Re: Fund Accounts - Help explain this.

by Gillyspot 23.12.11 17:27

It will come out I am sure. The object statement will have to be changed on the website at least.

Or is the new object going to be to share the donations with other missing children (what do you think Bob Hope or No Hope)

by jd 23.12.11 17:40

I think the new objective will be the mccanns actually doing some searching for their daughter

by Pershing36 23.12.11 17:55

In their 2008 accounts they have a listing of Media Monitoring £26.113. Seems like and awful lot, I thought that was something you had in business to track advertising done by competitors. Not sure why a search fund would need it.

The real gem is fund professional fee's £36,070 and fund legal fees of £68,799. Over £100,000 or about 10% of the money has been spent on legal and professional fee's of some kind. That doesn't include accountants either.

by TrollAng 23.12.11 18:50

I think the next company objective will be to clear the internet of us lowlife trolls. Now that they have the media whipped into shape big grin

by jd 23.12.11 18:53

We are not trolls...we are Ghouls...One of our MP's has told us

by Gillyspot 23.12.11 23:12

jd wrote:We are not trolls...we are Ghouls...One of our MP's has told us

We are "Ghouls" and it is not even halloween. big grin

by Liz Eagles 24.12.11 1:44

Pershing36 wrote:In their 2008 accounts they have a listing of Media Monitoring £26.113. Seems like and awful lot, I thought that was something you had in business to track advertising done by competitors. Not sure why a search fund would need it.

The real gem is fund professional fee's £36,070 and fund legal fees of £68,799. Over £100,000 or about 10% of the money has been spent on legal and professional fee's of some kind. That doesn't include accountants either.

bloody disgraceful isn't it? I notice the Christmas appeal is low key.

by **PeterMac** 24.12.11 8:04

aquila wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:In their 2008 accounts they have a listing of Media Monitoring £26.113. Seems like and awful lot, I thought that was something you had in business to track advertising done by competitors. Not sure why a search fund would need it.
The real gem is fund professional fee's £36,070 and fund legal fees of £68,799. Over £100,000 or about 10% of the money has been spent on legal and professional fee's of some kind. That doesn't include accountants either.
bloody disgraceful isn't it? I notice the Christmas appeal is low key.

I suspect "Media Monitoring" covers Carter-Ruck watching this forum for the sole purpose of harassing TB. As has been posted elsewhere, on one particular day they were on line here for 10 HOURS. That is a lot of office time, even if an intern is doing it, and as we all know, every minute of solicitor's time has to be charged to someone, somewhere.

by Guest 24.12.11 8:41

Well, Kate assures us that Carter-Ruck provide some of their services free of charge! Seriously though, this forum didn't start till late 2009 so the accounts for 2008 couldn't have included the cost of employing spies.

by **PeterMac** 24.12.11 8:48

There were other fora. Anorak was where I started, and where I first met TB.

by Shibboleth 24.12.11 10:03

Marian wrote:Well, Kate assures us that Carter-Ruck provide some of their services free of charge! Seriously though, this forum didn't start till late 2009 so the accounts for 2008 couldn't have included the cost of employing spies.

But the forum of the Daily Mirror, the Daily Express, and the 3-Arguido, they were there from almost the start date. We know that they watched the Daily Mirror, because Clarence said so. He boasted that he got it shut down, when he made a lecture about PR campaign at the LSE.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - there is a pod cast of the lecture here.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Pershing36 24.12.11 10:29

The strangest one I think however is they only spent £204 in postage 2008. For such a high profile campaign that is nothing. Only equates to a few hundred first class stamps.

by pauline 24.12.11 10:37

Pershing36 wrote:The strangest one I think however is they only spent £204 in postage 2008. For such a high profile campaign that is nothing. Only equates to a few hundred first class stamps.

Agree very low postage costs. And those stamps could have been on threatening letters to Tony, media etc

by jd 24.12.11 10:38

They didn't sell many wristbands then

by **Jill Havern** 24.12.11 10:41

Pershing36 wrote:The strangest one I think however is they only spent £204 in postage 2008. For such a high profile campaign that is nothing. Only equates to a few hundred first class stamps.

