Re: Fund Accounts - Help explain this.

by **PeterMac** 09.12.11 11:22

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

It certainly SHOULD go without saying, but it bears repeating on line and in print since there are people out there who believe that being in any way sceptical about the McCanns' claims somehow implies that we do not wish Madeleine to be alive.

To spell it out for them, one of the serious criticisms of TM is that they have so far failed to do anything in the nature of a proper search for a missing girl.
They failed to search the area round PdL where their own No 1 Private detective says she is being held in a "hellish lair", and has still not resiled on that observation. They failed to search that night or for more than a hour the following morning, when they searched in an area which Gerry knew was useless, but let his wife believe they were doing some good.
They employed a succession of 'private detectives' who have failed to do anything remotely useful, except squander and steal money from the fund which was set up to look for Madeleine.
Their current private detective employed people to visit Barcelona who failed even to ask the most basic of questions whilst they were there, and so on.
And on
And on

We would all love Madeleine still to be alive and unharmed.
We would be impressed if someone were to start looking for her.
Sadly we live in a real world where miracles do not happen, and where the inevitable does.

by Gillyspot 09.12.11 11:38

Well said Petermac who would wish Madeleine to be dead - I am sure no one on this forum would and I certainly do not.

Evidence stacks up to say otherwise sadly.

by TrollAng 09.12.11 12:08

uppatoffee wrote: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!

Thanks, Uppatoffee, as Gillyspot says, it's the only disclosure of their spend. So from 2008 there is no breakdown at all.

The people who donated believed they were paying for a search. It's interesting that in the first 10 months most of the money either went towards developing the fund (in my opinion) and almost half was held over and spent in the following 2 years, the fund was almost depleted by 2011. That's not even factoring in the legal expense fees for libel (pro bono?).

I just think that people should be informed that when they donate their £1 to the fund they're paying into a business, a limited company in its own right that hasn't any obligation to disclose any information on how that money is spent. And that apart from the first disclosure where 13% of the income was spent on the search for Madeleine (results of which don't seem to be disclosed) there's no information on how the remaining funds were spent.

I wouldn't care to guess how much the Portuguese investigation cost the taxpayer and I can't get past Kate McCann's refusal to answer the 48 questions which and their sudden haste to return to the UK. The Portuguese authorities have insisted that they're poised & ready to re-open the investigation at any time subject to a request from the McCann's. Yet this was never done. According to the Fund accounts the total revenue for 3 years was a whopping £2.7M. That's cash for the McCann's to spend in any which way that the limited company decides.

Which resource would be best to find a missing child? A private company where nobody has any experience in investigation or the police? On what level is it reasonable that the McCanns should dictate the direction of the investigation and raise almost £3M because "they believe" that Madeleine is still alive despite the evidence that the PJ's gathered? And on what level is it ok for them to appear on live TV crying because no police force is actively looking for their daughter?

by **tigger** 09.12.11 14:22

I note in the 2008 accounts two things: the very low amount for postage - what about sending out all those wristbands?
The lack of the total amount which was sent in cash by post as requested by Clarrie. There is plenty of evidence around that sacks of donations were delivered. So...

For the marketing to have succeeded so well they needed:
someone with an adequate (but it seems to me only just) knowledge of photoshopping and IT
the development of a narrative which could be backed up by 'independent' sources
access to such as Richard Branson/J.K. Rowling and last but most interesting: Gordon Brown. (I don't know what the poor constituents of Kirkcaldy can hope to get out of their representative now, he's never in parliament so what is he doing? )
someone with a thorough knowledge of marketing
unique selling point - something no other product would have
good connections with the media
In short: TM.
IMO none of these were in place by accident. I see a design, not one constructed by the McCanns alone.

by **PeterMac** 09.12.11 14:53

tigger wrote:I note in the 2008 accounts two things: the very low amount for postage - what about sending out all those wristbands?

I think the £13,366 for distribution of merchandise probably covers that. I don't think there was anything else other than the T shirts and wrist bands, in which case -
Cost of production £ 26,616
Cost of distribution £13,366
Total £ 39,982
Receipts £ 64,078

In which case net profit £ 24,096 ?

Less than the cost of production ?
Less than 100 % profit on a nasty cheap rubber wristband ? They are £ 200 per 1000, 20p each - see http://www.gowristbands.co.uk and sell for £ 2.
That is a 1,000% profit

Can this be right ?
I thought there were accountants acting for the Fund.

by uppatoffee 09.12.11 15:20

PeterMac wrote:

In which case net profit £ 24,096 ?

