Fund Accounts - Help explain this.

by Pershing36 07.12.11 15:16

Just out of interest I thought I would have a look at some of the Madeleine funds statistics.

It seems that the companies capital in the bank peaked in 2009. However the Net worth, continued to fall. How is it that a company takes more money yet it's value decreases? The assets have also fallen well off as well, does this mean assets were sold which would explain a rise in the bank balance? . What kind of assets could they own worth £520,000? That seems like an awful lot of cuddly toys, wrist bands and tee shirts.

One thing is clear that the statistics show a clear path, money available is falling, Net worth is falling, company assets are falling, liabilities are rising. Seems at this rate there will be nothing by 2013 without a major boost.

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06248215

Sorry I edited because I thought I made a mistake.

2008
1,115,000 in assets
572,000 cash
105,000 liabilities

This is what I cannot work out. If I take the liabilities off the cash you get £467,000. But they are returning assets of 1,115,000. If I take of the available cash minus the liabilities then they have something worth £648,000.

2009
740,000 in assets
720,000 in cash
50,000 in liabilities

using the same system I get cash of £670,000. If I minus that off the assets it is only £20,000.

So that is a big change in a year. So what could be declared as an asset. I gather stock of their tee shirts, toys etc. Would that mean that they sold £628,000 in stock in a year but then only replaced it with £20,000?

Sorry I am probably wrong in all of this.

by Guest 07.12.11 16:05

Pershing36 wrote:What kind of assets could they own worth £420,000? That seems like an awful lot of cuddly toys, wrist bands and tee shirts.

Kate was working from home studying the files was she not? I'm wondering if perhaps the fund bought their house and it is perhaps being used techincally as an office?

by jd 07.12.11 16:10

Didn't brian kennedy set up some investigation offices, maybe these were assets and he has now closed at least one of them

by Pershing36 07.12.11 16:59

Just a quick note to say I had to edit original post I had made errors. However there is still some things that others might be able to explain.

by Ollie 07.12.11 18:09

I did company tax returns a few years ago (seem to of forgotten a lot of it now), the companies filled in a detailed tax pack showing what money had been spent on, what assets they had etc. Assets can be anything from a computer, vehicles, machinery to buildings they own.

by Pershing36 07.12.11 22:01

Ollie wrote:I did company tax returns a few years ago (seem to of forgotten a lot of it now), the companies filled in a detailed tax pack showing what money had been spent on, what assets they had etc. Assets can be anything from a computer, vehicles, machinery to buildings they own.

This is where I got stuck. From 2008 accounts to 2009 accounts they changed from having 648,000 to 20,000 in assets whilst maintaining a fairly stable bank balance. If a good sum of the assets were the finding Madeleine merchandise it has been reduced massively from 2008 to practically nothing in 2010. The bank balance would suggest they sold the assets so why did not replace them with anywhere near the quantities again.

It is like a supermarket saying we sold 2 million Turkeys last xmas making 30 million pounds however this year we are only going to buy 600!!

There must be something I am missing here it all makes no sense.

by **sharonl** 07.12.11 22:48

Pershing36 wrote:2008
1,115,000 in assets
572,000 cash
105,000 liabilities

This is what I cannot work out. If I take the liabilities off the cash you get £467,000. But they are returning assets of 1,115,000. If I take of the available cash minus the liabilities then they have something worth £648,000.

March 2008 was around the time that they sued the Express for £500,000 this would have paid later in the year and included as a debtor (asset) in the accounts.

by Pershing36 07.12.11 23:02

Cool that explains it. So it appears the only way this company makes money is by legal action. Even with that it is in a rapid decline to nothing.

The legal team should get their finger out, or their client will have no money to pay them in a year or two.

by **sharonl** 07.12.11 23:06

Next accounts due 31 Dec, that should prove interesting.

Gerald McCann is also on the board of BSCMR

http://www.bscmr.org/index.php?id=7

Isn`t it strange how to Leics police website links to the find Madeleine Website but this one where Gerry is on the board doesn`t?

For anyone who`s interested - Gerry at work, http://www.scmr.org/Education/CMR-online-video-on-demand-lectures/2528/McCann.html?searched=mccann&advsearch=oneword&highlight=ajaxSearch_highlight+ajaxSearch_highlight1

by Pershing36 07.12.11 23:14

I am just impressed by their business strategy. All they have to do is continue to be controversial and try and wind the press up. Sooner or later somebody will take the bait and they can sue them. Why waste your time trying to manufacture, sell, supply or provide a service. This idea is ingenious, one libel suit is more than I can make in 6 years, I work far too hard.

by Gillyspot 08.12.11 7:04

Pershing36 the assets you refer to will include and mainly consist of cash (i.e. donations etc) - known as current assets

Fixed assets - eg computers, buildings, vehicles etc (on which you can claim depreciation) wholly owned by the company would only be a small part of the total assets.

