IGB Site owned by NAMA!! Prof Niamh Brennan

[johnfás]

i was reading about this in the IT this mornin:



She mentions two reports and some issues with the former chairman too, butthe question remains: What the hell went on the in DDDA? What exactly was their purpose and why did they feel the need to but the IGB site in the first place?

The question that need to be asked is what happened after about 2005 when several important figures left the authority. The likes of Peter Coyne, who is an absolutely top quality planner and was CEO until 2005, who then left and that is when alot of the problems began to start. The DDDA certainly became something which it was not in the beginning. Most of the decent work which went on down there was pre 2005 anyway.

[PeeMac]

Prof Brennan this morning was a disgrace. She basically said we didn't lose too much money as the state got lots of funds from the sale. But the state would have received those funds from the sale if private investors purchased the site. If she is the one sent in to sort out this mess, we're in more trouble than we thought.

[hammer]

Listen to the interview again.

NAMA actually "paid" a sum equal to the amount DDDA were carrying it for on their books prior to the write down

Also she mentions the state also collected stamp duty on the purchase.

She made it sound significant. No it was not. Remember all the furore over the fact that the site was owned by a company and the stamp duty related to the shares transferred and not the site value

[irishpancake]

Listen to the interview again.

NAMA actually "paid" a sum equal to the amount DDDA were carrying it for on their books prior to the write down

Also she mentions the state also collected stamp duty on the purchase.

She made it sound significant. No it was not. Remember all the furore over the fact that the site was owned by a company and the stamp duty related to the shares transferred and not the site value

She said that NAMA now owns the site!!

Is this true, and is this a part of NAMA's function?

Has it taken the site as the interest on the loans it acquired is not being paid?

Does NAMA own the loans, and not the site?

What is the true position?

I am confused, especially by Prof. Brennan's statement:


"The site is now owned by the Taxpayer, because it is it is now owned by NAMA" Prof. Niamh Brennan

This can clearly be heard on the interview, link below.

Am I making too much of this, or it is an example of Creative Accounting?