Amadeus Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 well have to say it certainly stinks and im sure it will be another where things will be swept under the carpet again WilDDog your closeing comment - is this some brewery scandal thats going to be the next thing to come to light???? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yep, they now put happy pills in our beer, so we forget all about it and sing "Always look on the bride side" all day instead Regarding MEA: Wouldn't it be possible to sell the whole company to one of the providers in the UK (I heard they have real managements over there)? This way, the debt could be paid off and the whole thing could be run, well, a bit more professionally... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 But --- If the cable is owned by a PLC then that company can and should be made bankrupt. At that point the government should nationalise it as a vital resource. Also – who owns the Power Station? And the Electricity infrastructure on the Island? Again, is it a ‘plc’? With a strategic utility in such a dreadful financial state as well as the horrendous situation where there is such massive and totally unjustifiable debt that can only be paid by the customers of that industry, there is no excuse for the government of the Island not rescuing – and that is not too strong a word – the people of the Island from the calamitous price rises they face on an already terribly over priced vital resource. Even the suggestion to have the ‘Cable’ sold to a third party doesn’t bring benefit as the buyer will want to recover the debt that he takes on and there is only one place that the money can come from – the customers. It looks to me that for whatever reason ranging from gross incompetence at the DTI to scurrilous business practice by groups or individuals involved, that the end result is the whole Island – by which I mean the electricity consumers as well as the electorate , in fact one and the same, - have been successfully conned. Under such circumstances draconian action is required and it is only the government that has the power to do what is needed though I honestly doubt if any of them have the vision let alone the cajones to do what is required. The effect of bankruptcy followed by nationalisation would be that many shareholders would loose a fortune but that is the nature of business. The same shareholders will make money otherwise, money that can only come from the people on the Island. No doubt the shareholders would squeal like stuck pigs which is hardly surprising as pigs having their noses in the feed trough that they have and are using the Island and its people for is precisely what they are. Even if the government provides subsidies that will be a faux act as the only money the government has is tax payers money and so it still ends up with the people of the island getting ripped off. To my mind this unique situation really does need a unique response and that response is for the government to actually do something for the benefit of the Island as a whole and not a favoured few (unique in itself) and declare the whole dam mess bankrupt and nationalise. The result? Natural justice and a far better deal for everyone who uses electricity on the Island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayhem Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 To the best of my knowledge the MEA is a wholly owned statutory board with only one shareholder - the IOM Government. To my mind they are as responsible as the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 To the best of my knowledge the MEA is a wholly owned statutory board with only one shareholder - the IOM Government. To my mind they are as responsible as the board. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If that is the case then there should be resignations from the government as well starting with Downie. His incompetence is simply staggering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyconcrete Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 It seems incompetence is rife within the government of late. What astounds me is no one person seems to take the buck. Listening to the article on Manx Radio makes it even more farcical - to quote Progression of legal action may also impact on the Island's international reputation and have possible economic implications. The continuation of any legal action in this matter may therefore may not be in the best interests of the Isle of Man. ... The situation is far worse than what was originally envisaged. In otherwords, it's going to cause a fuss and cost money so lets not bother. I can understand the financial aspect of legal action, but they should at least identify 'who' and 'what' flumped the MEA. They should also highlight who in government should have been responsible for overseeing their financial situation. Sadly I can see the usual "We have identified several weaknesses in certain departments blah blah" . This may be very reminiscent of Mt Murray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 It seems to me that it has all gone wrong since the CEO, Mike Proffitt, left at the end of his term of contract in January. Maybe we should ask him back to help sort it out. You know, like one of those trouble shooter types on the telly. And given that he was also on the board at Barclays - he'd surely be the ideal person to argue for the debt to be written off. Who better than someone who was working for both companies? Someone at Barclays must have known that the loan was a bit iffy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Donald Gelling said in Tynwald that the loans were illegal and that crimnal proceedings should take place but they are not going to happen as in would not be in the best interest of the IOM and would only produce more bad publicity. If its a crime it should go to COURT, on saying that they wont take legal action is an admission that Goverment do have cover ups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 http://www.iomonline.co.im/ViewArticle2.as...rticleID=907962 LOAN ROW MEA 'NOT GAGGED' – CHIEF MINISTERA GAGGING order was not slapped on the Manx Electricity Authority, which is at the centre of an unauthorised loan scandal, Chief Minister Donald Gelling has insisted. The MEA has remained silent throughout the month-long £120 million loan row and faces criticism for not speaking out. The row has sparked an independent probe which the taxpayer will foot the £100,000 bill for. The beleaguered authority has finally issued a statement, but the four paragraph release has done little to stop critics. It claimed the long