Shimmins' comments an 'insult to residents of the Isle of Man'

[Lost Login]

I have mixed views on this and have concerns that Beecroft is trying attract attention as we all know why the money has been pissed against a wall. Firstly making and investing in films is expensive and the chances are that you will lose money. I don't think anybody sensible expected that the media fund would make money from films. The question was really whether what was made from the periphery would off set the losses. The losses should not come as a surprise. We goy lucky with Waking Ned, expecting to get lucky again was very optimistic

We know why the money has been written off and that is with the films having been released the expected return on the films is way less  than the costs. They have been revalued to reflect expected future income which is expected to be minimal. The only question is should more be written off, or should it have been written off earlier. At this point it was really only an accounting exercise as in cash flow terms the money had long gone.

There were huge conflicts of interest, starting with Steve Christian. I am sorry he passed away but he was on a great deal. Firstly in terms of the cinema fund Cinemanx was entitled to the interest on the £50m to cover running costs. They could have done nothing and just taken the interest on the £50m. Even if you are only getting 2% that is a £million a year. Christ I would not have minded that sort of deal. Secondly Steve Christian in some form was the party who recommended to the Govt what films should be invested in and how much. Now who was the producer of most of the films. Yep. Steve Christian in some form or other and he would eraned decent money for being the producer of a film.

So along come two investment proposal. One be for a potential blockbuster, one for a turkey. Does or did Steve Christian turn down the turkey? Looking at some of the films that the Island invested in you have to question whether the thought of earning a crust from producing a film might have impaired his judgement.  Me and Orson Welles for f**k sake. Or was there a temptation to go for the turkey over the block buster if the former meant he would be paid as producer but the later said no thanks we already have somebody. He may have been scrupulous but who the f**k thought it was a good idea to have the guy who was reliant on films being made to earn a crust from them as producer advising on whether those films should be made. You advise against you earn nothing, you advise to invest then kerching! You can be as honest and as scrupulous as you like but in those circumstances it is always going to look well dodgy.

That is all known and there is nothing new to be learnt from a select committee. As Shimmins said spend that effort into solving todays issues so I agree with him there.

I don't agree with him totally in not looking into but as I said most of the effing issues are well known. If there is to be an enquiry it should be into specific issues which look a bit murky. Christian was given an unbelievably good deal but also a hugely conflicted one. There is no way the person who was advising on which films to invest in should have had a financial interest in those films.  That is so obvious it does lead me to have concerns about who the hell agreed that sort of deal for Steve Christian and did they in turn have some undisclosed interest. If any areas need to be looked at it is those where there could be a faint wiff of corruption. I am making no allegations that there was, and I have seen no suggestions there was, but if there is to be an investigation it needs to focus on specifics rather than another bout of navel gazing.  Looking at Beecroft's motion I am concerned that is all she was doing.

 

One thing I meant to add is a boring bit about the accounting in respect of films etc. It may have changed but it used to be when they were made they were valued at the cost of making. Say £5million. Now having made it they might realise that it is a complete turkey and no distributors are interest and you will struggle to get a bean in income. The other has distributors desperate for it, with huge hype causing massive expected demand when it opens. In both cases until the film is released in general they stay in the books at cost. It is only post release that the turkey would get written down. It is why years ago ITV kept a load of expensive drama they had made on ice as until they showed it was basically shown as an asset. It was only an expense when it was shown. At the time ITV was suffering badly with poor advertising revenue so by not showing they could make the accounts look better by treating the full cost as an asset. As I say that may have changed. 

 

 

 

 

   

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by Lost Login

[Kopek]

40 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

That is all known and there is nothing new to be learnt from a select committee. As Shimmins said spend that effort into solving todays issues so I agree with him there.

While your synopsis of the situation is excellent, I'm sure MHKs are capable of, at least, two things at the same time? They can have a select comm and consider the effects of brexit.

Only problem would be MHKs reluctance to blame their colleagues, particularly previous administrations.

[asitis]

I agree with lost logins summation of the situation, as a layman that is how I understood it !

In my view an enquiry should be set up to explore the manner in which the matter was hidden from taxpayers view and deliberately obfuscated !

