Prime Time Heckle - How much do you really know about Declan Ganley?

toxic avenger wrote:

Ganley was just on Newstalk, lambasting the program. Apparently they didn't even name his parents correctly, despite having spent three hours with them in their home. He said his 5 year old nephew asked his mum why they were playing 'monster music' on the program. He was pretty emphatic about never having set eyes on the dead Albanian chap.

I am sorry to have missed that. If those are the two points that he saw fit to comment on he is continuing to be slippery as an eel.
What a folksy response, "Monster music" and "mammy's name"

What about the substantial points? Toxic do you think you would react that way to a program about yourself. I note that the "site whose name we dare not speak" mentions he denied again ever meeting "the dead Albania" who worked for him . Did his "people" not confirm to RTE that they met ?


FYI Here is what he said in 1996 before collecting the vouchers.

Quote :

Albania Grants First Investment Fund Licence



LONDON, April 23 - Albania has granted its first investment fund licence to
the Anglo-Adriatic Investment Fund, which is now offering to manage
investments both for holders of Albanian privatisation vouchers and
strategic international partners and merchant banks in Albania's
privatisation process. Mr Declan Ganley, Anglo-Adriatic chairman, says the
fund, in which Ganley International owns the majority shareholding and
Rothschild Emerging Markets 10 per cent, will serve as a catalyst for
foreign investment in Albania. The fund, Mr Ganley says, will offer holders
of privatisation vouchers, which are now traded on the street foPost a replyr some 13.5
per cent of their value, a way to manage their holdings and have more
leverage over their investments. With a reported 16 per cent increase in GDP
for 1995, Albania is one of the fastest growing economies in eastern Europe.
Mr Ganley says there is much interest in investment in its privatisation
process from major foreign investment houses and merchant banks, especially
in the areas of electricity, telecommunications, mining and tourism - some
of which have yet to be included in the country's privatisation process.
(Courtesy of Financial Times, April 23, 1996)

I can't understand how he was so vague about this fund last night.

Re Kevbar was he banned here too?

Frightened Albanian wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Ganley was just on Newstalk, lambasting the program. Apparently they didn't even name his parents correctly, despite having spent three hours with them in their home. He said his 5 year old nephew asked his mum why they were playing 'monster music' on the program. He was pretty emphatic about never having set eyes on the dead Albanian chap.

I am sorry to have missed that. If those are the two points that he saw fit to comment on he is continuing to be slippery as an eel.
What a folksy response, "Monster music" and "mammy's name"

What about the substantial points? Toxic do you think you would react that way to a program about yourself. I note that the "site whose name we dare not speak" mentions he denied again ever meeting "the dead Albania" who worked for him . Did his "people" not confirm to RTE that they met ?


FYI Here is what he said in 1996 before collecting the vouchers.

Quote :

Albania Grants First Investment Fund Licence



LONDON, April 23 - Albania has granted its first investment fund licence to
the Anglo-Adriatic Investment Fund, which is now offering to manage
investments both for holders of Albanian privatisation vouchers and
strategic international partners and merchant banks in Albania's
privatisation process. Mr Declan Ganley, Anglo-Adriatic chairman, says the
fund, in which Ganley International owns the majority shareholding and
Rothschild Emerging Markets 10 per cent, will serve as a catalyst for
foreign investment in Albania. The fund, Mr Ganley says, will offer holders
of privatisation vouchers, which are now traded on the street foPost a replyr some 13.5
per cent of their value, a way to manage their holdings and have more
leverage over their investments. With a reported 16 per cent increase in GDP
for 1995, Albania is one of the fastest growing economies in eastern Europe.
Mr Ganley says there is much interest in investment in its privatisation
process from major foreign investment houses and merchant banks, especially
in the areas of electricity, telecommunications, mining and tourism - some
of which have yet to be included in the country's privatisation process.
(Courtesy of Financial Times, April 23, 1996)

I can't understand how he was so vague about this fund last night.

