|
Thanks for the link Smiler.
It seems on first reading that there isn't anything truly horrific in there but other will doubtless interrogate them to granular level. The obvious issues to me seem to be: 1. The surplus of cash carried forwards in two succesive years. How does this tie in with their plees and lack of funds? 2. The trading subsidiary trading at a loss with support costs of £100k plus including depreciation of some £60k. What the heck do they have that is depreciating at a faster rate than they actually get cash in? 3. Dr P paid almost £130,000 in fees and expenses. £91,760 in expenses???? 4. Spending £300k on marketing and fundraising and bringing in less money than when they only spent £111k 5. Effectively mortaging surpluses (potentially forever) until they repay debts. |
No crticism implied, but how is the salary total of £735012 for the 23 employees in 2007 arrived at ?
|
The average number of staff employed by the company during the year ended 31 July 2007 was 23 (2006:23). No employee earned over £60,000 during the year. ..................... |
Beags - I read that also, and it pans out at an average of around £32K per employee; but it doesn't answer my query.
|
http://static.pprune.org/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 12th December 2008, 16:57 #1920 (permalink) Tim McLelland
As I said previously, I'd love to highlight some of the things I know about but I can't, But surly you can give us figures without fingering the people who told you? in fairness to the people who told me. But it is true that that expenses are handled very badly and it's clear (when you see how some of the money is actually being spent) that some people are taking ridiculous amounts of money out of the project, Again give us figures? considering that it is supposed to be a charity. There are other factors too - the hangar fees are another matter which, when explained fully, shows that an awful lot of money could have been saved in that respect, How could this be altered surely Mr Walton deserves a fair return on his Hangar... last I heard was it was £15,000 per month and having once worked for his company I know he could have commanded 3-4 times that amount for storage alone.. had the people running the project not been so unprofessional. Doubtless it will all come out in the proverbial wash one day but I've certainly been appaled by the way that things have been handled. But one has to work on the basis that they did at least get the aircraft into the air despite everything. The frustrating aspect is that you can't help thinking that other people might have been able to do it rather sooner and more cheaply, Who for instance? Finally Tim can you tell me which books you have written as I would be interested in seeing if I have any of them in my libraray?. |
It's all way too complicated to explain at length even if I had the will to do so, but as I've said, in fairness to the people concerned, I'm not going to do that. But just to highlight one of the points you raised, the hangar business was a prime example. The Waltons would have allowed the aircraft to be hangared for free even though they could make a huge sum of money using the whole hangar for storage. It was the dear Felicity (who thankfully has now gone) that effectively p*ssed-off the Waltons because of things she said and did, until they (understandably) decided to charge for the Vulcan's hangar space. This was just one of the sagas which could have been handled professionally, and would have saved a fortune.
I had to laugh reading the accounts:- No employee earned over £60,000 during the year. Phew, that's alright then! It would be funny if it wasn't so disgraceful. So much for being devoted to the aim of getting the Vulcan back into the air. Looking at those figures it looks more like one big gravy train... I had to laugh at comments made by some people on a thread on another site, saying that it was obviously worth Pleming getting paid 60k. Have you ever heard such rubbish? Sorry, but that kind of figure doesn't indicate someone who has the Vulcan's interests at heart. Nobody has enough ability and talent to warrant that kind of money, especially when it's supposed to be a "give every penny" drive to get the aircraft flying. Besides, what precisely, are his talents that are so valuable? Not communicating with people? talking a load of claptrap when he's on TV? Come on, this is just ridiculous. |
Fair enough, Tim.
By the way, I find the comment on w w w. thunder - and - lightnings .co .uk / vulcan / references . html* about your Vulcan book rather terse and unpleasant. Bloody rude, in fact: Recent revelations mean we can no longer advise purchase of this volume. And if the Vulcan-to-the-sky organisation wants an ex-Vulcan pilot who will fly for 0.01p per hour, they need only call me! Nonetheless, I'm still contributing to the call for funding. *the stupid PPRuNe nanny didn't like the real URL, so delete the gaps to access the site. |
Having a difference of opinion is one thing but some of this stuff is getting very personal and bang out of order. Whatever people's views are there is no need to slag each other off at such length in a personal tone.
