Chinahand Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 So the fact Proffitt excluded himself from the process meant he had no influence on the result? Yeah right, even though he's running the thing.... Pull the other one, it plays Aida. Boy - cynical aren't you. My understanding is that when it was proposed to pay off the Midland Bank loan a committee was formed to investigate this. At that point Proffitt recused himself and Charles Fargher and Clive Wilcox undertook the investigation - Charles Fargher was on the Board, Clive Wilcox was the Finance Director. The Board knew about the decision to pay off the loan and knew that it was being investigated by a board member and the FD. When the results of this investigation were brought to the board to make the decision, Proffit again recused himself and was uninvolved in the final choice. The process was audited and the full board interviewed by the PKF investigation. If Barclays made a better offer due to Proffit's influence well that is Barlcay's loss and the MEA's gain, but the same proposals were put to the IOM bank and HSBC - how was Proffitt able to influence them? Barclays made the best offer - that offer was compared against the other Bank's offers independently of Proffitt and the final choice was made without him. You have to be getting very Machievellian to see Proffitt as manipulating this process to the MEA's disadvantage. yootalkin2me - I've never heard of Mr Callister - and I've met and spoken with most of the people involved in the MEA affairs - what was his involvement? You say he was with the DoT - what has he got to do with the MEA then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Boy - cynical aren't you. No, not cynical - pragmatic. Maybe you should try it... If Barclays made a better offer due to Proffit's influence well that is Barlcay's loss and the MEA's gain, but the same proposals were put to the IOM bank and HSBC - how was Proffitt able to influence them? Barclays made the best offer - that offer was compared against the other Bank's offers independently of Proffitt and the final choice was made without him. Hang on! According to you Proffitt had NO influence on the decision. If Barclays came up with the best deal then fair enough, of course I'll buy into that. With Proffitt declaring an interest there is also no way Barclay's would have known about the rival bids so that they could have undercut them. Is there? But Barclay's didn't come up with the best deal, did they? Securing the "extra" loan via Tynwald would have been cheaper. But they didn't take that route. With quite breathtaking arrogance they concluded on zero evidence that involving Tinpotwald would have introduced a possible "fatal" delay. So they didn't bother. I mean, WHY bother? After all, it's not THEIR money they were throwing away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Zero evidence - erm there was a direct comparison - the time it took MCC to raise the initial loan of £30 million in 1999 - no approval, no screaming, just declared in the accounts after the event, no investigations witch hunts or claims of bias - and the time it took to get the bond issue sorted out. All this was occurring when daily costs were £100K per day on project. When the initial contractor had collapsed and the project rescued by the setting up of PGT - you want the MEA to publicly declare it doesn't have the funds to finish the project and take it to Tynwald. Do you really think that wouldn't affect the project? Affect the willingness of subcontractors to accept credit terms etc. I thought you worked in project planning PK - have you never had a project partner declare it is insolvent - it tends to cause problems. If things had been delayed one week it would have invalidated any saving. As far as the MEA knew there had been no problems raising finance via MCC previously - in hind sight I know for a fact it is deeply regretted that option was choosen, but that is only with the benefit of hindsight. In 1999 MCC borrowed £30 million - no one blinked. In 2004 a further £50 million was borrowed - with £30m of it going to repay the earlier debt - and the world ended with claims of corruption and dodgy dealing. Why the difference - I don't think that has ever really been explained, but I'm not convinced that Proffitt is the only cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I thought you worked in project planning PK - have you never had a project partner declare it is insolvent - it tends to cause problems. If things had been delayed one week it would have invalidated any saving. As far as the MEA knew there had been no problems raising finance via MCC previously - in hind sight I know for a fact it is deeply regretted that option was choosen, but that is only with the benefit of hindsight. Lean Six Sigma. I have a professional issue with the whole mess, because that's what it is. EVERYONE has 20/20 hindsight, that's a given. Also opinions are like arseholes i.e. everyone has one... It's well known that Government projects are ALWAYS under-managed, under-led, under-funded and under-spec'd. The latest UK gov ferrago is here! IMHO it's a VERY good example It seems there are various reasons for this appalling situation. But mainly it breaks down to Business Professionals completely shafting Government Amateurs. So if you are a Public Servant engaged on a multi-million pound project you should set the ground rules, especially around authorising expenditure, in concrete and get the damn things signed in blood! You should also have monthly (NOT quarterly) meetings with agreed inputs and ouputs that will make sure the project will deliver OTOT. But most importantly you should insure that those FUNDING the project are the ones who are DIRECTING the activities. THEY don't agree the expenditure, YOU do! If the Public Servants don't do that then they will be turned over every time, especially by the unscrupulous... Unfortunately it seems that those in Gov think that a career as a Civil Servant will equip you to manage multi-million dollar capital projects. So they're just as much to blame as you are when it goes tits-up. Professionals who are motivated to deliver the customer requirements are fine. BUT it shouldn't be at any cost.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Don't forget about 'moving the goalposts' either - i.e. think things out properly before the start. Governments usually start off wanting something like a simple 3 foot square wotsit - but then 'the requirements' change half way through, and it soon becomes a 6ft square, 1 lightyear deep, 8th dimensional black hole (with Microsoft Vista) - that consultants are all too happy to take the money off em to try and put together - even when it starts to become too impossibly complex to deliver. Kerrrrrrrrching! