UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Redblossom on July 21, 2013, 12:02:42 AM
-
Anyone know?
In their first year, as stated in their accounts?
Thats 36 000 pounds for anyone who missed it, for *website costs*
What were these costs?
DEFINITELY NOT setting up a website
Their family friend Callum Mccrae did an interview, he did it all for them voluntarily
So was the 36 k a salary for someone? What for? 36 k a year for updating bits and bobs in a two bit web site? I dont think so, do you?
98
-
How would you explain it, Redblossom, assuming I am not still on ignore? What do you think? Where did that money go? Where did the accounts say it went?
-
How would you explain it, Redblossom, assuming I am not still on ignore? What do you think? Where did that money go? Where did the accounts say it went?
its a lie, plain and simple that any website as TINY and static as that would incur SUCH costs simple as THAT
AND NO JAZZY i dont have answer, I AM ASKING the question!!!
Do YOU have an idea? Do share,beback tomorrow to check bye now
-
I feel that the Mccanns were badly advised on several issues, I don't know if this was one of them or not. Put yourself in their shoes, daughter missing, people offering their services and promising this that and the other. They were normal parents going about a normal family life then find themselves in a situation like this.
They will be acutely more aware now of costs to their campaign but at the beginning I would imagine that they would have accepted any help offered regardless of the costs involved.
-
I feel that the Mccanns were badly advised on several issues, I don't know if this was one of them or not. Put yourself in their shoes, daughter missing, people offering their services and promising this that and the other. They were normal parents going about a normal family life then find themselves in a situation like this.
They will be acutely more aware now of costs to their campaign but at the beginning I would imagine that they would have accepted any help offered regardless of the costs involved.
I suspect you have got it in one, Drummer
Good first post 8@??)(
Welcome
sadie x
-
I feel that the Mccanns were badly advised on several issues, I don't know if this was one of them or not. Put yourself in their shoes, daughter missing, people offering their services and promising this that and the other. They were normal parents going about a normal family life then find themselves in a situation like this.
They will be acutely more aware now of costs to their campaign but at the beginning I would imagine that they would have accepted any help offered regardless of the costs involved.
In this case, it was nothing to do with *advice*, it was a case of Gerrys sister asking one of her school pupils who was a whizz with computers and websites to help. He and a few of his fellow classmates helped out. I can only assume now, that this helping out was paid for and this is what was meant by *website costs* Case closed I suppose.
-
It is certainly possible. Dot forget this was in 2007 (there is no point in judging costs, capacity, bandwidth etc by todays standards).
The webiste was incredibly popular, and the amount of traffic would have swamped any of the free or low cost sites available at the time - they quite simply would not have worked at all.
In the first few days (from launch to 18th May 2007) the site received 55 million hits. And of course interest continued.
-
It is certainly possible. Dot forget this was in 2007 (there is no point in judging costs, capacity, bandwidth etc by todays standards).
The webiste was incredibly popular, and the amount of traffic would have swamped any of the free or low cost sites available at the time - they quite simply would not have worked at all.
In the first few days (from launch to 18th May 2007) the site received 55 million hits. And of course interest continued.
no, sorry, the cost of having a website with millions of hits still does not make it cost 37000 pounds for a year, for bandwidth or any such techissues, not in 2007 or today, the *costs* were not technically for the website
-
I have to say that Redblossom is right in her assertion. A website like that used by the 'Find Madeleine Campaign' can be put together for very little and only costs a few quid each year to run.
Claiming that the site incurred costs of £36,000 is quite astounding!
-
Well, what do you expect for only 36 000 £ to set up and run a website, miracles?
-
Well, what do you expect for only 36 000 £ to set up and run a website, miracles?
Funny that, it looks very much like an off the shelf template to me. Bespoke sites created by professional web creation companies have their name at the bottom with an 'all rights reserved' notice.
-
Funny that, it looks very much like an off the shelf template to me. Bespoke sites created by professional web creation companies have their name at the bottom with an 'all rights reserved' notice.
That seemed expensive to me, even at the time. However, setting up a a merchant account and an associated "shop" was in its infancy back in 2007.
Would Paypal donation/ fees have come under bank costs at the time? No idea, as it's not a bank. If not, would they have been come under the website costs?
-
That seemed expensive to me, even at the time. However, setting up a a merchant account and an associated "shop" was in its infancy back in 2007.