Trying to discredit Tim's book or anyone else's efforts is poor craik. I don't agree with paying the various individuals the sums they get just as I didn't cry at the back of the "bond girl" from the project but I don't think they are crooked, dishonest or manifestly uncommitted. I hope that those "getting stuck in" don't represent the "insider" or tainted views......... |
And if the Vulcan-to-the-sky organisation wants an ex-Vulcan pilot who will fly for 0.01p per hour, they need only call me! That people were getting pretty decent wages (but not more than £60,000!) is hard to stomach when funding is so tight does sound a bit like a gravy train to quote a previous poster. regards SHJ |
Not to mention the aforesaid gravy train ran at a surplus for two years !
|
Actually, the silly comments about my book/s on the T&L site are nothing to do with the Vulcan saga - it's just that the guy who runs that website is a bit wierd. Unfortunately, publishers and authors have to deal with that kind of stuff all time time these days, now that any random plane spotter can set himself up on the internet as an "authority". As a rule we don't step-in unless any comments are made which are defamatory or grossly inaccurate, chiefly because it's not worth the effort.
As for TVOC, I don't doubt for a minute that there are some very dedicated individuals in the team who have done an awful lot of hard work and they deserve our admiration and respect for a job well done - even if the outcome has been frustrating. But my view (which I've held for a long time) is that there are other people in the team that are there either to boost their ego, or to make a few bob, whilst doing nothing that other people couldn't do much less expensively. I've seen absolutely nothing over the past couple of years to convince me otherwise. |
I agree entirely with Tim's second paragraph.
I donated some cash to the project and was glad when it flew, but it will never happen again. Too many freeloaders lining their pockets. I'd be amazed if it flew again:= |
I see that tvoc's web site has the usual pass the hat messages including this little nugget I am sure others spotted:
I recognize that there is a hunger for news and information about XH558 and our plans, and that we don’t always seem as open as some people think we should be. The truth is that we are only a small team, and it has at times been the priority to focus on doing the job, rather than telling people about what we are doing. We will try better in future – if we are around! Anyway, to all those who worked there getting her airborne in 08 thank you. Not optomistic about 09 unless we see "regime change". Happy New Year. |
It's absolute rubbish isn't it? You can't expect to be paid huge amounts of money (and let's be straight about this, Pleming's income has been huge by any standards) and then whine about being a "small team" who are unable to be as open as some people would like. What a joke - "focus on doing the job" - my God, he must be incredibly busy. I wonder precisely what he does all day to justify that amount of money?
Sorry, but I've lost all support for TVOC. Yes, they got the aircraft back into the air but frankly I get the distinct impression that their "smoke and mirrors" approach simply disguises the fact that other people could have achieved the task more rapidly and much less expensively. I don't accept that Pleming has done anything to justify the astonishing amount of money he's milked out of well-meaning donors and the very fact that he's patently unwilling to explain his position simply serves to justify my disillusionment with the whole saga. I'm just sorry that XH558 is the ultimate victim of the saga. However, as I've said before, I can't help feeling similarly disgusted that the aviation press has sat-back and done nothing. What a bunch of toothless wimps. They've spewed-out the TVOC press releases and churned-out the endless photographs but has anybody stopped to ask TVOC some serious questions about the way they've handled the project? Nope, not a word. So much for journalism... |
The one thing that bugs me about this thread is the amount of posters who claim to know things regarding this that and the next thing yet wont actually reveal what they know, now im well aware of keeping confidences etc but surely if your not gonna tell then dont tell us youknow stuff. It makes you look a pillock and smacks of self serving ego massage.
Oh and Tim, let it go i have no idea why you have such an issue with the project but keep going and your going to give yourself an ulcer. These constant allegations without eveidence are doing your credability no good at all. |
Engineering Update
|
It's absolute rubbish isn't it? You can't expect to be paid huge amounts of money (and let's be straight about this, Pleming's income has been huge by any standards) and then whine about being a "small team" who are unable to be as open as some people would like. What a joke - "focus on doing the job" - my God, he must be incredibly busy. I wonder precisely what he does all day to justify that amount of money? Please do so or forever hold thy peace..... |
I don't want to get embroiled in suggesting what people have / have not taken but the recently published accounts show a very sizeable chunk of money being paid to Dr Pleming and his company in fees, salaries and expenses (£130,000 of which £91,760 in expenses, must be a lot of receipts).
