Madeleine's Fund - account OVERDUE

Accounts submitted 14th January 2013. Files not yet available to view.

curious george wrote:Accounts submitted 14th January 2013. Files not yet available to view.

Thanks George. They should make interesting reading, especially with the book advance which should show up.....

jd16 wrote:

cherry1 wrote:sorry forgot to say I gave the man I spoke to at companies house the
number of the company and he confirmed the name and said he would check re accounts -
he said "there is no sign of them" - they would get a fine for being overdue but couldnt say
how much the fine would be until they got them.

No excuse for any Company to have late accounts, but even more so when they have taken money from the public!!

I don't recall them ever being this late before, something is not quite right and they are up to something. They wouldn't give a 2nd thought about the fine, they've delayed them for a reason that will benefit them

Maybe maybe....think of Kennedy, the specialist to get rich with endless bankruptcies, and mccanns devout supporter. Maybe is has a plan to wash the money to other accounts...and mcs cann moan..oooh aaaaah we have not money...we a bankrupt ... aaaaah we cant look for Maddie... we are broke... while the money is somewhere else safe. Kennedy and his lawyer Smethurst would know how to do that, just speculating, just asking, just wondering. I wouldn't be surprised at all.

margaret wrote:

curious george wrote:Accounts submitted 14th January 2013. Files not yet available to view.

Thanks George. They should make interesting reading, especially with the book advance which should show up.....

I'd be surprised if they would be stupid enough to put the book advance in the fund.
I imagine the majority of it will go direct to personal bank accounts.

But isn't the fund transparent? with all proceeds from the bewk put in the fund towards 'the search'? This is what the mccanns said

Maybe the very secret mysterious fund manager could explain?

Loopdaloop wrote:

margaret wrote:

curious george wrote:Accounts submitted 14th January 2013. Files not yet available to view.

Thanks George. They should make interesting reading, especially with the book advance which should show up.....

I'd be surprised if they would be stupid enough to put the book advance in the fund.
I imagine the majority of it will go direct to personal bank accounts.

They said that only the royalties will go to the "search" (Fund) *couch* sorry, they said all royalties will go to the search.

I don't think the huge advance went to the fund. (and non of it goes to any search anyway)

makes me so sad that they went on holiday in 2007 almost skint by the looks of it and now -- god works in many ways my gran says -- hope shes right

Maybe they could start getting involved in the search themselves by updating the poster on ambassador mccann's missing people charity...still the pre 4 year old photo and Maddie is still 4 years old in 2013...I would guess that Maddie is probably taller than 2ft 11' inches by now too

https://www.missingpeople.org.uk/images/stories/Missing_People_Posters/07-008774.pdf

In order to make money, companies normally offer a service or sell items to keep that company running. The McCanns business offers nothing. This pair are content to simply sit on their backsides, and reap in the cash by offering nothing but a Paypal button or bank account number to the unsuspecting public. To run their company, they expect money to simply be given to them as if it's their right.

It is the McCanns own company, their own business! Like any other business, it needs to make money. However, it is a business that is being used for other means including costs in their many legal battles. Thanks to the McCanns, legal eagles such as Carter Ruck, Isabel Duarte, Rogerio Alves and many more have become a household name. All these lawyers employed in the UK and Portugal, yet the McCanns currently employ NO private investigators to search

Their pathetic priorities are very clear, as is the real need to 'fundraise'.

When visiting Praia de Luz, they lurk in the shadows. They don't appeal or speak to the Portuguese public - people who helped them so much in the early days and who lost time and money out of the goodness of their own hearts. In the last five years, the McCanns show more passion for litigation than appeals to their missing daughter or her so called 'abductor'

The accounts are now available.

http://www.dropbox.com/s/e7qbzb8l5expnt9/59383559.pdf

The date stamp at Companies House is 9th January.

I have studied the accounts. Not sure where I stand legally posting the entire account here, so I’ll just give a brief summary. Admin, please feel free to move to a new topic if appropriate.

The fund started the last financial year with £125,175 in the bank.
£550,000 donation (Advance) for the book deal (restricted fund, I’ll explain that later).
£306,393 unrestricted donations. This appears to consist mainly book royalties.

Here’s the interesting part.

Total expenditure £476,813

With admin costs, interest tax etc, this leaves £474,867 in the bank.

If you are wondering how they manage to spend half a million pounds when not searching for Madeleine, you are not alone.

There is an interesting figure of £234,086 expenditure in relation to the book alone. One can only assume this is the cost of travelling and hotels whilst promoting the book. We can now see why Kate had that big grin on her face in Amsterdam.

