CBman Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Well the advice given so far has been pretty shite. I know how hard it is first hand to make money out of films having two family members in it.I've looked into this with one of them and the money we will get back from dvd sales and television rights world wide is peanuts. There are a few names that keep popping up when you look closer at this and one in particular besides Steve Christian has done very well and that's a guy called Martin Pope, he's had a few million over the years for several productions so far despite nice reviews they haven't come close to making any money. He's done alright out of it I'm quite sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wann Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Hey CBman, I know how hard it is to make money out of films too. I was asked to help out on one of the productions over here. Menial type of stuff and did a couple of days and the bastards never paid me. I got every excuse under the sun, including "your cheque is in the post" Shower of shites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Few shots of castles n king bills and shit in the trailer: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBman Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 It's not that bad when it comes to low budget sci fi, the reviews are ok but will it make any money. Just think there have been some shit low budget films than have done real good, cloverfield, blair witch all made mega bucks. You never know but don't hold your breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=75301 So now it would seem no matter what the continued non performance of our "slate" of films we are contractually tied in to the investment ! What checks and balances are in place I wonder for acceptable investment performance ? Ms Beecroft has at least exposed the degree of the tail wagging the dog ! 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FACT Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Does it actually say that, if we back out after the five years then we can be sued because they need the money that Steve Christian gets to pay Steve Christian? No wonder they have refused to discuss it before.what fucking numbskull signed that contract? who did the due diligence? who agreed to the deal? who pushed the deal as a good idea? who did Steve Christian sucker into it? 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Shoe Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I remember distinctly that teare said iomg could say yay or nay on ANY investment. Just say nay! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I remember distinctly that teare said iomg could say yay or nay on ANY investment. Just say nay! The Acting Attorney General was called on to give an opinion of the consequences of not going ahead with investment in further productions. Kate had acknowledged that we would still be liable for the £365k a year management fee to Pinewood for advising on investments but in her opinion we should protect the remaining £18 million on the film fund for use on the Island. She listed a host of past productions and their written down value which didn't amount to a great deal considering the level of investment. The thrust of her speech was that we are throwing good money after bad. Eddie Teare gave quite a short and low profile contribution. He praised the efforts of Steve Christian and what he and film had done for the Island and repeated the often quoted figure of £300 million benefit to the Manx economy. Alf Cannan declared that he agreed with a lot of what Kate had said, but opined that we had entered into the agreement, had made our bed and we must lie in it, but any possible renewal of the contract needs very careful scrutiny. What changed Kate's mind was the AAG's opinion that because there were incentives and performance bonuses payable under the contract, if we were to tell Pinewood not to recommend further projects, we could be liable to legal action with unknowable costs and consequences if we were held to have frustrated the agreement by our non-performance. You can see his reasoning. A good lawyer acting for the advisors might contend that we had prevented them from benefiting from their bonus on a potential multi-million pound blockbuster, This was new information as Kate, despite doing lots of digging, had no idea about these additional commitments we were signed up to. It was also mentioned that if such a large shareholder in Pinewood were to take such a course it would be tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the company's activities that would be likely to hit the share price and our investment. Kate asked if she could withdraw the motion and explain her reasons to the Court. The Court would not allow her to do so and that is why she had to vote against her own motion. It doesn't reflect badly on her as with the revelation of the previously undisclosed contractual information, it was the only course she could take. The AAG stated that he would not normally disclose advice he had given to Treasury in Tynwald but that he had Treasury's permission to do so in this case. So the upshot is that we can indeed say yay or nay to any particular project but my reading of the AAG is that we are legally bound at least to say yay to some of them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I remember distinctly that teare said iomg could say yay or nay on ANY investment. Just say nay! The Acting Attorney General was called on to give an opinion of the consequences of not going ahead with investment in further productions. Kate had acknowledged that we would still be liable for the £365k a year management fee to Pinewood for advising on investments but in her opinion we should protect the remaining £18 million on the film fund for use on the Island. She listed a host of past productions and their written down value which didn't amount to a great deal considering the level of investment. The thrust of her speech was that we are throwing good money after bad. Eddie Teare gave quite a short and low profile contribution. He praised the efforts of Steve Christian and what he and film had done for the Island and repeated the often quoted figure of £300 million benefit to the Manx economy. Alf Cannan declared that he agreed with a lot of what Kate had said, but opined that we had entered into the agreement, had made our bed and we must lie in it, but any possible renewal of the contract needs very careful scrutiny. What changed Kate's mind was the AAG's opinion that because there were incentives and performance bonuses payable under the contract, if we were to tell Pinewood not to recommend further projects, we could be liable to legal action with unknowable costs and consequences if we were held to have frustrated the agreement by our non-performance. You can see his reasoning. A good lawyer acting for the advisors might contend that we had prevented them from benefiting from their bonus on a potential multi-million pound blockbuster, This was new information as Kate, despite doing lots of digging, had no idea about these additional commitments we were signed up to. It was also mentioned that if such a large shareholder in Pinewood were to take such a course it would be tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the company's activities that would be likely to hit the share price and our investment. Kate asked if she could withdraw the motion and explain her reasons to the Court. The Court would not allow her to do so and that is why she had to vote against her own motion. It doesn't reflect badly on her as with the revelation of the previously undisclosed contractual information, it was the only course she could take. The AAG stated that he would not normally disclose advice he had given to Treasury in Tynwald but that he had Treasury's permission to do so in this case. So the upshot is that we can indeed say yay or nay to any particular project but my reading of the AAG is that we are legally bound at least to say yay to some of them. So in essence we are contractually bound to blow the sitting 18 million whether we want to or can afford to or not ? if this is the case this is financial madness !