FG to still just do nothing for the next 5 years - part 2

James Brown

Truthvader wrote: »

Seems no point in pursuing this. Either deliberately or due to some education gap you do not appear to understand the matter. Suffice to say at this stage that stupidly bleating that money will come from "sale of stock" ignores the issue as to who is rightfully entitled to the proceeds of "sale of stock". The "sale of stock" money rightfully belongs to someone else. Workers are not in fact less deserving but already rank in priority as a preferential creditor so are already favoured

Maybe do the bit of reading you foolishly advised me to do before posting nonsense

Varadkar said there was no money.
It was shown there was.
You asked what money. You were told.
You then asked who's money. I responded that it would come from the same source the selling of stock as to who is or isn't more deserving isn't my call. I support the workers getting what they asked for.
You changed the line of discussion so it's dishonest to pretend it's the one query going unanswered.

Truthvader wrote: »

Grow TF up.

Debenhams went bust, They couldn't pay their rent. What is your solution? Force the owners of shops to give them away to Debenhams for free? Pay the workers forever even though the business is gone. Take money rightfully due to other creditors and give it to the workers? Business's fail. The backers, bankers and investors lose their money. The workers lose their jobs. Its a sh1t situation for all. The workers are already entitled to statutory redundancy and should be using that time and money to look for another job (or become a capitalist because apparently its really easy and you get loadsa money forever).

Lightweight agitators like Coppinger do no-one any favours by persuading them they are entitled to money they are not entitled to. Just using them for personal publicity

Truthvader wrote: »

OK simple question. The workers want more money. Whose money do you think they should get?

The tone has been 'the workers have nothing coming and here's why' now it's 'what about the other creditors?'. That's fancy footwork to cover for your lack of knowledge when you first waded in asking were the money would come from.

Varadkar said there was no money. This was corrected, there is money.
The workers want what they believe they are due. You can agree or disagree, but Varadkar was wrong.
The workers should be supported. It's not us and them. These are the electorate. Tax payers. Neighbours. No need for the attitude IMO.
For LV and some on here to act like the workers are in the wrong is very Tory.

smurgen

Thank God someone is tackling the pressing issue of the day.

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1304106068168060929?s=19

James Brown

smurgen wrote: »

Thank God someone is tackling the pressing issue of the day.

https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1304106068168060929?s=19

Looking to raise her profile with an issue plucked from a catalogue which includes violence in video games, flavoured cigarettes and access to porn on the internet.
Preferable to sniffing glue I'd imagine.

tobsey

Bowie wrote: »

You're slipping and sliding all over the place. I appreciate you are learning as you go but it would be best practice to know the details before wading in.

It's 'whose money' now rather than 'what'. The same money to be derived from the sale of stock.
Why the need to pitch the idea of sides with the workers being the less deserving? Tax paying workers are the blood of the economy. They shouldn't be scorned or discarded when on hard times IMO.

You do realise that the staff are to be given their statutory redundancy. As in what they are entitled to in law. The company had more debts than assets and therefore is being liquidated. The assets will be sold and the staff will get their entitlements, but other creditors are going to lose money.

FrancieBrady

tobsey wrote: »

You do realise that the staff are to be given their statutory redundancy. As in what they are entitled to in law. The company had more debts than assets and therefore is being liquidated. The assets will be sold and the staff will get their entitlements, but other creditors are going to lose money.

They found the extra million they offered down the back of one of the sofa's in stock then?

James Brown

tobsey wrote: »

You do realise that the staff are to be given their statutory redundancy. As in what they are entitled to in law. The company had more debts than assets and therefore is being liquidated. The assets will be sold and the staff will get their entitlements, but other creditors are going to lose money.

Varadkar was wrong. It was pointed out.
Its what they are entitled to thats being negotiated. I'd imagine if more money goes one way others will get less.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Varadkar was wrong. It was pointed out.
Its what they are entitled to thats being negotiated. I'd imagine if more money goes one way others will get less.

If you are entitled to something, you are entitled to it, you don't have to negotiate for it!!!!

What they are negotiating for is for something in excess of their entitlement.

In your rush to accuse Leo of something else (what's new) you are misrepresenting the facts.

