€300M Investment into Waterford City

bobbyy gee

Maybe the will move all the people in from hongkong

smellyoldboot

bobbyy gee wrote: »

Maybe the will move all the people in from hongkong

They picked Fundalk instead, which kinda says it all really...

Wanderer78

Asdfgh2020 wrote:

It could be a ‘Pubic private partnership’ type of arrangement/investment.......?

It could of course be, but again, devil truly is in the detail, my suspicions is, it's an American international property investment fund, possibly American pension funds, a common method of investing such things. I think all my alarm bells are ringing now, sadly, as this truly could transfer the region into something astonishing, but the more time goes on, the potential for it to go horribly wrong for us, is increasing.

I'd be very wary of the use of terms such as 'community', and 'low rent model', these are effectively marketing terms to try sell ideas, appealing ideas, particularly in difficult times, such as now. This project, sadly, has 'rent-seeking' written all over it, one of its main aims is to drive up property prices in the region, and extract the wealth via the use of land and property, hence the suspicion of the term 'low rent model', what does this term mean exactly, low compared to what, compared to current rates, or potential higher future rates?

It's also important to realise why there's such pressure to move the infrastructure works out to the public sector, its very difficult to extract wealth from such works, but not impossible, tolls etc, but these works are critical for the overall success of the project, particularly in relation to investors interests. Such investors are actually risk managers, trying to continually reduce if not remove risk from their balance sheets and moving it to, well away from themselves, wherever they can, to maximise their outcomes. Don't get me wrong, fdi projects such as this, are absolutely critical to our existance, 450bn has entered our economy over the decades from such investments, we were an economic backwater prior to such activities, but this game is becoming dangerous now, particularly for younger generations. we can't keep playing this game, if you're wondering why election and voting outcomes are becoming very radical around the globe, including here, you don’t have to look much further than this, be careful what you wish for!

DubToDeise

jelutong wrote: »

Did Mr Cass say how many retail units have been pre-sold?

They don't need to pre-sell any retail units. They own franchise rights to a number of brands. The shops can be operated by Al Hokair but with stock and branding from the franchised company.

Deiseen

Wanderer78 wrote: »

So rising house prices and possibly the creation of many jobs of low wages and precarious employment!

No idea where you're going with mud huts????

You spend enough time commenting on this development (or commenting on totally unrelated things within this thread) that you should at least know some basic details of the development.

The office space is enough for around 2,500 people. I imagine most of these will involve competitive salaries. So that is potentially 1,500-2,000 fairly decent paid jobs that we didn't have in Waterford already if they manage to fill it.

If you want to talk about CEO pay and how much a retail assistant should actually be paid, then I do not think this is the thread for you.

Wanderer78

Deiseen wrote:

You spend enough time commenting on this development (or commenting on totally unrelated things within this thread) that you should at least know some basic details of the development.

Because this development cannot be simplified to such degrees, I'm aware of the offices, who's going into them, what type of employment will be created in them? we need a breakdown of the employment opportunities that are projected to be created as a whole, then we ll all know, again my fear is, the majority are aimed at the lower end of the market, service and retail sectors, but hopefully I'm wrong, but you can bet you're arse, property prices will rocket because of this, wouldn't be surprised if it's already giving a bump, again, ultimately shafting younger generations. hopefully I'm wrong on everything, as these younger ones are your own kids, grandkids etc

smellyoldboot

The bleak enough reality is most lower level staff don't actually generate enough income for a company to be paid much more than minimum wage. If they did they would. Doesn't matter how hard the job is or if you give it 110%, sometimes you/your role is just not worth anything extra. Shares certainly aren't happening. Life isn't fair. Suck it up.

mayordenis

smellyoldboot wrote: »

The bleak enough reality is most lower level staff don't actually generate enough income for a company to be paid much more than minimum wage. If they did they would. Doesn't matter how hard the job is or if you give it 110%, sometimes you/your role is just not worth anything extra. Shares certainly aren't happening. Life isn't fair. Suck it up.

What a random assortment of words.

imacman

Deiseen wrote: »

The office space is enough for around 2,500 people. I imagine most of these will involve competitive salaries. So that is potentially 1,500-2,000 fairly decent paid jobs that we didn't have in Waterford already if they manage to fill it.

I think 1,500 -2000 new jobs in the NQ is massively optimistic . With the post covid downturn and move to more flexible work practices is there really a demand for that kind of space in Waterford .

