Pinewood...more Govt Propaganda

[Slim]

_{Slim. You and I will just have to disagree. As put together there is a linkage but it was stated very clearly that both parts of the deal were totally indpendent.}

_{So clearly that you can't actually demonstrate the fact? I don't think you're disagreeing, I think you're putting your fingers in your ears and shouting 'lalalalalalala!'}

 

_{Neither was reliant on the other}

_{You don't know that. According to the proposal, they were reliant as part of the strategy.}

 

_{I disagree with it being a hedge as a hedge is according tto my understanding the taking of position so that if an event causes A to fals then B might rise.}

_{I don't think that matters in this instance. The point is, the proposal considers it a hedge, that's why it's linked. That they got it wrong (and I agree with Bobsters definition obviously), but it's in the proposal and that's the strategy.}

 

_{I think you're separating the two things to make your argument stick. This is a partnership, it's an all encompasing deal. The Govt needed a get out of shit card for the NX mess, and they've backed Peel Holdings and Whittaker to manage their way out of it. It's a complex deal involving a bit of equity and a bit of investment advice, but it's all obviously come from negotiations and the construction of a strategy.}

 

_{It also appears to be working.}

[Lost Login]

Slim, If I have time I will go and look through Hansard etc to see where it was stated, but in reality as I do not know how to find quickly I am not going to spend hours doing so. If I could find a link quickly I would. However that does not alter the fact that it was stated at the time one was not dependent on each other. It was a very pertinent point at the time as it was almost being suggested that for Pinewood to mange funds there had to be a sweetner of £X million being the share purcase or that for Govt to get hands on the shares they had to hand over control ofthe film fund etc to Pinewood. Government were understandaly keen to distance themselves from such suggestions which is why at the time they stressed neither depended on each other but it is also why the point has stuck in my mind.

 

Despite the fact that that neither was dependent on each other I agree that they were packaged to Tynwald etc as one deal but it remains if what was stated was true that if the wished they could have bought the shares and not had Pinewood mange the funds, or had Pinewood manage the funds and not bought the shares.

 

It does matter whether it is a hedge or not. You can not say something is x because that is what we say it is even though it is not. I think if you ordered a steak at a restaurant and they served you a sausage you would not accept it if they said "ah but we consider this sausage a steak"

 

As for the NXmess, ignoring the shares that is roughly what we have still got, except the firm not managing the money/advising also make money from making the films that they recommend investing in not just from acting as producers, on the presumption that if you are named as a producer you are being paid for being a producer.

[Slim]

Despite the fact that that neither was dependent on each other I agree that they were packaged to Tynwald etc as one deal but it remains if what was stated was true that if the wished they could have bought the shares and not had Pinewood mange the funds, or had Pinewood manage the funds and not bought the shares.

Where was it stated that they didn't want to purchase the shares? The original proposal actually wanted double the shares, but they weren't able to. You're just making things up again, post something to back up what you're saying.

 

It does matter whether it is a hedge or not. You can not say something is x because that is what we say it is even though it is not. I think if you ordered a steak at a restaurant and they served you a sausage you would not accept it if they said "ah but we consider this sausage a steak"

What matters is the way the deals are linked, described as a hedge but really a risk mitigation strategy. Realistically, the MDF invests in individual films, the share deal earns on the returns of the wider market. What the pws ownership means is that we benefit from the UK's subsidy for films, something that our investment in films is competing with. By owning some of pws, we're hedging the risk of losing out in the investment market. This is how the proposal describes it, give it a read.

 

As for the NXmess, ignoring the shares that is roughly what we have still got, except the firm not managing the money/advising also make money from making the films that they recommend investing in not just from acting as producers, on the presumption that if you are named as a producer you are being paid for being a producer.

Not true, read the report I linked.

[Lost Login]

Slim

 

I never stated that they did not want to purchase. I stated that that Govt stated that both transactions were independent of each other.

 

You may not think it matters if something is described and sold as being a hedge when it is not. I do.

