Shimmins' comments an 'insult to residents of the Isle of Man'

[Roger Mexico]

10 minutes ago, Cheesy Wheezy said:

He’s only here as an agent of chaos to get the forum wound up and people arguing with each other. Not to debate or factually answer questions. You will find that all views but his own are nonsense. 

Well maybe.  But of course I'm not just writing my comments for the person I'm replying to.

[Donald Trumps]

We know Roger, you do it for yourself

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

52 minutes ago, Cheesy Wheezy said:

He’s only here as an agent of chaos to get the forum wound up and people arguing with each other. Not to debate or factually answer questions. You will find that all views but his own are nonsense. 

Number one here already.  Sits back and waits for usual helmuts

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

You're not really answering my points.  The VAT regime could be used by a number of industries (and was) just how much of the benefits could be attributed to the film industry is unproven - it may be that the very fact it was so visible means that we are overestimating its contribution, money moving around in less high profile sectors may have been more significant.  And indeed it's possible that the high profile of the film industry may have been as responsible for the re-examination of the VAT arrangements as any Mansion House dinner.  After all there were various film scams going on in the UK as well that brought a lot of attention to the financial set-ups around the industry.

But none of this addresses the actual topic of this inquiry which relates to the Media Development Fund, which came after the end of the great VAT bonanza.  Even if the film sector had been responsible for all the extra revenue from that, to decide to put more money in after things had changed would be like pumping all your money into a slot machine because you had won the jackpot on it.  You point out that most films lose loads of money or succeed spectacularly[1], in that case don't invest in them unless you really know what you are doing and can afford to lose the money.  Public servants tend to lack such skills and public money isn't really for gambling with.

And you're doing the usual Manx thing of deciding whether someone is a hero (Christian) or villain (Beecroft) and letting that skew what you think about anything they are involved in.  Their actions are opinions are what needs to be examined. 

 

[1]  In actual fact this has never really been quite as people think and the growth of different sorts of media made it even less so.  But it's true that financial involvement in films has always been a risky business in an industry where often the largest creative input goes into the accountancy.

But I dont think anyone is denying the MDF lost about £16m in the end.  And that it backed a number of projects that didn't work out.

That's clear as day.  All I'm saying is that this perception the islands involvement in film and media lost us a sack load of cash isn't necessarily true when all is taken into consideration.

 

[WTF]

2 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

He wasn't though was he?  We were.  He did well out of it.  Having said that it isn't a crime to be smart.  Which he definitely was.  But without him WE would have been a LOT worse off.  

without him and some fuck with a big gob the vat may not have been adjusted.

[Donald Trumps]

Thank goodness it wasn't our money

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

But I dont think anyone is denying the MDF lost about £16m in the end.  And that it backed a number of projects that didn't work out.

That's clear as day.  All I'm saying is that this perception the islands involvement in film and media lost us a sack load of cash isn't necessarily true when all is taken into consideration.

Actually the loss was £26.8 million, which is why it is worth investigating.  And even if the Island did make a lot of money in one way from a particular area at one time (and as I said just how much is uncertain) throwing money into that area in a different way and expecting the result to be duplicated is bonkers.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

I thought there was an investment into Pinewood that yielded a 10m profit?

[thesultanofsheight]

12 hours ago, Grounds Keeper Willy said:

It’s clear from what I’ve heard and discussed with people who were around at the time that even after the VAT bubble had burst some lower down really felt that the industry had substance when those pulling the strings knew it hadn’t. So they had to keep up the pretense for a while that despite the obvious clues that it was pretty much a VAT scam they really were movers and shakers in the film industry - so they invested into a portfolio of films pretending it was all hunky dory and then surprise surprise without the VAT benefits they just lost a load of cash. Because without the VAT benefits it’s just a lottery on what pays out and what doesn’t. 

Pretty much and then someone let them in on the Pinewood share deal to try to offset some of those loses as they shouldn’t have been investing after the VAT changes but I’m sure it helped to try to maintain the illusion that the industry wasn't all about VAT grab when clearly it was. It never really had any substance. Most of the films were crap anyway. 

[woolley]

15 hours ago, asitis said:

Allegedly !   remind me again how much VAT we lost ?

I have said many times as this saga unfolded that however good or bad this "investment" was, no one has ever answered a straight question about it when anything has been asked. That alone should be jumped on at the outset of this enquiry and the smoke and mirrors obfuscation not permitted, I hope the chair is up to the job ! If not get someone in who is !

What do you expect it to conclude? "Yes. We lost £26m on the investment but we made multiple times that through the application of the prevailing VAT regime of the time.' Is this what we want to see? What would it achieve? Yes. The VAT regime was overgenerous and it was amended, but recognise that we put a lot of money into reserves over many years that we now badly need instead of continuously bleating on about a loss of loose change in another column of the balance sheet. 

 

[WTF]

12 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

I thought there was an investment into Pinewood that yielded a 10m profit?

if you give someone 50 million and they give you 10 million back you call it a profit,  but then you forget about the 50 million.

[Holte End]

To me it is like having your pocket picked while on holiday aboard, then going back to the same spot ten years

later to see if you can find who picked your pocket and if you can get your money back.

Only to have your lugguage stolen while you where too busy looking for a ten year old wallet, that been empty for ten years.

Tynwald continues with its magic tricks, the art of misdirection.

 

[woolley]

1 hour ago, WTF said:

if you give someone 50 million and they give you 10 million back you call it a profit,  but then you forget about the 50 million.

Well that's halfway there. All we need to do from that point is to also remember the rest of the money we made from involvement in film; bed nights, employment, expenses on Island and VAT that now sits in reserves. 

[asitis]

2 hours ago, woolley said:

What do you expect it to conclude? "Yes. We lost £26m on the investment but we made multiple times that through the application of the prevailing VAT regime of the time.' Is this what we want to see? What would it achieve? Yes. The VAT regime was overgenerous and it was amended, but recognise that we put a lot of money into reserves over many years that we now badly need instead of continuously bleating on about a loss of loose change in another column of the balance sheet. 

 

What I would like to see is some honest answers to some straightforward questions about the whole thing ! Never has there been so much avoidance to scrutiny in Tynwald as this investment was subject to. It may have been a profit I don't know but politically it has been a disaster in my view as it set a dangerous precedent for members of Government avoiding scrutiny !

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

2 hours ago, WTF said:

if you give someone 50 million and they give you 10 million back you call it a profit,  but then you forget about the 50 million.

Not at all. I was under the impression the MDF made that investment?  In which case you cant conveniently ignore anything that made a profit and just focus on everything that lost money.  The net position  of the MDF was a 16m loss.

In the wider picture, as Woolley points out, the involvement in that sector netted the coffers plenty more than 16m quid.

Of course there will always be the traditional manx witch hunt where some parties will be jealous people made some money out of it.  But what's new there?