Mitchell: McCanns move funds from Madeleine Fund to another account.

[sadie]

Sadie, give me something on the forum other than skewed logic and judgement, and I'll give you something in response to your Q.

--
Again -- for anyone who has done any research on this:

Did anyone ever do the research to find out what percentage of public donations (not from the McCanns' income or commercial activities) were spent on searching for Madeleine?  To be specifically clear: on private investigators / press events with direct appeals.

And if so, do you have the financial figures to go with the percentages?

Thanks, Gadfly

Gadfly, I dont think that you are using logic at all, or else you haven't read my posts using statements to verify facts ... but you are just following myths and perpetuating them.

[xtina]

Gadfly, I dont think that you are using logic at all, or else you haven't read my posts using statements to verify facts ... but you are just following myths and perpetuating them.

and your not ............

[pegasus]

Snip) However GM is on record as saying in 2010 that the vast majority of the funds were spent directly on search fees (snip)

At http://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history you can find the 2009-2010 accounts which lists all the search expenditures but it also depends on how search is defined for example do you include only actual searching or do you also include actions which are considered essential to enable the search?

[mercury]

At http://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history you can find the 2009-2010 accounts which lists all the search expenditures but it also depends on how search is defined for example do you include only actual searching or do you also include actions which are considered essential to enable the search?

Thanks Pegasus, handy link there. WHat I was referring to was the comment made in 2010 referred to all the monies received from 2007 and that the vast majority had been spent in direct search fees.....

You can listen to part two of that interview or read it here


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id343.html

[pegasus]

Thanks Pegasus, handy link there. WHat I was referring to was the comment made in 2010 referred to all the monies received from 2007 and that the vast majority had been spent in direct search fees.....

You can listen to part two of that interview or read it here

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id343.html

The fund has two clearly stated aims:
to find the child
to ensure the perp is caught
Therefore 100% of all money spent is (directly or indirectly) on those 2 aims.

[mercury]

The fund has two clearly stated aims:
to find the child
to ensure the perp is caught
Therefore 100% of all money spent is (directly or indirectly) on those 2 aims.

Is that last line a statement of the fund or your opinion?

[G-Unit]

We have some idea what the Fund money has been spent on.

Almost immediately legal and professional fees were incurred to set up the Fund, set up the website, pursue the ward of court ruling and obtain a disclosure notice to get information to help the search. Trade marks were applied for to protect fundraising, internet and print promotions. All this was done by the IFLG and BWB.

Some money was spent to support the family while they remained in Portugal.

Various Private Investigators were paid between 2007 and 2011.

Various PR companies and individuals were paid.

A media monitoring unit was paid for in Portugal.

When it comes to legal fees the 2009 and 2010 accounts say the costs of legal action to ban Amaral's book were paid by the Fund. I assume costs were payable when the first book ban was denied in 2011.

Travel costs were paid for witnesses in the Amaral trial. The justification was that the book harmed the search, despite that not being provable.

Lots of detail here;
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/81jan14/MccannFiles_14_01_2014.htm

Income/Expenditure 2007/8 to 2013/14

Income                                       4233899
Interest receivable                           56213
Total                                         4290112
     
Merchandise/Campaign Costs        3212141
Admin. Expenses                          299234
Total                                              3511375
     
Oper. Surplus/Deficit                          778737
     
Taxation                                           -25681
     
Surplus/deficit for  year                  753056
     
Audit                                                   50085

The accounts for 2014/2015 were even less detailed, with only a Balance Sheet published. There seems to be around £7k less than the 753056 carried forward from the previous year; 746152

     

[Brietta]

We have some idea what the Fund money has been spent on.

Almost immediately legal and professional fees were incurred to set up the Fund, set up the website, pursue the ward of court ruling and obtain a disclosure notice to get information to help the search. Trade marks were applied for to protect fundraising, internet and print promotions. All this was done by the IFLG and BWB.

Some money was spent to support the family while they remained in Portugal.

Various Private Investigators were paid between 2007 and 2011.

Various PR companies and individuals were paid.

A media monitoring unit was paid for in Portugal.

When it comes to legal fees the 2009 and 2010 accounts say the costs of legal action to ban Amaral's book were paid by the Fund. I assume costs were payable when the first book ban was denied in 2011.