Would Paypal donation/ fees have come under bank costs at the time? No idea, as it's not a bank. If not, would they have been come under the website costs?
I set up a website at about the same time and it was a template. I paid for the domain name (a few pounds) and then a monthly fee (ten pounds) for hosting. I used the template to create/update the website. I could have added a shop had I wished. I used Paypal selling on Ebay and I think fees were deducted 'at source' (but not sure). I don't know how costs are treated in the accounts because very broad headings are used. 'Merchandising and campaign costs' in the first financial year, for example were £ 673,336. I have no idea what that includes, apart from the cost of wristbands and whatever else they sold.
-
I set up a website at about the same time and it was a template. I paid for the domain name (a few pounds) and then a monthly fee (ten pounds) for hosting. I used the template to create/update the website. I could have added a shop had I wished. I used Paypal selling on Ebay and I think fees were deducted 'at source' (but not sure). I don't know how costs are treated in the accounts because very broad headings are used. 'Merchandising and campaign costs' in the first financial year, for example were £ 673,336. I have no idea what that includes, apart from the cost of wristbands and whatever else they sold.
Not exactly the transparency promised.
-
Funny that, it looks very much like an off the shelf template to me. Bespoke sites created by professional web creation companies have their name at the bottom with an 'all rights reserved' notice.
either they were ripped off or it was a cock and bull entry!
-
Well, what do you expect for only 36 000 £ to set up and run a website, miracles?
It is a dormant website so costs should be extremely low year on year. As for setting it up, any computer wise kid could do that for a few quid.
-
It is a dormant website so costs should be extremely low year on year. As for setting it up, any computer wise kid could do that for a few quid.
yup
they trade for free on facebook these days too
-
Not exactly the transparency promised.
But more transparent that Sr Amarals fund allegedly........... I read that on here somewhere, though quite what relevance Amarals Beer 'n' Baccy Fund has to do with the transparency of "The Fund" I am at a loss to understand 8(0(*
-
A few 50 thousand dollar questions for the MF website.
What country in Praia Da Luz in?
What language do the locals speak?
What language webpage do the Smithman efits need to be on?
-
A few 50 thousand dollar questions for the MF website.
What country in Praia Da Luz in?
What language do the locals speak?
What language webpage do the Smithman efits need to be on?
That leads to the rather interesting question of how Smithman has been advertised strictly within Portugal, but I would rather see that as a separate topic for many a reason.
-
A few 50 thousand dollar questions for the MF website.
What country in Praia Da Luz in?
What language do the locals speak?
What language webpage do the Smithman efits need to be on?
36k just for one year never managed anythng much, doubt any mllions will do either, makes you wonder what that silly site is for
-
Depends if you hired the services of an ad agency or design studio and £36k is not much just for the creation. The work maintaining it would be minimal imo. Of course if there is no CMS system to update the website you have to edit the code directly and if you weren't familiar with that then you would have to pay someone. Can't see fees being too exorbitant though.
-
you what? are you being serious? I doubt it!
-
Ah i reread a family friend @)(++(*
-
From a blog dated 2007
A company wanted a straightforward website that allowed visitors to search for particular types of holiday acommodation. Without talking in any great detail with a developer, they were quoted £32,000 (yes, thirty-two thousand pounds). When the company said that this was more than they had expected, the web-developer offered to do the same for £16,000 - half the original quote! Yet the alarm bells didn;t start ringing. It gets worse: when the company asked if it would be possible for it to be done in two weeks (from giving them the content – list of properties etc) the web-developer were happy to comply. The company knew there were only two people involved in the web-development company. BUT they didn’t think to work out that this meant that even if the two worked 16 hour days for two weeks they would be charging £50 per hour. We happen to know it took one of them 10 days - £200 an hour!
So there you go - whatever the "sceptics" are inferring by questioning the cost of the FM website, let's hope this gives them "pause for thought".
-
you what? are you being serious? I doubt it!
