Restarting: STRATEGY

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Thu, 22/01/2009 - 09:48

Lucky Jim started this here: but I am re-starting as that thread already has off-topic comments. I suggest that this thread should be consistently on-topic, and off-topic comments will be deleted mercilessly.

So here's my first pass:

Step 1 - Define an objective

Primary objective: 100% return of funds

Well, that is not a good objective, or at least it is under-specified. Much existing thought indicates that in general an objective must be specific, measurable, appropriate, realistic and time-bound (there any many references, e.g. here).

So, before anything else we need to properly define the primary objective(s).


100% return. Without interest or with? Need to be specific on that, it makes a big difference, especially when you consider the time element. Also, what about exchange rate shifts? What about inflation? So, do we really need to be more specific.

Measurable and Appropriate

I think we're ok on those points.


That's a big one! We're all here because we believe (or just hope?) that it's realistic. Well, let's assume so for now, and come up with the strategy to support our hopes and beliefs.


If we got back a small percentage from liquidation and re-deposited it at 1% interest elsewhere, we would in fact achieve 100% return of within just a few hundred years. Not what we want. So we need to set the time limit.

By the end of February? The end of 2009? 2010? The point here is to define the limit, then define a suitable strategy. If no such strategy can be found, something else may need to be changed, such as the time constraint. I would suggest either within one year or within three years might be sensible.

Step 2 - Define and Develop strategies

Possible routes to achieve that (whether feasible in reality or not)

  • Build a time machine. Go back to some time in mid 2008. Transfer money out of KSFIoM. Return to present. Ok, so my point is let's try to be creative - Edward de Bono suggested that even arguably ridiculous ideas should be considered, so as to extract their positive value and use that to lead on to further valuable and practical ideas. Example: An idea that "cars should have square wheels" might lead on to ideas for improving suspension, breaking system, automatic safety so that car does not roll down a hill if unattended, etc.

So, that explained, re-starting. Possible routes to achieve primary objective:

  1. Convince or legally force HMG to return 550M. Restructure KSFIoM. Plan for gradual withdrawal of funds over time.

  2. Convince or legally force Iceland or Kaupthing hf to honour the parental guarantee. All plain sailing after that. The big Q is where they would get the money from, but that's a separate topic.

  3. Get somebody else to come up with the funds. (Who? Bill Gates, IMF, IoM, etc, etc.) and pay it to us, or KSFIoM, etc.

  4. Accept (for example) 25% return from the liquidator. Invest it at 300% net return (time machine manufacturing company or similar) for one year. Please read the above again (or Edward de Bono books) before saying this is not feasible. Have 300% returns ever been obtained? Yes, so it's feasible just difficult, and anyway that's not the point. Make a blockbuster film, for example. Consider the positive aspects.

Ok, I think unless I'm missing something that those are the four basic options.

  • Which strategies are mutually compatible?

  • Which, if any, are mutually incompatible?

  • If compatible, are there any good reasons for not having multiple strategies? (e.g. insufficient resources.) Can any such limitations be overcome?

Of course, three routes each of which resulted in one third return of deposits, could meet the primary objective. If there are no good reasons not to follow multiple strategies, and resources are available, then clearly following multiple strategies increases our chances of success.

Step 3 - Define milestones and secondary objectives

Example: If we decide to follow strategy 2 (parental guarantee) then a milestone might be to clearly define the legal angle. Another might be to establish a viable source of funds that could be loaned to Iceland.

Step 4 - Define tactics and take action or recursive loop

Do what needs to be done at this point. If its not clear what needs to be done then for each and every milestone and sub-objective identified in step 3, go back to step 1 considering that sub-objective. Loop until done!


  • You can't really figure out how to get somewhere if you're not absolutely sure where you want to go. IT makes a lot of sense to know by when you want to get there, too.

  • There are are several routes to get a group of people from A to B, and several methods of transport. Each has pros and cons. Some may be too slow (consider time-limit). Some may present unacceptable risks. Choose the best route/method, considering all factors.

  • Consider switching routes if things don't turn out how you expected. It's ok to switch routes for good reasons, but don't forget where you were trying to go in the first place, otherwise it falls apart.

  • Along the journey, you might hit a difficult spot and need to re-plan that section of the journey. It becomes a sub-journey, with its own starting point, destination and time constraints.

