How did the Find Madeleine website cost £36.000?

[Brietta]

Isn't it true to say that the Fund would have to provide an audit trail to their accountant / auditors for payments relating to website costs and that if there was any impropriety that this might have been uncovered by now?  Or am I being hopelessly naïve?   

What is the purpose of this thread if not to cast some sort of doubt over the Fund and how it is being used?

Being a bit slow on the uptake I have just realised this is not the "Does the Madeleine Fund have a moral obligation to transparency?" thread ... but the "How did the Find Madeleine website cost £36.000?" thread.

Spot the difference.

One interchangeable for the other which perhaps might go some way towards explaining my confusion. 
IMO all in the proud tradition of continuing the "fraudulent fund" notion inspired initially by Mr Amaral who now has his own fund which apparently must be either invisible to sceptics or of unimpeachable propriety.

[Alice Purjorick]

If the proposition is that the website didn't cost £36k but it did then I suppose The Fund if it so wished could take action depending upon exactly what had been said.
In such action I suspect the defendant would be able to obtain the relevant documents from The Fund under disclosure. Now we all know that things get bundled into "the pot most likely" for reporting purposes so if any item that didn't have a proper home has been dumped in the website pot for reasons of expediency because it fits loosely then end of action. It seems hardly worth the candle from the funds perspective. It could find as McDonalds did that you win bits and lose bits and have copious amounts of unwelcome publicity together with other things coming out of the woodwork you would rather hadn't.
But if you want to do a Kris Kristofferson in "Jesus Was a Capricorn" be my guest I can't be arsed with that sort of thing.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Alfie we are entitled to express an opinion. Looking at this site from an IT professional perspective- It could be argued the site could have been built better and for much less money.

We keep hearing about 'intelligent doctors' being SMART and all that...maybe they are just not clever enough outside the NHS Designations they hold.

So the questions being asked ( no one is calling anyone a liar here)
1. why was the site built?
2. what was it's purpose/aim?
3 how was the site to be maintained- and for how long ( if any date was considered)?
4 who was appointed web master- what qualifications did they have?
5 was the cost competitive ( how many quotes were procured)?

These would be just some of the questions asked in court ( access to all documents from the fund relating to the site build- and witnesses questioned). You know just in case the McCANNS decide they feel another 'sue fest' is required.

[sadie]

Alfie we are entitled to express an opinion. Looking at this site from an IT professional perspective- It could be argued the site could have been built better and for much less money.

We keep hearing about 'intelligent doctors' being SMART and all that...maybe they are just not clever enough outside the NHS Designations they hold.

So the questions being asked ( no one is calling anyone a liar here)
1. why was the site built?
2. what was it's purpose/aim?
3 how was the site to be maintained- and for how long ( if any date was considered)?
4 who was appointed web master- what qualifications did they have?
5 was the cost competitive ( how many quotes were procured)?

These would be just some of the questions asked in court ( access to all documents from the fund relating to the site build- and witnesses questioned). You know just in case the McCANNS decide they feel another 'sue fest' is required.

They are intelligent and they are smart altho NOT sharp guys ... that is obvious.


But I doubt that they are IT experts

[Carana]

A simple question (and I don't know the answer):

There was a line somewhere on bank processing fees.

However, PayPal isn't a bank.

Where would PayPal charges appear in the accounts?

[Alice Purjorick]

A simple question (and I don't know the answer):

There was a line somewhere on bank processing fees.

However, PayPal isn't a bank.

Where would PayPal charges appear in the accounts?

Paypal take in the dosh from the purchaser and send the dosh less charges to the nominated bank of the seller. The seller can run off a print out of transactions. Were it me I would stick it under merchandising costs.

[Carana]

Paypal take in the dosh from the purchaser and send the dosh less charges to the nominated bank of the seller. The seller can run off a print out of transactions. Were it me I would stick it under merchandising costs.

Let's say I donate £10. So Paypal takes it's cut and whoever else along the line and the balance for the fund is net. Is that correct?

If the donation is not payment for "merchandise", but a simple donation, how could it be charged under merchandise?

[G-Unit]

Let's say I donate £10. So Paypal takes it's cut and whoever else along the line and the balance for the fund is net. Is that correct?

If the donation is not payment for "merchandise", but a simple donation, how could it be charged under merchandise?

It is up to the person keeping records as to how they classify such costs, there are no hard and fast rules. Whoever does the end of year accounts for HMRC and Companies House might ask questions as to the reason for separating 'Bank charges', 'Paypal charges - donations' and 'Paypal charges - merchandise'. They would then decide whether to group such charges together or not. They may also advise as to the level of separation required in future years also.

The Fund pays tax on it's profits from sales. The website was used to sell things, but the whole £36K couldn't be written down as 'cost of sales' because the website fulfilled other purposes too; raising awareness and accepting donations, which are not taxable. I assume a percentage of the website costs were used to decrease the Fund's profit on it's sales, and so were the Paypal charges for purchases, but not those for donations.

[Alice Purjorick]

Let's say I donate £10. So Paypal takes it's cut and whoever else along the line and the balance for the fund is net. Is that correct?

If the donation is not payment for "merchandise", but a simple donation, how could it be charged under merchandise?

Sorry! I misunderstood what you asked. I don't know how donations would be handled by PayPal.
If you buy an item through PayPal the seller is charged a fee. So for example if you buy a ticket for a performance you pay only the face value but the seller receives face value less about 2% or whatever the agreed handling fee is.
As to where those sort of fees sit in the accounts, I would lump them all in merchandising and campaign costs in this instance. The fees are a legitimate identifiable business cost, as long as they are represented as such in the accounts and sit under an appropriate (ish) heading I wouldn't get too hung up over it. I doubt the auditors would get too worried about it and they will be only external folk to see.