Pinewood...more Govt Propaganda

[Blade Runner]

IF planning permission is granted it MAY create up to 3000 UK jobs !

 

sorry still not seeing the massive benefit of this to us given the size of our total investment in the film industry !!

 

More films being made means more money being made with potentially good returns on an investment.

 

Thanks I was aware of that but imo in our current financial position" IF" " MAY" and "POTENTIALLY" are not very good reasons to invest long millions of our money which could have been better used again imo in attracting business to the island, and no I don't fall for the bed nights fish and chips business analysis of the benefits !

 

They have already said that this investment was not intended to get more films made on the island. That business model has already failed, its just too expensive on the island to film in most cases.

 

I think the idea is a big growth in Pinewood Studios, causing a share price increase and possibly some dividends in the meantime.

 

It stinks of desperation as far as I am concerned but we are stuck with it, so we had better hope that they do well.

 

I know the housing development has been turned down but things like that usually do get the okay, after a while, especially when the UK government wants houses built, so who knows, it may turn out to be a goldmine.

 

Don't hold your breath but its like a lot of the AIM market shares, a gamble that can either make you a lot of money, make you lose a lot of money or just stumble along with promises of greater things round the corner.

 

Fingers crossed its the former. With Mr W in there I think it could well be OK but again, it Is not a proper way to spend IOM taxpayers money.

[Patrick]

If they are wanting to build these houses, which will be glorified back drops, where is IOMs positiion as a location shoot?

Purely an investment then, what is Christian and the film fund's purpose?

[Patrick]

Press Release 2 February 2013

LibVan Anticipates Positive PAC Decision

Liberal Vannin MHKs, Peter Karran and Kate Beecroft, wrote to the Public Accounts Committee on 8th January requesting that they investigate the investment into Pinewood Shepperton plc and the appointment of Pinewood Film Advisors LLP as investment manager for the Media Development Fund. The Committee will be making their decision on Wednesday, 6th February.

The Public Accounts Committee prioritises referrals by taking into account the following:

 the significance or potential significance of the matter for the reputation of Tynwald or the Island more generally;

 the credibility of any allegations the Committee has been asked to investigate;

 quantum; the sum of public money involved;

 levels of public concern; and

 whether the issue could be referred to a Policy Review Committee or another existing Standing or Select Committee or the Branches.

Peter Karran and Kate Beecroft believe that the referral satisfies all of the criteria and the Public Accounts Committee have no grounds for refusing this request. LibVan are therefore confident that the decision on 6th February will be favourable.

Once accepted by the Committee, standing orders require that no further questions are to be asked by MHKs in the House of Keys or Tynwald. LibVan believe that this is a small price to pay if it means that these matters will be fully investigated by the Public Accounts Committee.

“ENDS”

Roy Redmayne

Chairman

Liberal Vannin Party

T: 824361

M: 309694

royredmayne@manx.net

Note to Editors: Letter of 8th January to the PAC attached

Word Count: 218

[asitis]

Take a look at the rhetoric on IOM Today site if bullshit were money we would be able to fund the island without problem.

[Lost Login]

Take a look at the rhetoric on IOM Today site if bullshit were money we would be able to fund the island without problem.

 

That is what I thought when I read this.

 

"In real terms we have saved more than £50 million under this heading with staffing reduced by 400 posts and 300 actual staff".

 

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/we-re-on-target-to-put-public-finances-on-an-even-keel-1-5382709

 

 

Then I did some maths on this statement

 

If the loss of 300 jobs has saved £50 million that means basically £166,667 per head. Now I thought the public sector are well paid but that is rediculous or is Bell trying to spin savings made over a several year period as looking as though they are annual cuts.

[Slim]

Then I did some maths on this statement

 

If the loss of 300 jobs has saved £50 million that means basically £166,667 per head. Now I thought the public sector are well paid but that is rediculous or is Bell trying to spin savings made over a several year period as looking as though they are annual cuts.

 

400 posts, so £125k a head. There's not much detail on what this is though. The article is discussing costs, so it's not just salary, it's the full cost of employment including pension liabilities, so as an average it's probably not far off. Employing people is expensive, not just their pay.

[Blade Runner]

Then I did some maths on this statement

 

If the loss of 300 jobs has saved £50 million that means basically £166,667 per head. Now I thought the public sector are well paid but that is rediculous or is Bell trying to spin savings made over a several year period as looking as though they are annual cuts.

 

400 posts, so £125k a head. There's not much detail on what this is though. The article is discussing costs, so it's not just salary, it's the full cost of employment including pension liabilities, so as an average it's probably not far off. Employing people is expensive, not just their pay.

 

Exactly Slim, not just their pay or even the employers NI contributions or their pension contributions but things like the desk they sit at, the computer at that desk. The maintenance of that computer and the software licenses.

 

The office that that desk is in and the canteen/ kitchen attached. The Public and Employers Liability insurance, the buildings insurance and the heating/ cooling bills. The Maintenance of the building generally including things like security.

 

Then you have training costs, health and safety courses, work clothes and cleaning of those in some jobs.

 

Parking on site is another hidden cost and then there are costs involved in travelling and accommodation for off island trips and there are plenty of them

 

The actual cost of employing someone is often 3-4 times the person in question's pay, because of the above and I have only just scratched the surface.

[Lost Login]

Then I did some maths on this statement

 

If the loss of 300 jobs has saved £50 million that means basically £166,667 per head. Now I thought the public sector are well paid but that is rediculous or is Bell trying to spin savings made over a several year period as looking as though they are annual cuts.