Re Kevbar was he banned here too?

I agree that Ganley seems a little shifty on the money and past business activities, there is a certain disconcerting lack of openness about the whole thing. My comments were primarily aimed at the program itself, which you would have to agree was pretty shoddily put together, whatever your view on Ganley or the questions he needs to answer. In fact, if I were in your shoes, I'd be annoyed about the program, which only played into his hands by its cackhanded 'Brass Eye' approach to it all. As to the substantive issues, I don't know what the answers are or where the truth lies, there are certainly valid questions to be asked and a seeming reluctance to answer them head on. On the other hand, Ganley isn't (yet) a politician, and I note that RTE did not do anything like that level of hatchet job even on Ahern.

Quote :

Re Kevbar was he banned here too?

Temporarily suspended (now finished).

toxic avenger wrote:

...and I note that RTE did not do anything like that level of hatchet job even on Ahern.

TBH TA I think RTE and Keena have behaved in the same way towards Ahern as towards Ganley - loads of suggestion and loads of emphasis on unrelated facts. It is amusing to me to see that you perceive such a difference in approach now that you don't agree with the bias. It is also gas to see you use the same language as I did about Ahern about there being questions to be answered. We certainly are birds of a feather you and I.

If you want to know where Ahern got the zero money he has now and the big house he doesn't own then I can tell you he worked at the Mater and was a public rep from when he was 25 years old to the present day. At least Ahern gives explanations even if his political enemies don't believe them. Ganley just refuses point blank to disclose anything. There is no comparison between the men even if the media bias is similar.

Kevbar was suspended for 48 hours due to hostile pms made to another member here.

I think the 48 hours must be up by now.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

...and I note that RTE did not do anything like that level of hatchet job even on Ahern.

TBH TA I think RTE and Keena have behaved in the same way towards Ahern as towards Ganley - loads of suggestion and loads of emphasis on unrelated facts. It is amusing to me to see that you perceive such a difference in approach now that you don't agree with the bias. It is also gas to see you use the same language as I did about Ahern about there being questions to be answered. We certainly are birds of a feather you and I.

If you want to know where Ahern got the zero money he has now and the big house he doesn't own then I can tell you he worked at the Mater and was a public rep from when he was 25 years old to the present day. At least Ahern gives explanations even if his political enemies don't believe them. Ganley just refuses point blank to disclose anything. There is no comparison between the men even if the media bias is similar.

Keena, when discussing Ahern, was a different type of journalist, he presented a cold and clinical anlaysis of the evidence presented by Ahern (which you don't have to be a 'political enemy' of Ahern to see could not possibly stack up - and I am not a political enemy of Ahern in the sense of being anti-FF, actually all my family were FF, both my grandfathers were founder members in 1926, and I'm actually related, a bit distantly, to the Lenihans). With Ganley there is much more of the campaigning investigative reporter about Keena, doorstepping, insistent questioning, etc. And, just for the record, I do not support Ganley or Libertas, they are a long way to the right of me and I'm slightly suspicious of their agenda, particularly in relation to labour relations, trade union recognition, etc. So it's not remotely a case of me 'defending' Ganley, on the contrary, there are questions that I would indeed like him to answer, and I note evasiveness in relation to some of them. (As regards your explanation for the source of Ahern's lodgments, they are nearly as believable as his explanation for where he got the Sterling 'salary cheques'...).

toxic avenger wrote:

I agree that Ganley seems a little shifty on the money and past business activities, there is a certain disconcerting lack of openness about the whole thing. My comments were primarily aimed at the program itself, which you would have to agree was pretty shoddily put together, whatever your view on Ganley or the questions he needs to answer. In fact, if I were in your shoes, I'd be annoyed about the program, which only played into his hands by its cackhanded 'Brass Eye' approach to it all. As to the substantive issues, I don't know what the answers are or where the truth lies, there are certainly valid questions to be asked and a seeming reluctance to answer them head on. On the other hand, Ganley isn't (yet) a politician, and I note that RTE did not do anything like that level of hatchet job even on Ahern.