  • Somebody needs to drive the bus. If there are several buses, trains etc, you may need several drivers.

  • When you arrive at your destination, throw a party :)

Ok, so at this point it's all very intangible airy-fairy stuff. The accountants and scientists among you may not like that :) So, go ahead analyse and define. Another route, for the believers, is to accept that some people have a natural talent for doing the above stuff instinctively and without apparently even thinking about it. If such people are leading the DAG, then we are in good hands, but some back-up planning probably wouldn't go amiss.

[minor edits done]

Your rating: None Average: 3.9 (12 votes)

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Back to the point: The top-down approach

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 19:38

Already too much detail in the comments below. Please note the original post says that off-topic comments will be deleted. It's getting to close to that - the topic is primary objectives and strategy. So, I would like to get back to and stick to a top-down approach:

1. Define DAG's operational areas:

  • Financial (get our money back)
  • Human (communication and support for members)
  • Legislative (make sure this never happens again)

Possibly the third point won't interest some, or even many members. Put simply, if we magically all received 100% (including interest) tomorrow, would that be the end of it, or would there still be work to be done?

2. For each operational area, define objectives

An objective (in my book) adheres to the principles already given: specific, measurable, appropriate, realistic and time-bound. Anything else is not an objective, but might be a useful description of aims, needs, tactics, etc. Wpuld anybody like to propose objectives? One at least.

3. Define strategies to meet the objectives

My analogy of how to physically get from A to B (e.g. London to Brighton) is over simplistic, but I believe it's valuable nonetheless. A strategy then might be "go by bus", "drive", "fly", "walk", "swim", etc. Different strategies have different pros and cons. Our strategies might include "apply pressure to the HMG". Whatever the strategy, tactics and milestones need to be defined.

a possible PR strategy

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 21:01

Human (communication and support for members)

Develop hard-copy A5 individualized postcards, following the precedent of the - very powerful - visual banner on the public DAG site, and post these to key people, organizations, institutions in UK, IoM and Iceland.


To show/remind/keep people knowing that we do exist
To appeal to their humanity
To embarrass those who have caused this.


A two week window for individual depositors to develop their individual copies and then post out. The initiative is literally in the air within this time-frame.

Defined Strategy:

This is an image-text idea in the format of an A5 postcard. We would need a template on the site that would illustrate the format. Eg., a sample photo portrait. Alongside this, eventually to form the back of the postcard, would be indication of address and stamp and a few succinct lines of text + DAG logo stating the depositors' collective situation. (Needs to be pre-written.) Some space would be left for individual depositors to personalize the text by adding a little of their own story. Up to the individual as to how much information would be disclosed, but the site example would show a functional minimum. Wouldn't need real names: the image + two levels of text, introductory and personal, would do it.

Individual depositors would have to copy the format themselves as artwork to be printed, or assign this to a local printer.

The DAG site would need to have a database of useful names and addresses. (useful in any case for X other objectives.)

Pros and Cons of the strategy:

A small financial cost - artwork (unless able to do this oneself through Photoshop), printing fee, postage.

A crude format, involving some physical/material effort, but 'real' with it, like posting and receiving holiday postcards used to be.

This would only be effective if a fair proportion of depositors contributed. (However, the hard-copy formats could be uploaded as digital versions to the public DAG site.)

Replying to myself again :)

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 12:41

Replying to myself again :) Sincere thanks for input so far, and the topic of forming an entity clearly needs to be investigated. But still, I strongly suggest that we move back to a top-down approach. Put simply, what should the DAG's primary objectives be? Perhaps we need to think about short term and long-term objectives, too, but let's make a pass at actually defining objectives - from a raw starting point they can be refined.

DAG Operational Areas

I propose that the two fundamental operational areas for the DAG are:

1 - Financial (return deposits)
2 - Human (communication, supporting our own members)

Might there be any more? Human rights? Mis-government? Maybe DAG is also about making sure that something like this never happens again? That might be a 3rd. Three must be a maximum, so if there is a third let's establish what it is.

Decisions please, detailed analysis is not needed at this stage!

Brownie points are available for providing the highest value in the minimum number of words :)


  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 21:32


Right now DAG should not be like Nero of old - fiddling whilst Rome burns

Right now time is running out

Right now we need further well thought out tactics aimed at getting back 100% of members' money


Consider this:

--- Forums like this CHAT Forum are useful as 'brain-storming think tanks' where ideas & suggestions can be discussed/debated in a civilised manner.

