happier cows and fewer chapped hands in the morning.... not to mention a few other little innovations which make life more tolerable.

The world would be a dreary soul-less place without idealists.

Personally I don't think idealism and innovation go hand in hand

and I'm not having a go at idealist or anything - just that I was told I was burying my head in the sand by someone completely out of touch with reality

melissak

boggerman1 wrote: »

They borrowed the money.they owe money all over the place as well.tough ****e they lose in the end from been"grabbers" themselves.the bank was right to move in.i hope it doesn't happen to myself but if I owe people I pay them.it might take a bit of time but everyone is paid out in full.better to have a good name as someone who will pay than been a big ****e walking over everyone.

Is there a suggestion that they are grabbers. If so I withdraw all sympathy.

Panch18

melissak wrote: »

Is there a suggestion that they are grabbers. If so I withdraw all sympathy.

What a crazy statement to make

You will defend them to the hilt - unless they are what you call a "grabber"

But who gets to decide who is a grabber and who isn't? Is the definition of a grabber universal? Is one man's "Grabber" and another man's "Progressive"?
What about if someone buys land that a neighbour couldn't afford but felt it was his right to?

For the record - I don't know the family in question, have never met them or had any dealing with them and I am not referring to them in particular in any of my posts

melissak

I can't find the post I meant to reply to to the effect that banks would never collude with someone against someone else. I think it was deleted but you know who you are. I'd invite you to peruse the hanrahan case in Tip. I particularly hope it stays fine for YOU

melissak

Panch18 wrote: »

What a crazy statement to make

You will defend them to the hilt - unless they are what you call a "grabber"

But who gets to decide who is a grabber and who isn't? Is the definition of a grabber universal? Is one man's "Grabber" and another man's "Progressive"?
What about if someone buys land that a neighbour couldn't afford but felt it was his right to?

For the record - I don't know the family in question, have never met them or had any dealing with them and I am not referring to them in particular in any of my posts

A grabber is, traditionally someone who buys repossessed land or goods. They used to be heavily frowned upon. It seems that is not the case anymore. Shame

Panch18

melissak wrote: »

I can't find the post I meant to reply to to the effect that banks would never collude with someone against someone else. I think it was deleted but you know who you are. I'd invite you to peruse the hanrahan case in Tip. I particularly hope it stays fine for YOU

if you are going to start using that case mentioned in this post - then make sure you are fully, and I mean fully, up to speed with the in's and out's of it

melissak

boggerman1 wrote: »

They borrowed the money.they owe money all over the place as well.tough ****e they lose in the end from been"grabbers" themselves.the bank was right to move in.i hope it doesn't happen to myself but if I owe people I pay them.it might take a bit of time but everyone is paid out in full.better to have a good name as someone who will pay than been a big ****e walking over everyone.

This is the post I was referring to panch

cjpm

melissak wrote: »

Is there a suggestion that they are grabbers. If so I withdraw all sympathy.

Do you actually believe that the only money they owe is to the bank??

And all this hassle with the bank is 100% the banks fault??

melissak

Panch18 wrote: »

if you are going to start using that case mentioned in this post - then make sure you are fully, and I mean fully, up to speed with the in's and out's of it

Who do you think you are, my English teacher. Jog on... Unless you mean the hanrahan case. In which case I will have a reread. It's been a while. What did I miss. The coop and the bank pulled funding after he lost the first case when he was looking for money to appeal? Is this wrong?

melissak

cjpm wrote: »

Do you actually believe that the only money they owe is to the bank??

And all this hassle with the bank is 100% the banks fault??

No. There is probably more to it alright. A couple of contractors were on saying whatever hope they had of getting paid died with the sale of the cattle. They seemed to be supporting him.

Red Kev

So how long do you have to own land or cattle before it's deemed to be some sort of sacred family possession.

If a farm is some sort of scred possession then what about family businesses such as shops and pubs that had to be sold? Are they not also untouchable?

On that basis then what property is touchable if an unpaid debt has to be called in. As many posters have said, if nobody paid debts back, the banks would stop lending, thus making life difficult for those coming after us.

In this case, they owned 120 acres and 170 cattle in 2004. Why didn't they just sell the best part of 800 cattle and 50 acres to get them back to 2004 levels.

