Ah the MANs. It's become a part of my life at this stage. Here's Mark Griffin from @Dept_CCAE at the PAC last month. What are these cost savings you speak of Mark? (Also it's Norcontel not Norcom) 
A reminder: the Court of Appeal hearing against the Department is due to start next month with regard to access to the concession agreement under FOI - the Department lost the High Court case.
Anyways! What are these "cost savings" of €22 million? Let's dig for a second.
In a Scenario laid out in the Norcontel report, there's mention of a "€1.2m management fee" which is part of the Phase 2 agreement (the one I'm seeking under FOI).
But notice too there's a proposed combined "minimum €950k revenue share..."
So the taxpayer is out by €300k per year? So we're paying eNET to manage our own infrastructure, rather than getting paid for it? That would be interesting.
So the taxpayer is out by €300k per year? So we're paying eNET to manage our own infrastructure, rather than getting paid for it? That would be interesting.
I wonder are the "€22m" in cost savings actually the cumulative combined reduction in management fees over the period 2017 to 2030 (after the Department extended the MAN agreement)? But what exactly were the Department doing paying management fees to eNet for?
Remember back in March 2017, the Department signed off on extending both MAN concession agreements until 2030, approved by former Minister Naughten. What was curious about this? eNet were in the middle of due diligence to be acquired by either Cube or IIF.
Part of the process was Norcontel recommending extension. Well, @RightToKnowIE has some new information released under FOI.
There was a call on Dec 21, 2016 that laid out some of the terms of the extension to 2030, followed by this email. This includes elimination of the management fee.
By January 2017, things were to move forward. By this point eNet was already approx 4 months on the blocks to be acquired by Cube or IIF.
"Growing the success of the MANs", or rather, eNet is in the middle of selling itself to either Cube or IIF for ~€200m.
"Growing the success of the MANs", or rather, eNet is in the middle of selling itself to either Cube or IIF for ~€200m.
By March 2017 and the Department - not eNet - formally asks for the MAN agreements to be extended to 2030. This is the letter seeking the change in contract, sent to David McCourt
Mr McCourt accepts the extension, in a letter dated March 16 2017.
Enet would sell most of itself a few months later. The purchaser was essentially the State (via the IIF). Remember too that eNet was bought for about €200m - the taxpayer stuck €300m into the IIF.
Enet would sell most of itself a few months later. The purchaser was essentially the State (via the IIF). Remember too that eNet was bought for about €200m - the taxpayer stuck €300m into the IIF.
Anyways: the court case is back up next month. Mr Griffin said something else interesting to the PAC. Apparently @Dept_CCAE wants to protect *all* State bodies so everyone can have secret contracts. Martyrs so they are. Also: do lawyers give advice, or do clients direct lawyers?
FWIW: if the @Dept_CCAE is correct in their legal arguments about commercial sensitivity then the FOI Act is - for all intents and purposes - entirely redundant and void. They are arguing that State bodies should *be able to contract themselves out of FOI*.
Which, you guessed it, *defeats the purpose of the Act*. You can read the judgment from the High Court (which @Dept_CCAE lost) where these issues were explored, here: courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/…