Commercial confidentiality in future needs guidelines as to how and why that phrase is used, ET used that phrase de rigueur whenever asked even a reasonable question about the film investments. Politicians should not use the phrase lightly nor use it to obviously avoid answering any questions by other elected members !

This foray into Government investment also I believe coined the phrase " strictly speaking this is not taxpayers money ", why the devil was a politician allowed to get away with that withering assessment as to the part played by the taxpayers in this matter !

The protagonists in this venture have only themselves to blame for the manner in which their behaviour appeared, both to the house and to members of the public, with some better politics these legacy issues would not have arisen.

[Lost Login]

8 hours ago, Kopek said:

, I'm sure MHKs are capable of, at least, two things at the same time?

Very charitable of you. I expect there are many on this forum who doubt any MHK can do even one thing at a time well

[Lost Login]

10 minutes ago, asitis said:

In my view an enquiry should be set up to explore the manner in which the matter was hidden from taxpayers view and deliberately obfuscated !

Commercial confidentiality in future needs guidelines as to how and why that phrase is used, ET used that phrase de rigueur whenever asked even a reasonable question about the film investments. Politicians should not use the phrase lightly nor use it to obviously avoid answering any questions by other elected members !

In my view that would be a much better focus for an enquiry.

[Andy Onchan]

10 hours ago, Lost Login said:

I have mixed views on this and have concerns that Beecroft is trying attract attention as we all know why the money has been pissed against a wall. Firstly making and investing in films is expensive and the chances are that you will lose money. I don't think anybody sensible expected that the media fund would make money from films. The question was really whether what was made from the periphery would off set the losses. The losses should not come as a surprise. We goy lucky with Waking Ned, expecting to get lucky again was very optimistic

We know why the money has been written off and that is with the films having been released the expected return on the films is way less  than the costs. They have been revalued to reflect expected future income which is expected to be minimal. The only question is should more be written off, or should it have been written off earlier. At this point it was really only an accounting exercise as in cash flow terms the money had long gone.

There were huge conflicts of interest, starting with Steve Christian. I am sorry he passed away but he was on a great deal. Firstly in terms of the cinema fund Cinemanx was entitled to the interest on the £50m to cover running costs. They could have done nothing and just taken the interest on the £50m. Even if you are only getting 2% that is a £million a year. Christ I would not have minded that sort of deal. Secondly Steve Christian in some form was the party who recommended to the Govt what films should be invested in and how much. Now who was the producer of most of the films. Yep. Steve Christian in some form or other and he would eraned decent money for being the producer of a film.

So along come two investment proposal. One be for a potential blockbuster, one for a turkey. Does or did Steve Christian turn down the turkey? Looking at some of the films that the Island invested in you have to question whether the thought of earning a crust from producing a film might have impaired his judgement.  Me and Orson Welles for f**k sake. Or was there a temptation to go for the turkey over the block buster if the former meant he would be paid as producer but the later said no thanks we already have somebody. He may have been scrupulous but who the f**k thought it was a good idea to have the guy who was reliant on films being made to earn a crust from them as producer advising on whether those films should be made. You advise against you earn nothing, you advise to invest then kerching! You can be as honest and as scrupulous as you like but in those circumstances it is always going to look well dodgy.

That is all known and there is nothing new to be learnt from a select committee. As Shimmins said spend that effort into solving todays issues so I agree with him there.

I don't agree with him totally in not looking into but as I said most of the effing issues are well known. If there is to be an enquiry it should be into specific issues which look a bit murky. Christian was given an unbelievably good deal but also a hugely conflicted one. There is no way the person who was advising on which films to invest in should have had a financial interest in those films.  That is so obvious it does lead me to have concerns about who the hell agreed that sort of deal for Steve Christian and did they in turn have some undisclosed interest. If any areas need to be looked at it is those where there could be a faint wiff of corruption. I am making no allegations that there was, and I have seen no suggestions there was, but if there is to be an investigation it needs to focus on specifics rather than another bout of navel gazing.  Looking at Beecroft's motion I am concerned that is all she was doing.