The show stirred the pot. It proves that the posters that are here and elsewhere who brought up these issues are far from irrational. A transcript would be a very useful tool to show the true inconsistencies in Ganley's answers. There were many strange anomalies which it threw up. I think that the job could have been done much better but perhaps that would take a series which dealt with each issue separately eg Russia , Albania, Iraq, Ganley International.
Marino seemed to be the Capi di Tuti Capi who recruited the young Ganley. He is a director of Rivada.


Now we must note this that we are all aware that Libertas was
1/ a think tank before registering as a political party
2/ Ganley IS a politician now and it was his decision that Libertas campaign on Lisbon
3/ Libertas was fpart of Rivada and the employees eg Nunn Cochrane employees of Rivada in 2007 and early 2008, (this is reffed Irish Times Nunn quotes)
ie on the payroll of the company =connection to Don Marino = connections to the affairs in Russia in 90s.
4/ Nunn would be the person to find out a lot more from re the pre Lisbon Libertas and what exactly they were intended to be then.
5/ Ganley calls all the shots at Libertas, John McGurk's answers show that he could not answer the question except to say "as far as I know" re finances. If I were a young man like him I would be very nervous about that lack of knowledge.
6/ Someone like Caroline Simon obviously sees that Libertas compliments her other interest the Pro Life Campaign. Why we can't know becouse we don't know what Libertas actually stands for beyond that it is a front for Declan Ganley's ambition.
7/ We do not know what Ganley's ambition or goal is
8/ We know he won't answer questions about issue or will fudge distort answers



I know a lot of people with equal capital to Ganley asserted worth and they often attract acolytes like moths to a flame. It is next to impossible to be on an equal footing with them in relationships. The idea that a man has that much cash makes those around him feel protected in a strange way. They generally are not protected when the s*** hits the fan. I would be nervous if I was staking my career and good name on Ganley. Young followers beware. He can take a plane to USA, can they?

The RTE show also questioned Ganleys guessed at net worth. NB the 1m they assert he made from forestry company Kipelovo and the 100 mil that CNBC suggest he made. A vast difference there.

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I know a lot of people with equal capital to Ganley asserted worth and they often attract acolytes like moths to a flame. It is next to impossible to be on an equal footing with them in relationships. The idea that a man has that much cash makes those around him feel protected in a strange way. They generally are not protected when the s*** hits the fan. I would be nervous if I was staking my career and good name on Ganley. Young followers beware. He can take a plane to USA, can they?

I'd agree with the general sentiment of that point. A lot of Libertas campaigners are staking their reputation to a large degree on one man, it's a bit of a one-man show, and it's not a gamble I'd be happy to take.

toxic avenger wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

I know a lot of people with equal capital to Ganley asserted worth and they often attract acolytes like moths to a flame. It is next to impossible to be on an equal footing with them in relationships. The idea that a man has that much cash makes those around him feel protected in a strange way. They generally are not protected when the s*** hits the fan. I would be nervous if I was staking my career and good name on Ganley. Young followers beware. He can take a plane to USA, can they?

I'd agree with the general sentiment of that point. A lot of Libertas campaigners are staking their reputation to a large degree on one man, it's a bit of a one-man show, and it's not a gamble I'd be happy to take.

I'm emphatically not a member or supporter of Libertas but one insider mentioned to me that a lot of them think Ganley has not been a great figurehead/leader. Maybe they are casting about for someone else?

Alot of people equate money with alot of things... rarely are they right.

Aragon wrote:

I'm emphatically not a member or supporter of Libertas but one insider mentioned to me that a lot of them think Ganley has not been a great figurehead/leader. Maybe they are casting about for someone else?

How would they fund their campaigns without him?