They operated at a cash surplus for two years whilst writing off a vast sum against expenses / depreciation on the trading subsidiary which isn't explained so can't say whether its fair or reasonable or not. There are clearly lots of things that are well within what you'd expect in any company which is absolutely fine, however, a few stand out as needing an explanation. |
Just out of interest Tim but is any of the money yours? You are very vocal on where the money has been spent, im assuming then that you have contributed a fair bit then. At the end of the day the money has come from public donations and it isnt anyones right to dictate how people spend thier money is it, if people aint happy then they wont donate!
Is it any wonder there is'nt any representaion from V.T.T.S. on here? Spent an hour or so reading back over this thread and some of the utter garbage on here is beyond belief! And how some of the so called experts make a living from aviation is beyond me, i sincerely hope somebody could explain to me how they do it! |
As Andrew says there's nothing to reveal, the figures are available for everybody to see. We've had this conversation already. My point is that - based on their published figures - Pleming (and possibly others) have been paid a huge amount of cash, and yet they seem incapable (or unwilling) to offer even a vague explanation as to why they should be entitled to anything like that amount. I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that being paid such a huge sum of money is absolutely disgraceful, given the fact that so much money has come from individuals who wanted to help get the Vulcan back into the air.
Had the prospective donors been told that so much of it was going to go into Pleming's pocket, I suspect their donations might have been considerably smaller. People gave money (often money that they could ill afford) to this project on the assumption that the money was going to be spent on the actual cost of getting the aircraft restored into a flyable cndition and then sustaining it as a viable airworthy aircraft. I'm pretty sure that nobody gave money to the project with the expectation that such a huge chunk of it was merely going to go into people's pockets. The engineers who did the hard work of getting the aircraft flyable were certainly entitled to be paid for their efforts but as for the rest? Come on, get real, I don't think I'm the only person to think that it's completely and utterly disgusting. As I've also said before, if Pleming thinks any of this disgust is unfair then he could settle the matter simply, by explaining what he has been paid and for doing precisely what. It wouldn't exhaust him to offer some sort of explanation as to where all the money goes but yet it never happens... Anyway, that's my view. If you disagree bubbles that's fine, but I could do without your sarcasm thanks if it was directed at me. The purpose of a forum is to express views, not to simply have a go at people you don't happen to agree with! I'm taking a wild guess here, but I have a feeling that I'm not the only person who has this view and frankly it's not my responsibility to offer long and tedious explorations of every specific matter which I've been told about, even if I was irresponsible enough to identify the people who tell me (which I'm not). Clearly, as the leader of this project, Pleming has a (very well paid) duty to explain where all the money goes and why. He chooses not to, therefore we're all entitled to draw our own conclusions. |
Fair enough Tim, but if you yourself are asking what Doc Bob doe's all day then how can you say that he is'nt worth the money? I know i havnt a clue what he has brought to the project so im sure as hell aint qualified to comment so what makes you ? And i would assume it's its a hell of a lot more than you.
Oh and it wasnt sarcasm Tim, it was a genuine question. Gregg |
I know i havnt a clue what he has brought to the project
That's my point! Nobody has a clue! :ok: |
And thats my point Tim! seeing as you dont know what he does then he is just as likely to deserve his earnings as not, yet you see fit to
criticise ! thats the same as you saying im not tworth the money i earn without knowing how much i earn or what i do to earn it!! Simply put you are not in a position to comment on his value for money when you admit to not haveing any idea what he does. When you do know what he does then feel free to comment so untill then may i respectfully suggest you follow Beagles advice. |
I certainly am with Tim on this. I have it on very good authority as to what Dr. P. is paid.
Sadly, I have given my word not to reveal the amount, but in my opinion, Tim's critiscisms are very justified!!!! |
If you can't give details because you have given your word, then why bring it up in the first place :ugh:. With all due respect, either give your source or just don't mention it, all it does is stir up bad feelings :sad:.
|
The issue here of course is that as they are a charitable organisation it is not their money, they are merely trustees and as such are accountable.
Nobody knows what anyone does all day, but we are entitled to know. Apart from donated funds from the public the taxpayers money has gone into the project as well as shareholders funds from other private companies. Isn't it the same as always, everyone really just wants the whole truth, good bad or ugly? |
Good point and yes they do want the truth, but untill it is revealed how much they are paid then everything else is hearsay, i have lots of things on good authority but unless it comes direct from the organisation then i wouldnt even hint at knowing it, sadly this thread and others on other forums just shows that people have personal issues with the organisation which for many taints what they have to say.
