P.K. Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 47 minutes ago, woolley said: I just can't get my head around people still going on about the loss of a sum of money when we actually made many times that sum of money from our film activities over a couple of decades which now forms a nice chunk of the reserves that we sorely need. It's nuts. There must surely be a public interest argument for putting this to bed and ending the continual raking over of the ashes. How did you measure how much money was made...? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 1 minute ago, P.K. said: How did you measure how much money was made...? skelly and diane abbott got together ?? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 2 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said: What was reckless about it? There was a MDF that invested in media development. It lost 16m (before taking into account any indirect benefit outside the MDF). Which bit was reckless? It was outside Governments own rules about how investments are made on its behalf. It was run by a small pool of individuals all of who were as obstructive as possible when it came to any questions being asked in Tynwald. Forget the overall picture this investment lost a huge amount of other peoples money ! If thats not reckless I don't know what is ! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, woolley said: I just can't get my head around people still going on about the loss of a sum of money when we actually made many times that sum of money from our film activities over a couple of decades which now forms a nice chunk of the reserves that we sorely need. It's nuts. There must surely be a public interest argument for putting this to bed and ending the continual raking over of the ashes. Or is the whole thing a smoke screen to deflect attention from the numerous initiatives that actually have lost us shed loads of cash? Losing shed loads of cash is what we are good at ! Start here then rake over other ashes, we need people in public office who have respect for money which is not theirs ! Over the past twenty five years we have heard with sickening regularity the loss of millions of pounds of taxpayers money with many lessons having not been learned ! Edited September 30, 2019 by asitis 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 17 minutes ago, asitis said: Losing shed loads of cash is what we are good at ! Start here then rake over other ashes, we need people in public office who have respect for money which is not theirs ! Over the past twenty five years we have heard with sickening regularity the loss of millions of pounds of taxpayers money with many lessons having not been learned ! Yes. We are good at losing long millions but we didn't do so as a result of our activities in film taken in the round. Had we never done it we would be a great deal worse off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dog's Dangly Bits Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 1 hour ago, asitis said: Losing shed loads of cash is what we are good at ! Start here then rake over other ashes, we need people in public office who have respect for money which is not theirs ! Over the past twenty five years we have heard with sickening regularity the loss of millions of pounds of taxpayers money with many lessons having not been learned ! That's not exclusive to the island though right? Why dont you step up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 On 9/28/2019 at 5:15 PM, Non-Believer said: Depending on how you look at it, how it's calculated and the duration, some quoted Govt losses to the film industry dalliance are as high as £100M. Either way, the IoM has never had a place in film making history's annals. Anals maybe. If I recall from the numbers I crunched from the government accounts over the years the amounts written off totalled £126 million. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 24 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said: That's not exclusive to the island though right? Why dont you step up? Too old and far too open and honest ! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 15 hours ago, Andy Onchan said: If I recall from the numbers I crunched from the government accounts over the years the amounts written off totalled £126 million. If true that is incompentence on a massive scale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 My concern is the quiet ones to whom the cash went! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 19 hours ago, Andy Onchan said: If I recall from the numbers I crunched from the government accounts over the years the amounts written off totalled £126 million. More detailed figures on the direct film investment were given to Beecroft in a Keys question last year. This listed each film that had been invested in and what had been written off (tables never copy in well, so you'll have to use the link). The total written off at that time was £20,664,001 under CinemaNX and £6,190,000 under Pinewood, giving a total of £26,854,001. But at least[1] another £3.5 million was shown as outstanding and it's likely that there will be more write-off's concerning those, especially the more recent releases. So £30 million might be a good approximation, though there may be other losses elsewhere relating to earlier investment or other film related activities. One of the things that the defenders of film investment always claim in that the amount that you lose on the large number of duds is made up for by the enormous profits on the smaller number of winners. But of the 31 films listed here only two are shown as making a profit (another breaks even). And those profits are tiny. A 1% profit on the investment in Belle of £3.4 million and only £2,123 on an investment of £887,525 in Iron Man. Incidentally IMDB shows a gross of £585 million on this on a budget of £140 million, but if someone was rolling in money from it, it wasn't the Manx taxpayer. As I'v said before sometimes the most creative part of the film business is the accountancy. Of course on top of all this there's the question of additional costs for running these operations and so on and where the money for that and for dealing it at the IOMG end comes from. These may be spread over these figures, but are more likely separate. [1] Figures for one film weren't shown as it was in the process of being sold and so still commercially confidential. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 17 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: (tables never copy in well, so you'll have to use the link) You may find the Windows Snipping Tool useful for a concise post, but of course nothing beats the full link. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said: As I'v said before sometimes the most creative part of the film business is the accountancy. So how much did we make on that Roger? Does it not dwarf all other considerations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) On 10/1/2019 at 4:32 PM, woolley said: So how much did we make on that Roger? Does it not dwarf all other considerations? Well if by "" Dwarf'' , you mean smaller then .............. Edited October 2, 2019 by Kopek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 It means the exact opposite tbf 1 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.