Aragon wrote:

I'm emphatically not a member or supporter of Libertas but one insider mentioned to me that a lot of them think Ganley has not been a great figurehead/leader. Maybe they are casting about for someone else?

Surely that would involve setting up a different organisation as he would own the Libertas brand. If it happened it would only happen because Ganley was bailing out. They might be wise to bail out first as there are several bright young people involved and they will be treated like ex cult members after all this collapses and I have no doubt it will collapse around their ears. He will bail on them.

toxic avenger wrote:

Keena, when discussing Ahern, was a different type of journalist, .... With Ganley there is much more of the campaigning investigative reporter about Keena, doorstepping, insistent questioning, etc. And, just for the record, I do not support Ganley or Libertas, ..... So it's not remotely a case of me 'defending' Ganley, on the contrary, there are questions that I would indeed like him to answer, and I note evasiveness in relation to some of them. ....

I disagree with you about Keena. What has he said about Ganley that has been so controversial? He was after Ahern for a long time. Anyway, it is my perception that your perception is different when the boot is on the other foot . I don't consider you to be a Libertas supporter or to be a Ganley defender. I am happy to take you at your word on those points. It is simply the fact that you can perceive bias and skewed innuendo-laden reporting when you are not passionately against the man to begin with. this is perfectly natural to my mind. I don't mean to attack you - I just thought it was an interesting psychological observation.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

I disagree with you about Keena. What has he said about Ganley that has been so controversial? He was after Ahern for a long time. Anyway, it is my perception that your perception is different when the boot is on the other foot . I don't consider you to be a Libertas supporter or to be a Ganley defender. I am happy to take you at your word on those points. It is simply the fact that you can perceive bias and skewed innuendo-laden reporting when you are not passionately against the man to begin with. this is perfectly natural to my mind. I don't mean to attack you - I just thought it was an interesting psychological observation.

But the boot is not on the other foot, or any foot, when it comes to Ganley, I don't give a toss one way or the other. He could club baby seals to death for fun for all I know, but my point about last night's 'Brass Eye' level of production is a perfectly reasonable and objective one, and it is a fact that I do not remember a single RTE program that went to such lengths in relation to the Ahern story. None of that is my fault. In relation to Keena, I recall he was involved in a scuffle with Libertas people on their bus, he apparently refused to get off the bus and reduced a young female volunteer to tears or something. I don't recall that happening with any of the Drumcondra set. This is not an accusation of bias, nor an attack in any way on Keena, just a note of the different styles he has adopted in the two cases.

I know you're not attacking me, I have good regard for you from P.ie and here, disagree with you as I may...

Sure we won't fall out over it

johnfás wrote:

Aragon wrote:

I'm emphatically not a member or supporter of Libertas but one insider mentioned to me that a lot of them think Ganley has not been a great figurehead/leader. Maybe they are casting about for someone else?

How would they fund their campaigns without him?

Dunno, it might well be that his donations aren't dependent on him being their party leader?

Aragon wrote:

I'm emphatically not a member or supporter of Libertas but one insider mentioned to me that a lot of them think Ganley has not been a great figurehead/leader. Maybe they are casting about for someone else?

Who are "they"? They are not memebers of "Libertas", are they? What are they inside? Are "they" the employees?

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Aragon wrote:

I'm emphatically not a member or supporter of Libertas but one insider mentioned to me that a lot of them think Ganley has not been a great figurehead/leader. Maybe they are casting about for someone else?

Surely that would involve setting up a different organisation as he would own the Libertas brand. If it happened it would only happen because Ganley was bailing out. They might be wise to bail out first as there are several bright young people involved and they will be treated like ex cult members after all this collapses and I have no doubt it will collapse around their ears. He will bail on them.

