He says he offered 85%.
He says they said to hum "Ivan it wouldn't matter of you offered 99% we wouldn't accept it"
Nice
Steve Thatcher
While I accept all the points of view above, and see the reason in all of them, I think the man has suffered enough. He wasn't underhanded, he was quite up front about what and why he was doing all the time. I wouldn't underestimate the effect it had on him his wife and his children. Go easy.
When he says offering them 85%, what he means is some form of restructuring of debt, not a repayment of 85% which they'd have jumped at.
Ivan was owing something like 3.7m to AIB and claims he offered 3.14m and was rejected. Claims the bank said if he offered 3.6963m they'd reject that as well.
The bank vindictivly threw those millions away and instead pursued a bankruptcy.
Here's one big problem, if he had 3m the bank would have no problem and neither would have had Ivan, with those finances and maybe 300k in annual household income the bank would have no need to waste money going after his bankruptcy or even to look for immediate full repayment, he'd just need to keep the payments up to date.
In reality Ivan was several million in debt to more than one bank, and any income was spent partially servicing his debt. He clearly was not in position to be offering 3m to any bank.
Has anyone gone through the papers yet. Was Ivan in a position to pay AIB €3m ?
Did the creditors get 85 pence in the pound?
I still don't understand why someone with a substantial guaranteed future income can just walk away from all debts without having some charge on future income. Yates has got a govt pension of 75K pa (index-linked) for life - why can't he be made pay even 20K pa out of that? It just seems really unfair to debtors that he walks away from his debts, back into a life with a guaranteed comfortable income. He is quoted as saying he is 'broke' - but he has no debts and an annual income of 75K plus whatever he gets from actual work (although I note he is careful to say that no contracts have been signed yet for Newstalk or a book) - there are lots of people in the country who would like to be his definition of broke.
Clearly he wasn't making a straightforward repayment offer that some here believed from his words yesterday. There's a difference between offering immediate repayment of an amount versus presenting some plan that could eventually yield up to that amount.Mr Yates said the bank got “hardcore” in late 2011 over the debts and claims that AIB rejected a settlement that would have yielded it up to 86 cent in the euro on its debts and would have netted it €1 million more than it now stands to make.
I still don't understand why someone with a substantial guaranteed future income can just walk away from all debts without having some charge on future income. Yates has got a govt pension of 75K pa (index-linked) for life - why can't he be made pay even 20K pa out of that? It just seems really unfair to debtors that he walks away from his debts, back into a life with a guaranteed comfortable income. He is quoted as saying he is 'broke' - but he has no debts and an annual income of 75K plus whatever he gets from actual work (although I note he is careful to say that no contracts have been signed yet for Newstalk or a book) - there are lots of people in the country who would like to be his definition of broke.
It it was an Irish bankruptcy maybe? Ivan will have been too clever for that.