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

How On Earth Does BOI See Fit to Comment on Values wrt Ulster Rugby?

Options
  • 12-04-2018 12:25pm
    #1
    seanpower111
    Registered Users Posts: 1 ✭


    BOI has spent the past decade pursuing people over debt issues. It is entitled in
    law to do so but has displayed distain for human values in many, many cases. It
    is not entitled to comment of values or morality in relation to Ulster Rugby. It has
    forfeited that right and comes across as small minded, band-wagon-hopping and
    hypocritical. It is a ruthless commercial enterprise and may well be concerned with
    an Ulster Rugby association from a commerical point of view but looks crass, stupid and
    calous when reporting concern over "values".

    Ulster Rugby lads certainly made mistakes but I daresay have shown more moral
    fibre in the past 20 months than the entire BOI board, male and female who are simply
    concerned with bottom line economics regardless of human cost or dubious moral and
    legal presentation. 


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    Ok so let me get the facts of this rant straight.

    1. Person borrows money and signs a legally binding contract stating in event they are unable to repay, the lender is entitled to take the asset money was borrowed for. Everyone happy as person has the loan and lender has security.
    2. Person suddenly becomes either unable or unwilling to repay loan.
    3. After a couple of missed repayments, lender decides to act per the contract signed by both parties.
    4. Borrower no longer wishes to abide by a legal contract they signed, as they wanted all of the benefits of the contract but none of the risk. This requires lender to take a more headline approach as the borrower is in breach of legal contract.
    5. Despite this, it is the Lenders values we question?

    Have I got this right?


Advertisement