 

One thing I meant to add is a boring bit about the accounting in respect of films etc. It may have changed but it used to be when they were made they were valued at the cost of making. Say £5million. Now having made it they might realise that it is a complete turkey and no distributors are interest and you will struggle to get a bean in income. The other has distributors desperate for it, with huge hype causing massive expected demand when it opens. In both cases until the film is released in general they stay in the books at cost. It is only post release that the turkey would get written down. It is why years ago ITV kept a load of expensive drama they had made on ice as until they showed it was basically shown as an asset. It was only an expense when it was shown. At the time ITV was suffering badly with poor advertising revenue so by not showing they could make the accounts look better by treating the full cost as an asset. As I say that may have changed. 

 

 

 

 

   

 

To coin a phrase from another parliamentarian in another House "let's be clear about this".....Beecroft has not been the only one to question the efficacy of this foray. The difference is that she like some of us, stumped up the money and want answers. Like, how was this investment scheme seen to be a better 'bet' than placing the funds with our usual investment brokers, who at least had proven track records?   

If you and I and plenty of others know/knew that investing in films was in the slightest bit iffy, wouldn't you expect them to think twice and have a mature debate about it with stats on the film industry to back up the venture? That never really happened. The question is, why? What made both the Minister (we know who that was) and his executive think they could gamble with taxpayers money and deviate from the conventional investment model?

Doesn't matter how you dress up the numbers and where in the income/expenditure/balance sheet it resides. The issue is whether taxpayers money should have been used to gamble in the first instance. Once the money is committed then how it's all dressed up is largely academic. 

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, Lost Login said:

In my view that would be a much better focus for an enquiry.

There was no competitive tender so confidentiality rules shouldn't apply.

[Lost Login]

16 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

 If you and I and plenty of others know/knew that investing in films was in the slightest bit iffy, wouldn't you expect them to think twice and have a mature debate about it with stats on the film industry to back up the venture? That never really happened. The question is, why? What made both the Minister (we know who that was) and his executive think they could gamble with taxpayers money and deviate from the conventional investment model?

But that is a bit like the TT/MGP in that they will argue that while it may cost the Government to run the races it is worth it for the benefit it brings to the economy as a whole. The films were probably expected to loose money but the argument presumably was there would additional money spent in the IoM economy

 

[Andy Onchan]

27 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

But that is a bit like the TT/MGP in that they will argue that while it may cost the Government to run the races it is worth it for the benefit it brings to the economy as a whole. The films were probably expected to loose money but the argument presumably was there would additional money spent in the IoM economy

 

I would argue the benefit motive. As you yourself pointed out, only a select few managed to secure a very good living out of this.

I would suggest that one year's TT/MGP has filled more beds and meals eaten than all of the films put together in the 20 odd years(?) that was being 'invested' in it.

[La Colombe]

33 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

The films were probably expected to loose money

Every which way but. 

[hissingsid]

High risk investment that went wrong, this is what happens when you play the stock market, you win or lose it is really posh boys betting shop.   The bad side is doing this with public money, but it was , money has gone no chance of getting it back or pinning anyone to the mast as it was obviously a decision taken by many.   According to Bill Shimmin's the way this was done has been amended so what is the purpose of spending more time and money agonising about it.   Nothing will come out of it, we know what happened and it is really bad but if things have been tightened up it will not happen again So in modern parlance we have just got to suck it up and move on.    There are things that need sorting that need to be addressed.

[asitis]

49 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

High risk investment that went wrong, this is what happens when you play the stock market, you win or lose it is really posh boys betting shop.   The bad side is doing this with public money, but it was , money has gone no chance of getting it back or pinning anyone to the mast as it was obviously a decision taken by many.   According to Bill Shimmin's the way this was done has been amended so what is the purpose of spending more time and money agonising about it.   Nothing will come out of it, we know what happened and it is really bad but if things have been tightened up it will not happen again So in modern parlance we have just got to suck it up and move on.    There are things that need sorting that need to be addressed.

This may have been a decision by the many, based on the facts as given to them by the few ! not sure it should be so easily swept under the carpet !

[hissingsid]

Appreciate your point but seriously what outcome will there be.   It will take time and money to state that it is the view of the committee that an unwise investment was made, the procedure has now been adjusted, lessons have been learnt .   That will be it, costing time and money and if anyone thinks that any people will be named and shamed they are deluded.   It am by no means saying this is good or right but this is precisely what will happen.   The money has gone.