I said in an earlier post that we sold land in the late 1980's that we had in the family since the 1940's-50's. We did it to save the rest of the farm. That's life. Tough decisions were made but we downsized and started back again debt free.

greysides

melissak wrote: »

I can't find the post I meant to reply to to the effect that banks would never collude with someone against someone else. I think it was deleted but you know who you are. I'd invite you to peruse the hanrahan case in Tip. I particularly hope it stays fine for YOU

Mod:
MelissaK, pull in your horns! I'm finding a nasty undertone to a lot of your posts and I may not be the only one.
This is your second and last warning, stick to arguing the points without wishing anybody anything!

melissak

Red Kev wrote: »

So how long do you have to own land or cattle before it's deemed to be some sort of sacred family possession.

If a farm is some sort of scred possession then what about family businesses such as shops and pubs that had to be sold? Are they not also untouchable?

On that basis then what property is touchable if an unpaid debt has to be called in. As many posters have said, if nobody paid debts back, the banks would stop lending, thus making life difficult for those coming after us.

In this case, they owned 120 acres and 170 cattle in 2004. Why didn't they just sell the best part of 800 cattle and 50 acres to get them back to 2004 levels.

I said in an earlier post that we sold land in the late 1980's that we had in the family since the 1940's-50's. We did it to save the rest of the farm. That's life. Tough decisions were made but we downsized and started back again debt free.

Obviously land prices didn't stay the way he expected. A family farm or family home is not just a business. No luck will come to those who profiteer from misfortune.

melissak

greysides wrote: »

Mod:
MelissaK, pull in your horns! I'm finding a nasty undertone to a lot of your posts and I may not be the only one.
This is your second and last warning, stick to arguing the points without wishing anybody anything!

I said I hope it stays fine for him. How is this not good. Do we fear a drought?
I forgot this wasn't after hours tbh. I apologise.

fepper

melissak wrote: »

I am not saying any such thing. People shouldn't borrow outside their means but a lot has changed since 2007 when this loan was taken. For one the bank's were bailed out by the taxpayer to the tune of billions. Cronyism and corruption made a balls of the farming industry. We were promised the earth but instead some of us stand to lose all. Because we were stupid enough to believe people who wouldn't know honesty if it bit them in the ass. But as long as you're alright jack...<br />
<br />
I hope that the smug farmers on here never end up on the other side of the fence is all. The lack of compassion is sad. A sign to me that small farmers are ****ed. If there is no unity and we are more eager to side with the bank's than a farmer in bad circumstances.

<br />
That bank wasn't bailed out by Ireland inc.so have no loyalty to us

melissak

fepper wrote: »

<br />
That bank wasn't bailed out by Ireland inc.so have no loyalty to us

Fair enough. I don't believe any bank is known for its loyalty. My point re corruption and ****e making stands.

longgonesilver

What some people are referring to here, and more are mocking is a long held and hard won tradition in Ireland. It dates back to the time of the famine and beyond. It comes from the time of absentee English landlords who tried to extract the maximum profits from their Irish estates to support an obscene lifestyle ( sound familar:rolleyes:) at any human cost to their tenants.

People were evicted, others installed on their land who were subsequently evicted when they failed to afford the rent. People died in the ditches because they were evicted, others had to emigrate.

The poor, the small farmers managed to organise themselves, it started in Mayo and grew into The Land League, It involved people like Davitt and Parnell, remember your history lessons? They opposed evictions, boycotted any one involved with them or anyone who supported or benefited in any way. There was violence at times, on both sides, People died.

Eventually they broke the power of the landlords leading to the land acts where the farmers of Ireland bought the land of Ireland from the english:rolleyes:

handlemaster

melissak wrote: »

I am not saying any such thing. People shouldn't borrow outside their means but a lot has changed since 2007 when this loan was taken. For one the bank's were bailed out by the taxpayer to the tune of billions. Cronyism and corruption made a balls of the farming industry. We were promised the earth but instead some of us stand to lose all. Because we were stupid enough to believe people who wouldn't know honesty if it bit them in the ass. But as long as you're alright jack...

I hope that the smug farmers on here never end up on the other side of the fence is all. The lack of compassion is sad. A sign to me that small farmers are ****ed. If there is no unity and we are more eager to side with the bank's than a farmer in bad circumstances.