I haven't seen the Memorandum and Articles of the registered Company Libertas. I can't think of any other political grouping in which the control of the name is vested in a small group of Directors. Who are the Directors btw?

cactus flower wrote:

Frightened Albanian wrote:

Aragon wrote:

I'm emphatically not a member or supporter of Libertas but one insider mentioned to me that a lot of them think Ganley has not been a great figurehead/leader. Maybe they are casting about for someone else?

Surely that would involve setting up a different organisation as he would own the Libertas brand. If it happened it would only happen because Ganley was bailing out. They might be wise to bail out first as there are several bright young people involved and they will be treated like ex cult members after all this collapses and I have no doubt it will collapse around their ears. He will bail on them.

I haven't seen the Memorandum and Articles of the registered Company Libertas. I can't think of any other political grouping in which the control of the name is vested in a small group of Directors. Who are the Directors btw?

Next week we must get those. I will have some time on my hands but I will see if anyone else has them first.

Here is a better link to the German tv show with Ganley hiding the US flag. http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/sendung/tt908.html

The item is at 19 min flag hiding at 23 min.

It is a nice flag gold eagle on the flagpole.
A gift?

http://67.18.18.138/~etleboro/sites/download.php?id=2177

Does anyone here have good Italian? This is an account of Anglo Adriatika - babelfish translation is pretty rough.

As far I can make out, questions are asked as to whether Anglo Adriatika's holdings were used on the markets as leverage to acquire the Bulgarian cable television licenses.

BC-econ-fund

Quote :

Anglo-Adriatika Fund has collected 1/10 of privatization vouchers
Tirana, April 24 (ATA) - The Anglo-Adriatika Investment
Fund (AAIF) is still collecting the privatization vouchers and
aims to start the investment during the closest stage of
potential sectors' privatization.
They have picked up around 1/10 of the treasury bonds
emitted until now.
The current value of collected money is lek 2,239 million
and the value of Privatization Vouchers is lek 7,776 billion.
They are delivered in the hands of 41,182 share holders.
Meanwhile, AAIF has resumed the collection of the
privatization vouchers suspended during the last year unrest.
The fund issues a membership certificate for the collected vouchers.
The fund is ready to invest in 20 sectors like tourism,
mines, telecommunication, construction etc which will enter the
privatization stage soon.

"ANGLO-ADRIATICA" STARTS AGAIN THE GATHERING OF THE
PRIVATISATION SHARES

Quote :

TIRANE, 18 OCT, ENTER/ - The Anglo-Adriatica fund began
again on the 14 october the gathering of the
privatisation shares.
Anglo-Adriatika is a shareholders company with 60000
shareholders and some times ago began the gathering of
shares. On 4 of march it stopped the gathering of shares
in Tirana whereas in Elbasan and Shkoder the work
continued normally even some time. Its deposition are
in the Saving bank.
High governmental official said that government intends
to give a certain value to the shares of privatisation
including them in the process of economy.

A pay-to-view background article here:
http://www.informaworld.com/index/PNBY6MT0X9VX0FK1.pdf

Underside
Dan Atkinson
The Guardian (1959-2003); Mar 21, 1997; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The Guardian and The Observer (1791-2003)
pg. 24

This mention in, the Guardian in 1997 states that Declan Ganley 28 year old Galway man , former building site worker may be taking Lord Rothschild's dictum to heart "When there is blood on the streets invest". States that Ganley's Anglo Adriatic has 60, 000 Albanian and 40,000 foreign investors and the fund will be worth £220 million by the end of the month (May 1997) Undeterred by the crisis he says that the collapse of the pyramid schemes will help not hinder his fund as his is the only viable alternative.

that really begs a lot of questions. 100, 000 investors, £ 220 mil in March 1997. Where is the money. We did not get the impression that he had anything to do with the Fund but rather that the Albanian government was at fault in Primetime. Someone is going to get to the bottom of this I am sure.

Some story.

The article was written a week before the end of May 1997. In 2008 press report quoted qbove by Cactus F speculated that $160 mil was nnot accounted for. However the figure of £220 mil is 3-4 times that amount in todays money.

