Greystones in Wicklow is lucky to have two deputies in the Dail who have proactively worked to see the stalled Habour project re-started and completed. Fine Gael’s Simon Harris and Independent TD, Stephen Donnelly have both been chivvying NAMA along so that the boarded-up eyesore at Greystones Harbour can be transformed into the mix of amenity park land and over 300 developed homes that was envisaged .
You might recall that a company called Sispar – which was a joint venture between developer Michael Cotter’s Park Homes and builder/developer Sisk – was developing the Habour site when the property bubble burst. Loans to the Sispar consortium were transferred to NAMA. There is now a report that NAMA has done a secret deal with Sisk which seemingly involves a major debt write-down.
The Sunday Independent last weekend carried a report on debonair developer, Michael Cotter and Irish construction giant, Sisk’s adventures in France where a yacht club they were developing together has gone pear-shaped apparently. Buried at the bottom of the report is a claim about an Irish development, that “NAMA is believed to have written down over €50m of debt attached to the blighted Greystones Harbour Development. The write-down is thought to be part of a secretive deal struck to allow building giant Sisk Group to take over the project”
The Sispar 2010 accounts had indicated the consortium had a €38m loan from AIB which was understood to have subsequently transferred to NAMA. Presumably this loan forms the lions-share of the “over €50m of debt” that the Sunday Independent reported is believed to have been written-down.
This “deal”, if confirmed, would raise a couple of concerns about the way in which NAMA conducts its business. Firstly, NAMA is proscribed by the NAMA Act from selling assets to defaulting debtors. Whilst Sisk is understood to have been servicing its share of the loan, both consortium partners were presumably jointly and severally liable for the full repayment of the loan. So, on what basis can NAMA have agreed to write-down the debt “to allow building giant Sisk Group to take over the project” when, if the loan were to be called in, Sisk would presumably have become liable for the lot and may even have become a defaulting debtor. Secondly, as with all secret deals, there is a concern that NAMA has failed to maximise the value of its loans. Might a third party have offered better terms to buy the loan and develop the Harbour? Who knows, who can tell, it’s secret.
As is usual with individual projects, NAMA is keeping schtum and not providing any comment.
NAMA Wine Lake 
Forgive me but with all the hoo-haw you’d believe it was something with the importance of the port of Zeebrugge and not some piss-ant little mole that was built without one ounce of reason day one.
It’s important, full stop.
If NAMA has effectively forgiven €50 million of debt when it could have called in the loan, that is scandalous. Whatever about Park Developments, which is on its last legs, the Sisk Group is well-heeled and well able to pony up €50 million, or much more.
Worse, if Sisk is now the sole owner and its debt forgiven, then it has effectively got its mitts on over 20 acres of reclaimed land and foreshore for absolutely nothing!
The original PPP notion was that Sispar would finance the harbour, complete with 230-berth marina, five community clubhouses, and major new amenities in the form of a large public plaza and a public park, in return for this high-value development land.
Now Sisk has the land, but its harbour debt has been cancelled.
Meanwhile Greystones has a non-functioning harbour which only small boats which can be run up on shore can use — no berths or moorings whatever — and no facilities for the former commercial fishermen who have to operate from Dun Laoghaire or Bray (since 2007). There is no marina, no clubhouses have been built, there is no public access to most of the area, and visitors and tourists shy from the derelict site these predators have left behind.
Daylight robbery, basically, and very damaging to the local economy.
And to clarify, for the original author: Sisk and Park are, or were, indeed jointly and severally liable for Sispar’s debts. So you are right to say “Sisk would … have become liable for the lot”, whatever about “may even have become a defaulting debtor”.
BTW, when Sispar announced this early in July, the same formula was used: A spokesperson from SISK stated that ‘NAMA, the SISK Group and Park Developments have reached an agreement which will result in the SISK Group acquiring Park’s interest in the project and the taking on full responsibility for the Project. One outcome of this agreement is that there will no longer be any debt owed to NAMA by Sispar in relation to the project.’
So, either Sisk paid the debt or it was forgiven by NAMA. Can they do the latter?