Having had a look at the accounts for 2009 here http://www.mccannfiles.com/id303.html (and having looked at 2010) It would appear that the fund has NO fixed assets whatsoever. Now that I have never seen before.

Stella as regards the McCanns' house they will probably be reclaiming a portion of the household bills for the office they have within their home. This is normal for a private company and will include rates, heating, telephone bills, electricity etc

by **tigger** 08.12.11 8:15

Love this topic, much needed! Just one niggle: could you title your topics more clearly? Such as this one could be 'Accounts of the Fund' or 'Fund bookkeeping' or anything like that.

If they don't get the McCanns on anything else, fraud will be the only way, as it was with Al Capone!

Right from the start, when people were asked by Clarrie to send money in an envelope and address it to Kate and Gerry McCann, Rothley - that would be enough to get there. Miraculous, imo because 9 times out of 10, when I've sent cash to anyone, it disappears en route.
However, I'd be very surprised to find that any of that cash was declared to the tax office? Is there any trace of it in the books?

A belated bravo

Pershing washes whiter!

by jd 08.12.11 9:25

Pershing36 wrote:Cool that explains it. So it appears the only way this company makes money is by legal action.
All they have to do is continue to be controversial and try and wind the press up. Sooner or later somebody will take the bait and they can sue them.

I think this is finally an explanation as to why they released the disturbing photos of Maddie with professional make-up, suggestive poses etc. Of course, this really opens up people to theorise pedophiles etc...a playground for them to sue! This was the idea I am sure now

by Pershing36 08.12.11 9:30

Yes sorry about the title I will make sure in future I make it clearer.

Does seem however that everything appears in order. The 2010 assets other than cash in the bank do seem very low considering they do quite a lot of high profile stuff, however what assets do they really need?

Without details of expenses I feel there really is nothing here.

Does seem that somebody advising them has been definitely leading them down the legal gain path.

by Guest 08.12.11 9:38

I have changed your topic heading slightly Pershing36, so it would come up in searches for the fund etc., hope that's ok with you thumbsup

by Angelique 09.12.11 1:53

jd wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:Cool that explains it. So it appears the only way this company makes money is by legal action.
All they have to do is continue to be controversial and try and wind the press up. Sooner or later somebody will take the bait and they can sue them.

I think this is finally an explanation as to why they released the disturbing photos of Maddie with professional make-up, suggestive poses etc. Of course, this really opens up people to theorise pedophiles etc...a playground for them to sue! This was the idea I am sure now

I agree - but I have always thought this - they (TM) have always been way ahead of us and even the media. I have had experience of this in a small way. I would like to say more but won't "FOR". But the way I uncovered my antagonists was to laugh at them - seriously it's the one thing they can't handle.

ETA

TM have had advice from some very astute people - right from the beginning - whenever that was. They have been able to use both good and bad publicity for their own purposes. If we could the best remedy for circumventing what is happening would be to ignore them - but even this would have a counter- strategy to deal with it.

by **tigger** 09.12.11 6:42

Totally agree with the above post. We only have to look at what they teach on business courses:

Protect your copyright, register your invention as a trade mark.

Linking: link your products to something already in the customers' mind: e.g.
Using Celtic colours for the quality wristbands. Football club is getting free publicity and get them to reciprocate.
Using or creating photographs of Maddie wearing football t shirt, jogged the memory of the public: the Soham murders.
This also links the product to the football club.

USP: Unique Selling Point: well, the coloboma girl for one. The story itself for another.

Publicity/advertising: keep a high profile in the press and other media. All publicity generates interest. Engage your customers with your product, so that they will recommend it to their friends and family.
Decide on your target market: which demography is most likely to buy your product. (initially tabloid readers) Create a narrative for the advertising, e.g. innocent victim, evil men, wicked policemen and brave parents. As in most fairy tales, evil is defeated, but this is pantomime and the public has to take part to bring about a happy ending. 'Look behind you!'

Create both short range and long range plans with intermediate close-spaced advertising campaigns. (such as random sightings).

Imo GM has missed his calling in marketing, although the whole thing was too 'primed' to have taken off on its own. There must have been expert advice and help, so many of the right buttons were pressed.

by Guest 09.12.11 8:17

sharonl wrote:

For anyone who`s interested - Gerry at work, http://www.scmr.org/Education/CMR-online-video-on-demand-lectures/2528/McCann.html?searched=mccann&advsearch=oneword&highlight=ajaxSearch_highlight+ajaxSearch_highlight1

Isn't it funny that the headings of this link is : My approach to the difficult patient: tips and tricks to optimise image quality So for beeing able to optimise you will also be able to incrise the quality.. Looks like G has some expertise after all about fixing images..

by rainbow-fairy 09.12.11 8:17

tigger wrote:Totally agree with the above post. We only have to look at what they teach on business courses:

Protect your copyright, register your invention as a trade mark.

