Fund accounts 2011

Some comments on the above article.......

Mikey30 1 comment
So where is the money from the book? the advance and the royalties? I know they said the royalties would go into the fund, but has the £2 million advance also gone into the fund to be spent on searching or has it gone elsewhere?

Hannah 1 comment
Why didn't the McCanns just hire one 'qualified' person to investigate where Madeleine may be, instead of so many exorbitant PR and legal teams like Carter Ruck and Clarence Mitchell, et al? The millions they have had handed to them have been spent very frivolously on their image and gagging all and sundry, when they should have had far more pressing things on their mind imo.

MOM OF TWO 1 comment
The fund is a limited company and shares no expenditure information any more than any other limited company so it is hardly surprising the donations have gone down. Also the revenue from Kate's book is not taken into account in these figures so the actual cash in hand at the bank will be higher than stated.

Laura 1 comment
Of course the 'Fund' is not in trouble. The estimated £2million made from the book has not been included.

Akfiori 1 comment
That's an awful lot of money gone . On what though, that's the question. How much does Edgar the private detective charge? Has the fund diminished because of the search or due to Carter Ruck suing everyone who questions the McCann version of events?. The good doctors are currently in litigation against two authors. One of whom was the lead detective in charge of the case. Make of that what you will.

Why didn't the McCanns just hire one 'qualified' person to investigate where Madeleine may be, instead of so many exorbitant PR and legal teams like Carter Ruck and Clarence Mitchell, et al? The millions they have had handed to them have been spent very frivolously on their image and gagging all and sundry, when they should have had far more pressing things on their mind imo.Has the fund diminished because of the search or due to Carter Ruck suing everyone who questions the McCann version of events?. The good doctors are currently in litigation against two authors. One of whom was the lead detective in charge of the case. Make of that what you will.

Says it all really

A reminder of the funds Objectives:

• To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
• To procure that Madeleine’s abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
• To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine’s family.

If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.


Oooophs... Its not a Fund anymore...Its a Foundation

1.5 "Foundation" Madeleine's Fund Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited

[u]A reminder of the Foundations Objectives:

2B. The objects of the Foundation are:
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice.
2B.2 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

2C.6 alone or with other organisations seek to influence public opinion and make representations to and seek to influence governmental and other bodies and institutions

Can anyone see any sign of the bewk money in this fund?

All I can see is the large opening balance going down year on year without any substantial input of funds.


My personal belief is they will wind it down in March.

MADELEINE MCCANN FUND IN TROUBLE


It became apparent to the directors that without a significant financial boost the fund would be empty by the end of spring 2011.

11th January 2012


By Sam Marsden



KATE and Gerry McCann’s war chest to help find missing daughter Madeleine dwindled to £125,000 last year.


The amount the couple raised for Madeleine’s Fund dropped from £233,099 in 2009-10 to £177,534 in 2010-11.


But the McCanns, both 43, from Rothley, Leics, hope that Kate’s book about Maddie’s disappearance will boost the fund this year.


In newly-published accounts, the fund’s directors write: “Over the past financial year, as with the previous one, the costs of the search continued to be higher than the fund’s annual income.


“Income, particularly donations, has been lower than in previous years.


“It became apparent to the directors that without a significant financial boost the fund would be empty by the end of spring 2011.


“In view of this, Kate made the decision to write a book about Madeleine’s disappearance.”


Madeleine’s Fund was launched after the little girl, then aged three, vanished from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on May 3, 2007.

In 2007-08 it received £1.8million.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/229555/Madeleine-McCann-fund-in-trouble/

KATE and Gerry McCann’s war chest to help find missing daughter Madeleine dwindled to £125,000 last year

candyfloss wrote:KATE and Gerry McCann’s war chest to help find missing daughter Madeleine dwindled to £125,000 last year

Thats what I thought. However, they are planning on turning it into a quite a big company now with all the amendments. Not just a search fund anymore (even though the public will be told quite the contrary)

jd wrote:

candyfloss wrote:KATE and Gerry McCann’s war chest to help find missing daughter Madeleine dwindled to £125,000 last year

Thats what I thought. However, they are planning on turning it into a quite a big company now with all the amendments. Not just a search fund anymore (even though the public will be told quite the contrary)

Place your bets on how long the words "war chest" will remain before being whooshed!

Madeleine McCann hunt has cost £2.5million so far


Exclusive by Martin Fricker, Daily Mirror 11/01/2012


The search for Madeleine McCann has cost £2.5million so far, the Mirror can reveal.

