Lost Login Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Slim is right that Partnering with Pinewood is more likely to bring benefits. Between 2003 and 2010 only 7% of British Films made a profit. The bigger the budget the better the chance so for films below £5million the chance was less than 4.5%. For those over £10Million it was up to 17.4% which is roughly 5 out of still making a loss. The odds therefore remain poor but better than for smaller films although yield would be also interesting. If you are making a 5 fold profit in the cases where you get a profit the odds may still appear good. If most though are only a return may be not. I also hope that better prospects might get put before them. It often seemed that the IoM was left picking up the pieces nobody else wanted, anything decent already having been picked up by bigger players. Look at the number of films "made in the IoM" which were made by first time film makers, directors etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Slim. Why is it relevant if the advisor works for the Government. It is not. The advisor is retained on a fee to provide advise. That advise is presumably meant to be provided on an independent and impartial basis. How many times can you miss spell advice and still pretend you know what it means? Advice is almost never completely impartial, which is why interests are usually disclosed in such arrangements. I'm not going to respond to you any more, you're just posting the same things over and over again, making assumptions where you don't know the fats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Shoe Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Partnered with Peel? A good thing? Whittaker is a sharp, successful business man. Used to getting his own way. Eddie Teare is an uneducated prat with £400 million of other people's money to hand and noone to answer to. That £37 million (or whatever is left) would be better in the bank until we have a semi numerate person as CM. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Still smells crooked, whatever spin is put on it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) Slim. Why is it relevant if the advisor works for the Government. It is not. The advisor is retained on a fee to provide advise. That advise is presumably meant to be provided on an independent and impartial basis. How many times can you miss spell advice and still pretend you know what it means? Advice is almost never completely impartial, which is why interests are usually disclosed in such arrangements. I'm not going to respond to you any more, you're just posting the same things over and over again, making assumptions where you don't know the fats. Always good to spell and sense check your own posts before criticising others .............. Fats ? Edited November 23, 2014 by asitis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 @asitis Before anyone else gets in, Whoosh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Slim. Why is it relevant if the advisor works for the Government. It is not. The advisor is retained on a fee to provide advise. That advise is presumably meant to be provided on an independent and impartial basis. How many times can you miss spell advice and still pretend you know what it means? Advice is almost never completely impartial, which is why interests are usually disclosed in such arrangements. I'm not going to respond to you any more, you're just posting the same things over and over again, making assumptions where you don't know the fats. I will admit that my spelling, grammar and punctuation are poor, but that does not alter the accuracy of what I have posted. Fundamentally a party who is meant to be giving independent impartial giving advice should not have a financial interest in the matter that they are advising on. That should be a given. You seem to believe that it is OK if they disclose or the party they are advising has final sign off. Those are both ways of managing and disclosing the potential conflict they do not stop there being a potential of conflict of interest in the first place. Please note I have been very careful to only refer to there being a potential conflict of interest, not that it has not been recognised or that the conflict has not been adequately managed and controlled. I don't have the knowledge on that point and I do not want to open myself up to any action from the parties. Finally, and this will be my last post on the subject, as I said you state that it is fine provided that the matter is disclosed or another party has final sign off. The fact that you believe one or both of these is required appears to me a direct acknowledgement that you accept there is a potential conflict with regard to the giving of the advice. If there was no potential conflict why would you believe there is a requirement to make a disclosure, or for another party to have the sign off. If there was no potential conflict these measures would not be required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bees Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 LL, your spelling and grammar are not poor. Your posts don't make the eyes bleed like some others do they are (mostly) agreeable and comprehensible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Slim. Why is it relevant if the advisor works for the Government. It is not. The advisor is retained on a fee to provide advise. That advise is presumably meant to be provided on an independent and impartial basis. How many times can you miss spell advice and still pretend you know what it means? Advice is almost never completely impartial, which is why interests are usually disclosed in such arrangements. I'm not going to respond to you any more, you're just posting the same things over and over again, making assumptions where you don't know the fats. I will admit that my spelling, grammar and punctuation are poor, but that does not alter the accuracy of what I have posted. Fundamentally a party who is meant to be giving independent impartial giving advice should not have a financial interest in the matter that they are advising