Wanderer78

smellyoldboot wrote: »

The bleak enough reality is most lower level staff don't actually generate enough income for a company to be paid much more than minimum wage. If they did they would. Doesn't matter how hard the job is or if you give it 110%, sometimes you/your role is just not worth anything extra. Shares certainly aren't happening. Life isn't fair. Suck it up.

how does one quantify such statements? all staff help to create wealth for companies, maybe the lower paid staff are working harder, who knows!

why not?

smellyoldboot

Wanderer78 wrote: »

how does one quantify such statements? all staff help to create wealth for companies, maybe the lower paid staff are working harder, who knows!

why not?

Working harder is not necessarily providing more value. In fact it's often quite stupid and misguided.

Often times the lad who sits in the big office practicing his putting all day looks like he does sod all, but has the business sense' knowledge, charm and connections to pull in massive contracts over an expensive dinner or even a phone call. 2,000 lads/lasses stacking shelves or hauling bricks or whatever are never going to produce the same return on investment. If you left them at it for 100 years they would never catch up or catch on.

Wanderer78

smellyoldboot wrote: »

Working harder is not necessarily providing more value. In fact it's often quite stupid and misguided.

Often times the lad who sits in the big office practicing his putting all day looks like he does sod all, but has the business sense' knowledge, charm and connections to pull in massive contracts over an expensive dinner or even a phone call. 2,000 lads/lasses stacking shelves or hauling bricks or whatever are never going to produce the same return on investment. If you left them at it for 100 years they would never catch up or catch on.

maybe the chap in the office is only truly benefiting major share holders, and maybe hes one of them!

smellyoldboot

Wanderer78 wrote: »

maybe the chap in the office is only truly benefiting major share holders, and maybe hes one of them!

Who pays the wages?

Wanderer78

smellyoldboot wrote: »

Who pays the wages?

if its a large corporation, it aint the ceo

smellyoldboot

Wanderer78 wrote: »

if its a large corporation, it aint the ceo

You mentioned them in the post before ...

jelutong

Asdfgh2020 wrote: »

It could be a ‘Pubic private partnership’ type of arrangement/investment.......?

Down with that kind of thing!

imacman

imacman wrote: »

I think 1,500 -2000 new jobs in the NQ is massively optimistic . With the post covid downturn and move to more flexible work practices is there really a demand for that kind of space in Waterford .

Google cancels plan to lease large office space in Dublin https://jrnl.ie/5198427

Office rents set to drop as firms rethink requirements
https://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/office-rents-set-to-drop-as-firms-rethink-requirements-39497160.html

Home office policies set to stay for Irish businesses, survey shows
https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/companies/arid-40040765.html

Wanderer78

smellyoldboot wrote:

You mentioned them in the post before ...

True, again, we have to stop inequality growing within these organisations

jelutong wrote:

Down with that kind of thing!

Ppp's can be very beneficial to everyone, creating much needed infrastructure and oppurtunities, such as this project does

Deiseen

imacman wrote: »

I think 1,500 -2000 new jobs in the NQ is massively optimistic . With the post covid downturn and move to more flexible work practices is there really a demand for that kind of space in Waterford .

It is optimistic but keep in mind that there is literally zero decent office space in Waterford City centre.

As for the Covid downturn and the change in the working for environment, I firmly believe that this will affect capital cities a lot more. I imagine the people who live in Dublin actually enjoy going to work. The people who are commuting from Wicklow, Laois, Meath, Kilkenny, Wexford, Wexford, Longford, Carlow, Louth and even Waterford probably not so much.... They will likely resist any return to that awful daily commute. That, in my opinion, opens up the need for local and better value office space. It could go either way but it could end up benefiting Waterford more than anything.

Studies have been done to show that better transport links to capitol cities actually benefit the capitols more than anything. Covid might actually reverse that.

Deiseen

So over half-way through September and not a whiff of that "Whole-Project Funding".....

smellyoldboot

Deiseen wrote: »

So over half-way through September and not a whiff of that "Whole-Project Funding".....

There will be an announcement in December of another 1 or 2 million euro for road improvement at the Dock Rd or similar. Fcuk all will ever happen with it. Best to just forget about tbh. It's telling the lack of trust by the developer.

I mean government monies are payed in arrears in any case but the developers stance has always been "no, you first" and as such I still don't see that there is any firm commitment to the project ever going ahead. Planning applications while an expensive endeavour, can ultimately just be written off and walked away from. Until there are boots and bricks on the ground, I will assume they're a crowd of bluffers.

