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.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (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, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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: [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

£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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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.

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 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and sell for £ 2.
That is a 1,000% profit

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