Truthvader

blanch152 wrote: »

If you are entitled to something, you are entitled to it, you don't have to negotiate for it!!!!

What they are negotiating for is for something in excess of their entitlement.

In your rush to accuse Leo of something else (what's new) you are misrepresenting the facts.

Give up. Bowie simply does not understand the process or alternatively is wilfully pursuing argument he knows to be false

Brendan Bendar

Truthvader wrote: »

Give up. Bowie simply does not understand the process or alternatively is wilfully pursuing argument he knows to be false

Thats what a certain coterie around here do,Tee.

Learned the tactic from the ‘mother ship’ - argue the toss to the nth degree to waste time and try to wear you out.

They will drill down to the head of a pin no matter how irrelevant or foolish their argument is.

Tens of examples on the threads here where they try to use the platform to spread their agenda.

Be aware of it folks.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

If you are entitled to something, you are entitled to it, you don't have to negotiate for it!!!!

What they are negotiating for is for something in excess of their entitlement.

In your rush to accuse Leo of something else (what's new) you are misrepresenting the facts.

Negotiations are because one side disagrees with another. So they discuss it and negotiate a deal.

LV said there was no money. There is. He was wrong. Why did he tell lies? Is he thick or lying? These are the questions.

James Brown

Truthvader wrote: »

Give up. Bowie simply does not understand the process or alternatively is wilfully pursuing argument he knows to be false

which part? If you are making claims give detail. I've answered all your learning curve questions.

dundalkfc10

Bowie wrote: »

Negotiations are because one side disagrees with another. So they discuss it and negotiate a deal.

LV said there was no money. There is. He was wrong. Why did he tell lies? Is he thick or lying? These are the questions.

Well he tells lies on a daily basis.

Although, he may well be thick, his tactic for years put down and shout SF done this and done that from rooftops that seen FG have their worst election result in Centurys, and ever since that election his tactic has been, the same thing so id say hes thick and a lying scumbag.

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

Negotiations are because one side disagrees with another. So they discuss it and negotiate a deal.

LV said there was no money. There is. He was wrong. Why did he tell lies? Is he thick or lying? These are the questions.

Lookit, a chara, there is always “money there”.

If my daughter came up and said she was planning a two year trip to Colombia to do some bird watching and needed €25k to keep her going, I’d tell her I hadn’t the money (for that).

There’s always ‘money’ but what you are prepared to spend it on is a totally different matter.

A person might have the money but might not spend it on a high spec Beemer while the windows and heating in the hacienda need replacing.

Try and think these things through, compadre.

FrancieBrady

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Lookit, a chara, there is always “money there”.

If my daughter came up and said she was planning a two year trip to Colombia to do some bird watching and needed €25k to keep her going, I’d tell her I hadn’t the money (for that).

There’s always ‘money’ but what you are prepared to spend it on is a totally different matter.

A person might have the money but might not spend it on a high spec Beemer while the windows and heating in the hacienda need replacing.

Try and think these things through, compadre.

Is Leo negotiating on behalf of Debenhams then? Because they upped the offer by a million, obviously they are prepared to trade.
Why is Leo saying there is no money?

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is Leo negotiating on behalf of Debenhams then? Because they upped the offer by a million, obviously they are prepared to trade.
Why is Leo saying there is no money?

He is siding against the workers and lying to do it.

blanch152

Bowie wrote: »

Negotiations are because one side disagrees with another. So they discuss it and negotiate a deal.
.

Bowie wrote: »

Except you don't know the details on this.
They are fighting for what they are entitled to. .

Bowie wrote: »

The workers want money they are due.

Bowie wrote: »

Its what they are entitled to thats being negotiated.

Let's just look carefully at what you have said on this.

Entitlements are what you are due, they have been fixed by statute, a contract of some other piece of law. You don't have to negotiate on this. You get it, and if you don't get it, you go to court and the court awards it to you.

If you are negotiating, it is no longer about your entitlement or your due, it is about what you can seek and get at the expense of someone else, in this case, creditors and others.

blanch152 wrote: »

If you are entitled to something, you are entitled to it, you don't have to negotiate for it!!!!

What they are negotiating for is for something in excess of their entitlement.