Less than the cost of production ?
Less than 100 % profit on a nasty cheap rubber wristband ? They are £ 200 per 1000, 5p each - see http://www.gowristbands.co.uk and sell for £ 2.
That is a 4,000% profit

Can this be right ?
I thought there were accountants acting for the Fund.

They certainly are cheap and nasty PeterMac, bit like their online store! I would struggle to see them having spent more than about 50p on the website design. Half the images on the landing page don't even appear.

by **tigger** 09.12.11 15:25

PeterMac wrote:
tigger wrote:I note in the 2008 accounts two things: the very low amount for postage - what about sending out all those wristbands?
I think the £13,366 for distribution of merchandise probably covers that. I don't think here was anything else other than the T shirts and wrist bands, in which case -
Cost of production £ 26,616
Cost of distribution £13,366
Total £ 39,982
Receipts £ 64,078

In which case net profit £ 24,096 ?

Less than the cost of production ?
Less than 100 % profit on a nasty cheap rubber wristband ? They are £ 200 per 1000, 5p each - see http://www.gowristbands.co.uk and sell for £ 2.
That is a 4,000% profit

Can this be right ?
I thought there were accountants acting for the Fund.

Nice one PeterMac! But why have a post with cost of sending merchandise? Normally the buyer pays for the p&p, one would have thought certainly in this case.
The entry for postage is even so very low for all the correspondence (some of it recorded delivery I would think).
I take it that it runs from April 07 to April 08? Otherwise we'd have to have one for 2007.
The accountants were pretty expensive for such a simple enterprise. (O! this is serious, new laptop no pound sign!) 7000 plus pounds.

by **PeterMac** 09.12.11 16:50

re-did the maths.
they are 20p, so only 1,000 % profit.
previous entry amended

by Ollie 09.12.11 18:27

Donations to the fund have nearly dried up, so suing newspapers was a nice little earner for them. Then there was the bewk, serialisation which would of made them a considerable amount of money, although I don't think the bewk sold as well as they would of liked. The newpapers will now only print favourable things about the McCanns so that cash cow has all but dried up. What does the future hold and how can they make money, I think a movie will be next, but then what? I think in a couple of years they will no longer be able to make money for the fund.

by Liz Eagles 09.12.11 19:12

Ollie wrote:Donations to the fund have nearly dried up, so suing newspapers was a nice little earner for them. Then there was the bewk, serialisation which would of made them a considerable amount of money, although I don't think the bewk sold as well as they would of liked. The newpapers will now only print favourable things about the McCanns so that cash cow has all but dried up. What does the future hold and how can they make money, I think a movie will be next, but then what? I think in a couple of years they will no longer be able to make money for the fund.

Who'd touch the movie? As soon as the bewk came out I thought 'there's only the movie left'. Tell me who would seriously put money into that movie and who would play the roles? I don't think anyone would touch this with a barge pole. The Team are going to have to be a bit more creative when the funds run out IMO. Perhaps a docusoap?

by Daisy 09.12.11 19:31

TrollAng wrote:

Fund Accounts - Help explain this. - Page 2 Mail-210

[/quote]

Great find Ang, do you have the source please?

£26,113 - Media
monitoring, worldwide/auditors - Can someone explain what this means? I
would have thought that's what Brian Kennedy was "bankrolling" the likes
of Edward Smethurst & Clarence Mitchell for.

Edward Smethurst is the in-house lawyer based in Clitheroe for
double-glazing tycoon Brian Kennedy, who has pledged to bankroll
Madeleine's parents Gerry and Kate McCann's legal and media
costs.
"We are providing our services entirely free of charge because we
know that Gerry and Kate are completely innocent. We want to see justice
done."
"There can't be any legal prosecutions if Madeleine was taken and is
returned, and that would prove the innocence of Gerry and Kate." -

Bit of a strange sentence that last one.

To
reiterate what PeterMac and others have said: I would sincerely love to
hear the news that Madeleine had been found; I'd especially love to
hear she hadn't been the victim of any kind of abuse -apart from
the obvious pyschological trauma-. I hate the thought she may have
suffered. Then again, I'm human like that -*sarcasm*. Yes, despite the
odds being overwhelmingly stacked against it, armed with all the
knowledge I possess of this case, and in defiance of the sick imaginings
of the MOTHER! who exploits and violates her daughter in such a gross
way on p129 of her book; in spite of all this, I still wish a happy
outcome for Madeleine.

