Slim Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 so does the mangement fee now reduce by the same percentage now there is less to manage? This is the sale of a portion of the shareholding in pinewood, nothing to do with the development fund. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Slim is right - we will never know the truth really about the film industry although we can surmise that it started life as a great big VAT fiddle. The Government have I think managed to evidence that in the Oxford Economics report that they commissioned to justify the Pinewood investment which states that Government made £460m in equity and tax from 97 films between 1995 and 2011. That is an average return of £4.75m PER FILM. Incredible figures when we know that most of the films were never seen or heard of again. Our most successful film was Waking Ned that has taken $55m, Stormbreaker did OK with $30m but Chico and Rita for instance did not top $200k. I say "our" films, but of course many of these films only had short scenes filmed on the Island. The flaws in the figures are somewhat exposed by Oxford Economics who go on to say that future film under the Pinewood deal might generate £85k in tax revenues per film. I'll leave you to make your own interpretations but one things for sure I don't think we (the public) will ever get to the truth.....although HMRC might. The truth is that the MDF "investments" have failed to make any returns, in fact the last time I looked at the accounts the total write off to 2012 was approx £49 million, gone forever. What can't speak can't lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestedman Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Yep so £460m - £49m= £411m..............still an exceptional return, if you believe Oxford Economics. And there is by the way no reason not to believe them, Treasury supported the document. Of course, what you need to ask yourself is how £49m investments generates turnover of circa £3bn (which results in the net tax return of £460m).......and the answer is it didn't. So, if we know that film sales alone cannot possibly have accounted for such a huge return, how did the Government do it ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 .and the answer is it didn't. So, if we know that film sales alone cannot possibly have accounted for such a huge return, how did the Government do it ??? We know the answer to this, it's the same reason we can't do it any more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 so does the mangement fee now reduce by the same percentage now there is less to manage?This is the sale of a portion of the shareholding in pinewood, nothing to do with the development fund. And a small proportion at that. We invested £12.3m and now have a net position of £10.7m so really we've just done a very small profit taking exercise like any investor might do. The main risks have hardly been diluted though have they? Net we've taken about £1.5m off the table which is piss all really exposure wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 So in essence.... IOM Govt had a punt It sort of did OK, but we'll never really know the true economic benefit (or otherwise) Funds still exposed Mr Christian did well and continues to do so Therein lies the blueprint for future uses of Govt funds......the Isle of Man, where you can..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 1, 2015 Author Share Posted April 1, 2015 Yep so £460m - £49m= £411m..............still an exceptional return, if you believe Oxford Economics. And there is by the way no reason not to believe them, Treasury supported the document. Of course, what you need to ask yourself is how £49m investments generates turnover of circa £3bn (which results in the net tax return of £460m).......and the answer is it didn't. So, if we know that film sales alone cannot possibly have accounted for such a huge return, how did the Government do it ??? You'll find more business sense reading 'Jack and the Beanstalk' than that report. Never read so much projected and over - associated bullplop in my life. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wankleaks Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Slim is right - we will never know the truth really about the film industry although we can surmise that it started life as a great big VAT fiddle. The Government have I think managed to evidence that in the Oxford Economics report that they commissioned to justify the Pinewood investment which states that Government made £460m in equity and tax from 97 films between 1995 and 2011. That is an average return of £4.75m PER FILM. Incredible figures when we know that most of the films were never seen or heard of again. Our most successful film was Waking Ned that has taken $55m, Stormbreaker did OK with $30m but Chico and Rita for instance did not top $200k. I say "our" films, but of course many of these films only had short scenes filmed on the Island. The flaws in the figures are somewhat exposed by