Fund Accounts - Help explain this.

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

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

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

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.

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?

TrollAng wrote:

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



[/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. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] It's always better to hear it straight from the horses mouth.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

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

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?

Xavier should know the answer to that CC.

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

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

Xavier wrote:

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

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

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

uppatoffee wrote:

Xavier wrote:

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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!

However I did find this from the Liverpool Daily Post on Sep 26 2007 taken from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

On not producing a full breakdown of the costs, she (Esther McVeigh) added: "We are doing what every charity does. We are going by best practice charity rules."

That certainly seems to be one of the directors of the not charity presenting it as a charity.

I see from that page they are using Infohost for the website. Seems they are using Maddie on their website and have a page dedicated to it.


There is also something I don't understand with their accounts. They are showing £0 sales and £0 profit for 2008/2009.


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

I see from looking up the fund at Companies House that the accounts are due to be filed by 31st December 2011.

As most auditors will be closed after tomorrow until the New Year, we can but hope that the accounts are filed tomorrow to avoid the McCanns being fined for late filing; money which would be better spent looking for Madeleine.

Perhaps the delay this year is due to detailed accounts being prepared which state clearly where the money went and which lawyers got what; the auditors may be waiting on their clients to provide the necessary information.

The directors, who include both McCanns and Uncle Brian, must be agonising over the wording of their report which is part of the accounts. Do they admit that in the year under review they lost twice to Snr Amaral (October 2010 and March 2011) and do they comment on the costs of these court cases?

Yes, I am looking forward to reading these accounts.

Marian, you have just ruined my sleep tonight!

I will be so worried about the fines for late filing of the Fund accounts and how that money could have been spent searching and sueing.

But the McCanns have friends in high places so hopefully they will not have to pay the fines. Why should a 'not for profit' have to be bothered about late filing? The bureaucrats should remember a little girl is missing and have a heart. And these auditors may work over Xmas to finalise the accounts and get them in by the end of December. And like Carter-Ruck they probably don't get paid for a lot of the work they do (source the truthful book).

I'm pretty sure that Kate is typing them up as we speak.

The trial balance is very confusing and well, she is of course working very hard as usual.

But it's the BIK that will have really caused confusion. Em er rem, a personal benefit is taxable but what are the implications of a limited company receiving a BIK, all those freebies have got to be a bookkeeper's nightmare. Are CR killing them with kindness and if so was it personal or business related?

pauline wrote:Marian, you have just ruined my sleep tonight!

I will be so worried about the fines for late filing of the Fund accounts and how that money could have been spent searching and sueing.

But the McCanns have friends in high places so hopefully they will not have to pay the fines. Why should a 'not for profit' have to be bothered about late filing? The bureaucrats should remember a little girl is missing and have a heart. And these auditors may work over Xmas to finalise the accounts and get them in by the end of December. And like Carter-Ruck they probably don't get paid for a lot of the work they do (source the truthful book).

I wouldn't lose any sleep Marian, conveniently a story emerge just two days ago about the cosy arrangement these lovely companies have with the revenue.

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

I am pretty sure they will be cut lots of slack in case it causes unnecessary stress and anguish to this poor couple. Remember they have also had the trauma of the Leveson inquiry.

Upon a further check of Companies House I see that two documents were filed on 21st December - Alterations to Memorandum & Articles and Statement of Company Objects.

I thought it was the accounts that were due. Perhaps someone with legal knowledge (don't even think about it Xavier!) would like to take a look at these documents.

Marian wrote:Upon a further check of Companies House I see that two documents were filed on 21st December - Alterations to Memorandum & Articles and Statement of Company Objects.

I thought it was the accounts that were due. Perhaps someone with legal knowledge (don't even think about it Xavier!) would like to take a look at these documents.

Accounts to 31st March 2008 were filed 31st January 2009
Accounts to 31st March 2009 were filed 2nd February 2010
Accounts to 31st March 2010 were filed 21st December 2010 (twice)

Also something new on the companies house website

23rd December 2011 - CC04 Statement of Company's Objects


The current objects of the McCanns limited company are

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.

Addition: 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.

Question is WHAT are the changes going to be?

23rd December 2011 - RES01 RESOLUTION TO ADOPT/ALTER MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES (last done on 30th June 2007)

Summary of what this means

Articles of association may be altered through special resolution. The shareholders voting in favour of the resolution must do so using their power to vote bona fides for the benefit of the company.
Any alteration must be made in good faith for the benefit of the company as a whole: Sidebottom v Kershaw, Leese & Co [1920] 1 Ch 154, CA. This means the company as an entity, or as the interest of ‘an individual hypothetical member’: Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas Ltd [1951] Ch 286 at 291, [1950] 2 All ER 1120.
It is for the shareholders to determine whether or not the alteration is for the benefit of the company. The alteration may affect the rights of a member as between himself and the company by retrospective operation, since the shares are held subject to the statutory power of altering the articles.
If a contract whether with a member or an outsider is so drawn as by its terms or implication to prohibit the company from altering its articles to the prejudice of the other contracting party, then, although the company cannot be precluded from altering its articles, thereby giving itself power to act upon the provisions of the altered articles, so to act may nevertheless be a breach of the contract.
The articles cannot be so altered as to increase the liability of a member to contribute to share capital or otherwise to pay money to the company without his consent; and a special resolution altering articles may be impeached if its effect is to discriminate between the majority of shareholders and the minority shareholders so as to give the former an advantage of which the latter are deprived. In a case where an order by the court by way of protection of a member of the company against unfair prejudice requires the company not to make any, or any specified, alteration in its articles, the company has no power without leave of the court to make any such alteration."

Wonder what they are altering?


I haven't got it in my subscription to read these documents sadly.

Wow, Gillyspot, that's v.v.v. interesting. One hopes the objects of the company aren't going to change to 'suing the pants of everyone who disagrees with us'.

Why do they have to be so damn secretive with everything they do? And they wonder why people don't trust them.