In your rush to accuse Leo of something else (what's new) you are misrepresenting the facts.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Let's just look carefully at what you have said on this.

Entitlements are what you are due, they have been fixed by statute, a contract of some other piece of law. You don't have to negotiate on this. You get it, and if you don't get it, you go to court and the court awards it to you.

If you are negotiating, it is no longer about your entitlement or your due, it is about what you can seek and get at the expense of someone else, in this case, creditors and others.

Leo was wrong. He either lied or is a fool.
As to what the workers are due, there is disagreement. Simply saying one side is wrong doesn't cut it. They are negotiating.

FrancieBrady

Bowie wrote: »

He is siding against the workers and lying to do it.

A FGer intervening on behalf of big business?...I'm shocked.

Bishop of hope

Nice award for Simon.
Proof that Irish govts brexit stance is, well regarded in Europe. Lead by FG of course.


https://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/simon-coveney-wins-european-business-press-award-1.4352517?mode=amp

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Nice award for Simon.
Proof that Irish govts brexit stance is, well regarded in Europe. Lead by FG of course.


https://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/simon-coveney-wins-european-business-press-award-1.4352517?mode=amp

Deserved IMO. He represented the concensus view here extremely well imo.

Yurt2

Coveney represents the better face of the FG tradition IMO. A huge mistake allowing Leo take over, who is a man who has a deeply cynical and partisan approach to politics.

James Brown

Yurt! wrote: »

Coveney represents the better face of the FG tradition IMO. A huge mistake allowing Leo take over, who is a man who has a deeply cynical and partisan approach to politics.

Certainly. Policy may differ but we didn't need a spiv.
An adult was preferable.

christy c

Yurt! wrote: »

Coveney represents the better face of the FG tradition IMO. A huge mistake allowing Leo take over, who is a man who has a deeply cynical and partisan approach to politics.

Said this before, I think Coveney would have more substance, but he would still come in for the same criticism as Leo. For example, he would have been going in after a stint as housing minister, it would be used as ammunition any chance people get.

Bowie

Bowie wrote: »

Leo was wrong. He either lied or is a fool.
As to what the workers are due, there is disagreement. Simply saying one side is wrong doesn't cut it. They are negotiating.

The workers ARE getting what they are due. What they are after is money owed to others, suppliers, etc. By continuing their dispute, they are reducing the value of the stock considerably, leaving less money for those who are actually entitled to it.

titan18

Yup, workers should just move on and find new jobs. They'll get the statutory redundancy and whatever is left over with the offer they got, if they can get that again. Just dragging it out is doing nothing but hurting themselves

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Said this before, I think Coveney would have more substance, but he would still come in for the same criticism as Leo. For example, he would have been going in after a stint as housing minister, it would be used as ammunition any chance people get.

All criticism is policy and attitude based. If he behaved like LV he'd get the same criticism.
Couldn't see Coveney quoting 'mean girls' and sending foolish bratty tweets. Or as in the Debenhams workers issue making false statements.

Brendan Bendar

Bowie wrote: »

All criticism is policy and attitude based. If he behaved like LV he'd get the same criticism.
Couldn't see Coveney quoting 'mean girls' and sending foolish bratty tweets. Or as in the Debenhams workers issue making false statements.

Quoting ‘mean girls’ and posting faux outrage ,whilst appointing a lad who rejoiced in having ‘broken the State’ and publicly expressed support for a terrorist organisation, to a senior position in your team takes some hard neck to try and defend.

For real hard neck and stupidity, that takes the biscuit.

To think a person could imagine that that event could be overlooked would take a neck like a steel pipe.

But.... hey...... :cool:

dundalkfc10

https://twitter.com/FineGael/status/1305213489888276481?s=19

https://twitter.com/JoeEDwyer/status/1305249846983569409?s=19

Wonder why the missing years? Rewriting History now to suit their agenda

dundalkfc10

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FineGael/status/1305213489888276481?s=19

https://twitter.com/JoeEDwyer/status/1305249846983569409?s=19

Wonder why the missing years? Rewriting History now to suit their agenda

What missing years?

dundalkfc10

Deleted User wrote: »

What missing years?

Il just leave this here for you

https://twitter.com/spyrojoe82/status/1305254672161222669?s=19