The original donation of £550,000 is a restricted fund. This means the donator (Transworld) can stipulate where the money can (or cannot) be spent.

Some of the wording is quite interesting. Book income is described as royalties and other income. Presumably "other" relates to serialisation payments. It is difficult to see why the publisher would put any caveat on use of royalty payments since they come via the author not from the publisher. Maybe the £550k is the serialisation payment. If so the level of royalties is significantly less than some of the figures which were being mooted even before tax.

Having said that if the direct costs of the search were £234K it does rather beg the question what the other £242K of non-search costs were since merchandising income was probably less than £100K and done at a smallish profit.

I'm wondering if Transworld made them pay for ALL promotional and advertising costs. I cannot see how else they managed to spend so much.

If so, this book deal was made under very unfavorable terms to the McCanns. Transworld garner the plaudits for publishing Kate's book, then quietly stitch them up behind the scenes.

curious george wrote:I'm wondering if Transworld made them pay for ALL promotional and advertising costs. I cannot see how else they managed to spend so much.

If so, this book deal was made under very unfavorable terms to the McCanns. Transworld garner the plaudits for publishing Kate's book, then quietly stitch them up behind the scenes.

Are you referring to the restricted fund costs? These appear to be direct "search" costs (note 5).

Chris wrote:

curious george wrote:I'm wondering if Transworld made them pay for ALL promotional and advertising costs. I cannot see how else they managed to spend so much.

If so, this book deal was made under very unfavorable terms to the McCanns. Transworld garner the plaudits for publishing Kate's book, then quietly stitch them up behind the scenes.

Are you referring to the restricted fund costs? These appear to be direct "search" costs (note 5).

Yep, I see what you are saying. I misread Note 5. £550,000 is restricted to 'search' costs.

I agree with your previous comment; what was £242,727 spent on, if it cannot be defined as 'searching'?

And how did they manage to spend £234,086 on searching when they admit themselves, there is no active search at the moment?

Oh, I can see easily how they could have spent £234,086 on searching the Internet for people to sue.

Those of us who are also on the Jill Havern forum know how much time (and therefore money) is spent by people at Carter-Ruck reading that site to find things that are too close to home! I feel very proud that one of my postings (relating to a certain fund director's sleazy Internet friends) was amongst those deleted after C-R complained.

I wonder why, when the reports were signed on 21st December, they were not submitted until 9th January?

I also noticed in the directors report that "part-time administrative support was provided to aid the investigation and campaign to find Madeleine", yet note 2 of the accounts says that there were no employees in 2012 or the previous year either.

Surely only one of those statements can be correct?

curious george wrote:

Chris wrote:

curious george wrote:I'm wondering if Transworld made them pay for ALL promotional and advertising costs. I cannot see how else they managed to spend so much.

If so, this book deal was made under very unfavorable terms to the McCanns. Transworld garner the plaudits for publishing Kate's book, then quietly stitch them up behind the scenes.

Are you referring to the restricted fund costs? These appear to be direct "search" costs (note 5).

Yep, I see what you are saying. I misread Note 5. £550,000 is restricted to 'search' costs.

I agree with your previous comment; what was £242,727 spent on, if it cannot be defined as 'searching'?

And how did they manage to spend £234,086 on searching when they admit themselves, there is no active search at the moment?

Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahaha


Their own publishers don't believe their story!! Thats why they restricted the payment for the 'search' only!!
They didn't want the money going on whatever other bullcrap that they spend their money on!
I bet everyone who donated wished they had overtly stated that their money was 'restricted' for the 'search' only!

And how did they manage to spend £234,086 on searching when they admit themselves, there is no active search at the moment?

Perhaps it costs a lot to arrange silly sightings of Madeleine around the world........

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Perhaps it costs a lot to arrange silly sightings of Madeleine around the world........

Good point

It would not suprise me if they spent a large wad 'buying in' a shed load of books in order to push it up the charts and on to the front shelves,a fairly common practice i think.

Loopdaloop wrote:
Their own publishers don't believe their story!! Thats why they restricted the payment for the 'search' only!!
They didn't want the money going on whatever other bullcrap that they spend their money on!
I bet everyone who donated wished they had overtly stated that their money was 'restricted' for the 'search' only!

I don't think the restricted fund is money from the publisher. It seems more likely it is the serialisation payment from NI which Brooks at Leveson said was about £1/2 million. If so it is interesting that NI imposed conditions on its use and that it is described as a "donation" and apparently untaxed when the taxpayer is footing the bill for an expensive SY review.

Perhaps the £200,000 plus went on a bung to a top detective!

I wonder just how much turned up in cash addressed to 'Kate and Gerry in Rothley'?