I feel another George Mparrbe moment coming on 8(0(*
"What you has to understand in dis context is dat you can do an adequate website for five 'undred of your quids but we has a system what is more complex and we needs to pay Bill, Charlie, Wayne, Shane an' Lotty considerable lots of dosh for all sorts of tings........so 36 grand is really cheap at twice the price"
You must be three ha'pence short of a bob not to realise that 8(0(*
-
I know so! This was back in 2007, so the website is looking dated now, but it is still quite tightly designed imo for a website of this nature back then. If you hired your fresh out of uni local web designer you could probably could have got this made for 1 or 2k. If you hire an ad agency or design agency, which is a team of people you are easily looking at this kind of bill imo(also consider the agency probably designed all promotional materials too like tshirts etc). And considering they had a big fund of course you would get professionals to do the job!
How lucky we are to have a professional on here to give us the facts.
Thankyou lordpookles 8((()*/
-
How lucky we are to have a professional on here to give us the facts.
Thankyou lordpookles 8((()*/
Yep I deleted that post because I read that the website was built by a family friend??
Yeah a website isn't as substantial as house for instance and people are surprised to say the least when they see costs. i'm not entirely familiar with the financial side of things, but I know 36k is not that much at all...
-
Yep I deleted that post because I read that the website was built by a family friend??
Yeah a website isn't as substantial as house for instance and people are surprised to say the least when they see costs. i'm not entirely familiar with the financial side of things, but I know 36k is not that much at all...
For a professional job on a Site expecting millions of hits it is not over priced.
-
For a professional job on a Site expecting millions of hits it is not over priced.
and it has achieved what exactly ???
-
From a blog dated 2007
So there you go - whatever the "sceptics" are inferring by questioning the cost of the FM website, let's hope this gives them "pause for thought".
It gives me pause for thought.
It'll cost 32 grand.
How much ?
OK 16 grand then.
Ding dong.
-
It gives me pause for thought.
It'll cost 32 grand.
How much ?
OK 16 grand then.
Ding dong.
You obviously didn't pause for long enough.
-
Nope, not a 32k website.
-
I said this earlier, not sure where. I created a website around 2007 using a hosting company and a template provided by them. The cost was very small. Findmadeleine.com looks like a site built using a template to me, not a bespoke one, they usually have the name of the company which created it at the bottom and 'all rights reserved'.
The find Madeleine website was created in a day by Calum MacRae. He was part-owner of Infohost with his father, a scottish policeman. I would imagine the £36,000 was for the year, as the merchandising was also being organised by Calum. Interesting mention of 'Missing People' in the article;
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12766979.Millions_have_contacted_the_Madeleine_McCann_appeal_website__Who_runs_it__Three_teenagers_from_Ullapool/
-
You obviously didn't pause for long enough.
Maybe you should have read the paragraph preceding the bit you quoted from the blog?
More complex websites can cost anything from £1,000 to much more. It all depends on what you want. But BEWARE if a web-developer starts quoting you anything around the £5,000 mark before really talking to you, then walk away. There are too many sharks out there. Let me tell you a story:
http://www.iwantawebsite.co.uk/how-much.html
-
Maybe you should have read the paragraph preceding the bit you quoted from the blog?
More complex websites can cost anything from £1,000 to much more. It all depends on what you want. But BEWARE if a web-developer starts quoting you anything around the £5,000 mark before really talking to you, then walk away. There are too many sharks out there. Let me tell you a story:
http://www.iwantawebsite.co.uk/how-much.html
If only the McCanns had read the blog first, eh? Perhaps they could have saved some money, but then their minds were probably on other things at the time.
-
I said this earlier, not sure where. I created a website around 2007 using a hosting company and a template provided by them. The cost was very small. Findmadeleine.com looks like a site built using a template to me, not a bespoke one, they usually have the name of the company which created it at the bottom and 'all rights reserved'.
The find Madeleine website was created in a day by Calum MacRae. He was part-owner of Infohost with his father, a scottish policeman. I would imagine the £36,000 was for the year, as the merchandising was also being organised by Calum. Interesting mention of 'Missing People' in the article;
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12766979.Millions_have_contacted_the_Madeleine_McCann_appeal_website__Who_runs_it__Three_teenagers_from_Ullapool/
Interesting thanks for the link. So, would perhaps be reasonable to assume his team of 6 were paid £36k in total and he says they spend 12 to 20 hours a week working on it. Not sure if that's a large amount of money... all depends... the Madeleine website certainly would have been updated a lot in the early days especially with all the developments and press coverage there was.... so the website was a continuous job... sounds like it from the link... when you consider the daily rate for these people - we don't know if they are charging 100/200, maybe more, a day...
