censorship Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Anyone who can't see a conflict of interest is basically an idiot. I can't. I am an idiot. Please can you spell it out in really, really simple terms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Anyone who can't see a conflict of interest is basically an idiot. Maybe they should read some of the guidance on conflicts of interest published by government boards such as their own FSC and then publicly state again whether they think there's a conflict of interest in this situation or not? Regulations and our FSC mean F all ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 What will it take? Lose your job...suddenly find your savings being eaten? You really feel that secure? As ever, I dislike misinformation and generalisations. .................. but if we've appointed Pinewood and they've appointed one of the few specialists in movie production for small island nations, isn't that their choice? Where is the wrong doing? Do you know the names the other "specialists in movie production for small island nations." Do such people exist? And wouldn't you expect Pinewood to do their own due diligence and go for the "value for money" exercise? How do we know that Christian is in fact the right person/company? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Shoe Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 @slim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-dealing And no, I didn't just edit wikipedia to make it sound like the Christian. Examples include "work[ing] for government and us[ing] your official position to secure a contract for a private consulting company you own" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 And no, I didn't just edit wikipedia to make it sound like the Christian. You've made this leap of logic yourself. He's not employed by the government as far as I know. He's employed by Pinewood. The old arrangement wasn't ideal, it's been refined to legitamise it with the inclusion of pinewood and a change in the way the fund is owned and managed. That the same people are involved isn't a surprise, tis often the way with outsource/retstructures. That it's not tied to the individual in question is key, if Pinewood decide to appoint someone else, they can. I don't see in all the winging generalisations where the specific wrong doing is. Just lots of grumbles about how it looks a bit wrong by people who don't really know or understand the detail and the clearly biased like Newsnight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 okay, I'll ask for a third or even fourth time. Can someone, please, in simple terms, explain what the perceived conflict of interest is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 okay, I'll ask for a third or even fourth time. Can someone, please, in simple terms, explain what the perceived conflict of interest is? Read my effing post above. In simple terms the manager/advisor of the funds is the one who recommends which films should be invested into. Govt have to agree but I would guess it is a rubber stamp job. Virtually all those films have the manager/advisor heavily involved providing services. If the film is made they earn for providing services if they do not they earn nowt. That is where the conflict potentially is. Do you reject a proposal and earn nowt because you think it is not a great idea for a film or do you approve because you will earn from it. The potential conflict is whether there is a temptation to invest in a film you would otherwise reject because you will earn from that film being made. I have no problem with Pinewood, Gasworks, Christian being the manager/advisor of the fund but as such they should have no paid for involvement in the films being made. As I said, covering my own arse, I am sure that this has never arisen, but equally it should be the case that it was structured so that there was no potential for perceived conflict Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I think the conflict of interest is a nice smokescreen behind which to hide what a complete waste of time and money this has been/is? IMHO of course. Mr Christian would of course disagree! Couple more pay rises and he can be added to the "tax cappers" head count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsnight Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 S T A N D I N G C O M M I T T E E O F T Y N W A L D C O U R T O F F I C I A L R E P O R T R E C O R T Y S O I K O I L B I N G V E A Y N T I N V A A L P R O C E E D I N G S D A A L T Y N ECONOMIC POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD TREASURY HANSARD Douglas, Friday, 27th June 2014 PP2014/0106 EPRC-T, No. 1/13-14 Contents Procedural........................................................................................................................................ 3 EVIDENCE OF Mr S Christian, Pinewood and Hon. W E Teare, Minister for the Treasury............... 3 Hi Slim Could you let us know what you think of the evidence presented to the Committee do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Shoe Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 okay, I'll ask for a third or even fourth time. Can someone, please, in simple terms, explain what the perceived conflict of interest is? So, Christian gives professional advice from an official position that financially benefits himself? Does he think Gasworks (i.e. himself) are the best for the job? Can he be objective about this? He has not approached the government/Pinewood as a salesman, he's done his "selling" from the inside. As a director. From a position of "significant influence". This is the key: The advice. The influence. The financial gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Somebody said he isn't registered as an 'Adviser' so shouldn't be acting in that role Is that reasonable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) Anyone who can't see a conflict of interest is basically an idiot. I can't. I am an idiot. Please can you spell it out in really, really simple terms? The FSC issued a Practice Note in 2010 and there is other guidance they issue relative to conflicts of interest. "Conflict of Interest Directors must not put themselves in a position where there is a conflict (actual or potential) between their personal interests and their duties to the company or between their duty to the company and a duty owed to another person. If there is a conflict between an interest or duty of a director and an interest of the company in any transaction, the director must account to the company for any benefit he receives from the transaction. This applies whether or not the company sets aside the transaction" So if you are a director of a company and also profiting from a contract that the company has with an external client, and also if the external client is also a shareholder in the same company and you are additionally at the same time an advisor to the client of your company that is also a shareholder of your company then I would suggest there is more than one potential conflict of interest. Edited November 21, 2014 by oldmanxfella 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Could you let us know what you think of the evidence presented to the Committee do you think? No, I'd rather you answered my points. You seem to be really good at pasting reams of stuff you deem relevant, but not particularly good at interpreting it. LL: you've been pretty consistant in this thread talking about the arrangement as if it's some sort of regulated/licensed financial instrument. It isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Somebody said he isn't registered as an 'Adviser' so shouldn't be acting in that role Is that reasonable? No, I don't think so. Those regulations as far as I'm aware apply to financial advisor who may be receiving a commission from a regulated financial services company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsnight Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Sourced from Companies House UK. All files available to the public on demand and payment of fee. 15. Related Party Transactions Page 13 Accounts 2013/14 During the period, the Company signed a consultancy agreement for services related to the Isle of Man Investment Advisory Agreement with Gasworks Media Ltd, a company incorporated in the Isle of Man, whose sole shareholder, Steve Christian, is also a Director of the Company. The total value of the transactions during the period is £386,000 of which £105,000 remains outstanding for payment by the Company at 31 January 2014. The balance owing is unsecured, interest free and payable in cash on invoicing. Note 16. See also Rent Mortgage. Pinewood Film Advisors Annual Return 2013.pdf Pinewood Film Advisors accounts 2013, 04.pdf Pinewood Film Advisors Ltd Rent mortgage.pdf Pinewood Film Advisors Ltd Appointment J S Christian.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.