 

I have skim read the report and what I said is correct. FFS the report actually states "The proposed FMC will largely mirror the NX contract" so I think it is fair to state, as I did that, the NXmess is roughly what we have still got. Yes there have been some changes in that the producers fee is now a set formula rather than negotiated seperatly but the fact remains that it is in the financial interest of those managing the fund to recommend films as if the recommendation is accepted they then charge fees for the making of that film.

[Slim]

Slim

 

I never stated that they did not want to purchase. I stated that that Govt stated that both transactions were independent of each other.

Something that you've still not backed up with anything concrete.

 

You may not think it matters if something is described and sold as being a hedge when it is not. I do.

What you described isn't a hedge, but that's not what was proposed, which is.

 

 

I have skim read the report and what I said is correct. FFS the report actually states "The proposed FMC will largely mirror the NX contract" so I think it is fair to state, as I did that, the NXmess is roughly what we have still got. Yes there have been some changes in that the producers fee is now a set formula rather than negotiated seperatly but the fact remains that it is in the financial interest of those managing the fund to recommend films as if the recommendation is accepted they then charge fees for the making of that film.

I think I'm wasting my time. You can't even be arsed to read the documents and are coming to incorrect conclusions.

[Lost Login]

Slim - I disagree but I will let others be the judge.

[Andy Onchan]

 

Slim

 

I never stated that they did not want to purchase. I stated that that Govt stated that both transactions were independent of each other.

Something that you've still not backed up with anything concrete.

 

You may not think it matters if something is described and sold as being a hedge when it is not. I do.

What you described isn't a hedge, but that's not what was proposed, which is.

 

 

I have skim read the report and what I said is correct. FFS the report actually states "The proposed FMC will largely mirror the NX contract" so I think it is fair to state, as I did that, the NXmess is roughly what we have still got. Yes there have been some changes in that the producers fee is now a set formula rather than negotiated seperatly but the fact remains that it is in the financial interest of those managing the fund to recommend films as if the recommendation is accepted they then charge fees for the making of that film.

I think I'm wasting my time. You can't even be arsed to read the documents and are coming to incorrect conclusions.

 

What I know is that IOMG Accounts show the following for the Externally Managed Media Fund:

 

09/10 Unrealized Losses 7.14million

10/11 Net Loss on Sale of Investments 10.6million

11/12 Net Loss on Sale of Investments 4.7million

12/13 Reimbursed to Treasury 70k approx

 

How are these losses squared with income from the spend on-Island during production?

Edited September 15, 2014 by Andy Onchan

[Slim]

How are these losses squared with income from the spend on-Island during production?

They're not, which is one of the valid criticisms in that it's hard to judge the benefits, but the same is true of other development funding such as grants.

[Andy Onchan]

 

How are these losses squared with income from the spend on-Island during production?

They're not, which is one of the valid criticisms in that it's hard to judge the benefits, but the same is true of other development funding such as grants.

What can't speak can't lie.

[Slim]

Brilliant bit in the papers today about a massive bung being made by HMRC to get people to shoot @ Pinewood:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2763486/Disney-gets-tax-break-HMRC-make-Star-Wars-film-Britain.html

 

So we're back to seeing subsidies by UKG feeding IOMGs pockets again.

But without it being a fiddle this time.

[asitis]

 

Brilliant bit in the papers today about a massive bung being made by HMRC to get people to shoot @ Pinewood:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2763486/Disney-gets-tax-break-HMRC-make-Star-Wars-film-Britain.html

 

So we're back to seeing subsidies by UKG feeding IOMGs pockets again.

But without it being a fiddle this time.

 

That bit at least is good news as it shouldn't return to haunt us this time !

[When Skies Are Grey]

Kerching......smell those dividends!!

[x-in-man]

Yay! More star wars, best of luck crew, break a leg Mr Ford .. Oh, wait.

[newsnight]

Today in the Parliament there was a call for an investigation into Pinewood Film Advisors by South Douglas MHK Kate Beecroft.

http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/listen/AgainFiles/3857a.mp3

Mrs Beecroft circulated the Pinewood Accounts to the MHK’s pointing out that Pinewood had made a deal with Gasworks Media Ltd to pay to it in2014 the figure of £336, 000, 00 pounds.

