Analysis of Fund accounts by Enid o'Dowd - Mccannfiles

by Guest 17.01.14 13:44

Enid O'Dowd analyses the accounts of Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited for the year ended 31 March 2013

Exclusive to mccannfiles.com

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

by HelenMeg 17.01.14 13:48

Hmmm interesting

by Mirage 17.01.14 14:38

The accounts tell you nothing. They have fulfilled the minimum legal requirement and that is all they ever intended to do despite the open and transparent promise. They move tranches of money about and there is nothing to show detailed expenditure. If SY were halfway serious they could probably subpoena the accountancy books and start investigating paper trails, but they won't.
ETA I should have added my thanks to Enid O'Dowd for her hard work.

by aiyoyo 17.01.14 14:48

Thanks Enid O'Dowd for your Comprehensive Review of the Fund Accounts. It makes interesting read.

Merchandise/
Campaign Costs
Total £3,148,503 Y/E 2013 £115,109 YE 2012 £476,813 Y/E 2011 £487,193 Y/E 2010 £421,236 Y/E 2009 £974,786 Y/E 2007-08 £673,366

Admin. Expenses
Total £278,229 Y/E 2012 £23,910 Y/E 2012 £24,909 Y/E 2011 £26,930 Y/E 2010 £29,868 YE 2009 £30,865 Y/E 2007-08 £141,747

Merchandise/Campaign costs seem abnormally high. T-shirts and wrist bands are cheap to produce. Certainly no where near the figures stated, at most a very small fraction of the figures. It is perhaps not illogical to assume the bulk of those sums is attributed to campaign costs.
Given that Op Grange's Review commenced in 2011, the nearly £1/2Million campaign figures for Year 2011 and 2012 seem astronomical when no active campaigns were visible during those period either in UK or elsewhere. The Year 2013 figure of over £100K also seems high when campaign was drastically scaled down by then.

The Total Merchandise/Campaign costs to Y/E 2013 of over £3M is staggering if per se.

Legal Costs are not listed in the Accounts, neither are the PIs costs for that matter.

The Total Admin Expenses to Y/E 2013 of £278K is inexplicable given that the Account Notes states that there is no employee.

The Frequency of Directors' Meetings declined from 11 times (Y/E2011) to 8 times (Y/E2012) to 5 times (Y/E2013); a decrease of over 50% from that of 2011, and a decrease of over 33% from that of 2012.

The question of why PAYPAL was not reinstated in good useful time given that Google had given the Fund 6-month notice to effect any changeover may be due to their reluctance to switch back to PAYPAL as PAYPAL has a 100% money-back guarantee policy governing merchandise purchase.
Ask not why they delay in switching back to PAYPAL, rather the more pertinent point would be: why they switched from PAYPAL to Google Clearing House in the first place if there is no legal risk reason to do so.
This is only an uneducated guess as PAYPAL money-back guarantee is a stated fact on e-bay purchases which presumably applies to all online purchases.

by bobbin 17.01.14 15:17

Thank you Enid, for all your time and expertise.
It is very re-assuring to have a proper 'professional' analysis of McCann dealings. Even to the non-professional's eye, there is definitely something very askew here.
What with whitewash (maybe), laundering (of clothes ? and funds ?), bleach (damage to forensic samples), showers, baths, (Payne and Kate's clashing 30 minutes/ 30 seconds- statements) there appears, on the surface of it all, to be an awful lot of 'cleaning up' going on around these parts. spin

by Daisy 17.01.14 15:27

Big thanks from me too Enid. Your work is much appreciated. roses

by **PeterMac** 17.01.14 15:44

On 9th January 2014, the online store was relaunched, both on the official site and also on a new standalone site at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] The new site rather curiously contains 'sign in' and 'register' buttons, which the site defends by stating that it 'helps us make your shopping experience easier'. A peculiar claim given there are only six products for sale, on one page! Unless there is a long term plan to introduce an extensive catalogue of Madeleine merchandise, this would seem to be little more than an exercise in collecting personal details. But for what purpose?