-
Interesting thanks for the link. So, would perhaps be reasonable to assume his team of 6 were paid £36k in total and he says they spend 12 to 20 hours a week working on it. Not sure if that's a large amount of money... all depends... the Madeleine website certainly would have been updated a lot in the early days especially with all the developments and press coverage there was.... so the website was a continuous job... sounds like it from the link... when you consider the daily rate for these people - we don't know if they are charging 100/200, maybe more, a day...
I shouldn't think they were charging that much if there were 6 of them working on it for a year, that's only 6 grand a piece for a year's work, less if the cost of website and wristbands etc is part of the £36k
-
I shouldn't think they were charging that much if there were 6 of them working on it for a year, that's only 6 grand a piece for a year's work, less if the cost of website and wristbands etc is part of the £36k
Were it transparent you wouldn't be floundering around trying to guess or justify. It would there for all to see;
no fuss no muss @)(++(*
-
Were it transparent you wouldn't be floundering around trying to guess or justify. It would there for all to see;
no fuss no muss @)(++(*
I bet YOU dont fuss with insignificant details with other Funds, Alice.
I wonder how much they spent on paper clips and tea bags? %&5%£
Surely they will have got that detailed up *&*%£
-
I shouldn't think they were charging that much if there were 6 of them working on it for a year, that's only 6 grand a piece for a year's work, less if the cost of website and wristbands etc is part of the £36k
For doing what exactly? It seems all rather ridiculous. At best.
-
I bet YOU dont fuss with insignificant details with other Funds, Alice.
I wonder how much they spent on paper clips and tea bags? %&5%£
Surely they will have got that detailed up *&*%£
£36,000 I expect. Everything had to be the best, after all. No need to be frugal if it's not your own money.
-
If only the McCanns had read the blog first, eh? Perhaps they could have saved some money, but then their minds were probably on other things at the time.
Yes we know.
The fund.
-
£36,000 I expect. Everything had to be the best, after all. No need to be frugal if it's not your own money.
What a cheap shot.
The fact is the McCanns could be living in luxury if they had not decided to put over a million pounds of their own money into the fund - apart of course from the £50,000 settlement they received for libel - which they gave to two charities.
-
What a cheap shot.
The fact is the McCanns could be living in luxury if they had not decided to put over a million pounds of their own money into the fund - apart of course from the £50,000 settlement they received for libel - which they gave to two charities.
So first class travel and 5 star hotels were never used..............
As to the libel payout to the charity, useful PR eh.
-
What a cheap shot.
The fact is the McCanns could be living in luxury if they had not decided to put over a million pounds of their own money into the fund - apart of course from the £50,000 settlement they received for libel - which they gave to two charities.
In reply to a facetious one. Their own money which they 'earned' by suing people and writing a book about their daughter's disappearance. Just rewards? Hmmm.
-
So first class travel and 5 star hotels were never used..............
As to the libel payout to the charity, useful PR eh.
As the case was settled out of court that may have been a condition suggested by the newspaper. It may not have been, but usually they pay such settlements into the fund, so I do wonder why this one was different.
-
In reply to a facetious one. Their own money which they 'earned' by suing people and writing a book about their daughter's disappearance. Just rewards? Hmmm.
Benice is right.
They gave their OWN money.
Accept the truth, Gunit.
-
Benice is right.
They gave their OWN money.
Accept the truth, Gunit.
Get it right Sadie.
The money they have obtained, and I use that word carefully, they would never had got if they'd taken care of their children in the first place.
-
I bet YOU dont fuss with insignificant details with other Funds, Alice.
I wonder how much they spent on paper clips and tea bags? %&5%£
Surely they will have got that detailed up *&*%£
Has this any relevance to what I posted?
-
In reply to a facetious one. Their own money which they 'earned' by suing people and writing a book about their daughter's disappearance. Just rewards? Hmmm.
Let's think about that one ... I believe Mr Amaral wrote a book about Madeleine McCann in which he 'proves' her parents' involvement in covering up her death.
I believe Mr Amaral has his own personal fund which has funded his defence throughout his lengthy litigation, and now that his case is lost ... his appeal.
There is something rather Alice in Wonderland about sceptics who quibble about every ha'penny which may be spent on Madeleine McCann from the initial set up costs of a website set up in her name to the alleged extravaganza of the current police search to find her ... and who are incapable of making a comparison.