However, even if 'Madeleine' was found, it would not automatically "prove the innocence of Gerry and Kate", like Smethurst suggests.

Also,
It has never been proven that Madeleine was 'taken' and she defintely
hasn't been returned (over 4yrs later!). So, according to what ES
states, Gerry and Kate have still not been proven innocent. Thanks for
claryfying that squire. Fund Accounts - Help explain this. - Page 2 302873

Fund Accounts - Help explain this. - Page 2 302873

It's always better to hear it straight from the horses mouth.
http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/1857924.east_lancs_solicitor_leads_madeleine_hunt/

by Cheshire Cat 10.12.11 17:40

sharonl wrote: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, [url=http://www.scmr.org/Education/CMR-online-video-on-demand-lectures/2528/McCann.html?searched=mccann&advsearch=oneword&highlight=ajaxSearch_highlight+ajaxSearch_highlight1

http://www.scmr.org/Education/CMR-online-video-on-demand-lectures/2528/McCann.html?searched=mccann&advsearch=oneword&highlight=ajaxSearch_highlight+ajaxSearch_highlight1[/quote[/url]]

Questions Questions Questions

The fund should be investigeted. What is the money really being spent on? Are the public being misled about the purpose of the fund? Is it sufficient that the "small print" permits the fund to be spent as the Directors see fit or do they owe it to the public to be more upfront about where the money is going? Is the fund legitiimate in that there really is a good chance of finding Madeleine alive? Who can investigate this?

by happychick 10.12.11 17:49

Xavier should know the answer to that CC.

by Xavier 10.12.11 18:04

happychick wrote:Xavier should know the answer to that CC.

Try this: http://www.bis.gov.uk/insolvency/Companies/company-investigation/when-can-the-service-investigate

by uppatoffee 10.12.11 19:41

Xavier wrote:
happychick wrote:Xavier should know the answer to that CC.

Try this: http://www.bis.gov.uk/insolvency/Companies/company-investigation/when-can-the-service-investigate

From the link Xavier provided, I would say that they could be investigated on the following grounds at least

• Are set up for an illegal or improper purpose (‘Sham’ companies)
• Falsely represent, or otherwise abuse charitable, educational or religious status

by pauline 10.12.11 23:49

uppatoffee wrote:
Xavier wrote:
happychick wrote:Xavier should know the answer to that CC.

Try this: http://www.bis.gov.uk/insolvency/Companies/company-investigation/when-can-the-service-investigate

From the link Xavier provided, I would say that they could be investigated on the following grounds at least

• Are set up for an illegal or improper purpose (‘Sham’ companies)
• Falsely represent, or otherwise abuse charitable, educational or religious status

Unfortunately, must as i would like to see an investigation of the Fund the two grounds you suggest would not work -

As the Fund does not have charitable status, it cannot abuse that status. They do state on the website the Fund is not a charity.

'Set up for illegal or immoral purposes' - we think so but we have no proof so an investigation would not be held.

by uppatoffee 11.12.11 0:01

If as the Portuguese police believe that Madeleine is dead then that would surely mean that no 2 is valid.

I think that the fund is being misrepresented. No where has it been made clear that the fund is to be used to pay carter rucks bills or gerrys overly large mortgage but clearly it is being. Although not strictly a charity account, it was definitely being presented as such.

by Xavier 11.12.11 8:34

uppatoffee wrote:If as the Portuguese police believe that Madeleine is dead then that would surely mean that no 2 is valid.

I think that the fund is being misrepresented. No where has it been made clear that the fund is to be used to pay carter rucks bills or gerrys overly large mortgage but clearly it is being. Although not strictly a charity account, it was definitely being presented as such.

I think you may mean "no 1 is valid".

In order to bring a complaint and have the fund investigated, you would need to provide quite a high standard of proof of the basis for your allegation.

What evidence could you point to that Madeleine is dead? Even if she is, then it could be argued that objectives 2 and 3 of the fund are still effective.

Can you point to material which makes it clear that the fund was being presented as a charity? And do you not think that "To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family" covers legal bills or mortgage payments?