silence since the shock news of the loan broke was 'at the specific request of the Council of Ministers'. But Mr Gelling said there has been no demand for silence from the MEA and, although ministers recommended speaking out now would not help the situation, the authority is free to make any statement it chooses. It was revealed in mid-November that Treasury had identified borrowings of up to £120 million in the MEA's draft accounts. A loan facility was discovered and Treasury bosses informed early last month. It was claimed the Treasury had not been asked, nor given permission for the borrowing. By law loans taken by the MEA, a government statutory board, must receive Treasury concurrence. Since then further details have been released. It has been confirmed two loans, worth £50 million and £70 million, were agreed between the Manx Cable Company, a subsidiary of the MEA, and Barclays Bank. It is believed £110 million of the facility has been taken. The money, in addition to a Tynwald-approved £185 million bond, has been spent on infrastructure renewal. The Treasury had stated MEA chief executive Mike Proffitt, who is stepping down next month, had played no part in loan negotiations because of his role as chairman of Barclays Private Clients. There was shock and anger in Tynwald last week when, as the issue was discussed, the Treasury released papers which showed Mr Proffitt had signed the loan agreement reached with Barclays Capital. Copies of the agreement were issued to all members and showed Mr Proffitt had signed it 'accepted and agreed' on behalf of the MEA. There have been repeated efforts by the media to contact Mr Proffitt. He had been off-Island, but the Examiner has made several calls to his office in the past two weeks. The newspaper was told he may be available to speak on Thursday or Friday last week, but on Thursday evening the short statement was released instead. It said there had been 'considerable discussion and speculation concerning the financial affairs of the MEA' and no comment had been made during that time 'at the specific request of the Council of Ministers', but at a media briefing on Friday Mr Gelling told a different story. 'They asked for advice from council, before I was involved, and council thought at that time it was not the right time for a statement or presentation because it would create a them and us situation and sides would be taken,' he said. 'They were not gagged. CoMin would have difficulty in gagging them. They asked a question and CoMin said they thought it was not the right time because more information was needed for members to be able to ask questions. 'No directive was issued.' Tynwald voted to commit £100,000 in taxpayers' money to a probe into the MEA's finances. A report is expected back at the February sitting. The debate was the first opportunity for members to speak out and many criticised the MEA board for its silence. Others praised Treasury Minister Allan Bell, Peter Karran (Onchan) describing his handling of the situation as 'exemplary', although Brenda Cannell (APG, Douglas East) alleged Mr Bell knew about the loans much earlier than he has admitted. Mr Bell dismissed any claim he had misled members. The MEA statement welcomed the probe, saying it would 'correct any misunderstandings which have prevailed during our silence'. It added: 'We are confident that the investment made will allow the MEA to continue to provide a safe, secure and economic supply of electricity well into the future.' Mr Gelling said the probe would be thorough and swift and help explain what happened and start to rebuild public confidence. 20 December 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Donald Gelling said in Tynwald that the loans were illegal and that crimnal proceedings should take place but they are not going to happen as in would not be in the best interest of the IOM and would only produce more bad publicity. If its a crime it should go to COURT, on saying that they wont take legal action is an admission that Goverment do have cover ups. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agreed. It is surely in no one's interest to allow the government to simply grant immunity with an imperious wave of the hand because it might damage the reputation of the island. Allowing wrongdoers to evade justice, I'd suggest, would be far more damaging. However, I would hate to be regarded as a 'proffitt of doom.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Joint venture <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Still be interesting to see the nature of the charge though especially as it has been registered for so long. Anyone working in the FSC on here...damn too late for that one <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Take a look in the accounts <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The accounts wont detail the nature of the charge just that there is an encumbrance. The charge itself will detail the nature of the debt and the parties involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glug Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 So who's going to represent the MEA here and here now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Donald Gelling said in Tynwald that the loans were illegal and that crimnal proceedings should take place but they are not going to happen as in would not be in the best interest of the IOM and would only produce more bad publicity. So this will be in Hansard? What does he imagine will happen if the UK press get hold of it when it's there in black and white? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Agreed. It is surely in no one's interest to allow the government to simply grant immunity with an imperious wave of the hand because it might damage the reputation of the island. Allowing wrongdoers to evade justice, I'd suggest, would be far more damaging. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> “Damage the reputation of the Island” “Damage the reputation of the Island ?” Is the man senile? Is he on drugs? The reputation of the Island STINKS. Not a nice though but a genuine fact. get used to it. Far from damaging the reputation of the Island a Hue and Cry following this latest debacle would actually do the reputation of the Island some GOOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 MEA 200 annual reports Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 So who's going to represent the MEA here and here now? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Docker will go on this freebee, he aint had one since Athens in March Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.