Oxford Economics who go on to say that future film under the Pinewood deal might generate £85k in tax revenues per film. I'll leave you to make your own interpretations but one things for sure I don't think we (the public) will ever get to the truth.....although HMRC might. The truth is that the MDF "investments" have failed to make any returns, in fact the last time I looked at the accounts the total write off to 2012 was approx £49 million, gone forever. What can't speak can't lie. MDF investments is about right. Isn't MDF the crappy flimsy stuff B&Q makes its economy wardrobes and bookshelves out of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsnight Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 “You never will. The profit from the share purchase will be evident, but the return from film investment's always going to be hard to ascertain exactly as it's a development fund not an investment fund. Long tails, promotion of local business relating to films, boat/hotel bookings etc.” Is the Media Development Fund expected to make a return? http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/pp/Reports/2010-PP-0105.pdf That question was addressed in the Public Accounts Committee Report on the Media Development Fund. 5. KEY ISSUES OF CONCERN (2): RETURN ON INVESTMENT. Page 21. The topic of local spend was examined in detail and the Committee’s findings and conclusions are to be found. If the Media Development Fund is not an investment fund why did the PAC keep referring to the money being spent out of it as an investment? Why then did it take such pains to try to establish what if any return had been achieved from the money in the Media Development Fund, if it was not an investment fund then why bother? What did Steve Christian have to say on the purpose of the Media Development Fund? 4.18 In the presentation in October 2007 Members of Tynwald were advised that the new CinemaNX Limited arrangements were intended to reduce reliance on Steven Christian and (19) Hilary Dugdale. During the course of our investigation Mr Christian provided us with the following further explanation: "I am not sure how familiar your Committee is with my present role in NX CinemaNX Limited], Essentially, I am responsible for devising film/media policy and strategy for the long-term benefit of NX, the MDF and the IOM. Mr Fingret (media lawyer) and Mr Samuelson (film producer and executive) have jointly taken over the bulk of my pre-NX role. That being the packaging, negotiating and general closing of deals. This was a requirement of Treasury. That is, that the local film industry would be sustainable without my involvement. A requirement that arose, I understand, from the previous, very exhaustive enquiry of the M D .F made by your Committee. My absence would no longer be an impediment to the continuation of the local industry." 5. KEY ISSUES OF CONCERN (2): RETURN ON INVESTMENT 5.3 Internal Audit noted in their report that the on-going funding of the Media Development Fund was not dependent on the return to Government from local spend. This was because, as set out above, under the Isle of Man Film Limited mechanism as it operated up to March 2007, the Media Development Fund itself benefited both from direct returns from film distribution and from indirect receipts to the exchequer. 5.19 When we pressed the Financial Controller to forecast the projected return expected of CinemaNX Limited he indicated that each film investment should seek to break-even. Similarly Mr Steven Christian stated to the Committee that underlying the various expectations he had for CinemaNX Limited was the desire to at least maintain the original MDF balance whilst creating economic benefit along the way. 5.24 To summarise our findings on this central issue of sustainability, we would say that the Media Development Fund appears to have achieved what it was set up to do between 2002 and 2007, but that on the success of the post-2007 arrangements there still remains a lack of evidence. The eight years since 2002 have seen a steady reduction in the Treasury's aspirations. In March 2002 the Treasury Minister (Allan Bell) said in his Budget speech: "I believe that there are few investment opportunities for the development of the economy of the Island that afford the same potential for the future as the film and media industry." In March 2007 he said:"Film finance is a complex area, but suffice it to say that Treasury, along with its advisers, will continue to seek the maximum return for the minimum risk." And in 2009 we find that the Treasury is hoping merely that each investment will: "wash its face". The PAC called that a “modest aspiration”. We had in Allan Bell a Treasury Minister happy to put at risk fifty million pounds of public money supported by MHK’s who neither understood or cared to find out what was being done with that money that had as a stated objective the ‘hope’ that it would wash its face’! https://www.gov.im/media/1346893/pinkbook-1516.pdf Managed External Invested Funds Page 30. Book