Watch your backs.

by aiyoyo 17.01.14 15:52

You have to wonder whether the Board of Directors approved the change of site to sell 6 "past sell by date" products.
Wouldn't there be cost involved in maintaining another site ?

by suep 17.01.14 16:32

candyfloss wrote:Enid O'Dowd analyses the accounts of Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited for the year ended 31 March 2013

Exclusive to mccannfiles.com

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

Thanks, Candyfloss. I've just read Enid's analyses of all the Fund accounts for the first time and I'm massively impressed by the clarity and thoroughness of her work.I learned a lot from it. I'm grateful for her valuable input and for your link.

thanks

by Letterwriter 17.01.14 16:40

Depending on the personal data being collected and who is holding it, the company may need to register with the ICO.

Failure to do so is an offence.

Mind, I'm sure countless small businesses that should be registered are not.

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

by Daisy 17.01.14 16:43

PeterMac wrote:
On 9th January 2014, the online store was relaunched, both on the official site and also on a new standalone site at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] The new site rather curiously contains 'sign in' and 'register' buttons, which the site defends by stating that it 'helps us make your shopping experience easier'. A peculiar claim given there are only six products for sale, on one page! Unless there is a long term plan to introduce an extensive catalogue of Madeleine merchandise, this would seem to be little more than an exercise in collecting personal details. But for what purpose?

Watch your backs.

Hmm... sure looks suss.

by Guest 17.01.14 20:51

Thank you Enid,very easy to read.

The mention of the fees for libel trial transport etc sounds very vague to me, I would like to know if legal fees are being paid also as from reading what the fund says I think they could be.

by Guest 01.01.15 16:04

Accounts should have been submitted by 31st December 2014. Overdue.

by Liz Eagles 01.01.15 16:16

Ladyinred wrote:Accounts should have been submitted by 31st December 2014. Overdue.

Can someone make sense of why the McCanns need a donate button on their website (that would be the £37k website paid for from donations by the public) when the police service of two countries are conducting an investigation for which they (the McCanns) are so encouraged by?

by **PeterMac** 01.01.15 16:38

Greed ?
Proving that the public are gullible ?

by Liz Eagles 01.01.15 16:50

PeterMac wrote:Greed ?
Proving that the public are gullible ?

Grasping onto a tiger's tail for fear of letting go?

by Doug D 01.01.15 17:17

LiR:

‘Accounts should have been submitted by 31st December 2014. Overdue.’

I think you will find they (along with thousands of other companies) historically have submitted the accounts earlier this week, just before the deadline, in order to avoid the small fine that would have to be paid from the Fund out of the ‘goodness of the donating publics’ hand.

This obviously creates a backlog at Companies House, who won’t get round to posting them up for another week or so.

If you look at last years, there is a Companies House barcode stamp dated 31^st December 2013, but the accounts do not show as ‘posted’ until some 10 days later.

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

by Guest 01.01.15 20:43

Doug D wrote:LiR:

‘Accounts should have been submitted by 31st December 2014. Overdue.’

I think you will find they (along with thousands of other companies) historically have submitted the accounts earlier this week, just before the deadline, in order to avoid the small fine that would have to be paid from the Fund out of the ‘goodness of the donating publics’ hand.

This obviously creates a backlog at Companies House, who won’t get round to posting them up for another week or so.

If you look at last years, there is a Companies House barcode stamp dated 31^st December 2013, but the accounts do not show as ‘posted’ until some 10 days later.

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

Maybe they have submitted the accounts this week. However, companies house records them as overdue. They have a habit of submitting close to the deadline.

by plebgate 02.01.15 12:04

aquila wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Accounts should have been submitted by 31st December 2014. Overdue.