on. That should be a given. You seem to believe that it is OK if they disclose or the party they are advising has final sign off. Those are both ways of managing and disclosing the potential conflict they do not stop there being a potential of conflict of interest in the first place. Please note I have been very careful to only refer to there being a potential conflict of interest, not that it has not been recognised or that the conflict has not been adequately managed and controlled. I don't have the knowledge on that point and I do not want to open myself up to any action from the parties. Finally, and this will be my last post on the subject, as I said you state that it is fine provided that the matter is disclosed or another party has final sign off. The fact that you believe one or both of these is required appears to me a direct acknowledgement that you accept there is a potential conflict with regard to the giving of the advice. If there was no potential conflict why would you believe there is a requirement to make a disclosure, or for another party to have the sign off. If there was no potential conflict these measures would not be required. all of which assumes the parties aren't colluding in the first place?? coming out with everybody involved knew what was going on doesn't make it right or proper though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 LL, your spelling and grammar are not poor. Your posts don't make the eyes bleed like some others do they are (mostly) agreeable and comprehensible. Thanks, but spell checkers etc can hide a lot of deficiencies, although when writing on a forum as can be seen I do not always use. If I write important documents for work I have others read over although my PA generally sorts as she goes along. As a kid I really struggled learning to read and write and at nine I had to move to a specialist school to address the issue. Other subjects were fine and with regard to maths I was basically top of the class and fond it a doddle. It is why I have sympathy for my kids when they struggle with school work as for some it seems we have a natural inclination to find some subjects easier than others. Languages where definitely my nadir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsnight Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Loar Login I sincerely hope that you will change your mind and continue to post on this topic, while you may say that your spelling is in someway deficient your ability to follow complex information presented to you and then demonstrate reasoning are absolutely functional and adequate. You do not stomp around these threads wearing oversized lead boots, nor do you play the contrarian to the last dregs with tiresome predictability and thereby prove to all that they are reading the declarations of someone, put at its kindest, being a fool. We have not agreed on all topics, nor will or should we do so, but your contributions are read with interest, because they are interesting . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsnight Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 The R and the T being next to each other on the keyboard it is easy to make a slip. Lost Login. To err is human. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 @asitis Before anyone else gets in, Whoosh! LOL, only because I would prefer that we all stick to keeping an eye on those who would spend our money with impunity, and tax us to take a dump ! than grammatical lessons !! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I wouldn't worry about anything. It was a pretty cowardly thing Slim did considering you had him on the ropes for pages over his apparent inability to grasp what is to most people a clear potential conflict of interest. As Alibaba pointed out he was doing that thing he always does when he refuses to accept he's wrong and he should have stopped doing it pages ago. On the ropes my ass. It's typical manx forums to just leap to conclusions based on minimal information. LL insists that the government were appointing Cinemanx for independant financial advice as fund managers. This simply isn't the case based on the information we have, this is just his expectation that he's using to form his opinion, and he's repeating that over and over. The Pink Book said at the time: (the fund) "be placed with external managers [i.e., CinemaNX Limited] to invest in film production, subject to Treasury approval over individual investments. This will allow a wider range of projects to be considered. Treasury will retain its position in recouping its return on each investment and share in the profits of the investment management company as well as being able to rely on a wider range of experienced professionals in providing advice over suitable investments." " Note "Share in the profits of the management company" - the intention was to invest into own projects along with other investors, this isn't independant advice, it's basically a vehicle for getting investments into their own proposals. There's no suggestion that this advice is independent or impartial. More.. "It was expected that CinemaNX Limited would secure other investors so that there would be a syndicate of investors in each film thereby sharing the investment risk. " So in response to LL's last post, of course there's interests disclosed, that's the whole point of the thing to share in the investments that Cinemanx are putting together. As for me defending the industry; that's simply not true. I've said repeatedly that we'd be better off investing in a sustainable media industry such as digital rather than chasing hollywood. I'm not going to stop countering bollocks though; making stuff up and rabble rousing based on bollocks interpretation of public records and dressing it up as some sort of investigative journalism heroics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) @asitis Sounds terribly boring...ETA: And rife with the possibility of the "keeping an eye" being in error, as slim has just clarified with style. Edited November 23, 2014 by Bobbie Bobster 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.