asitis Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 1 minute ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said: 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? I don't give a toss who made money good luck to them, what I do think is worthy of attention is Governments ability to use lots of taxpayers money as an "investor" but then avoid in an obvious manner any questions about it ! Thats the real crux of the matter imo. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dog's Dangly Bits Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 What is really being avoided though? Governments make investment into things all the time. That's the job of government. Many of those things lose money but in the bigger picture perhaps serve a purpose in the economy. Look at HS2 in the UK. That wont ever repay the investment in terms of contracts rail companies will pay to operate it. Nowhere near. The biggest mistake of the MDF was Orson Wells. That was poor. Not sure a witch hunt about it will resolve much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 IOM Government had a series of professionals engaged to provide investment opportunities, and I understand have rules governing how investments are made and selected . The difference here is this investment was generated internally by a small number of people having input, and from previous discussions it seems to be not within the normal rules of investments. Taxpayers are entitled to know who did what with their money, the VAT issue aside, and questions should be answered about rules being circumvented in respect of investment, and if lessons are to be learned (again) then they should be learned in the light of day. I don't think answering serious questions about other peoples money should be dismissed as a witch hunt! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 '''' ...and VAT that now sits in reserves. ...'''' What reserves? We depleted them to pay for debacle! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Duck of Atholl Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 On 9/28/2019 at 5:35 PM, Donald Trumps said: I can't help - in my mind's eye - associating the dreadful Fast Eddie with this disaster Hope I'm not doing the man down I'm sure I remember a few years back that Eddie announcing we'd made a killing out of the industry. Does anyone else remember that? If so maybe he should be explaining himself 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 3 minutes ago, The Duck of Atholl said: I'm sure I remember a few years back that Eddie announcing we'd made a killing out of the industry. Does anyone else remember that? If so maybe he should be explaining himself .... and if I recall correctly the "this isn't actually taxpayers money" or something similar! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 It may be less about the actual sums of money and more about the fashion in which things were undertaken and the manner in which Tynwald and the public were treated? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 4 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: It may be less about the actual sums of money and more about the fashion in which things were undertaken and the manner in which Tynwald and the public were treated? In which case it’s all very stable door. The two parliamentary protagonists are gone...Bell and Teare...and the ‘expert witness’ is dead. I’d much rather an investigation into how much was lost during Beecroft’s catastrophic tenure at Health. (Notwithstanding that she had the misfortune to follow Quayle). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 2 hours ago, Kopek said: '''' ...and VAT that now sits in reserves. ...'''' What reserves? We depleted them to pay for debacle! No we didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 2 hours ago, asitis said: .... and if I recall correctly the "this isn't actually taxpayers money" or something similar! I am not a mind reader but it would seem a reasonable assumption that this alludes to the reinvestment of past income. So yes, it belongs to taxpayers but it didn't come from taxpayers directly. It came from our past participation in film. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 25 minutes ago, woolley said: I am not a mind reader but it would seem a reasonable assumption that this alludes to the reinvestment of past income. So yes, it belongs to taxpayers but it didn't come from taxpayers directly. It came from our past participation in film. Didn't you play Sir Humphrey in Yes PM ?! LOL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 16 hours ago, asitis said: Didn't you play Sir Humphrey in Yes PM ?! LOL Very good. But presumably you can see the point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 1 hour ago, woolley said: Very good. But presumably you can see the point? Yes of course I can, my objections are based around the inability of anyone at the time to answer a straight question, and to shrug off the loss of long millions as being ok, because we made it elsewhere, is incorrect, it certainly doesn't address any of the ongoing problems of reckless Government spending which the island is still suffering from ! 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 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 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? 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.