If I were an RNLI donor I would not be happy.

[Sybarite]

Looks to me like the RNLI know quite a lot about asset management. They have currently got boats of the correct design and spec at every site they need them, and they have funds set aside to replace them when they need replacing. Thanks to donations left as part of an estate, sometimes that means the boat is replaced more regularly than otherwise it would be (often they get money for a specific lifeboat, for instance Weymouth I believe have several boats lined up).

Even if you're right (and I, and many others don't think you are) that we should take a close look at how they operate, they are SO far down the list that we'll never get to them. Before looking anywhere near them, Britain needs to look very closely at:

• MPs
• Bankers
• NHS
• Military spending
• etc
• etc
• etc
• etc
• RNLI

As you said above, if no money came in they can fund the fleet for 3 years. That doesn't seem an unnecessary pot of cash to me, it sounds sensible for an organisation with no guaranteed income in a recession. I certainly prefer that to an organisation that may or may not rescue me depending how kind the donors were in a given week.

That's certainly a logical position on condition that you are aware and accept the financial/spending conditions.

 

[Koeketiene]

For clarity, there are four RNLI companies - College, Enterprises, Heritage and Sales. Quite rightly so.

Do not forget RNLI (Trading) Ltd - wholly owned by the RNLI. RNLI (Trading) Ltd in turn wholly owns SAR Composites Ltd.

SAR Composites Ltd supplies/builds lifeboats for the RNLI.

SAR Composites Limited reported a gross profit of £671,000 in their latest financial records.

Seems a bit odd to me that SAR Composites Ltd posts a profit as its only customer seems to be the RNLI. Why would a Ltd company want to make a profit at the expense of its parent which is a charity?

 

[Litotes]

Seems a bit odd to me that SAR Composites Ltd posts a profit as its only customer seems to be the RNLI. Why would a Ltd company want to make a profit at the expense of its parent which is a charity?

In order to feed those profits back into the charity I expect, just as the other trading parts do. I suppose there may be tax benefits involved, although I am not sure what they may be.

 

[Bru]

Do not forget RNLI (Trading) Ltd - wholly owned by the RNLI. RNLI (Trading) Ltd in turn wholly owns SAR Composites Ltd.

SAR Composites Ltd supplies/builds lifeboats for the RNLI.

SAR Composites Limited reported a gross profit of £671,000 in their latest financial records.

Seems a bit odd to me that SAR Composites Ltd posts a profit as its only customer seems to be the RNLI. Why would a Ltd company want to make a profit at the expense of its parent which is a charity?

Erm, because, to a greater or lesser extent, they have to!

The directors of SAR Composites Ltd are legally obliged to maximise the performance of the company for the benefit of the shareholders

In this case, the shareholder is RNLI

The trustees and managers of RNLI cannot generally tell the directors of a subsidiary company what to do. They can, as the shareholder, set general policy via the annual general meeting but if they start to interfere in the how rather than the what they become what is termed "Shadow Directors"

Shadow directors are people or organisations which act with the powers of directors without being duly appointed and without the framework of responsibilities and obligations applicable to genuine directors

Furthermore, making a modest profit (and it is fairly modest at that) is a legitimate means of, when you get right down to it, transferring funds from the RNLI accounts to the SAR Composites accounts so that the latter can invest, etc.

 

[Sybarite]

Your manipulation to suit your argument of a set of accounts merely demonstrates what i said about French accounting. What do you think £40m a year buys? In your myopic world, a rescue service without the cash to buy diesel might make sense to a bookkeeper.

I have no idea where you got your £40m from. However last year the RNLI spent £150m yet still ended up with a surplus for the year of £29m.

When I stated three years I am essentially talking about covering their salary budget which was £56m. ( for memo : SNSM £2m)

Incidentally, how many beaches (excluding the med) do the SNSM guard and how many Atlantic coast and Channel stations have ribs?

I have no idea because their figures are not broken down this way. However their total fleet was over 600 boats compared with 440 for the RNLI.

Also if the French can obtain the same sort of operational speeds with boats having half the horsepower and build boats which cost a fraction of their nearest size-equivalent RNLI boats then just maybe you might have a little more in the kitty to buy diesel.

I may know a bit about French accounting but I also qualified as a chartered accountant.

 

[glashen]

Do not forget RNLI (Trading) Ltd - wholly owned by the RNLI. RNLI (Trading) Ltd in turn wholly owns SAR Composites Ltd.

SAR Composites Ltd supplies/builds lifeboats for the RNLI.

SAR Composites Limited reported a gross profit of £671,000 in their latest financial records.

Seems a bit odd to me that SAR Composites Ltd posts a profit as its only customer seems to be the RNLI. Why would a Ltd company want to make a profit at the expense of its parent which is a charity?

Profits or surplus are necessary in any organisation which wishes to continue in the long term, we seem to have pointed that out quite a few times already. By making a reasonable profit/surplus the organisation can continue to invest, if the boat building arm did not make a profit it would then presumably have to be subsidised it would also be impossible to compare the costs of boats built by them, to those built by outside suppliers, again damned either way by some of the critics.