Balances brought forward 1st April 2014 Investment income. £62.000.00 Media Development Fund 38,663 62 5,750 365 32,610 Estimated for 2015 / 16 Investment income £85.000.00 If the contention is that the Media Development Fund was to be an all-purpose fund to be used to generate “economic activity” on the Island and a return on that money was not part of the objective, why did the PAC make the recommendations it did to the Treasury regarding the failure to collate and report on audit data concerning ‘local spend’? If the objective was “development of the economy of the Island” then why was it not an absolute requirement for films to be shot on the Island in return for financing? Why again was it that ‘local spend’ was not made a priority by the Treasury in terms of monitoring and accurately reporting those figures? AT 5.19. The Financial Controller at the Treasury ‘indicated’ that each film investment should seek to break-even. Steve Christian stated to the Committee that ‘underlying the various expectations he had for CinemaNX Ltd was ‘the desire to at least maintain the original MDF balance whilst creating economic benefit along the way’. So what was done in summary is this, fifty million pounds of public money was handed over to a private limited company to spend on film investment with the agreement of the Treasury, and that the person controlling the money ‘desired’ to maintain the original fifty million pounds while ‘creating economic benefit’ along the way as it was spent. Was the actual economic benefit measured, audited, checked? No.it was not, it was guessed, imagined, and when a recommendation was made to the Treasury by the PAC to remedy those deficiencies that was also ignored and not acted on. What happened when the investment in film failed? Then the politician’s in favour of the Media Development Fund expenditures shouted down any complaints at the millions lost by claiming vast benefits far outweighing any losses that had come to the Island indirectly because of ‘local spend’ and because of ‘economic development’. So take a look at the PINK BOOK page 30.for a view of the return on investment. https://www.gov.im/media/1346893/pinkbook-1516.pdf Managed External Invested Funds Page 30. Book Balances brought forward 1st April 2014 Investment income. £62.000.00 Media Development Fund 38,663 62 5,750 365 32,610 Estimated for 2015 / 16. Investment income £85.000.00 What is the Media Development Fund? It’s an investment fund that has no targets for a return on investment except possibly that it should ‘wash its face’. It’s a fund for the promotion of economic development with no verifiable and audited measurement of that objective. However, it has most certainly brought economic benefits to some and those can be quantified, what has it brought to the rest of us? Eddie Teare on Manx Radio gave the answer, “Mr Teare says his three-year strategy to rebalance the budget is on track, after the Island lost a third of its annual income in the VAT renegotiation”. http://www.manxradio.com/blog.aspx?blogid=14542 There are those who think that the story of the Media Development Fund is too complicated to unravel, that the facts will never be fully known, that it is just too difficult to explain it, those who do think that are seriously in error, the full facts can be known and they will be made public too. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 And the sooner, the better. One or two people involved in the "governance" of this Island appear to consider that they have risen above their accountability to their electors. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsnight Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Update on Peel Group. http://www.peel.co.uk/news/peelgroupwelcomeslegalandgeneralas50percentjvpartneratmediacityuk Peel Group Welcomes Legal & General Capital as 50% JV partner at MediaCityUK SchemeTuesday, 10 March 2015 The Peel Group today welcomed Legal & General Capital (LGC) as the new 50% shareholder in its landmark MediaCityUK scheme at Salford Quays, Manchester. The transaction is a significant milestone reflecting the growing maturity of MediaCityUK and the wider community anchored by it at Salford Quays. Peel will retain responsibility for ongoing development and asset management of the estate. http://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/2015/03/plan-to-create-the-media-canary-wharf-of-the-north-as-peel-sells-50-stake-in-mediacityuk/ Plan to create “the Media Canary Wharf of the North” as Peel sells 50% stake in MediaCityUK10 March 2015 The Peel Group has sold 50% of its stake in MediaCityUK to Legal & General Capital, worth around £250m. The deal will see Peel retain responsibility for ongoing development and asset management of the estate. The 37-acre site is the largest purpose-built creative, digital and technology community in Europe and the home to BBC North and ITV’s Northern studios. LGC values it at £503m. Steven Underwood, chief executive of the Peel Group, said: “We are delighted to welcome