Wanderer78

smellyoldboot wrote: »

There will be an announcement in December of another 1 or 2 million euro for road improvement at the Dock Rd or similar. Fcuk all will ever happen with it. Best to just forget about tbh. It's telling the lack of trust by the developer.

I mean government monies are payed in arrears in any case but the developers stance has always been "no, you first" and as such I still don't see that there is any firm commitment to the project ever going ahead. Planning applications while an expensive endeavour, can ultimately just be written off and walked away from. Until there are boots and bricks on the ground, I will assume they're a crowd of bluffers.

ah id give them the benefit of the doubt, time will tell, sounds like the developers are ploughing on anyway

imacman

Can we ban the term "game changer for the south east " , I have heard it so much over the last 5 years in relation to the NQ , the university , the airport etc . But the game continues to be the same , no political power in Waterford and no real investment just fancy promises

smellyoldboot

imacman wrote: »

Can we ban the term "game changer for the south east " , I have heard it so much over the last 5 years in relation to the NQ , the university , the airport etc . But the game continues to be the same , no political power in Waterford and no real investment just fancy promises

It was Cummins tag line. I think it's usage might fall away now in fairness.

Wanderer78

imacman wrote: »

Can we ban the term "game changer for the south east " , I have heard it so much over the last 5 years in relation to the NQ , the university , the airport etc . But the game continues to be the same , no political power in Waterford and no real investment just fancy promises

a modern term, commonly used by younger generations, can be a little annoying at times, but you have to admire their positive mind frame, and their drive, we need this, we need these type of people

invara

I use the term a bit. Historically one our regions problems was incoherence as to what 'the ask' was... and this was used to fudge delivery. Everyone knows the four/five things that the region now wants, and painfully, we can see almost zero progress on them. It think the term has value is keeping the list coherent, simple and at the front of everyones mind. It is a term that brings discipline to our regional economic development challange.

But I work in a business school and no on likes our language, perhaps we could brainstorm a new action-orientated term that surfaces the region's critical key performance indicators?

BBM77

smellyoldboot wrote: »

There will be an announcement in December of another 1 or 2 million euro for road improvement at the Dock Rd or similar. Fcuk all will ever happen with it. Best to just forget about tbh. It's telling the lack of trust by the developer.

I mean government monies are payed in arrears in any case but the developers stance has always been "no, you first" and as such I still don't see that there is any firm commitment to the project ever going ahead. Planning applications while an expensive endeavour, can ultimately just be written off and walked away from. Until there are boots and bricks on the ground, I will assume they're a crowd of bluffers.

This is BS in fairness. It is a perfectly reasonable stance for a developer or anybody for that matter to expect the government to fund infrastructure to enable development. Even if the developer was to pull out the government still has an obligation to fund infrastructure to enable the development of the area. It is only a small amount of money that the government would get much of back in tax. There is no reason why this should have not been signed off on by now. If anybody are a crowd of bluffers it is the government.

hardybuck

BBM77 wrote: »

This is BS in fairness. It is a perfectly reasonable stance for a developer or anybody for that matter to expect the government to fund infrastructure to enable development. Even if the developer was to pull out the government still has an obligation to fund infrastructure to enable the development of the area. It is only a small amount of money that the government would get much of back in tax. There is no reason why this should have not been signed off on by now. If anybody are a crowd of bluffers it is the government.

Normally its the other way around. The developer will be asked to fund things like water infrastructure, and/or pay development levies of around €90+ per square metre which in theory are used for roads infrastructure, recreational amenities, community facilities etc.

BBM77

hardybuck wrote: »

Normally its the other way around. The developer will be asked to fund things like water infrastructure, and/or pay development levies of around €90+ per square metre which in theory are used for roads infrastructure, recreational amenities, community facilities etc.

The government created a 2040 fund to help these kind of developments happen. Is it not reasonable to expect money for a development that matches the governments own definition of the kind of things they said they wanted to fund?

hardybuck

BBM77 wrote: »

The government created a 2040 fund to help these kind of developments happen. Is it not reasonable to expect money for a development that matches the governments own definition of the kind of things they said they wanted to fund?

Going back to your post obligation and intention are obviously different things.

I think we're very fortunate if anything comes next year in light of the current fiscal challenges. 2020 deficit is currently somewhere between €25-30 billion and we're in recession.

That said the 2021 budget will be announced in about 4 weeks so you might hear more after that.