Vincent is rampant tonight 
A full replay of the Clare v Galway 21s match is just after starting on TG4âŚEpic, Epic stuff!
Iâd say Cathal Moore would be great craicâŚ
Thank god i ainât too fluent in the languageâŚMust say i am pleasantly surprised with the amount of work Cathal chaplin went through, thought he was very quiet on the day and Colin Ryanâs ability to pick a pass*
- I was extremely hungover watching the match and have only watched back once in the pubâŚ
Vincent has been on fire the last two nights. Jaysus he went through that English one promoting the no vote for a shortcut last night.
Did a number on Joan Burton last night too.
Joe Higgins held his own.
Is Vincent saying Yes on Lisbon?
I didnât realise Vinny was back on the box.
Always good for a watch even if he is an obnoxious fook.
He goes through people with a mere sigh at their arguments, it really is great tv
He was a disgrace when interviewing Brian Lenihan though.
Awful.
Lenihan showed him up badly.
Vincent basically said âLisbon is a load of cockâ last night, just not in those terms. Vincent took no side, he made dirt of both sides arguments, almost reducing some English one on the no side to tears.
Donât see the no vote succeeding this time anyway. The threat of being left on the sidelines in europe is too scary for the people. Particularly in the current climate.
The weather looks alright to me today.
Some good discussion there on Vinnyâs show.
Funny Browne slagging off the current economic system and how it is immoral that we have to bail out the banks before cutting to a break and the show is sponsored byâŚ
Bank of Scotland.
[quote=âfarmerinthecityâ]Some good discussion there on Vinnyâs show.
Funny Browne slagging off the current economic system and how it is immoral that we have to bail out the banks before cutting to a break and the show is sponsored byâŚ
Bank of Scotland.[/quote]
Iâm sure he sees the irony to be fair to him. What gets me is how the social cost of the NAMA scheme is completely ignored, and you have people seriously trying to suggest that the taxpayer can come out of this on top. There will have to be savage cutbacks to pay for this thing. Does not count as a cost? Is it expected that billions can be taken out of the health and education sectors without any cost?
That Robbie Kelleher was some piece of work tonight.
He basically dismissed the issue of paying above market value as nonsense because there was ââno marketââ at the moment and it could be up or down in five to ten years time. Him from Davy Stockbrokers. Utter gibberish. Vincent went far too easily on the sham. Lucey is a poor poster boy for the opposition.
I thought Kelleher pretty much told it as it is.
If we leave things the way they are the banks will go bust - i.e. buy at the same price that they could sell it for in the markets at the moment.
We therefore must pay a premium for them in order to prevent them going bust.
Yes - there is a huge cost there (WTB I donât think anyone is ignoring that) but is it a greater cost than letting the banks go bust and the effect that will have on the economy.
Vincentâs point afterwards was it is a disgrace that the whole banking system, where banks who hold such much power and vitality in an economy, was allowed to be so reckless in their dealings. He wondered if this type of capitalist economy serves ant purposes. Interesting.
I think a vital thing is too regulate the shite out of these cunts in future. Given of course that the State has a sizeable holding in them at present, it is unlikely that such a collapse would happen again however I am sure a time will come when they will sell their share.
[quote=âfarmerinthecityâ]I thought Kelleher pretty much told it as it is.
If we leave things the way they are the banks will go bust - i.e. buy at the same price that they could sell it for in the markets at the moment.
We therefore must pay a premium for them in order to prevent them going bust.
Yes - there is a huge cost there (WTB I donât think anyone is ignoring that) but is it a greater cost than letting the banks go bust and the effect that will have on the economy.
Vincentâs point afterwards was it is a disgrace that the whole banking system, where banks who hold such much power and vitality in an economy, was allowed to be so reckless in their dealings. He wondered if this type of capitalist economy serves ant purposes. Interesting.
I think a vital thing is too regulate the shite out of these cunts in future. Given of course that the State has a sizeable holding in them at present, it is unlikely that such a collapse would happen again however I am sure a time will come when they will sell their share.[/quote]
Itâs not a straight choice between letting the banks go bust and choosing NAMA. You can nationalise the banks, you can consolidate them into one bad bank and allow good banks to develop the economy, you could even consolidate them all into one big good bank and do a NAMA style agreement to get rid of their loanbooks.
But at least in those alternatives youâre guaranteed some change in the operation of the banks that are left to fund this economy. Right now the banks that made the biggest mistakes get bailed out the most and theyâve fuck all incentive to change their managment or strategic goals.
In two years time AIB and BOI will have a glut of capital to go to the market with to lend - money theyâve been given up front by NAMA - and anybody else who played by logical lending practices in the past wonât have that sort of capital.
NAMA rewards the reckless and provides absolutely no imperative for them to change their ways. Itâs all well and good talking about a regulatory regime but thatâs like solving crime solely by throwing money at policing. Everyone knows that doesnât work.
[quote=âRockoâ]Itâs not a straight choice between letting the banks go bust and choosing NAMA. You can nationalise the banks, you can consolidate them into one bad bank and allow good banks to develop the economy, you could even consolidate them all into one big good bank and do a NAMA style agreement to get rid of their loanbooks.
But at least in those alternatives youâre guaranteed some change in the operation of the banks that are left to fund this economy. Right now the banks that made the biggest mistakes get bailed out the most and theyâve fuck all incentive to change their managment or strategic goals.
In two years time AIB and BOI will have a glut of capital to go to the market with to lend - money theyâve been given up front by NAMA - and anybody else who played by logical lending practices in the past wonât have that sort of capital.
NAMA rewards the reckless and provides absolutely no imperative for them to change their ways. Itâs all well and good talking about a regulatory regime but thatâs like solving crime solely by throwing money at policing. Everyone knows that doesnât work.[/quote]
Nationalising the banks is frought with danger though. The message that this would send out to the market would be catastrophic. Ireland is a country that is fucked. I am not sure who the economy is meant get going again with such a situation.
What is the difference between NAMA (essentially is the bad bank) and the second proposal above? Do you mean keep the bad bank in private ownership? There could be some justification in that I.e. much of the risk is removed from the tax payer. However you may as well let that bank go bust now.
As for the third one I am not sure what that will achieve. Is it not better having two or three good banks instead of one dominant good bank?
I think we are agreed that adjustments are needed to be made to the banking system. Outside of nationalisation, there is no way of not rewarding the reckless. The bad loans must be taken off the balance sheets to allow credit to flow again.
I also disagree with you on the regulatory point. But it needs to be implemented worldwide as this is a worldwide problem.
Anyone see the Derrin Browne illusion on Channel4 last night with the lottery numbers. Fucking cunt said beforehand he might only get 5/6 but got all six. Twas obviously an illusion but it was a fairly impressive one.
He will reveal on Friday how he did it.
[quote=âtipptops*â]Anyone see the Derrin Browne illusion on Channel4 last night with the lottery numbers. Fucking cunt said beforehand he might only get 5/6 but got all six. Twas obviously an illusion but it was a fairly impressive one.
He will reveal on Friday how he did it.[/quote]
I am very wary of those illusion things. Give me a good card trick anyday.