-
Let's think about that one ... I believe Mr Amaral wrote a book about Madeleine McCann in which he 'proves' her parents' involvement in covering up her death.
I believe Mr Amaral has his own personal fund which has funded his defence throughout his lengthy litigation, and now that his case is lost ... his appeal.
There is something rather Alice in Wonderland about sceptics who quibble about every ha'penny which may be spent on Madeleine McCann from the initial set up costs of a website set up in her name to the alleged extravaganza of the current police search to find her ... and who are incapable of making a comparison.
Why is sceptical questioning an investigation which has found out nothing at all of any consequence ?
-
Why is sceptical questioning an investigation which has found out nothing at all of any consequence ?
Oh sorry, is that what you are doing ... it came over to me as just another invalid criticism of the Drs McCann throwing 'other peoples' hard earned cash all over the internet.
One wonders at the quality of questioning that in eight years has been unable to uncover or recognise any answers which don't fit with the sceptic fables.
-
Oh sorry, is that what you are doing ... it came over to me as just another invalid criticism of the Drs McCann throwing 'other peoples' hard earned cash all over the internet.
One wonders at the quality of questioning that in eight years has been unable to uncover or recognise any answers which don't fit with the sceptic fables.
What has the website achieved ?
and yes, it was a waste of other peoples money.
You got that right.
-
Let's think about that one ... I believe Mr Amaral wrote a book about Madeleine McCann in which he 'proves' her parents' involvement in covering up her death.
I believe Mr Amaral has his own personal fund which has funded his defence throughout his lengthy litigation, and now that his case is lost ... his appeal.
There is something rather Alice in Wonderland about sceptics who quibble about every ha'penny which may be spent on Madeleine McCann from the initial set up costs of a website set up in her name to the alleged extravaganza of the current police search to find her ... and who are incapable of making a comparison.
Err, err, exaggerating and embroidering the truth again are we?
@)(++(*
Why on earth would anyne want to do that?
PS get it straight! asking what the f** cost 36000 pounds for a two bit website is not quibbling about halfpennies!
-
Were it transparent you wouldn't be floundering around trying to guess or justify. It would there for all to see;
no fuss no muss @)(++(*
Define transparent. What level should the accounts go to in order to explain the £36k costs, in your view? Or is the real answer that you don't really care, you're just here for the laffs?
-
Define transparent. What level should the accounts go to in order to explain the £36k costs, in your view? Or is the real answer that you don't really care, you're just here for the laffs?
Transparent reporting on any project/company finances necessitates all significant expenditure to be itemised such that the overall build up is visible to those who have a right to be monitoring it.
If 36k is a single order value with an itemised schedule there is no need for further breakdown. If 36k is a summation of several different items and orders I would expect to see all those items listed. Pretty f*****g basic project management really. Except in this neck of woods of course @)(++(*
-
Transparent reporting on any project/company finances necessitates all significant expenditure to be itemised such that the overall build up is visible to those who have a right to be monitoring it.
If 36k is a single order value with an itemised schedule there is no need for further breakdown. If 36k is a summation of several different items and orders I would expect to see all those items listed. Pretty f*****g basic project management really. Except in this neck of woods of course @)(++(*
The Accountants know, and so does The Inland Revenue. They are all that matter.
And I don't expect you to donate any time soon. I never have. Charity begins at home on my State Pension.
-
The Accountants know, and so does The Inland Revenue. They are all that matter.
And I don't expect you to donate any time soon. I never have. Charity begins at home on my State Pension.
I think Companies House also have a say in the matter. That is not inviting comment just stating a fact.
The question posed by Alf was "what is transparency?". Transparency is independent of who is looking at it.
Except on here of course, where I expect there are even two versions of the basic laws of physics according to whether one is a McCann Sceptic or Supporter.
Ho hum *&*%£
-
transparent means clear
there is no clarity for the 36k stated costs of the website in the Mccanns first year accounts, a very large sum for something which rarely if ever costs that much
funnily enough the first years accounts actually itemised a great deal more than further ones, now that is definitely not transparent
-
Transparent reporting on any project/company finances necessitates all significant expenditure to be itemised such that the overall build up is visible to those who have a right to be monitoring it.