Linking: link your products to something already in the customers' mind: e.g.
Using Celtic colours for the quality wristbands. Football club is getting free publicity and get them to reciprocate.
Using or creating photographs of Maddie wearing football t shirt, jogged the memory of the public: the Soham murders.
This also links the product to the football club.

USP: Unique Selling Point: well, the coloboma girl for one. The story itself for another.

Publicity/advertising: keep a high profile in the press and other media. All publicity generates interest. Engage your customers with your product, so that they will recommend it to their friends and family.
Decide on your target market: which demography is most likely to buy your product. (initially tabloid readers) Create a narrative for the advertising, e.g. innocent victim, evil men, wicked policemen and brave parents. As in most fairy tales, evil is defeated, but this is pantomime and the public has to take part to bring about a happy ending. 'Look behind you!'

Create both short range and long range plans with intermediate close-spaced advertising campaigns. (such as random sightings).

Imo GM has missed his calling in marketing, although the whole thing was too 'primed' to have taken off on its own. There must have been expert advice and help, so many of the right buttons were pressed.

tigger, yes I do agree - but what a risky game to be playing, eh? Truly playing with fire. When the smoke clears and the truth becomes evident, the public WILL NOT FORGIVE nor FORGET IN A HURRY...
Whichever way this ultimately goes, I think 2012 could be endgame - we'll either be enjoying joyous scenes of a live Madeleine or the clanking of prison doors, ugly riots by those who've been conned... It's got to all wrap up one way or another

by **PeterMac** 09.12.11 8:44

And let us all be clear that the one thing we all desire more than anything is that Madeleine is alive, well, unharmed either physically or psychologically, has been properly looked after and well educated, and is returned to her loving family.

Meanwhile let us continue to try to discover what really happened to her.

by Cheshire Cat 09.12.11 10:01

PeterMac wrote:And let us all be clear that the one thing we all desire more than anything is that Madeleine is alive, well, unharmed either physically or psychologically, has been properly looked after and well educated, and is returned to her loving family.

Meanwhile let us continue to try to discover what really happened to her.

Pat Brown has been tweeting about the fund. She knows that it is dishonest. The fund, a crime committed on UK soil, made the British Police 'turn pale with worry' (or words to that effect, according to GA).

by jd 09.12.11 10:24

PeterMac wrote:And let us all be clear that the one thing we all desire more than anything is that Madeleine is alive, well, unharmed either physically or psychologically, has been properly looked after and well educated, and is returned to her loving family.

Meanwhile let us continue to try to discover what really happened to her.

It goes without saying we would all dearly love Maddie to be alive well and unharmed

by TrollAng 09.12.11 10:34

tigger wrote:Totally agree with the above post. We only have to look at what they teach on business courses:

Protect your copyright, register your invention as a trade mark.

Linking: link your products to something already in the customers' mind: e.g.
Using Celtic colours for the quality wristbands. Football club is getting free publicity and get them to reciprocate.
Using or creating photographs of Maddie wearing football t shirt, jogged the memory of the public: the Soham murders.
This also links the product to the football club.

USP: Unique Selling Point: well, the coloboma girl for one. The story itself for another.

Publicity/advertising: keep a high profile in the press and other media. All publicity generates interest. Engage your customers with your product, so that they will recommend it to their friends and family.
Decide on your target market: which demography is most likely to buy your product. (initially tabloid readers) Create a narrative for the advertising, e.g. innocent victim, evil men, wicked policemen and brave parents. As in most fairy tales, evil is defeated, but this is pantomime and the public has to take part to bring about a happy ending. 'Look behind you!'

Create both short range and long range plans with intermediate close-spaced advertising campaigns. (such as random sightings).

Imo GM has missed his calling in marketing, although the whole thing was too 'primed' to have taken off on its own. There must have been expert advice and help, so many of the right buttons were pressed.

A powerful post, Tigger. To put it in perspective: Fund Accounts - Help explain this. Mail-210

£250,000 outgoings to search for Madeleine, £565,113 outgoings to perpetuate the fund? £1.9M collected in first 10 months. £1M balance remaining at end of financial year.

"We'd been working really hard really" Kate McCann.

"everything that we've done for the last 100 days is focused on the belief that madeleine was alive when she was abducted" Excellent post from Moa

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3943-video-is-madeleine-alive

by uppatoffee 09.12.11 11:04

Gosh that's an excellent illustration TrollAng, where did that come from? So in the first 10 months they have spent nearly the same amount on legal fees and PR as they did looking for her. I would be very interested to see an updated version of that same table now! big grin

by Gillyspot 09.12.11 11:16

uppatoffee sadly you have no chance as the y/e 2008 accounts are the only ones that are remotely transparent. Since then the "fund" only shares the uk legal minimum for any limited company with no breakdown whatsoever on where donations are spent.