Would you classify this farm as small ?

Dont Forget ordinary people will have this banks shares in their pension fund. These notions of not paying back loans come back on someone.

Water John

I think it was Bass, who said it might be far fetched for a bank to set up the move of land to a 'friend'.
Well, I know where in the 70's and 80's, farms in trouble were quietly transferred by Irish Banks to good clients. No auction, no tender.
I also know of a business that was moved on to, lets say a more compliant customer.
One of the Irish banks has a particular reputation in this regard.

I hold no love for people who really overstretch and expect us all to bail them out. But I would not give banks, including Irish much leeway as they would make hay.

I wouldn't be putting any Irish bank shares in my pension fund.

melissak

handlemaster wrote: »

Would you classify this farm as small ?

Dont Forget ordinary people will have this banks shares in their pension fund. These notions of not paying back loans come back on someone.

Yeah. Even if everyone pays up I wouldn't be putting all my eggs in those baskets....

handlemaster

Water John wrote: »

I think it was Bass, who said it might be far fetched for a bank to set up the move of land to a 'friend'.
Well, I know where in the 70's and 80's, farms in trouble were quietly transferred by Irish Banks to good clients. No auction, no tender.
I also know of a business that was moved on to, lets say a more compliant customer.
One of the Irish banks has a particular reputation in this regard.

I hold no love for people who really overstretch and expect us all to bail them out. But I would not give banks, including Irish much leeway as they would make hay.

I wouldn't be putting any Irish bank shares in my pension fund.

I know of a farm over 100 acres got for very little in the 80's this way. I Heard a figure of 25k punts. It wasnt offered to anyone only the guy who had big money at the time even though locals would have had the cash to buy at that crazy low price

melissak

handlemaster wrote: »

Would you classify this farm as small ?

Dont Forget ordinary people will have this banks shares in their pension fund. These notions of not paying back loans come back on someone.

Smaller than the beef barron's...

rangler1

handlemaster wrote: »

I know of a farm over 100 acres got for very little in the 80's this way. I Heard a figure of 25k punts. It wasnt offered to anyone only the guy who had big money at the time even though locals would have had the cash to buy at that crazy low price

There was nothing stopping him putting it up for public auction. Maybe there was a deal done (as was common in the eighties) and there was a sizeable write down if the farmer agreed, in which case it didn't make any difference what the land made

Base price

whisky_galore wrote: »

They had a name for them: Grabbers.

Might be 50 years after the sale, but the family would still be called 'the Grabbers'. :pac:

OH has a friend with a cattle lorry and he was asked if he would be available to transport cattle from Cork up the country. The friend asked were the cattle from the Kingston sale and he was told that they would be. The friend told the guy to get someone else as he wouldn't put the key in the ignition of the lorry for that sort of work.

melissak

Base price wrote: »

OH has a friend with a cattle lorry and he was asked if he would be available to transport cattle from Cork up the country. The friend asked were the cattle from the Kingston sale and he was told that they would be. The friend told the guy to get someone else as he wouldn't put the key in the ignition of the lorry for that sort of work.

At least there are some non grabbers left
If I wore a hat I'd take it off to your friend

farmerjj

melissak wrote: »

At least there are some non grabbers left
If I wore a hat I'd take it off to your friend

Why would he have been a so called grabber?

melissak

farmerjj wrote: »

Why would he have been a so called grabber?

Anyone who deals with these auctions is a grabber or an aider of grabbers

farmerjj

melissak wrote: »

Anyone who deals with these auctions is a grabber or an aider of grabbers

Why?

fepper

Cattle dealers come into my yard looking for cheap good cattle,I was a soft touch for yrs but hardened up a lot and torment now with my outrageous prices now,they are vultures in all business that's life,these people are ruthless and don't care if they Are known as grabbers it's water off a ducks back to them,if they can get it cheap they win!!

martingriff

melissak wrote: »

Obviously land prices didn't stay the way he expected. A family farm or family home is not just a business. No luck will come to those who profiteer from misfortune.

Sorry but that is bull!@$%. So because of the downturn someone should be allowed to continue go on regardless if that is the case then tell me why the hell should loads of landowners, house owners, business owners who tighten the belt to make sure they can pay there bills mortgages continue to do so.