The point i keep making to Tim which he chooses to ignore is that unless he knows what Dr bob spends his working hours doing and what he has achieved within the set up and exactly how much he is paid then Tim is not in a position to shout out on her or anywhere else that Dr Bob is or isnt worth the money he may or not be paid. That would be the same as me saying that Tims books are utter pants and not worth the money paid for them without me reading them! which i havnt so i cant say that can i? And to be perfectly frank with you all i would have expected better coming from someone in his position. |
Andrew....Nobody knows what anyone does all day, but we are entitled to know. Apart from donated funds from the public
Surely the public in general are happy? they have seen their investment fly.. the taxpayers money has gone into the project What taxpayers money? may I ask as I understand it there has been no direct support from the govenment for this project As for the lottery... they have gone on record as saying that the VTST project has been a resounding success as far as they are concerned because it is one of their 1 in 4 projects that actually was completed.... VTS's remit was to return the aircraft to "Full Working Order" not flight, which they did very successfully The accounts say nobody earned more than what was it? £60,000? well if Dr Pleming was taking what you suggest how much did that leave for the rest... assuming the Senior Managers are on £60K & engineering staff are on industry wage levels.. not a lot I fancy. I have been doing a little research...1 CEO (?), 2 Senior Managers (60k a piece?)..... 5 engineers(?)............. wonder how the salaries cake is devided among the rest? The 3 Logistics, 3 office staff, 1 access, 1 education? |
The bottom line is that HLF invested money in the project on behalf of the "populace" including gift aid money courtesy of the taxpayer whichever way you dice it up.
Saying working order not flight is splitting hairs as the pitch in the HLF bid was to return it to flight for x years, not one. The HLF are hardly going to say anything other than positive things. That's all academic however. It's not even a question of "are they worth it?". It is a charitable trust and they are required to be accountable, whether they like it or lump it. I could care less who is paid what if it is shown to be value, it's up to them to show value. Personally, if the project is well run and efficient pay whatever the going rate is. They haven't demonstrated that they have run things efficiently. If they can and do, spot on and good luck to all for getting paid what they are worth. The challenge is continually convincing the public to donate and surely they have to show the money will be well spent in doing so. The solution is in the hands of the trust. Publicise their uptodate accounts, give a detailed business plan and progress reports (beyond "we're confident" or "we're all doomed unless"). Whilst the winter is upon us, get some info out and re-enthuse everyone or they will surely loose out on potential donors and that may affect the projects viability. |
My God you're hard work bubbles !
Okay, one more try... It's like this - Pleming has taken (and continues to take) a huge amount of money out of the project's funds. That much is a fact. Regardless of whether you have details of precisely how much he has been paid, and when, and for what, the published figures ought to be enough to convince you that it's a hideously large sum, yes? Okay, well do you not think that given the circumstances of the project, Pleming has a duty to explain in the fullest terms what, precisely, he does in exchange for this money? Given that he continually avoids providing an explanation, does it not seem odd to you? Likewise, do you not think that, even given the best will in the world, the amount of money he's taken cannot possibly be justified? Surely you're not seriously suggesting that someone who has merely overseen an aircraft restoration project and done some (spectacularly unsuccessful) fund raising is actually entitled to anything approaching the amounts of money that appear to have gone his way? I truly am astonished that so many people (and particularly the aerospace media) have failed to address this matter. It's quite amazing that when so much cyber space and print media has been devoted to endless discussion of how cash-starved the project is, nobody has stopped to ask why so much of the money raised hasn't even been spent on the Vulcan at all. |
Tim
if you were to actually see what is being said to you with an open mind and drop the grudge you hold you would see what i am saying, and that is that untill you and i and everyone else knows for sure what Doc bob earns and what he has done to earn that money then neither you or i or anybody else is in a position to judge weather he is worth the money or not. This however has not stopped you from on more than one occasion saying that his earnings are not justifiable, Just exactly how can you say this? Do you know what he has brought to the project? do you know exactly how much he has earned from the project? |
Bubbles,
It states in the public accounts what he and his company earned, nobody is guessing at it. Tim, forget that it's Dr P. It doesn't matter. The point is whoever earns it must be justifiable and accountable. Thus far, there is no justifications issued for any of their spending / salaries. It perplexes me apart from fees / salaries that they ran at A SURPLUS for two years and even then wrote off the fat end of £100k on pursuing merchandising. What the heck is that all about? |
I know it says it in the accounts, but my point is that Tim cannot say without knowing for sure that the wages are not justified, im not saying they are but unless we know what the individuals have brought to the project then the wages are just as likely justified as un-justified, this seems lost on Tim.
|
Agreed. However, any salary of anything to anyone needs to be justifiable. The worry I have is that the trustees seem to have taken the role of private company directors.