LGC as Peel’s partner at MediaCityUK and look forward to working together during the next stage of its development. “Legal & General’s focus on regeneration and long history of investing in UK property makes them an ideal partner. Both groups share a complementary approach to property investment, focusing on regeneration, place making and long-term value creation. http://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/2015/04/peel-sells-19-of-its-pinewood-stdio-shares/ Peel sells 19% of its Pinewood Studio shares1 April 2015 Manchester property development and investment group, Peel, is selling 19% of its stake in film studio operator Pinewood as part of a major fund-raising deal by the company. Peel, the largest shareholder in the famous studios is cutting its stake from 58.1% to 39.09%. The Isle of Man treasury also announced the sale of shares to reduce its holding to 4.99%. In a statement to the stock market, Pinewood Group plc, said the deal would raise £30 million as well as announcing bank facilities of up to £135 million with Lloyds, The Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC and Barclays. http://online.morningstarir.com/ir/pws/downloads/pdf/Proposed_Placing_of_8000000_New_Ordinary_Shares_1.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 So Slim why do you think someone bought the shares at that price? >...why do you think someone bought the shares at that price? Because John Whittaker was also in on the deal and they were bamboozled by his proven track record in business. Certainly not because anybody at DED has the business acumen. I mean, Lol (no pun intended) Skelly, does anybody think he has the business acumen to be trusted with franchising the TT? TBT. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
integrity Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Update on Peel Group. http://www.peel.co.uk/news/peelgroupwelcomeslegalandgeneralas50percentjvpartneratmediacityuk Peel Group Welcomes Legal & General Capital as 50% JV partner at MediaCityUK Scheme Tuesday, 10 March 2015[/size] The Peel Group today welcomed Legal & General Capital (LGC) as the new 50% shareholder in its landmark MediaCityUK scheme at Salford Quays, Manchester. The transaction is a significant milestone reflecting the growing maturity of MediaCityUK and the wider community anchored by it at Salford Quays. Peel will retain responsibility for ongoing development and asset management of the estate. http://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/2015/03/plan-to-create-the-media-canary-wharf-of-the-north-as-peel-sells-50-stake-in-mediacityuk/ Plan to create “the Media Canary Wharf of the North” as Peel sells 50% stake in MediaCityUK 10 March 2015 The Peel Group has sold 50% of its stake in MediaCityUK to Legal & General Capital, worth around £250m. The deal will see Peel retain responsibility for ongoing development and asset management of the estate. The 37-acre site is the largest purpose-built creative, digital and technology community in Europe and the home to BBC North and ITV’s Northern studios. LGC values it at £503m. Steven Underwood, chief executive of the Peel Group, said: “We are delighted to welcome LGC as Peel’s partner at MediaCityUK and look forward to working together during the next stage of its development. “Legal & General’s focus on regeneration and long history of investing in UK property makes them an ideal partner. Both groups share a complementary approach to property investment, focusing on regeneration, place making and long-term value creation. http://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/2015/04/peel-sells-19-of-its-pinewood-stdio-shares/ Peel sells 19% of its Pinewood Studio shares 1 April 2015 Manchester property development and investment group, Peel, is selling 19% of its stake in film studio operator Pinewood as part of a major fund-raising deal by the company. Peel, the largest shareholder in the famous studios is cutting its stake from 58.1% to 39.09%. The Isle of Man treasury also announced the sale of shares to reduce its holding to 4.99%. In a statement to the stock market, Pinewood Group plc, said the deal would raise £30 million as well as announcing bank facilities of up to £135 million with Lloyds, The Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC and Barclays. http://online.morningstarir.com/ir/pws/downloads/pdf/Proposed_Placing_of_8000000_New_Ordinary_Shares_1.pdf Is Teare having his strings pulled by Peel Holding, or is it just a coincidence that the group we bought the shares off sell and we do likewise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 It might be he is having his strings pulled by someone who maybe has a clue ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 So Slim why do you think someone bought the shares at that price? Skelly, does anybody think he has the business acumen to be trusted with franchising the TT?[/background][/size] No. Because Skelly is a gold-plated, Grade A, twat. 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.