--- Forums per se are NOT good for fulfilling complex management tasks. no matter how good the ideas that are forthcoming from its members.

--- A forum needs a small discreet group of skilled, competent people to manage & have orersight of forum strategy & tactics, & to represent the official line of the forum

The original DAG Forum had a such a group, known as the Core Group. It was very effective until let down by at least one individual who caused a breakdown in the trust that was necessary for the maintenance of the group's operational integrity.

In short, the outcome was the establishment of an 'informal team' under Diver's trusted leadership followed by a splitting of the Forum into two -- a Public Forum & a Private CHAT Forum.

Diver is the acknowledged leader of DAG

-- he leads an ‘informal team’ that enjoys the support & trust of the majority of DAG’s members.
-- he has engaged qualified lawyers to advise him
-- a member if his team issues Press Releases on behalf of DAG
-- Diver & his team are the powerhouse of DAG's Public Forum

Essentially the Private CHAT Forum is an unmoderated vehicle for DAG members to 'chat'

The Forum 'chat' involves:
-- offering thoughts, ideas, views, opinions,
-- ventilating feelings of anger, frustration, despair
-- giving mutual encouragement & support

Many members find its 'free-for-all' nature very irritating & frequently unhelpful. Also many find the Forum set-up utterly confusing & far too complex. The Forum has 'grown like Topsy' so it is now almost impossible for many to be able to 'see the wood for the trees'

Without a moderator & rudderless this Forum is being tossed about on the waves created from within its midst

So where do we go from here? How can we better facilitate the accomplishment of DAG's Mission Statement?

I suggest:

-- DAG's Mission should continue as it is -- 100% money back
-- we should now focus on Strategy & Tactics within the limited time frame left to us
-- Strategy (the means by which DAG seeks to achieve its Mission) should be reviewed in the light of changing scenarios & new information that comes to hand
-- Tactics (the practical tasks defined to achieve its strategic objectives) can be generated by the Forum

QUESTION: How can DAG accomplish its objectives without it becoming a charity or a limited company ?

I suggest there are 3 options

OPTION 1. Do nothing other than ’fly by the seats of our pants’ -- simply let the Forum come up with tactics that either Diver may chose to take on board or individuals pursue under their own initiative.
Comment: who says whether unilateral actions/decisions are to have support as being representative of official DAG approval ?

OPTION 2 - the nomination of a Forum Co-ordinator whose task would be to collate suggested tactics submitted under the 'Actions & Strategy' forum and pass these to Diver & his informal Team.
Comment: probably rather pointless as Diver & his Team already pick up tactical ideas that fit their strategy

OPTION 3 - *The establishment of a Forum Quorum** made up of 6-10 skilled, knowledgeable, experienced & professionally qualified people who would define & co-ordinate Strategy & Tactics on behalf of the Forum.

The modus operandi of a Forum Quorum

The Quorum members are likely to be widely scattered so their primary methods of communication will be via Skype, telephone, e-mail and an internal private conferencing facility within the Forum set-up.

The Quorum would work in conjunction & accord with Diver & his informal Team to achieve corporately the fulfilment of DAG's Mission -- 100% return of depositors' money


The Quorum to be responsible for the oversight & co-ordination of the means by which DAG will seek to achieve its Aims & Objectives.


The tactics will be the practical tasks which DAG will set out to achieve its strategic objectives. These tasks to be taken on board from within the Forum .


Whatever activity or public statement undertaken by a member, or group of members, will be solely in their own name unless it has the endorsement of the Quorum as officially representing the views of DAG

Time Frame

There is a time frame in which tactics can be carried out. Presently there will be an outline SoA submitted to the Court on 29 January, with a request for a 60 day adjournment for that plan to be consolidated & formalised.

Thus the time frame is between now and an assumed date by which the SoA will have been completed. Let us assume that this is 7 days before the likely final Court Hearing.

Thus DAG’s Strategic Plan should determine the accomplishment of the Tactics before the end of February.

Where we go from here

There really is insufficient time for a protracted debate over which of these options (or other options) should be pursued.