Finally, can you point to evidence that Carter Ruck are being paid from the fund?

by Pershing36 11.12.11 11:47

What is known about the website? I see the costs are nearly £38,000, but there is no information on who designed it. There are no links to any webmaster just a phone number, I wonder who would be on the other end of that? You have to get to the contact page to get a webmaster address.

When you click on the shop you find a totally different site. There is no link to take you back to the main site. This is only my personal thought, but I feel that the two sites were probably created by different people with different skill levels. The main site to me feels quite amateur, however the shop site displays the characteristics of a professional web building company. Obviously a shop has to have quite interactive features and payment encryption. But the main site doesn't contain any copyright only the shop.

by jd 11.12.11 13:04

Brian Kennedy (Uncle) gave an interview at the Rothley War Memorial on May 17, 2007. He was eager to tell how to donate money to the “Fund” via two banks – the Nat West and the Royal Bank of Scotland. He also told us what the money would be used for:

“Mainly for legal expenditure"........At no time at all did Brian Kennedy state that the money was to be used to finance the search for Madeleine.

by Pershing36 11.12.11 13:22

jd wrote:Brian Kennedy (Uncle) gave an interview at the Rothley War Memorial on May 17, 2007. He was eager to tell how to donate money to the “Fund” via two banks – the Nat West and the Royal Bank of Scotland. He also told us what the money would be used for:

“Mainly for legal expenditure"........At no time at all did Brian Kennedy state that the money was to be used to finance the search for Madeleine.

Yet on their website it states that the majority of the fund has been and continues to be spent on investigations.

by TrollAng 11.12.11 13:24

Pershing36 wrote:What is known about the website? I see the costs are nearly £38,000, but there is no information on who designed it. There are no links to any webmaster just a phone number, I wonder who would be on the other end of that? You have to get to the contact page to get a webmaster address.

When you click on the shop you find a totally different site. There is no link to take you back to the main site. This is only my personal thought, but I feel that the two sites were probably created by different people with different skill levels. The main site to me feels quite amateur, however the shop site displays the characteristics of a professional web building company. Obviously a shop has to have quite interactive features and payment encryption. But the main site doesn't contain any copyright only the shop.

The store is an off the shelf package that you can buy for as little as £19

http://www.actinic.co.uk/

by Guest 11.12.11 13:36

Pershing36 wrote:
jd wrote:Brian Kennedy (Uncle) gave an interview at the Rothley War Memorial on May 17, 2007. He was eager to tell how to donate money to the “Fund” via two banks – the Nat West and the Royal Bank of Scotland. He also told us what the money would be used for:

“Mainly for legal expenditure"........At no time at all did Brian Kennedy state that the money was to be used to finance the search for Madeleine.

Yet on their website it states that the majority of the fund has been and continues to be spent on investigations.

Just posted video and transcript in press archives. thumbsup

by Pershing36 11.12.11 13:53

One thing I picked out somebody might be able to explain " I would just say. This is not an appeal. The family haven't made an appeal.".

Looks like he really wanted to get that statement across, but what does it mean? Is it something on the legal side?

by uppatoffee 11.12.11 14:36

Pershing36 wrote:
jd wrote:Brian Kennedy (Uncle) gave an interview at the Rothley War Memorial on May 17, 2007. He was eager to tell how to donate money to the “Fund” via two banks – the Nat West and the Royal Bank of Scotland. He also told us what the money would be used for:

“Mainly for legal expenditure"........At no time at all did Brian Kennedy state that the money was to be used to finance the search for Madeleine.

Yet on their website it states that the majority of the fund has been and continues to be spent on investigations.

From the current website

(7) What is the money being spent on ?
The majority of the fund money has been and continues to be spent on investigative work to help find Madeleine. Additionally money continues to be spent on the wider 'Awareness Campaign' – reminding people that Madeleine is still missing and to remain vigilant. None of the directors have taken any money from the fund as remuneration."

I would think that this is clearly incorrect as demonstrated by the extracts from the accounts present earlier.

From the 2009 version of their website
14. What is the money being spent on?
The Fund is supporting the McCann family during their search for Madeleine and in ensuring a high profile of Madeleine's abduction is maintained. Money spent to date has been on :
- supporting the private investigation to find Madeleine;
- ongoing public awareness raising ;
- establishing and updating the website ;
- family expenses; and,
- professional fee, including concerning international law on child abduction and the costs of setting up the Fund

Xavier you are right, no mention of the hundreds of thousands of pounds of legal fees to Carter Ruck!