The cash has been spent on advertising campaigns and private investigators working to find the little girl, who vanished aged four from a holiday apartment in Portugal in May 2007.

Parents Kate and Gerry set up the Find Madeleine fund and were initially swamped with donations from across the world from people touched by their desperate plight.


But the offers of money have slowed to a trickle over the past two years - at one point almost leaving the fund empty.

According to company accounts filed yesterday, there was just £125,000 left at the end of the last financial year. They spent almost half a million pounds in the previous 12 months on the search for Madeleine, who would now be eight years old.

The fund, run by a group of directors including the McCanns, recorded an operating loss of £344,859 - up by more than 50% on the previous year.

Their report, lodged with Companies House, reveals the true extent of their money troubles in early 2011. It states: “Over the financial year the costs of the search continued to be higher than the fund’s annual income.

“Income, particularly donations, has been lower than in previous years as might be expected. It became apparent that without a significant financial boost, the fund would be empty by the end of Spring 2011.”

That financial warning was behind Kate’s decision to write ‘Madeleine’, a book about the youngster’s disappearance and their search for her. The book was published last May and has since raised hundreds of thousands of pounds to boost the fund.

The McCanns’ search has been helped by the decision of Scotland Yard to conduct a review of her disappearance.

In August, detectives made their first of three visits to Portugal for talks with the officers involved in the original inquiry. Officers working on the review are being led by Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, who took part in the Spanish talks.

They are understood to be probing eight “very important” new leads after meeting private investigators in Spain last month.

Madeleine disappeared from a two-bedroom holiday apartment in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.


Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2012/01/11/madeleine-mccann-hunt-has-cost-2-5million-so-far-115875-23693672/#ixzz1jA9RxygT

candyfloss wrote: Place your bets on how long the words "war chest" will remain before being whooshed!

war chest

candyfloss wrote:Madeleine McCann hunt has cost £2.5million so far


Exclusive by Martin Fricker, Daily Mirror 11/01/2012


The search for Madeleine McCann has cost £2.5million so far, the Mirror can reveal.

The cash has been spent on advertising campaigns and private investigators working to find the little girl, who vanished aged four from a holiday apartment in Portugal in May 2007.

Parents Kate and Gerry set up the Find Madeleine fund and were initially swamped with donations from across the world from people touched by their desperate plight.


But the offers of money have slowed to a trickle over the past two years - at one point almost leaving the fund empty.

According to company accounts filed yesterday, there was just £125,000 left at the end of the last financial year. They spent almost half a million pounds in the previous 12 months on the search for Madeleine, who would now be eight years old.

The fund, run by a group of directors including the McCanns, recorded an operating loss of £344,859 - up by more than 50% on the previous year.

Their report, lodged with Companies House, reveals the true extent of their money troubles in early 2011. It states: “Over the financial year the costs of the search continued to be higher than the fund’s annual income.

“Income, particularly donations, has been lower than in previous years as might be expected. It became apparent that without a significant financial boost, the fund would be empty by the end of Spring 2011.”

That financial warning was behind Kate’s decision to write ‘Madeleine’, a book about the youngster’s disappearance and their search for her. The book was published last May and has since raised hundreds of thousands of pounds to boost the fund.

The McCanns’ search has been helped by the decision of Scotland Yard to conduct a review of her disappearance.

In August, detectives made their first of three visits to Portugal for talks with the officers involved in the original inquiry. Officers working on the review are being led by Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, who took part in the Spanish talks.

They are understood to be probing eight “very important” new leads after meeting private investigators in Spain last month.

Madeleine disappeared from a two-bedroom holiday apartment in Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.


Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2012/01/11/madeleine-mccann-hunt-has-cost-2-5million-so-far-115875-23693672/#ixzz1jA9RxygT

Wow! The spin on this report is a sight to behold

Interesting read about a book advance.......


Essay

About That Book Advance ...




By MICHAEL MEYER

Published: April 10, 2009


“In the old days,” the novelist Henry Bech, John Updike’s fictional alter ego, once said, “a respectable author never asked for an advance; that was strictly for the no-talents starving down in the Village.”

Since then, Washington Square rents have soared, and writers of fair and ill repute alike seek advance payment for their books. Once minuscule, some advances have escalated into the millions, like the $5 million Scribner paid last month for Audrey Niffenegger’s second novel, “Her Fearful Symmetry.” News of that deal may have seemed odd coming shortly after the chief executive of Simon & Schuster, Scribner’s parent company, announced that because of declining revenue the house would be “watching every penny.” Indeed, in the latest of a string of eulogies for the book industry as we know it, Time magazine fingered advances as part of the “financial coelacanth” of publishing’s business model, doomed to disappear like brick-and-mortar bookstores.