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted March 18, 2009 Author Share Posted March 18, 2009 Well, I worked for a UK Local Authority 5 times the size of the Isle of Man. We had quite a few capital construction projects. £Multi-million stuff, quite big at the time. My involvement was as a project planner. A small cog in quite a large machine admittedly. But I'll tell you how many jobs went over budget, or over time. Fucken None. Fuck all. Sweet-FUCK-ALL. The Isle of Man and its Civil Service is severely top heavy with fuck-wits. Highly paid, over pensioned fuck-witted arseholes. Now, big words you might say, but I tell you how I fucken well know. I grew up with a lot of the fuckers. I even remember some of them pishing their pants in infants school because they were too fuck witted to go to the toilet. One of the fuckers, who always walked round with a brief case for some reason, managed to grab a couple of O'levels (or CSE equivalents, I'm not sure). That bastard is not settled into quite a big Civil Service exec. type job. Fucking around with people's lives like you wouldn't believe. Freedom to Fuckwit. Try that little slogan for size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Anyone any ideas why Mr Proffitt sold his large house at Gansey and moved his large expensive cars to the UK ? in double quick time ? or maybe an inference too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 cos as a non resident! there is no legal process to seize property or monies off island that should not have been paid???? headline ' fat dick turpin out runs even slower authorities ' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twitch Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Mike Profitt now employs Clive Callister who was with him at the MEA, I wonder how many more he employs at his renewable enrgy company....feckin hilarious that he now runs a renewable energy company and yet pushed forward a feckin gas powered power plant...if that aint takin the piss I don't know what is. I think he took a few MEA staff with him to his shiny new company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 indeed he did .. and i will name them later for ol china as promised job titles and directorships .. but only when i know what im stating is correct. and theres also a reason why it is now KPMG doing the forensic accounting of the M.E.A.s activities and not PKF .. i am not infering dodgy dealings with this line .. and will try and find out why .. its my opinion that the wool was pulled over their eyes. .. these people {proffitt and co} did a proper job on us .. and the only monies retrievable so far were their uses of M.E.A. funds to finance personal jaunts for family and friends to far off places under the guise of business trips .. i will endeaver to get a figure on retrieved funds from proffitt and his then chief executive for their missused funds which were the only real mistakes they made and are a trivial few thousand. chinahand has if anything highlighted to you all just how difficult it has been to nail them .. there is utter contempt felt in some government circles for whats gone on .. and bringing them to book was/is a top priority .. but they have been far too cute. in a way you have too admire them/him as he has stuck it too us all real good and we can prove little but each and everyone of us will be paying for it for the next 30 years .. only hope now is with KPMG their bloke hleading the audit is supposed to be top notch. i would like to see treasury refusal on repayment to barclays as they didnt agree the loans. .. now that would bring a few sharp minds in on the game and lots of connections and shady dealings would come into the light with the ensueing court cases imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger lily Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 how amazin funni Profet transfer monie from renwable and wind, to pay for gas powerr statoin but now he sellin renwables - for fillin renwable gap he help creat ..........ha ha ha an that mr dti corllett on new energi grupp choosin renwable contractor let be hopin that no contractor be leedin him by nose again let be hopin that clever top pay cheif executiv marie wiliam managin evertthin in tiptop and perfect way , as usual.............. .........so so funni ........ ha ha ha............only in ilse of madmann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 indeed he did .. and i will name them later for ol china as promised job titles and directorships .. but only when i know what im stating is correct. Clive Wilcox and Jannie Retief are the two main ones. I think Clive has left and no longer works for him, I've no idea about Jannie. All this has been debated ad nauseum in the earlier MEA threads - search the MEA Megathread for more details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 interesting comment .. i will have a look at the other thread/s i think they must of been before i took any real interest in these fora.. .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Mike Profitt now employs Clive Callister who was with him at the MEA, I wonder how many more he employs at his renewable enrgy company....feckin hilarious that he now runs a renewable energy company and yet pushed forward a feckin gas powered power plant...if that aint takin the piss I don't know what is. I think he took a few MEA staff with him to his shiny new company. Clive Callister is an engineer. He wouldn't have been near the finances for the power station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yootalkin2me Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Mike Profitt now employs Clive Callister who was with him at the MEA, I wonder how many more he employs at his renewable enrgy company....feckin hilarious that he now runs a renewable energy company and yet pushed forward a feckin gas powered power plant...if that aint takin the piss I don't know what is. I think he took a few MEA staff with him to his shiny new company. Clive Callister is an engineer. He wouldn't have been near the finances for the power station. I have met Clive a few times and I actually like him, I'm not suggesting Clive is involved in any corruption, merely stating that he (Mike Profitt) is an evil twat who has even charmed the pants off his former employees who are pretty damn smart, thus proving the fact that this man is almost like the teflon don. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.