If 36k is a single order value with an itemised schedule there is no need for further breakdown. If 36k is a summation of several different items and orders I would expect to see all those items listed. Pretty f*****g basic project management really. Except in this neck of woods of course @)(++(*
So who has a right to be monitoring expenditure? You?
-
The Madeleine website could have been put together for a couple of grand by any competent web hack. The huge sum claimed was obviously spent on something else possibly a couple of new computers and other hardware to kit out an office.
-
The Madeleine website could have been put together for a couple of grand by any competent web hack. The huge sum claimed was obviously spent on something else possibly a couple of new computers and other hardware.
What about staff costs associated with the website? There were 6 people working on it for a year.
-
What about staff costs associated with the website? There were 6 people working on it for a year.
doing what?
@)(++(*
6 people working a 35 hour week each on that paltry site? Youre havng a laugh or else being a poor apologist
-
The Madeleine website could have been put together for a couple of grand by any competent web hack. The huge sum claimed was obviously spent on something else possibly a couple of new computers and other hardware to kit out an office.
I am sure the website itself could have been put together for about that. No problem. And some staff costs but that would not amount to much.
The problem is volume. The amount of traffic (reportedly 55m hits) would need a significant amount of bandwidth to accommodate, and in particular outgoing bandwidth. And it seems a fair amount of the traffic was not just people downloading pages from the site, but downloading material.
The total cost works out at one fifteenth of a penny per hit, which I think is rather less than a quarter of what we were paying at the time (2007) although in fairness out traffic was nowhere as much.
-
I am sure the website itself could have been put together for about that. No problem. And some staff costs but that would not amount to much.
The problem is volume. The amount of traffic (reportedly 55m hits) would need a significant amount of bandwidth to accommodate, and in particular outgoing bandwidth. And it seems a fair amount of the traffic was not just people downloading pages from the site, but downloading material.
The total cost works out at one fifteenth of a penny per hit, which I think is rather less than a quarter of what we were paying at the time (2007) although in fairness out traffic was nowhere as much.
Hosting services offer various bandwidths at additional cost but it isn't that much in real terms. I struggle to see how any small company can spend £36k a year on any website.
-
Calum became involved after Madeleine's aunt, Philomena McCann, his former schoolteacher in Ullapool, approached him four days after the girl disappeared on May 3.
He said his staff spent between "12 and 20" hours each week on the website and wristbands. Although he claimed to have lost money on an earlier stunt for Premier League footballers to wear Madeleine t-shirts, he is pressing ahead with the distribution of T-shirts to the public in return for £10 donations.
Calum said: "We stopped every other thing we were doing that day and put the Find Madeleine site straight on. It's pretty much full-time doing the website and bands. We just invoice the fund, but it's not expensive compared with what other companies would charge. We have to account for how many hours are worked. It's not for us to decide what we are paid, but the fund insist we are."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id34.html
-
lol @ cost of website. Total piece of rubbish. I could have done that for a lot less, few thousand. so why the need for a web site? an on line shop to sell stuff? for what? to make money is what! Grrrrreat marketing ploy. Oh doctors playing at being 'investigators' and 'entrepreneurs'...The whole get up leaves me with goose bumps!
-
lol @ cost of website. Total piece of rubbish. I could have done that for a lot less, few thousand. so why the need for a web site? an on line shop to sell stuff? for what? to make money is what! Grrrrreat marketing ploy. Oh doctors playing at being 'investigators' and 'entrepreneurs'...The whole get up leaves me with goose bumps!
%&5%£
Maybe they wouldn't have wanted you to produce their website.
It has ben admirable the way they tried everything to raise money for their search and to keep the public aware that Madeleine was missing and likely a findable little girl.
Guess you wouldn't have bothered if it had been your little one?
Easier to do nothing?
-
%&5%£
Maybe they wouldn't have wanted you to produce their website.
It has ben admirable the way they tried everything to raise money for their search and to keep the public aware that Madeleine was missing and likely a findable little girl.
Guess you wouldn't have bothered if it had been your little one?
Easier to do nothing?
What has the website achieved ?
-
Paying a lot of money for a website might have occurred to parents after a while, but after seven days? it was then set up in an afternoon using a template from 'godaddy.com'. Cost? Negligible.
-
Paying a lot of money for a website might have occurred to parents after a while, but after seven days? it was then set up in an afternoon using a template from 'godaddy.com'. Cost? Negligible.