[Andy Onchan]

13 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

Appreciate your point but seriously what outcome will there be.   It will take time and money to state that it is the view of the committee that an unwise investment was made, the procedure has now been adjusted, lessons have been learnt .   That will be it, costing time and money and if anyone thinks that any people will be named and shamed they are deluded.   It am by no means saying this is good or right but this is precisely what will happen.   The money has gone.

Sid, I understand exactly what you're saying. However, I'm not entirely convinced that there is a legislative mechanism in place to deal with something like this in the future. If someone can point me to an Act of Tynwald that currently prevents this kind of thing happening again, then fair enough but until that happens questions need to be answered.

And I'm not entirely sure that there will be additional costs for a PAC enquiry either. A PAC enquiry is made up of MHKs & MLCs, all of whom are already being paid, as are any Tynwald clerks etc. As for time... then they should make time. 

   

[Neil Down]

15 hours ago, Lost Login said:

I have mixed views on this and have concerns that Beecroft is trying attract attention as we all know why the money has been pissed against a wall. Firstly making and investing in films is expensive and the chances are that you will lose money. I don't think anybody sensible expected that the media fund would make money from films. The question was really whether what was made from the periphery would off set the losses. The losses should not come as a surprise. We goy lucky with Waking Ned, expecting to get lucky again was very optimistic

We know why the money has been written off and that is with the films having been released the expected return on the films is way less  than the costs. They have been revalued to reflect expected future income which is expected to be minimal. The only question is should more be written off, or should it have been written off earlier. At this point it was really only an accounting exercise as in cash flow terms the money had long gone.

There were huge conflicts of interest, starting with Steve Christian. I am sorry he passed away but he was on a great deal. Firstly in terms of the cinema fund Cinemanx was entitled to the interest on the £50m to cover running costs. They could have done nothing and just taken the interest on the £50m. Even if you are only getting 2% that is a £million a year. Christ I would not have minded that sort of deal. Secondly Steve Christian in some form was the party who recommended to the Govt what films should be invested in and how much. Now who was the producer of most of the films. Yep. Steve Christian in some form or other and he would eraned decent money for being the producer of a film.

So along come two investment proposal. One be for a potential blockbuster, one for a turkey. Does or did Steve Christian turn down the turkey? Looking at some of the films that the Island invested in you have to question whether the thought of earning a crust from producing a film might have impaired his judgement.  Me and Orson Welles for f**k sake. Or was there a temptation to go for the turkey over the block buster if the former meant he would be paid as producer but the later said no thanks we already have somebody. He may have been scrupulous but who the f**k thought it was a good idea to have the guy who was reliant on films being made to earn a crust from them as producer advising on whether those films should be made. You advise against you earn nothing, you advise to invest then kerching! You can be as honest and as scrupulous as you like but in those circumstances it is always going to look well dodgy.

That is all known and there is nothing new to be learnt from a select committee. As Shimmins said spend that effort into solving todays issues so I agree with him there.

I don't agree with him totally in not looking into but as I said most of the effing issues are well known. If there is to be an enquiry it should be into specific issues which look a bit murky. Christian was given an unbelievably good deal but also a hugely conflicted one. There is no way the person who was advising on which films to invest in should have had a financial interest in those films.  That is so obvious it does lead me to have concerns about who the hell agreed that sort of deal for Steve Christian and did they in turn have some undisclosed interest. If any areas need to be looked at it is those where there could be a faint wiff of corruption. I am making no allegations that there was, and I have seen no suggestions there was, but if there is to be an investigation it needs to focus on specifics rather than another bout of navel gazing.  Looking at Beecroft's motion I am concerned that is all she was doing.

 

One thing I meant to add is a boring bit about the accounting in respect of films etc. It may have changed but it used to be when they were made they were valued at the cost of making. Say £5million. Now having made it they might realise that it is a complete turkey and no distributors are interest and you will struggle to get a bean in income. The other has distributors desperate for it, with huge hype causing massive expected demand when it opens. In both cases until the film is released in general they stay in the books at cost. It is only post release that the turkey would get written down. It is why years ago ITV kept a load of expensive drama they had made on ice as until they showed it was basically shown as an asset. It was only an expense when it was shown. At the time ITV was suffering badly with poor advertising revenue so by not showing they could make the accounts look better by treating the full cost as an asset. As I say that may have changed. 

 

 

 

 

   

 

Thanks for the clarification Eddie.