Smart were pushed out of market by eircom

Re: Former Smart residential customer now cut off

I don't follow this last statement about Smart being "pushed out". Any company that is spending more than it takes in is doomed. There are many other phone operators in Ireland who are sucessful. Smart could still have all it's customers if it were well managed
 
Re: Former Smart residential customer now cut off

I don't understand the statement either and it doesn't really add anything to the specific discussion in hand. Take it to Letting Off Steam if you want to complain about Smart allegedly being pushed out of the market.
 
Re: Former Smart residential customer now cut off

The only company that were going to provide alternative BB here were Smart i.e not badge engineered Eircom BB. So we're now back to the old monoply in regards to copper wire(golden mile) broadband. From previous posts the wirefree providers don't seem to be making any headway at all. Pushed/pulled,it makes no difference good ole Eircom always win.
 
No doubt that Eircom took an opportunity to try put Smart out of business but surely an organisation that was burning cash at the rate Smart were should not have been continuing to 'build the brand' with hot air balloons, weather sponsorship on TV etc. They were also providing certain services at a loss based on the 'product' , let alone the additional cost of the back office staff to support such products.
 
EIRCOM area perfect example of everything that's worng with the Celtic Tiger. Sheer greed and incompetance from the staff and owners of EIRCOM has left many EIRCOM investors out of pocket and thousands of EIRCOM employees rolling in unearned, undeserved cash. EIRCOM did what they could to shut out SMART.
 
Gone Fishin' said:
Sheer greed and incompetance from the staff and owners of EIRCOM has left many EIRCOM investors out of pocket
Click to expand...
Sheer greed on their own part left many eircom investors out of pocket. Myself included. That's the risk you take investing (directly) in shares.
 
Perhaps but how many investors ever thought their shares would be taken off them for a pittance? I bought some, for my children, as a long term investment, only to find that Tony O'Reilly could take them off me for SFA then make a fortune and fekk off into the sunset.

I wasn't being greedy. It was a haven for a few bob, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Gone Fishin' said:
owners of EIRCOM have left many EIRCOM investors out of pocket
Click to expand...

emm... the investors are the owners. If you're refering to the sale of Eircom at below float price to Tony and the boys... well I believe the "investors" were very foolish to back the sale at a price that clearly undervalued the business. Equally the "investors" were foolish to back the sale of Eircell. Most of these "investors" were mere small individual speculators who failed to heed the maximum, shares can drop in value as well as rise and deservedly lost money due to their own inertia, herd mentality and credulence. 500,000 people bought shares in Eircom at a time there where perhaps 50 companies to invest in on the ISEQ - why did they choose Eircom? Because they were too lazy to research their investment and just did what Mary told them... a fool and his money is soon parted.

By the way if by "owners", you ment management, then I would concur with you, the managers and staff ran the company for heir own benefit and did indeed squander shareholder money and severely damage the telecommuncications industry in this country.
 
Gone Fishin' said:
Perhaps but how many investors ever thought their shares would be taken off them for a pittance? I bought some, for my children, as a long term investment, only to find that Tony O'Reilly could take them off me for SFA then make a fortune and fekk off into the sunset.
Click to expand...
Only because the majority of shareholers voted for such a deal I presume? Such is one of the risks of direct share investments.
 
Gone Fishin' said:
only to find that Tony O'Reilly could take them off me for SFA then make a fortune and fekk off into the sunset.
Click to expand...

He could'nt just take it off yee - he required a majority vote to take over the company. Of the 500,000 people like yourself who invested I wonder how many voted against - and how many just did'nt bother to exercise their right as shareholders? I'm quite certain a very large proportion did'nt bother their heads to return the relevent forms.

It's unfortunate you lost money - but thats a risk associated with investing and whats more the mass inertia and laziness of the small shareholders allowed the tycoons to steal your firm from right underneath your noses.
 
CGorman said:
He could'nt just take it off yee - he required a majority vote to take over the company. Of the 500,000 people like yourself who invested I wonder how many voted against - and how many just did'nt bother to exercise their right as shareholders? I'm quite certain a very large proportion did'nt bother their heads to return the relevent forms.
Click to expand...
Chances are the larger institutional investors and ESOT had an effective veto over smaller individual shareholders. Again - just one of the risks of investing in any company.
 
