Post by The Management on Sept 23, 2021 11:29:22 GMT
Imagine that as One Pound Coins in a barrow, It takes a big barrow
Dumplings within the SNP say "it's OK it's RingFenced" I will get back to that later
But another excuse is "It's protected in the "Future Cash Flow"
and I start with that
Dumplings within the SNP say "it's OK it's RingFenced" I will get back to that later
But another excuse is "It's protected in the "Future Cash Flow"
and I start with that
There is one problem with Future Cash Flow it is a variable, the person making the prediction is at best just guessing.
Within the FCF there are many variables, there are some more fixed eg UK Government payments, they are tied to quantity for example say you get a fixed sum for an MP or MSP that is per person,
then there is an outbreak of honesty and 10 leave there place has a new replacement not of that party
that income drops
Of course one that can be predicted is if someone gets a contract for 10 people for 50 weeks and for 3 years, that income can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy
And that was one of the secured ones,
The higher risk ones are the likes of donors, membership numbers and fundraisers.
There lies the SNP's problem, honesty could you trust them?
How can this forward income be predicted?
It can't
Future Cash Flow predictions is used by the likes of charities they use the fiver a month to predict their income so that they know where to spend or allocate the money
The problem in the SNP's case is? . . . . Well the SNP.
The point of this is, Future Cash Flow has little value
A thing that someone raised was the accounts say that they spent the money elsewhere.
OK but the money was supposed to be ring fenced, it wasn't to be spent elsewhere, the money had a specific purpose!!
The SNP said , in their appeal, a question of whether they fraudulently raised the money arises.
If the SNP did give money to individuals to pay for example legal fees, would people actually donate to these people?
Again a degree of misrepresentation surfaces
There is another aspect to the funding MPs,, MSPs and Councillors seem to have an adversity to throwing their own money into the pot.
unlike the commoners
Within the FCF there are many variables, there are some more fixed eg UK Government payments, they are tied to quantity for example say you get a fixed sum for an MP or MSP that is per person,
then there is an outbreak of honesty and 10 leave there place has a new replacement not of that party
that income drops
Of course one that can be predicted is if someone gets a contract for 10 people for 50 weeks and for 3 years, that income can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy
And that was one of the secured ones,
The higher risk ones are the likes of donors, membership numbers and fundraisers.
There lies the SNP's problem, honesty could you trust them?
How can this forward income be predicted?
It can't
Future Cash Flow predictions is used by the likes of charities they use the fiver a month to predict their income so that they know where to spend or allocate the money
The problem in the SNP's case is? . . . . Well the SNP.
The point of this is, Future Cash Flow has little value
A thing that someone raised was the accounts say that they spent the money elsewhere.
OK but the money was supposed to be ring fenced, it wasn't to be spent elsewhere, the money had a specific purpose!!
The SNP said , in their appeal, a question of whether they fraudulently raised the money arises.
If the SNP did give money to individuals to pay for example legal fees, would people actually donate to these people?
Again a degree of misrepresentation surfaces
There is another aspect to the funding MPs,, MSPs and Councillors seem to have an adversity to throwing their own money into the pot.
unlike the commoners