Mrs Beecroft asked Mr Teare the Treasury Minister how much had been spent on and who are the Film Advisors to the Treasury regarding the Media Development Fund.

Mr Teare replied. “Thank you Madam President I am pleased to confirm that Pinewood Film Advisors Ltd remained the advisors to the Treasury in this regard, and make recommendations for prospective investments made from the Media Development Fund. The fee paid to Pinewood Film Advisors Ltd was £365, 000, 00 (pounds) per annum following their appointment to manage the fund in 2012.

Mr Teare was careful not to make any mention at all of the money paid by Pinewood to Gasworks Media Ltd.

Mrs Beecroft asked the Treasury Minister if Pinewood Film Advisors Ltd had sub-contracted the work to Steve Christian using Gasworks Media Ltd.

Mr Teare stated. “How the contract is managed by Pinewood is a matter for them”. When Mrs Beecroft asked Mr Teare if he wasn’t concerned about a possible conflict of interest he replied.

‘I fail to see a conflict of interest here, the management of this contract here is a matter for Pinewood and Pinewood Film Advisors”.

The facts are that Steve Christian has been and is a significant beneficiary from the Media Development Fund, both during the period Cinemanx Ltd was contracted and since then under the Pinewood Film Advisors Ltd contract which as Allan Bell stated in the Parliament was ‘brokered’ by Steve Christian.

The Treasury made a contract to have Pinewood Film Advisors advise them on film project investments out of the Media Development Fund and for that advice Pinewood is paid a fee of £365, 000, 00 per annum. Pinewood Media Advisors Ltd then contracted with Gasworks Media Ltd to ‘co-ordinate’ the investment advice to the Treasury and paid to Gasworks the sum of £336, 000, 00 per annum

The question of conflict of interest also covers how much money was spent on film projects in which Steve Christian held a beneficial ownership and to what degree of ownership did he have?

Did Gasworks Media Ltd advise the Isle of Man Treasury to invest in its own projects and was that not a conflict of interest?

Then there is the question was it known at the time of negotiation between Pinewood Studios and the Isle of Man Treasury that a secondary contract between Gasworks Media Ltd (a Steve Christian company) and Pinewood was going to take place, who in the Council of Ministers knew of that intention?

Then we have the question of who actually decides to invest in the projects submitted to the Treasury and who writes the investment recommendations?

Did anyone in Treasury question the appropriateness of investing in Gasworks Media projects given that it was being paid by Pinewood Media Advisors Ltd to make investment recommendations to Treasury but had effectively on the face of it handed that over to Gasworks Media at a cost to Pinewood Media Advisors Ltd of £336, 000, 00 out of a contract fee paid to it of £365, 000, 00?

Mr Teare said that he cannot see any conflict of interest and does not think that there is anything to investigate.

Would it now be too much to ask if the Public Accounts Committee might finally take an interest and undertake to get the facts of this matter and report on its findings?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Pinewood’s accounts are shown the following.

27. Related party disclosures continued Subsidiaries continued

Page 86. Transaction with Director

During the year ended 31 March 2013, the Group signed a consultancy agreement for services related to the Isle of Man

Investment Advisory Agreement with Gasworks Media Limited, a company incorporated in the Isle of Man, whose sole shareholder, Steve Christian, is also an Executive Director of the Group. The total value of the transactions during the year was £336,000 (year ended 31 March 2013: £120,000), of which £111,000 remains outstanding for payment by the Group at 31 March 2014 (31 March 2013: £19,000). The balance owing is unsecured, interest-free and payable in cash upon invoicing.

http://online.morningstarir.com/ir/pws/downloads/pdf/IRSept2014.pdf

[ubbiali]

and as if Eddies waffling throughout his quetioning wasn`t bad enough, he then has to make a totally puerile comment about congratulating Mrs Beecroft for having ¬a diary note for every November to quiz him on Pinewood".

I had hoped that the disgraceful outburst against Mr Jessop at the Museum last year would have seen an end to petulence from this apology for a politician. Eddie Teare, every inch a statesman.

On a less depressing note - good post Newsnight