Can someone make sense of why the McCanns need a donate button on their website (that would be the £37k website paid for from donations by the public) when the police service of two countries are conducting an investigation for which they (the McCanns) are so encouraged by?

I still think that any money donated should be put toward the SY investigation, or given to Kerry Needham and others who are desperate for funds.

by Liz Eagles 02.01.15 12:10

plebgate wrote:
aquila wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Accounts should have been submitted by 31st December 2014. Overdue.

Can someone make sense of why the McCanns need a donate button on their website (that would be the £37k website paid for from donations by the public) when the police service of two countries are conducting an investigation for which they (the McCanns) are so encouraged by?
I still think that any money donated should be put toward the SY investigation, or given to Kerry Needham and others who are desperate for funds.

Plebgate, you can't donate money to a police investigation for obvious reasons.

by plebgate 02.01.15 15:35

You're right aquila but it should be given back to the taxpayer in some way if it doesn't go towards helping other missing persons families.

I do not know why they are holding onto any money donated (if they are and if any remains in the fund) - IMO if, after the recent investigation/s are concluded(or before that I would prefer) and Maddie is still not found, why would they need to employ more PIs?

by woodforthetrees 12.01.15 16:39

aquila wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Accounts should have been submitted by 31st December 2014. Overdue.

Can someone make sense of why the McCanns need a donate button on their website (that would be the £37k website paid for from donations by the public) when the police service of two countries are conducting an investigation for which they (the McCanns) are so encouraged by?

Because they need to keep up the pretense that Madeleine is alive, to keep the cadaver evidence as 'inconclusive' and thus the timelines/checking BS alive to keep them all in the clear for neglect. (Though in reality they knew very early on she was deceased and are using the donations to pay for legal representatives and jollies to nice locations).

The police forces of both countries are not looking for a live Madeleine, the Portuguese police said she died years ago and the SY digs are as good a sign as any that t is a murder investigation, even if they don't plaster it all over the media.

by Knitted 12.01.15 18:11

Sorry if someone's already covered this (I haven't scrolled through the thread) but...I've just looked at the Fraud Act 2006, Chapter 35, and here's bits that seem relevant to me...

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

Can anyone (e.g. Tony with your legal skills?) say if there's a case to challenge the fund? My reading of it is that, as has just been said by Aquila, if they don't disclose that Madeleine is considered to be dead by those looking into the case, then they are falling foul of Section 2, (2), (b).

Link to Fraud Act 2006

by Smokeandmirrors 12.01.15 18:24

Knitted wrote:Sorry if someone's already covered this (I haven't scrolled through the thread) but...I've just looked at the Fraud Act 2006, Chapter 35, and here's bits that seem relevant to me...

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

Can anyone (e.g. Tony with your legal skills?) say if there's a case to challenge the fund? My reading of it is that, as has just been said by Aquila, if they don't disclose that Madeleine is considered to be dead by those looking into the case, then they are falling foul of Section 2, (2), (b).

Link to Fraud Act 2006

The "might be" words are key here. Although unless remains appear at some point, this would be hard to demonstrate, hence the persistent claims of "no evidence of harm". Although being "disappeared" for many years IS harm whether they say so or not.

by Knitted 12.01.15 19:00

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Knitted wrote:(deleted)

Link to Fraud Act 2006

The "might be" words are key here. Although unless remains appear at some point, this would be hard to demonstrate, hence the persistent claims of "no evidence of harm". Although being "disappeared" for many years IS harm whether they say so or not.