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing. If they hadn't followed the advice of the experts and kept Madeleine's profile as high as possible by 'publicising' her (FB being one way of doing it) to give her the best chance of being found - then no doubt they would have been severely criticised for NOT doing that.
Damned if they do and damned if they don't - every step of the way.
-
Paying a lot of money for a website might have occurred to parents after a while, but after seven days? it was then set up in an afternoon using a template from 'godaddy.com'. Cost? Negligible.
Cost of website - negligible.
But that is not the point. It is the bandwidth to allow access to the website that cost the money.
-
Cost of website - negligible.
But that is not the point. It is the bandwidth to allow access to the website that cost the money.
Yes PJ.
That is very true, but no where near the money paid out! Why a web site? Gerry had a blog, there is face book and youtube, twitter.
This had become a 'business' money was being made on a little girls fate.
uncouth!
-
Yes PJ.
That is very true, but no where near the money paid out! Why a web site? Gerry had a blog, there is face book and youtube, twitter.
This had become a 'business' money was being made on a little girls fate.
uncouth!
Kate and Gerry were making money to progress the search for their missing daughter, not for themselves.
Amaral and Cristavao were making money for their own pockets
Where are you moral standards, Mistaken?
-
Cost of website - negligible.
But that is not the point. It is the bandwidth to allow access to the website that cost the money.
In the first accounting period the cost of the website, expressed as a percentage of online donations generated, was considerably less efficient than the 5% of the gofundme Amaral appeal.
-
In the first accounting period the cost of the website, expressed as a percentage of online donations generated, was considerably less efficient than the 5% of the gofundme Amaral appeal.
GoFundMe was launched in 2010, so what point are you trying to make?
-
I suppose if there were a breakdown of costs in the accounts that the public could see we would not be playing guessing games; even unto the point of "my guess is better than your guess" by because I am red team/blue team*;
*delete as applicable.
But it's fun isn't it?
-
It's beginning to make the website look like good value for money now, if we deduct set up costs from the yearly costs ongoing....
Yes, of course it does. And if you bring in a proportion of the donations direct to the bank (around £1.3M) as being stimulated by the website then even better value in year one.
But Pegasus was so pleased to find something to gloat about - don't spoil it.
-
Yes, of course it does. And if you bring in a proportion of the donations direct to the bank (around £1.3M) as being stimulated by the website then even better value in year one.
But Pegasus was so pleased to find something to gloat about - don't spoil it.
So what in your view is the difference between the two sites ?
-
Yes, of course it does. And if you bring in a proportion of the donations direct to the bank (around £1.3M) as being stimulated by the website then even better value in year one.
But Pegasus was so pleased to find something to gloat about - don't spoil it.
Plus of course the website provides a permanent information, message, and news portal, unlike GoFundMe, the value of which is less easy to put a price on, but which surely must have been invaluable when the website was at its height, in terms of visitors.
-
So what in your view is the difference between the two sites ?
http://findmadeleine.com/home.html
http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA
If you can't see the difference for yourself, then sorry, I cannot help.
-
So was that which set up The Web Site. And Band Width has to be bought. Or did you expect that this would be supplied free of charge.
-
So was that which set up The Web Site. And Band Width has to be bought. Or did you expect that this would be supplied free of charge.
So how much bandwidth does it require now exactly ?
Obviously at the start when the publicity machine was rolling it needed more.
Now more of a case of diminishing returns, in every sense.
-
So how much bandwidth does it require now exactly ?
Obviously at the start when the publicity machine was rolling it needed more.
Now more of a case of diminishing returns, in every sense.
No idea - but website cost was £224 so probably not much.
-
No idea - but website cost was £224 so probably not much.
Oh if only the Fund was transparent we would all know the answer to this hugely important question, but alas it is shrouded in impenetrable mist, so we will never ever know, which allows us to sniff suspiciously at it for evermore - hurrah!
-
What are the fees for the last 8 years indivdually, and how many hits have there been in successive years since 2007 ?
-
What are the fees for the last 8 years indivdually, and how many hits have there been in successive years since 2007 ?
None of your business, I do believe. Especially if you didn't donate. And not even if you did.
-
What are the fees for the last 8 years indivdually, and how many hits have there been in successive years since 2007 ?
Here you are Stephen.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FUND_INDEX.htm
You can have a look for yourself. 8(0(*
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.