The Observer's John Sweeney writing on the Albanian revolution 4 page feature in March 1997."
"A daily rain falls on Tirana" ie bullets
In the midst of a war zone Declan Ganley is described as hanging out with "Albanian chancers"

While people are dying because of the volume of lead falling from the sky he brightly opines that the economy is strong.



"Over by the bar chatting to some Albanian chancers is pink-fleshed
gimlet-eyed Declan Ganley, financier from the City of London. Ganley believes in the strength of the Albanian economy. He has to his company Anglo Adriatic does something with funds. I first met him ten days ago
at Rome airport when he was returning from New York to Tirana. He told
me all this mess is just your type hyping it up, Berisha is not in
trouble. All this country need is a couple of good PR men"


The Observer (1791- 2003). London (UK): Mar 16, 1997. p. C4

The Observer, Guardian archive is now digitised and available on subscription

From the article I linked:

Quote :

the privatisation policy and its role in the transition to a market economy in Albania. The disintegration of the old regime took place over a much longer time than in other Central and East European countries, resulting in chaos and a political vacuum in which no systematic or effective policy could be formulated. The new government, committed to fundamental reforms necessary for a market economy, did not take power until after the second general election in March 1992. One outcome of this long pre-transition period was that the privatisation programme had to evolve gradually in the course of transformation, without ever having been planned in a comprehensive and integrated manner. Privatisation proceeded on five different fronts: small privatisation, privatisation of agriculture, housing, small and medium-sized enterprises and mass privatisation.

Quote :

The privatisation of agriculture and housing were the most crucial aspects of the overall policy, with significant impacts on economic growth and the progress of the transformation programme. The privatised agricultural sector grew very rapidly and made a major contribution to pulling the whole economy out of the 'transformational recession'. Privatised housing created a significant wealth effect amongst the urban population, providing many of them with collateral or start-up capital. The privatisation of state-owned enterprises, however, was carried out with much more difficulty and controversy. Although auctions were to be the main method of transfer, ensuring a significant income for the treasury, in practice many enterprises were privatised through other methods, bringing in less income and giving rise to allegations of political favouritism. Another aspect of privatisation was the weak corporate governance mechanism which replaced state ownership. Many small and medium-sized enterprises (probably about half) were sold or transferred to their employees, without any outsider interest. The performance of this sector has to be monitored closely in order to assess the impact of massive insider privatisation, reminiscent of Russia's privatisation programme. Mass privatisation too, by distributing enterprise shares amongst the general public, resulted in the increased power of insiders. The shares of nearly 100 enterprises were transferred to the private sector over the first year of the implementation of this programme. Although the privatisation programme progressed very rapidly, no serious attention was paid to problems of corporate governance. Without concentrated ownership or the involvement of financial intermediaries to oversee and monitor the managers, it is unlikely that the expected efficiency gains will be realised. The political crisis resulting from the collapse of informal financial schemes brought the whole reform process, including the privatisation programme, to a halt in early 1997. It is expected that, with a new government in power, there will be a new push for reforms and an increased pace of privatisation. It is hoped that the renewed efforts will also deal with the shortcomings of the previous schemes-particularly the corporate governance issues.

The collapse of the pyramid schemes, different from the voucher fund that Ganley was involved with, is associated with panic, distress and bloodshed.

It would be very simple for Ganley to clarify what happened to the privatised assets represented by the vouchers.

Does Anglo-Adriatika still function?

A googled translation of the Italian/Albanian article by Alketa Alibali I linked is here (from the ACLIS site) http://www.albca.com/aclis/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=1469

along with ACLIS's own comments.

I concurr with the posters who have said that they think there is a "dirty tricks" campaign to discredit opposition to the Lisbon Treaty by association.
The easy response to it would be for Declan Ganley to provide a thorought, accurate and transparent account of his business and political C.V. One after all has to do that applying for any job.