 

400 posts, so £125k a head. There's not much detail on what this is though. The article is discussing costs, so it's not just salary, it's the full cost of employment including pension liabilities, so as an average it's probably not far off. Employing people is expensive, not just their pay.

 

As an employer I appreciate that it is expensive expensive employing staff but not that expensive and certainly not the multiple blade runner quotes.

 

However the point was the piece is full of spin as immediatly before quoting the £50million saved in staff costs Bell quotes an annual staff Bill of £300million. If that is £50 million annually then I would have to say it looks as they are slowly making inroads into staff costs. It is a cut of about 17%. If that though is total savings then it is not so impressive. From the article it is not at all clear but I presume it is the latter spun to look like the former as if you had cut staff costs by 17% annually you would make it clear and it would be about 25% of the £200 million cuts required.

[Lost Login]

The actual cost of employing someone is often 3-4 times the person in question's pay, because of the above and I have only just scratched the surface.

As an employer I would suggest that either the individual is being paid a pittance or it is a deeply inefficient organisation

[Blade Runner]

As an employer myself too, I would state that 2-3 times actual pay, is the cost of my employees but I was talking about IOM Public Sector employees, when I said 3-4 times salary paid, which I still feel is pretty close to the mark.

[Slim]

As an employer myself, I would state that 2-3 times actual pay is the cost of my employees but I was talking about IOM Public Sector employees, when I said 3-4 times salary paid, which I still feel is pretty close to the mark.

 

Yep, by the time you've added flexi and sick pay

[Patrick]

Dear Kate

 

The Public Accounts Committee discussed your letter at its meeting

yesterday. The Committee has decided not to undertake an investigation at

this stage. However, if you have any further evidence to submit which might

alter the priority given to this topic, you may submit it at any time.

 

 

"At this stage", interesting.

[newsnight]

http://www.independe...en-8488073.html

 

http://www.johnkay.com/

 

John Kay is one of Britain’s leading economists. His interests focus on the relationships between economics and business. His career has spanned academic work and think tanks, business schools, company directorships, consultancies and investment companies. For more details of John’s biography, see the About section.

 

John Kay chaired the Review of UK Equity Markets and Long-Term Decision-Makingwhich reported to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the 23rd July 2012. He is a visiting Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, a Fellow of St John’s College, Oxford. He is a Fellow of the British Academy, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He is a director of several public companies and contributes a weekly column to the Financial Times. He is the author of many books, including The Truth about Markets (2003) and The Long and the Short of It: finance and investment for normally intelligent people who are not in the industry (2009) and his latest book, Obliquity was published by Profile Books in March 2010. Some of his most influential, recent work has been on banking regulation, and you can read about his vision for the sector in his 2009 essay, Narrow Banking.

 

O fcourse it goes without saying that Professor Kay won't have the insight or the intellectual ability of an Eddie Teare to undertake the due dilligence on an investment such as Pinewood Shepperton so as to spend so many millions of Manx taxpayers pounds, doesn't it?

[newsnight]

"But if the stock market is no longer raising capital for business, what is it for? In theory it allows investors to become shareholders in existing businesses and share in their profits. But this does not work either, because as Professor Kay further pointed out, the vast bulk of those profits are creamed off by an army of intermediaries: fund managers, brokers, independent financial advisers, investment consultants, platform providers, custodians and a string of others. They make a comfortable living, but the investor rarely does. Indeed, others have calculated that private pension plan returns would be a third higher if only the fund managers charged at the same rate they do in Holland".

 

We must not forget that Steve Christian was not a Fund Manager the Attorney General said so, (the one presently suspended said so) and that the large sums paid to his company Cinemanx Ltd were paid for advice and not management of the Media Development Fund.

 

We must also not forget that although the Chief Minister has gone on the public record to say that all our present financial woes are the direct result of the VAT reductions made by the UK on us, we should forget that it was Steve Christian who was the prime mover of the VAT scheme endorse by Allan Bell in the first place that has led us to where we are now as a result.

 

We must also not expect the members of the Public Accounts Committee to act on this until sufficient time has gone by for them to properly understand if the Pinewood Shepperton Plc deal has been in the public interest or not, so we will have to wait until all the Media Development Fund has been spent won't we?

[Lxxx]

Then I did some maths on this statement

 

If the loss of 300 jobs has saved £50 million that means basically £166,667 per head. Now I thought the public sector are well paid but that is rediculous or is Bell trying to spin savings made over a several year period as looking as though they are annual cuts.

 

400 posts, so £125k a head. There's not much detail on what this is though. The article is discussing costs, so it's not just salary, it's the full cost of employment including pension liabilities, so as an average it's probably not far off. Employing people is expensive, not just their pay.

 

As an employer I appreciate that it is expensive expensive employing staff but not that expensive and certainly not the multiple blade runner quotes.

 

However the point was the piece is full of spin as immediatly before quoting the £50million saved in staff costs Bell quotes an annual staff Bill of £300million. If that is £50 million annually then I would have to say it looks as they are slowly making inroads into staff costs. It is a cut of about 17%. If that though is total savings then it is not so impressive. From the article it is not at all clear but I presume it is the latter spun to look like the former as if you had cut staff costs by 17% annually you would make it clear and it would be about 25% of the £200 million cuts required.

 

Once a year each public sector department should nominate five employees on over £50k to be burnt at the stake, maybe on bonfire night. That, plus retirements and natural wastage, should see us make inroads a bit quicker.