Travel costs were paid for witnesses in the Amaral trial. The justification was that the book harmed the search, despite that not being provable.

Lots of detail here;
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/81jan14/MccannFiles_14_01_2014.htm

Income/Expenditure 2007/8 to 2013/14

Income                                       4233899
Interest receivable                           56213
Total                                         4290112
    
Merchandise/Campaign Costs        3212141
Admin. Expenses                          299234
Total                                              3511375
    
Oper. Surplus/Deficit                          778737
    
Taxation                                           -25681
    
Surplus/deficit for  year                  753056
    
Audit                                                   50085

The accounts for 2014/2015 were even less detailed, with only a Balance Sheet published. There seems to be around £7k less than the 753056 carried forward from the previous year; 746152

    

                          If only Madeleine's fund were as transparent as Amaral's fund ... sigh

[stephen25000]

                          If only Madeleine's fund were as transparent as Amaral's fund ... sigh

The fund for Amaral was clearly for his legal expenses.

Sigh and sigh again.

[Carana]

I haven't been following this thread much.

Going back to the article cited in the Faith's OP:


He told how former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 37, of Rothley, Leics, had moved money from the publicly-backed Find Maddie Fund into a special account in anticipation of having to finance the hunt for their daughter themselves.

Mr Mitchell said: “In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search.”

And Faith's comment below the article:


Clarence Michell is quoted in the article as saying that the McCanns have moved huge amounts of money from the Find Madeleine Fund into another account to be used for the search for Madeleine if SY close their investigation. As the original fund was set up to search for Madeleine why the need for another account ?

Is it possible that the recent press reports around the cost of the investigation is simply to proffer a reason why large amounts of money are being transferred from the Fund ? Clarence Mitchell could have said nothing, he chose not to and I for one find that highly significant.


All I can see as a direct quote from Clarence is:


Mr Mitchell said: “In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search.”

It was Tracey Kandohla who mentioned funds moved to a "special account".

Is this anything more than the "restricted funds" under Capital and Assets?

[G-Unit]

I would have assumed that all the money in the Fund was available for the search, but the 2011-2012 accounts reveal Restricted Funds of £ 550k and Unrestricted Funds of £ 306,393.

A note to the accounts (note 5) says that after the publication of the book 'Madeleine' £550k was donated specifically to be used for 'the direct costs of the search for and the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine.'

Under the usual heading of Merchandise and Campaign Costs;

£ 242,727 was spent from the Unrestricted Funds and £ 234,086 from the Restricted Funds. It would appear therefore that the amount spent from the Unrestricted Funds were indirect costs, with the other expenditure being direct costs as detailed in note 5.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id429.html

Direct and indirect costs are accounting terms with a specific meaning. Direct costs are those which can be assigned to a specific area, so a company making and selling 'widgets' would have raw materials and worker's wages in their direct costs. If they branched out into making and selling knitted goods also, there would be more direct costs associated with that.

The indirect costs are those which are shared by both sides of the business, such as premises costs, audit and accountancy costs and admin. staff wages.

In the case of the Fund it's difficult to see what other activities the company is involved in apart from the search and the investigation, apart from some fairly small scale trading of goods. Consequently it's difficult to understand the need for restricted funds.

[Carana]

I'm not an accountant.

In my limited understanding, "restricted funds" can mean funds set aside within the overall accounts, but with restrictions attached as to the use (as the term implies).

Or have I misunderstood?

[G-Unit]

I'm not an accountant.

In my limited understanding, "restricted funds" can mean funds set aside within the overall accounts, but with restrictions attached as to the use (as the term implies).

Or have I misunderstood?

The purposes of the Fund are;

To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;

To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice

The purpose of the Restricted Funds are;

to pay for the direct cost of the search for and the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine.

I can't really see any difference, so why the restriction? Perhaps the Restricted Funds have other conditions attached which we aren't privy to.

[Eleanor]

Hopefully, the Restricted Funds are earning High Interest.  That's what I would do.

[jassi]

Hopefully, the Restricted Funds are earning High Interest.  That's what I would do.

Is there such a thing these days?