But they didn't use one of the stamps to write a letter to the PP to ask for the process to be reopened?

by Shibboleth 24.12.11 10:42

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:The strangest one I think however is they only spent £204 in postage 2008. For such a high profile campaign that is nothing. Only equates to a few hundred first class stamps.

But they didn't use one of the stamps to write a letter to the PP to ask for the process to be reopened?

I shall send them a stamped, addressed envelope. All they need to do is put the letter in it.

by **Jill Havern** 24.12.11 10:44

Shibboleth wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:The strangest one I think however is they only spent £204 in postage 2008. For such a high profile campaign that is nothing. Only equates to a few hundred first class stamps.

But they didn't use one of the stamps to write a letter to the PP to ask for the process to be reopened?

I shall send them a stamped, addressed envelope. All they need to do is put the letter in it.

I think you need to go a step further, actually, and write the letter too. Kate is incredibly busy as you know.

by Shibboleth 24.12.11 10:53

English is not my first language. I do not know whether to write an umm or an err.

by **Jill Havern** 24.12.11 10:55

Shibboleth wrote:English is not my first language. I do not know whether to write an umm or an err.

I would use both.

by jd 24.12.11 11:20

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

by **sharonl** 30.12.11 19:40

Where are the 2011 accounts?

These are due to be filed at companies house by 31 Dec, tomorrow is Saturday, and no sign of them yet.

by pauline 30.12.11 21:30

Just checked with Companies House.

The Mccanns seem to have trouble with filing the accounts on time -

Accounts to march 2008 Latest filing date 31.12.2008 date filed 26.1.2009
Accounts to March 2009 Latest filing date 31.12.2009 date files 28.1.2010
Accounts to March 2010 Latest filing date 31.12.2010 date filed 15.12.2010 (just in time!)

Accounts to March 2011 Latest filing date 31.12.2011 Not filed as at 30.12.2011

So two years out of three they have presumably paid late filing fees. What a waste of money. How transparent and accountable is it to consistently file late or at the last minute?

Their auditors Haysmacintyre have won awards for their charity accounts (according to their website) - but if their clients don't co-operate its not an auditors fault if accounts are filed late.

What genuine reason can there be for this small company to consistently file their (uninformative) accounts late?

by Guest 30.12.11 21:34

I'd sure be happy go go help her balance her trial balance.

And to produce a meaningful report or two for her website big grin

by Shibboleth 30.12.11 21:37

I want to see the balance sheet for my self, you can make the profit-and-loss account say anything.

by **sharonl** 30.12.11 21:39

Hi Pauline

Just to clarify, the accounts for years 2008-2010 were all due to be filed within 10 Months of the year end i.e by 31 January. Changes to the companies act require the 2011 accounts to be filed with 9 months, i.e 31 Dec 2011

by Pershing36 30.12.11 21:56

I wouldn't be surprised if they get 'special treatment' like so many other companies and accounts.

by monkey mind 30.12.11 23:25

Aw shucks, when the government and men of wealth and power jump through hoops to open doors to a world of freedom, and books of tales and tricks gone by raise pounds by the millions, and there aren't enough hours in a PR day, just time for a snack betwixt TV and Plane, well, who cares if the yarns and accounts of fairies are late? When people mesmerised by the powers of suggestion, left barren of ability to care or question, fear not a jot, for in ignorant bliss with a smile and a bow they will part with their coins for the golden pair, rendering library book fines null void and bare.

by **sharonl** 01.01.12 0:37

It looks official then, the McCanns start the new year with a fine from Companies House

by pauline 01.01.12 10:03

sharonl wrote:It looks official then, the McCanns start the new year with a fine from Companies House

The fine for being up to one month late is only £150. That's equivalent to about 15 minutes of Carter Ruck's valuable time...

by **PeterMac** 01.01.12 10:05

pauline wrote:
sharonl wrote:It looks official then, the McCanns start the new year with a fine from Companies House

The fine for being up to one month late is only £150. That's equivalent to about 15 minutes of Carter Ruck's valuable time...

Or two weeks of an Old Age Pensioner's contribution to the Fund.