... Removing the irrelevant text variables the Fraud Act reads:

"a representation is false if the person making it knows that it... might be... misleading". So, yes, the words 'might be' are key

I appreciate the above definition is now wide open, and that the burden of proof will, (logically?), have to be on those in charge of the fund to demonstrate they acted on good faith, (and any parent of a missing child will no doubt be given the benefit of doubt)... but surely (regardless of Tannerman remaining on-screen after AR's Crimewatch comments) if Grange has ever alluded to searching for 'evidence and/or remains' an appropriate caveat needs to be put near to the 'donate' button? Failure to acknowledge this is (at the least) borderline misleading in my opinion... Surely?

by Smokeandmirrors 12.01.15 19:22

Knitted wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Knitted wrote:(deleted)

Link to Fraud Act 2006

The "might be" words are key here. Although unless remains appear at some point, this would be hard to demonstrate, hence the persistent claims of "no evidence of harm". Although being "disappeared" for many years IS harm whether they say so or not.
... Removing the irrelevant text variables the Fraud Act reads:

"a representation is false if the person making it knows that it... might be... misleading". So, yes, the words 'might be' are key

I appreciate the above definition is now wide open, and that the burden of proof will, (logically?), have to be on those in charge of the fund to demonstrate they acted on good faith, (and any parent of a missing child will no doubt be given the benefit of doubt)... but surely (regardless of Tannerman remaining on-screen after AR's Crimewatch comments) if Grange has ever alluded to searching for 'evidence and/or remains' an appropriate caveat needs to be put near to the 'donate' button? Failure to acknowledge this is (at the least) borderline misleading in my opinion... Surely?

I think many might agree, but the McCanns have been heavily lawyered up from the off. Smethurst, the funds lawyer and prominent Freemason, will no doubt "be aware" of the implications and be advising his clients accordingly winkwink

Perhaps it was he who suggested Philomena's student be paid £37,000 for a decidedly mediocre website out of the fund.

by Knitted 12.01.15 19:37

... 37 effing grand???

I used to manage a team of £2k a day Fujitsu Contractors who were riding on a a >£1bn contract that the UK Home Office had made a Limited Company (a subsidiary of a public sector company, wholly owned by UK Gov) sign up to, in order to bury UK Gov sheer incompetence in signing up to a ridiculous 'tripartite' agreement with A.N. Other UK Gov department)...

... and I can assure you even they'd never have dared have the audacity to submit a 'bid' for £37k for a simple website, (it'd have been rejected). They were sharp cookies and never missed a trick, but knowing them well they'd have probably knocked such a site up in their lunch hour as a favour, (That is, if they'd managed to keep away from the afternoon strip-clubs in Clerkenwell where the real deals were struck !).

£37k? What was it spent on???....Doughnuts and Deep Fried Mars Bars?????

(Sorry... is that unprofessional of me?)

by Smokeandmirrors 12.01.15 19:46

Knitted wrote:... 37 effing grand???

I used to manage a team of £2k a day Fujitsu Contractors who were riding on a a >£1bn contract that the UK Home Office had made a Limited Company (a subsidiary of a public sector company, wholly owned by UK Gov) sign up to, in order to bury UK Gov sheer incompetence in signing up to a ridiculous 'tripartite' agreement with A.N. Other UK Gov department)...

... and I can assure you even they'd never have dared have the audacity to submit a 'bid' for £37k for a simple website, (it'd have been rejected). They were sharp cookies and never missed a trick, but knowing them well they'd have probably knocked such a site up in their lunch hour as a favour, (That is, if they'd managed to keep away from the afternoon strip-clubs in Clerkenwell where the real deals were struck !).

£37k? What was it spent on???....Doughnuts and Deep Fried Mars Bars?????

(Sorry... is that unprofessional of me?)

Page 10 of the Report on the McCann files link: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id205.html

£235,000 (approx) grand was spent on Fund management and legal fees in the 1st year too. It's all itemised.

by Smokeandmirrors 12.01.15 19:49

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

by Knitted 12.01.15 20:01

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

Blimey... Incompetent or dishonest? I can't decide...

Still, If I was so blasé to have pumped £81,909 into something as vague as 'Awareness' without considering a balancing entry to cover the costs of independently measuring the return on that particular 'outlay' I suppose I wouldn't really have to care...