Messages

Probably deserved that but it was hard watching. Good to see Dagger running out there at the end.

Kolo og 

not again

[But we weren't talking about principles of law, were we? If you keep moving your goal posts, what it the point of trying to discuss the issue.]

I tried to quote various points you made Muppet but I'm still struggling with the quote function. but

But we weren't talking about principles of law, were we? If you keep moving your goal posts, what it the point of trying to discuss the issue.

I was talking about the law as it happens. I think what I said was what had SQ done wrong compared to Jo Blogs example. Given we are discussing an ongoing trial, your references to future trials, jail time etc I don't think this could be construed as "moving goalposts".

Joe will be pursued for his losses or will have to do a deal. This has nothing to do with Quinn who, for the 4th time, owned 30% of the bank. How does that compare with Joe Blogs?

So SQ did a deal, the deal did not address the problem so then he was pursued for his losses and bankrupted. Seems very similar to the process you advocate for Joe but for some reason you seem to think SQ deserves additional punishment (notwithstanding there may have been further actions after the loss regarding asset movements etc but as you have said, that is/was the focus of a separate action). I'm assuming this is because SQ had more money so he breached some of your thresholds? (I'm speculating of course, I do not know what is behind your reasoning as is increasingly obvious).

Why is it farcical to compare SQ and Joe blogs if we are talking about principles of law? Surely they should apply equally?

Anglo told SQ to unwind the position. So what? That's not their call to make. Do you think if some multi billion fund manager was told to do something by a portfolio company but they thought they could increase their profit or reduce a loss by acting differently they would agree to it? For everyone with a pensions sake I hope they wouldn't.

It's one of the functions of being a public company, you want to access the public markets for cash you have to accept the volatility of the same markets.

Why does it matter that SQ was Ireland's richest man? That's my point, he had the right to gamble billions because he had it. Or have you made a unilateral decision of a threshold that applies after which you need some sort of public consent to spend your money?

Could you answer two questions? In your view did SQ do anything wrong in building up his stake in Anglo? Secondly What do you think he should have done when Anglo offered him the option of unwinding his position?

[his]

I don't know enough about the insurance levy but I can't see how it caused the bailout. If the levy is due to losses In quinn insurance that strikes me as a failure in regulation.

I'm not dismissing the cfds. The problem that SQ brought to Anglo was that he had pursued a legal investment strategy that had went bad with the result that his fortune was on the line. Anglo could have turned round and said bad luck Sean and let market forces do their work. Again, not sure what he did wrong in your eyes?

for example, Joe blogs owns a house worth €100k and mortgages it to buy €100k of Anglo shares. Credit crunch happens and he's lost the lot. What has Joe done wrong?

How is Quinn responsible in any way for forcing the bailout? Anglo was doomed no matter what SQ did (legally) on the cfds. Whatever your views on how the family reacted to the unraveling of the whole sorry mess, as I said earlier if he gambled and lost €3.2bn that's his prerogative. He had earned the right to do that by building up his empire to that value.

The fact that debt has landed on the taxpayer is not his fault. Do you blame every small business owner who defaulted on an Anglo loan for the bailout?

I assume your referring to the collateral letter? I'm only aware of what I've seen in the court reports and I'm sure that will be a key piece of evidence in future cases.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying SQ is a victim in all this (meaning the wider context of the various cases), but this case is a criminal case against the Anglo executives. Maybe it's being discussed in the wrong thread (Eurozone bailout might be more appropriate) but for whatever reason your focus seems to be on SQ rather than the actual case currently being tried?

[If I owned something that 'created an artificial market for the shares', as you said Sean Quinn did, I would be very worried. In fact Sean Quinn was pretty worried too, that is why he eventually went to Anglo to tell them about the CFDs. He was in big trouble, but knew that because of his CFDs - so was Anglo.]

If I owned something that 'created an artificial market for the shares', as you said Sean Quinn did, I would be very worried. In fact Sean Quinn was pretty worried too, that is why he eventually went to Anglo to tell them about the CFDs. He was in big trouble, but knew that because of his CFDs - so was Anglo.

Muppet, regarding the extract above are you inferring in some way that there was something illegal in SQs CFD trades? Just to be clear, there was nt. There is a difference between creating an "artifical market" through putting out false information etc=insider trading=illegal.  What I was referring to was that SQ had potentially kept the share price artifically high through irrational demand=stupid/expensive/greedy=legal. If someone decides they are willing to pay twice what any share is worth on a whim irresepective of the underlying investment case, the price will increase. Supply and demand

The reason Sean Quinn was worried is because he had bet the farm on it, it was unravelling and he was losing a fortune.

Sean Quinn is making no "defence" as you put it. He is giving evidence, he is not on trial. The trial is not about illegal dealing in shares per se, its about a company providing unlawful financial assistance for the purchase of its own shares. None of teh Maple 10 are on trial. So your second point about manipulating the market is right, but it is Anglo who are accused of the manipulation.

[If anything Quinn's cfds kept Anglos life support turned on as it created an artificial market for the shares.]

If anything Quinn's cfds kept Anglos life support turned on as it created an artificial market for the shares. My point is that Quinn investing in Anglo was stupid, illformed , greedy whatever you want to call it but it wasn't illegal. He had earned the right to gamble on that scale if he so chose.

some of the actions after the ship started to sink might have been questionable in terms of moving assets et all but to my knowledge he has not been charged under criminal law.

Oh dear.
But seriously, I am glad you wrote that. You appear to be arguing for his immediate arrest which is something I would like to see.

It is pathetic and sickening to see him portray himself as some sort of victim of all of this. I see the judge was 'irked' by some of his testimony.

Quinn suggested he had "dipped his toes" in CFDs - http://www.thejournal.ie/sean-quinn-1309099-Feb2014/.

This is like describing the Irish pack's performance against Wales as: softly wooing them.

Muppet, If you could manage to elaborate on what is confusing you about the bit you highlighted?? And perhaps if you could also elaborate on how you have come to the conclusion "You appear to be arguing for his immediate arrest" ? Pretty clear where you stand on this but not everyone shares your views.

If anything Quinn's cfds kept Anglos life support turned on as it created an artificial market for the shares. My point is that Quinn investing in Anglo was stupid, illformed , greedy whatever you want to call it but it wasn't illegal. He had earned the right to gamble on that scale if he so chose.

some of the actions after the ship started to sink might have been questionable in terms of moving assets et all but to my knowledge he has not been charged under criminal law.

Sean Quinn on trial is he? As he admitted on numerous occasions today he might have been greedy,stupid etc but there are no criminal charges against him. He gambled and lost. Big.

The case this week is about whether the house was stacking the deck in its favour.

I see Sean sr was giving evidence at the Anglo trial today. really does show how some of these bankers operated back in the day. A loan of €500m arranged in a conversation to plug a "hole" like it was a parking ticket.
The numbers are frightening.

So  Liverpool to finish fourth but United win the champions league and Liverpool end up in the Europaleague.....

wonderful performance from Liverpool. In all honesty arsenal were lucky to be four nil down after 20. The suarez strike that hit the post was incredible. Just like the Everton game the pressing by the front four was unrelenting. there was an occasion on the left wing where one arsenal player was surrounded by Liverpool men every way he turned. It was like Tyrone Kerry in 2005!

And as a side note to a certain red nosed Scot, Jordan Henderson as an athlete and box to box midfielder is one of the best in the league at the minute......"runs from his hips" ffs