CGorman said:
He could'nt just take it off yee .................
Click to expand...

Well, my shares were taken off me, without my consent. How it was acheived doesn't matter a jot to me.

So, by investing in BOI, or AIB, or KINGSPAN shares, would I be classified as being "Greedy"? I wouldn't say so? No, I wouldn't.

The influence of ESOT is obscene. How they were give 15% of the company for absolutley nothing, beggars belief. (Typical Bertie Union concession.)


BTW I refuse to have anything to do with EIRCOM, where possible (They are teh wholesale provider fo a telephone line to my phone provider). I will have nothing to do with them or any of their associated companies. METEOR, etc.
 
I'm not doubting a significant percentage of the shares where institutionally owned/owned by the employees (perhaps as much as 50%... don't have figures at hand) - but if the 500,000 small shareolders had all voted against, I would imagine it would have been exceptionally difficult to get the takeover passed. I'm just pointing out that if one did'nt bother to even use their small vote then they should'nt give out (i'm not insinuating that Gone Fishin' is one of these people, i'm just talking in general).

In the same way I believe anyone who did'nt vote (but who was eligible) in the last general election, should'nt complain about the current administration. They may claim their vote is relatively worthless (true) but if everybody adopted that attitude where would we be?
 
Gone Fishin' said:
So, by investing in BOI, or AIB, or KINGSPAN shares, would I be classified as being "Greedy"? I wouldn't say so? No, I wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Greedy? I never said you were greedy - I believe you are quite entitled to invest with the expectation of profit - heck I even had a few euro in Eircom (sold at a profit though). I'm just pointing out the fact that many "investors" in eircom were ingnorant of the risks associated with stockmarket investment. I'm in no way pointing a fingure at you as greedy... althought personally i'd have to throw CRH into that portfolio too!

Gone Fishin' said:
The influence of ESOT is obscene. How they were give 15% of the company for absolutley nothing, beggars belief.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with you on this.
 
Gone Fishin' said:
So, by investing in BOI, or AIB, or KINGSPAN shares, would I be classified as being "Greedy"?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. I never said that all investors were greedy. Many were in the eircom case. Including myself. And got burnt as a result.
The influence of ESOT is obscene. How they were give 15% of the company for absolutley nothing, beggars belief. (Typical Bertie Union concession.)
Click to expand...
Surely the ESOT issue (i.e. how much of the company they would own/control) was known at IPO time and set out in the prospectus and in subsequent annual reports? As such, in my opinion, any investor who did not apprise themselves of the facts only has themself to blame if they consider that the ESOT was subsequently instrumental in them incurring losses.
BTW I refuse to have anything to do with EIRCOM, where possible (They are teh wholesale provider fo a telephone line to my phone provider). I will have nothing to do with them or any of their associated companies. METEOR, etc.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. That is your prerogative. Why not get rid of the landline altogether so?
 
When everyone's finished ranting. What has this thread got to do with smart telecom? Any chance Club Man could make this a new thread like he did my original reply? Frankly,if all the people who were stung by losing their money in the Eircom flotation had made a killing for themselves..........................the silence would be golden. Everybody was warned before the flotation on the Marion Finucane show and other media to be prepared for the long haul on this investment. NOT to borrow to invest:and to only use money that you were not wanting to use for a long time.
 
To bring the topic back on topic... IMHO, whilst Smarts failure was aided greatly by Eircoms tactics, I do believe the business was poorly run and poorly thought out. It's burn rate was far too great and even if eircom had been far more generous to its wee competitor, I doubt Smart would have made a decent return for its shareholders for many many long years.
 
I'm a little confused, people here seem to be talking about Smart like they have gone out of business. I know they've left the residential phone only market but they are still in the broadband and phone (and perhaps other) markets. Can someone clarify?
 
Dowee said:
I know they've left the residential phone only market
Click to expand...
Saying "they left" doesn't exactly convey the shambolic way in which this happened and how they left eircom (as the wholesale provider owed c. €4M by Smart) and their voice only residential customers in the lurch.
but they are still in the broadband and phone (and perhaps other) markets.
Click to expand...
Yes - but [broken link removed] surely?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top