They are guardians of the trusts money and need to go the xtra mile to be clear and transparent particularly with such large sums of money and need to be very clear to avoid anyone, including Dr P, having a conflict of interests. It's the same story sadly. Publish the acocunts, explain them, have an AGM where everyone can ask their awkward questions etc and stand up and be accountable. Or, offer some other such forum more discreetly, either way, be answerable for their actions on behalf of everyone. If Dr P or the tea lady is worth their salaries then good luck, it shouldn't be personal. Likewise the major decision in the accounts seems to be to reach an arrangement with creditors, primarily MA, to effectively mortgage future surpluses to pay off the debts. Might be a smart decision but we don't have the benefit of being able to ask and make sure. I hope they wake up and follow their own advice aboute being more communicative before it is too late. I recall asking the same questions of FI when she was there, offering to go down to meet her and publish the questions and answers anyone wanted asked unedited and she declined. Not much has really changed on the management side although credit, the staff and engineering team have been nothing short of superb and hats off to them. Best wishes to all for 2009. |
Think you're wasting your time there Andrew, it's kinda like hitting your head against a brick wall. I assume everybody else grasps what you and I have been saying so maybe we should leave it at that?!:)
Ah the dear Felicity... I used to tell myself that she was the root of TVOC's problems, but... |
Yes your quite right Tim it is exactly like hitting ones head off a wall, im not saying that any ones wage is justified what i have been asking you is how can you say that Doc Bobs wage is not justified? as we have no clear idea of what he has done in his time with the project then nobody can say that his earnings are or not justified, yet you completley ignore what i am saying as it is not agreeing with you. Till you know for sure what he has achieved then you cant really say that he ( or anyone else) is/is'nt worth his pay.
I also have not at any time disagreed with those that have said that open accounts etc are needed to show that our money has been used properly. Your attitude to others on various fora is really letting you down and had you simply answerd my original question with a straight answer theni wouldnt keep "carping" on. |
Very surprising that PPrune allows Tim's constant personal bashing of an award-winning member of the preservation movement to go on like this. It's so blatantly a personal grudge - Tim has been asked repeatedly to back up his mumblings about financial cloak and daggery, but always weasels out of doing so.
In Tim's world, raising 7 million quid is 'spectacularly unsuccessful fund raising'. That, on its own, says it all I think. Happy new year to all at Brunters - I look forward to another year of airshow appearances from an aircraft Tim would like to see exported to another country. |
Kieron Kirk
Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Chessington, Surrey Age: 61 Posts: 156 Should I see the continued sniping and point scoring on PPRuNe, I for one will just call it a day and walk away as I find it irritating and pointless. Tempsford I'll join you. Ciarain. Please, those who wish to endlessly rake over what has already been written before, do it somewhere else. I for one am SICK of it! Ciarain. |
Tim wind your neck in a bit.
Haven't we established that we all (of those contributing to this debate anyway) want open and transparent accounting and disclosure of material facts. Irrespective of what they spent the money on lets just see some clarity and openness, nothing more or less. If that produces issues then they can be debated. At the moment there are obviously some issues some people want answers about but thus far we don't have them, so let's not make it personal. How do we get answers to these issues? Anyone got practical ideas or suggestions? |
OK! That is enough.
This witch hunt will stop forthwith. There may be a shred of truth here and there but that is not cause to engage in sniping and backbiting - especially the winding up kind. One or two of you are pressing hard to gain home runs. Just cut it out and be constructive. If I see one more example of this occuring again, no matter how trivial, I will ban you/he/she from participating in this thread. No warnings, no explanations - nothing - you will be gone. I trust that is fully understood. I am sick that some good people have been driven out and are no longer contributing - I plan to get them back. PPP |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:09. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.