Yet despite the economic downturn, and the fact that 7 out of 10 titles do not earn back their advance, the system doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon. In recent interviews, a dozen New York-based publishers and agents told me, more or less, “Publishers have to keep buying books,” and “They have to bid for the best books” — which in large part means those that will sell.

Advances are seldom specified authoritatively. Amounts are coyly described like cigarette brands — the “mid-fives,” the “low sixes,” the “mild sevens.” In the preface to “A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius,” Dave Eggers broke form by telling the reader he received $100,000 for the manuscript, which — after his detailed expenses — netted him $39,567.68.

Advance envy is common. “Writers who can’t recall their Social Security number can say to the penny how much of an advance their nemesis received,” Elissa Schappell, a fiction writer and co-editor of the anthology “Money Changes Everything,” said in an e-mail message. To an outsider, the numbers can seem arbitrary, even absurd. “No one ever says of an advance, ‘That’s exactly what that book deserves,’ ” Schappell said. “Yep, a coming-of-age first novel involving drug addiction and same-sex experimentation is worth $25,000.”

As a payment to be deducted from future royalties, an advance is a publisher’s estimate of risk. Figures fluctuate based on market trends, along with an author’s sales record and foreign rights potential, though most publishers I talked to cited $30,000 as a rough average. In standard contracts, the author receives half up front, a quarter on acceptance of the manuscript and a quarter on publication, though that model is changing, said the literary agent Eric Simonoff, whose clients include James Frey and Jhumpa Lahiri. “Now we see advance amounts being paid in thirds, fourths and even fifths,” Simonoff said in an interview. “For a writer dependent on those funds, that’s not an advance, it’s a retreat.”

The numbers can sound much bigger than they are. Take a reported six-figure advance, Roy Blount Jr., the president of the Authors Guild, said in an e-mail message. “That may mean $100,000, minus 15 percent agent’s commission and self-employment tax, and if we’re comparing it to a salary let us recall (a) that it does not include any fringes like a desk, let alone health insurance, and (b) that the book might take two years to write and three years to get published. . . . So a six-figure advance, while in my experience gratefully received, is not necessarily enough, in itself, for most adults to live on.”

The novelist Walter Kirn agrees. “A low-six-figure advance has allowed me to work at less than minimum wage for three years,” he told me. “Perhaps that’s for the best; a large advance might create a disinclination to do anything other than play blackjack in Las Vegas. When I hear these large, publicized advances, it feels like watching the casino play around me.” (Weep not for Kirn, however; he phoned me from the set of the film adaptation of his novel “Up in the Air,” starring George Clooney.)

The question of what to pay which authors has confounded publishers at least since a stationer agreed to give Milton £5 for the right to sell “Paradise Lost.” Joseph Conrad often begged his agent for more money and once asked to be advanced “a fountain pen of good repute.”

But the current culture of blockbuster advances really took shape in the 1970s, when “hardcover publishing was becoming research and development for mass-market paperbacks,” said Peter Mayer, who started the trade paperback division at Avon Books and is now publisher of Overlook Press. “It was the hardcover houses who drove the increases by selling paperback rights.”

In 1971, for example, Viking sold paperback rights to “The Day of the Jackal” to Bantam for 36 times the $10,000 hardcover advance it had paid its author, Frederick Forsyth. “Agents realized that they should be the ones holding auctions for their authors and get advances more in line with the anticipated total value of their books,” Georges Borchardt, who brokered the hardcover rights, said in an interview. (Full disclosure: Borchardt, who is my agent, got me $50,000 for my first, nonfiction book.)

In the 1980s and ’90s, big money also started taking hold on the literary end. Agents like Andrew Wylie succeeded in fetching celebrity-size advances for canonical authors — Norman Mailer, Philip Roth, Salman Rushdie — on the strength of their backlists and sales over time. Before then, the biggest advances went to “disgraced politicians and failed novelists,” Wylie said in an interview. Not that everyone was happy about the littérateur’s shift in fortunes. In 1995, Martin Amis drew the kind of anger reserved these days for derivatives traders when he left his longtime agent for Wylie, who sold Amis’s novel “The Information” for the then outlandish sum of half a million pounds, or nearly $800,000.

Today, such figures are hardly unusual. Jonathan Safran Foer’s first novel, published in 2003, is said to have fetched $500,000. More recently, Foer’s brother Joshua reportedly got $1.2 million for a book about memory competitions.