 

[Chrusty 1]

I have no idea where you got your £40m from. However last year the RNLI spent £150m yet still ended up with a surplus for the year of £29m.

When I stated three years I am essentially talking about covering their salary budget which was £56m. ( for memo : SNSM £2m)



I have no idea because their figures are not broken down this way. However their total fleet was over 600 boats compared with 440 for the RNLI.

Also if the French can obtain the same sort of operational speeds with boats having half the horsepower and build boats which cost a fraction of their nearest size-equivalent RNLI boats then just maybe you might have a little more in the kitty to buy diesel.

I may know a bit about French accounting but I also qualified as a chartered accountant.

That small admission explains more about this thread you started than anything else you have written.

Bloody bean counter!

 

[Koeketiene]

The directors of SAR Composites Ltd are legally obliged to maximise the performance of the company for the benefit of the shareholders

In this case, the shareholder is RNLI

The trustees and managers of RNLI cannot generally tell the directors of a subsidiary company what to do.

Should be relatively easy if they're the same people.
One man in particular finds himself in a 'quite interesting' position.
Mr Mark Hallam BSc MNI FCA: not only is he the Finance and Information Systems Director of the RNLI (the charity), he's also a director of both RNLI (Trading) Ltd and SAR Composites Ltd.

 

[Sybarite]

Well, for a start, it's outboard driven, so has none of the shallow water capability of the Shannon, it isn't self righting, it has nowhere near the bollard pull, it's a single skin hull not dual composite, it doesn't have the SIMS command/control/navigation systems, doesn't have the same level of crew protection, and isn't carriage or trailer launched anywhere....

It has twin 115 diesels. Read the description.

What I am saying here is that the SNSM have a variety of different sized boats which allow it to work to local conditions. I would see this type of boat as rescuing people rather than the vessel unless it were in calmer conditions. I was also suggesting it as an alternative to the RIB in shallow water conditions. It may well not be capable of being launched from a carraige but if you can launch a 7m50 rib, it's not such a big step-up to 9m.

Oh, and the Shannon complete system is £2.5m which at current exchange rates is 3m Euro, divided by 100,000 Euro is 30, not 62...

Mea culpa. I was remembering an earlier post when I said that the current RNLI campaign for raising £5M was for two boats whereas it would have funded 62 30' French AWBs.

 

[Sybarite]

That small admission explains more about this thread you started than anything else you have written.

Bloody bean counter!

I think you are confusing bookkeeper with accountant.

 

[Sybarite]

The attacks are vitriolic but completely lacking credibility.

What thread have you been reading? As far as I can see I have been presenting facts for discussion, criticism and pointing out that there is another model which works.

To me it seems that the vitriol is coming from those who think that their sacred cow is being attacked.

 

[Sybarite]

And while we are on, lets correct another fallacy expounded by the RNLI knockers on this thread

The RNLI does NOT have reserves of £579.0m!

£579.0m is the total net asset value of the RNLI at year end 2011

It is, in other words, what the RNLI is worth on paper

That is made up out of ...

Fixed assets £330.9m of which £249.4m being lifeboats, lifeboat stations, launching equipment etc. The remainder being offices, training facilities, depots and other fixed assets

Investments £250.9m comprising £9.6m endowment reserves, £75.3m restricted reserves, £75.9m of designated reserves for planned capital expenditure and free reserves of £93.6m less net working capital and long term creditors (£3.5m)

HEADLINE FACT: The free reserves at year end 2011 were £93.6m representing 9 months operational expenditure. Rather a different number, and rather a different impression, than shouting "The RNLI is sitting on £579million".

(The above information, and much more besides, is available to a very select and special band of people via a highly secret process. I'll let you in on the secret though, just google "RNLI accounts" and open the 2011 Annual Report PDF off the RNLI web site. Don't tell anybody I told you though, it's a secret)

Did you by any chance read post #516?

 

[Chrusty 1]

I think you are confusing bookkeeper with accountant.

Oh no I am not.

 

[chanelyacht]

It has twin 115 diesels. Read the description.

What I am saying here is that the SNSM have a variety of different sized boats which allow it to work to local conditions. I would see this type of boat as rescuing people rather than the vessel unless it were in calmer conditions. I was also suggesting it as an alternative to the RIB in shallow water conditions. It may well not be capable of being launched from a carriage but if you can launch a 7m50 rib, it's not such a big step-up to 9m.

The RNLI have a similar spread of boats - you're just not comparing the correct ones. The RNLI do trailer launch 8.5m boats - the Atlantic 85s. It (the French boat) may well be a credible alternative to the A85s, but you're comparing it's price to the Shannon.

You might want to cut and paste that Mae Culpa again. The vessel you provided a link to clearly shows outboards, and 115hp diesel outboards are, indeed, what it has. Therefore as I say, it has different operating properties to the Shannon.

Also if the French can obtain the same sort of operational speeds with boats having half the horsepower and build boats which cost a fraction of their nearest size-equivalent RNLI boats then just maybe you might have a little more in the kitty to buy diesel.