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FACT Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 It looks like it was a plan to embarrass Kate that has gone horribly wrong for Teare and his buddies. this new information, which he hasn't mentioned before, opens up whole new avenues for questions. For instance, how much is charged yearly for advice, who gives the advice and who pays for it. Is this payment on top of the £360+k for Christian's services via his wholly owned manx company? If SC is a director of Pinewood is he legally allowed to pay his company £360+k a year and charge, as a director, a further £80k for other services. I am losing the plot with this deal. It has more twists and turns than a twisty turny thing. I don't think this is the last we will hear of this, which is not why they tried to derail Kate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 We're doing quite well so far in that respect then, aren't we..? Didn't we start of with nearly £50m for our "film industry investment"? Not long to go until we've got rid of the lot!! Excellent progress, we should all be proud!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) It looks like it was a plan to embarrass Kate that has gone horribly wrong for Teare and his buddies. this new information, which he hasn't mentioned before, opens up whole new avenues for questions. For instance, how much is charged yearly for advice, who gives the advice and who pays for it. Is this payment on top of the £360+k for Christian's services via his wholly owned manx company? If SC is a director of Pinewood is he legally allowed to pay his company £360+k a year and charge, as a director, a further £80k for other services. I am losing the plot with this deal. It has more twists and turns than a twisty turny thing. I don't think this is the last we will hear of this, which is not why they tried to derail Kate. What really gets my goat about this whole affair is not the personalties involved, but the principle involved, the principle where you can blow huge amounts of the publics money but at each and every turn do your best to hide the details.This is shameful democracy, not commercial sensitivity ! Teare needs a sharp reminder of whose money this is ! Edited February 21, 2015 by asitis 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hagar the horrible Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 It looks like it was a plan to embarrass Kate that has gone horribly wrong for Teare and his buddies. this new information, which he hasn't mentioned before, opens up whole new avenues for questions. For instance, how much is charged yearly for advice, who gives the advice and who pays for it. Is this payment on top of the £360+k for Christian's services via his wholly owned manx company? If SC is a director of Pinewood is he legally allowed to pay his company £360+k a year and charge, as a director, a further £80k for other services. I am losing the plot with this deal. It has more twists and turns than a twisty turny thing. I don't think this is the last we will hear of this, which is not why they tried to derail Kate. What really gets my goat about this whole affair is not the personalties involved, but the principle involved, the principle where you can blow huge amounts of the publics money but at each and every turn do your best to hide the details.This is shameful democracy, not commercial sensitivity ! Teare needs a sharp reminder of whose money this is ! The UK government must be really pissed off knowing how their cash has been wantonly squandered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Shoe Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 So Slim.....still on Teare's side in all this? Apart from Allan Bell, you're Teare's biggest supporter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsnight Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Treasury Minister Eddie Teare it appears has mutated into a Manx Wile E .Coyote right before our eyes as his performance in the Tynwald last week demonstrated. Mr Michael Coleman LLB (Hons) Ist Class Open University MLC was motivated by Kate Beecroft MHK Douglas South Motion as set down on the Order Paper to ask the Acting Attorney General a question all about contracts and law. When the Hansard is published it will be possible to put that on the Forum for everyone to read should they wish to. Mr Coleman MLC having achieved a first class honours in Law from the Open University would be expected to have a reasonable grounding in the law of contract. The Acting Attorney General has been a lawyer since 1978, he is a highly experienced and qualified Advocate, and so he would be expected to know his way around the law of contract. I thought the questions from Mr Coleman and reply from the Acting Attorney General put me in mind of two people with bare feet and barelegged negotiating their way through a very big field of nettles. They gave every impression of stepping with greatest care, it was notable that one crucial aspect of the matter of the ‘Contract’ the Treasury has made with Pinewood; one aspect that could well lead to a rescission of the contract by the Treasury was not mentioned at all. Then we have Treasury Minister Eddie Teare who on Manx Radio insists that Mrs Beecroft is “misguided in claims government withheld information from her.” He also stated that “It’s basic contract law here, we are not talking about a particular counter-party to the contract, we are talking about contract law, basic, it goes back to school”. Those seem to be very good as statements go? Then shall we hold Minister Teare to his word? Firstly he claims that Government hasn’t withheld information from Mrs Beecroft, and if it is proved that Government has done that, and if it is proved that he has been involved in deliberately withholding information, will he resign? When Minister Teare speaks about ‘a particular counter-party to the contract’ should a MHK as him directly for example; “Will the Treasury Minister say when he was made aware that Pinewood Film Advisors Ltd was determined to sub-contract with Gasworks Media Ltd? In fact when was it that the Tynwald was informed that Pinewood Film Advisors Ltd was paying Gasworks Media Ltd the majority of the fee being paid to it under contract? Can he prove that nothing was withheld from Mrs.Beecroft by showing her and us in the presentations exactly where it was stated that Gasworks Media Ltd was going to be paid the substantial part of the fee going to Pinewood by that company, and would he show her where it was stated what Gasworks was going to be paid to do for the hundreds of thousands of pounds to be paid to it, and crucially why was it necessary to have Gasworks involved at all in the first place? Will he give straight answers to those questions? I will make a prediction Minister Teare is very likely to find that if it is as he stated “It’s basic contract law here” Mrs Beecroft might care to hold him to that statement, and then he and the Treasury could well find that sometimes the law is a blunt instrument and he may come to profoundly regret that he didn’t do his research better or even take his own advice “It’s basic contract law here”. http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/opqp/2015-PP-0008.pdf 27. Media Development Fund The Hon. Member for Douglas South (Mrs Beecroft) to move –That Tynwald is of the opinion that no further investment in the film industry should be made using the Media Development Fund 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.