But some say that authors grabbing for the brass ring can risk not just ridicule and envy, but their careers. “It used to be that the first book earned a modest advance, then you would build an audience over time and break even on the third or fourth book,” Morgan Entrekin, the publisher of Grove/Atlantic, said in an interview. “Now the first book is expected to land a huge advance and huge sales. The media only reports those, not the long path of writers like John Irving, Richard Ford, Anne Tyler and Toni Morrison. The notion of the ‘first book with flaws’ is gone; now we see a novelist selling 9,000 hardcovers and 15,000 paperbacks, and they see themselves as a failure.”

At PublicAffairs, an independent house specializing in current events, advances are as good as capped, said its founder, Peter Osnos. Osnos paid an average advance of $40,000 for PublicAffairs’ four New York Times best sellers in 2008, including Scott McClellan’s “What Happened,” sums greatly augmented by royalty payments when the books hit it big. “If the market says you need to pay $10 million to acquire a title, no one requires a publisher to pay it,” he said in an interview. “You’re not going out of business if you don’t pay that money.”

Today, some publishers are experimenting with low or no advances. In exchange for low-five-figure advances, the boutique press McSweeney’s, founded by Eggers, shares profits with its authors 50-50, as does the new imprint Harper Studio, which offers sub-six-figure advances.

As for Henry Bech, Updike — whose own advances were reputed to be modest — never let him take money up front. But Bech couldn’t entirely avoid the commercialism engulfing publishing. He turned in his final manuscript to his longtime publisher, Vellum Press, which had been sold to a supermarket chain that peddled it to an oil company, which foisted it off on a shale-and-lumber conglomerate. “It was like being a fallen woman in the old days,” Updike wrote. “Once you sold yourself, you were never your own again.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/books/review/Meyer-t.html?src=tp

jd wrote:
Wow! The spin on this report is a sight to behold

Absolutely!

the report is termed 'exclusive'.

All the 'journalist' has done is to look uncritically at the 2010/2011 accounts filed at Companies House which anyone can do if they pay a £1 fee.

Why doesn't he ask where the advance is ? Has this too been 'abducted' and do we need another Fund to find where it is?

Why doesn't he ask why there is no detail in the Income and expenditure Account? Why does he not mention the issue of legal costs?

The only thing I didn't know was the '8 new leads' but perhaps he made that up?

[quote="pauline"]

jd wrote: The only thing I didn't know was the '8 new leads' but perhaps he made that up?

This was the retrieval of the 8 boxes from M3 in Barcelona last November, which in the report was cleverly termed 'private investigators'... implying that they were currently investigating....which they are not. What this report didn't tell you was the fact that M3 were off the investigation a few years ago and were found to be as totally corrupt as anyone can be

is it a fact that the book fees would not show up in the 2010 to 2011 set of taxes?surely most of it would be in 2011 to 2012?joyce1938

Although the full article posted in a thread on Leveson inquiry - I thought I would put this in here as it applies................



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9010870/Leveson-Inquiry-Express-was-scapegoated-over-Madeleine-McCann-case-says-owner-Richard-Desmond.html



[quote]


"Every paper was doing the same thing, which is why every paper or most papers paid money to the McCanns. Only we were scapegoated by the ex-chairman of the PCC," he told the hearing at the high court in London.



So every paper or most paid out to the McCanns, that was kept a bit .

joyce1938 wrote:is it a fact that the book fees would not show up in the 2010 to 2011 set of taxes?surely most of it would be in 2011 to 2012?joyce1938

The advance royalty payment made wouldn't appear in the turnover/sales for the company (as the sales weren't made by end March 2011) but the amount paid should have been included in the cash at bank and a note put on the accounts to explain this to the tax office.

Gillyspot wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:is it a fact that the book fees would not show up in the 2010 to 2011 set of taxes?surely most of it would be in 2011 to 2012?joyce1938

The advance royalty payment made wouldn't appear in the turnover/sales for the company (as the sales weren't made by end March 2011) but the amount paid should have been included in the cash at bank and a note put on the accounts to explain this to the tax office.

Will the amendments to the Fund cover this?

[quote="candyfloss"]Although the full article posted in a thread on Leveson inquiry - I thought I would put this in here as it applies................



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9010870/Leveson-Inquiry-Express-was-scapegoated-over-Madeleine-McCann-case-says-owner-Richard-Desmond.html

"Every paper was doing the same thing, which is why every paper or most papers paid money to the McCanns. Only we were scapegoated by the ex-chairman of the PCC," he told the hearing at the high court in London.



So every paper or most paid out to the McCanns, that was kept a bit .

Yeah but were did the money go?