Operational speed is far from the only factor . The boats do different things when they get to scene, the endurance on long searches is far greater with the RNLI boats, as send before (countless times) the equipment fit is different, and the crew safety is different. I can task any boat to a long search - fuel is rarely the limiting factor, it deciding endurance on scene is crew capability. If they've been thrown around like socks in a washing machine, their on scene effectiveness won't be much.

Mea culpa. I was remembering an earlier post when I said that the current RNLI campaign for raising £5M was for two boats whereas it would have funded 62 30' French AWBs.

OK.

As I said before, I respect your experience as an accountant - but do you think your views might be a little aided by obtaining some operational experience on lifeboats? I'm not saying one outweighs the other, but surely it should influence?

Just an idea.

 

[Hoolie]

What thread have you been reading? As far as I can see I have been presenting facts for discussion, criticism and pointing out that there is another model which works.

To me it seems that the vitriol is coming from those who think that their sacred cow is being attacked.

That does indeed seem to be the case, as I pointed out several hundred posts ago

 

[Sybarite]

Erm, because, to a greater or lesser extent, they have to!

The directors of SAR Composites Ltd are legally obliged to maximise the performance of the company for the benefit of the shareholders

In this case, the shareholder is RNLI

The trustees and managers of RNLI cannot generally tell the directors of a subsidiary company what to do. They can, as the shareholder, set general policy via the annual general meeting but if they start to interfere in the how rather than the what they become what is termed "Shadow Directors"

Shadow directors are people or organisations which act with the powers of directors without being duly appointed and without the framework of responsibilities and obligations applicable to genuine directors

And when they are officers in both organizations?

At least in France the auditors, in addition to reporting on the accounts, must prepare a special report on transactions with related organizations or persons and comment on the arm's length aspect of those relations.

Please note that I am not suggesting anything untoward concerning the RNLI with respect to this.

 

[Hoolie]

Should be relatively easy if they're the same people.
One man in particular finds himself in a 'quite interesting' position.
Mr Mark Hallam BSc MNI FCA: not only is he the Finance and Information Systems Director of the RNLI (the charity), he's also a director of both RNLI (Trading) Ltd and SAR Composites Ltd.

Being a director of several companies is not unusual, especilly if they're closely linked. But if I have interpreted earlier posts correctly, it would be difficult or maybe inadmissible for him to be a trustee of the RNLI.

 

[Bru]

Should be relatively easy if they're the same people.
One man in particular finds himself in a 'quite interesting' position.
Mr Mark Hallam BSc MNI FCA: not only is he the Finance and Information Systems Director of the RNLI (the charity), he's also a director of both RNLI (Trading) Ltd and SAR Composites Ltd.

And when they are officers in both organizations?

At least in France the auditors, in addition to reporting on the accounts, must prepare a special report on transactions with related organizations or persons and comment on the arm's length aspect of those relations.

Please note that I am not suggesting anything untoward concerning the RNLI with respect to this.

It can actually quite difficult if you are dual or multi "hatted" as it were. Been there done that. You really do have to think about what you can and cannot do in each capacity. And whilst there isn't specific special reporting arrangments (sounds like a good idea that if you ask me) the auditors do take it into account in their report

Woe betide a director who acts inappropriately and gets caught (the getting caught bit being the problem I grant you)

I've sat in trust committee and been involved in voting to take a certain decision and then sat in the board meeting later the same day where the subsidiary company board decided they couldn't do what the trustees had earlier decided TO do! Getting on for half of the people in each meeting were the same damn people

Yep, it's complicated, prone to generate paperwork and a right royal pain in the bum sometimes but it does mean we have relatively few cases of genuine impropriety in the UK charity sector

Did you by any chance read post #516?

Yes I did. I was not responding to that post which of itself partially corrected the misleading statements about RNLI reserves which were posted and repeated elsewhere in the thread. And that post then made the factually inaccurate claim that the RNLI could "fund its present fleet for three years" from reserves. In fact, it is 9 months

 

[reginaldon]

What thread have you been reading? As far as I can see I have been presenting facts for discussion, criticism and pointing out that there is another model which works.

To me it seems that the vitriol is coming from those who think that their sacred cow is being attacked.

That's certainly my impression and surely that is an indication that the defenders have lost the argument.

 

[Bru]

Being a director of several companies is not unusual, especilly if they're closely linked. But if I have interpreted earlier posts correctly, it would be difficult or maybe inadmissible for him to be a trustee of the RNLI.

Not inadmissable but certainly a matter of close scrutiny and in my opinion far from ideal

This is all getting close to the heart of the reasons why I didn't stand for re-election as a trustee of the charity in which I was involved at that level

And for clarity, it is one thing somebody being a director of several companies. That is perfectly acceptable as they are accountable

It is quite another for somebody or some body* to direct a company from, as it were, behind the scenes. That is a shadow director and that is something the authorities frown upon

* A body such as, for example, the trustees of a parent charity