Immediately we should be identifying TACTICS but in the absence of any mechanism that gives them endorsement as 'officially accepted DAG tactics' they can only be taken up or rejected by Diver or pursued by one or a number of members acting unilaterally or after a sounding, or poll, being taken as to whether they may appear to have popular support.


Because the time constraints dictate a need to press on I recommend:

  1. Option 1 be pursued without delay to set forth potential tactics
  2. Option 3 be accepted as the best way to ‘manage’ future Strategy & Tactics

LET’S GO ! New Tactics proposed to date:

  1. Filling the public seats at the Treasury Select Committee Meeting on 3/2 (NB: this tactic is under way under my Post here-> )
  2. A draft website specifically pointing out the risks of depositing money in the Isle of Man (NB: there is already one brief site
    linking to DAG’s Public Forum)
  3. a courtesy letter/e-mail to Lord Bach, the IOM Governor, PM, Chancellor, the PM, Secretary & Treasurer IOM, & Mike Simpson announcing the intention to launch the website
  4. a letter/e-mail to the managers of all the financial institutions announcing the intention to launch the website
  5. a dynamic press release announcing the launch of the website and stating who has been informed in advance
  6. inquiry of all IOM banks as to the risks of depositing with them & what guarantee of security can they give (answers posted in the Forum & on the website)
  7. sit-in at KSFIOM Bank by IOM depositors (legal advice required first)
  8. sit-in at the UK Treasury (legal advice required)
  9. look into how this site could be a valuable vehicle to promote DAG & its Mission (it claims to have reversed Government objectives to stop public access to MP's expense claims through the Freedom of Information Act)
  10. keep Private Eye posted for a follow-up report (Sleeplessnight - on Diver's Team - may have this in hand)

Any other ideas for Tactics ? Post here or under

New DAG strategy team?

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 01:44

All good stuff, and I fully accept the "100%" aim is till the correct one. But without a date-limit, its doesn't count as an objective in my book - the problem is nobody here is brave enough to put a date-limit on it! So yes, call it a mission maybe. Then we still need to define objective(s), strategy and tactics. Tactics need to be consistent with strategy, and strategy in turn consistent with primary objectives. All simple stuff in theory, need to get down to the practical implementation without delay, which basically seems to be what you are promoting.

Forum Quorum I confess I don't like the name and would suggest the word quorum may be misleading as it doesn't imply specific people, only a specific number of people. But thats minor detail, hardly important. I'd work with that, or anything really - the A-Team, the B-Team, the Task Force, the Brady Bunch .. it's only a name! Maybe simply GST (Group Strategy Team). But really, its a minor detail.

I would propose that:

  • This new team's discussions are open to view. Problems have been caused here by "secret" talks.
  • Regular summaries need to be made and posted clearly - people want and need to know what's happening.
  • The team members should be proposed to the entire DAG before going live. There wouldn't necessarily need to be a poll, but they would at least have the chance to object or make other input.


  • The team will need a leader, and I suggest that person should be elected by the team itself.
  • Clear criteria are needed as to what is expected of team members.
  • The output of the new team should be specific actions to be taken and their associated objectives.

Thanks ng :}I have no

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 12:10

Thanks ng :}

I have no problem about the name of the 'management' group, other than it should NOT be the CORE group.

I suggested QUORUM simply for the definition of that word ie: a gathering of the minimal number of members of an organisation to conduct business

So whatever it is called it is ipso facto a quorum ! :)

You say: "This new team's discussions are open to view. Problems have been caused here by "secret" talks."

BUT you cant give a group of people the responsibility to 'manage' then tie their hands behind their backs !
The group MUST have the ability to conduct its business in a similar manner to the Cabinet (or Diver's informal Team) or it is impotent
TRUST really is a key issue here. This is especially important as it is impractical for 'quorum' members to have anonymity within the group.

What I would fully agree with is that whilst the group should be able to deliberate in private it should make public to the Forum its decisions, conclusions, & recommendations

In theory I am in agreement with your other points though we all recognise there are some practical problems; eg: In an ideal world it would be good to have a democratically elected 'quorum', but that is impractical, just as it was impractical right at the outset for the Forum to elect Diver as leader.

There are 2 possible ways of proceeding here:

For leader of a 'quorum'
1. invite members to offer themselves as leader candidates & let Diver & his Team choose
2. invite members to offer themselves as leader & have a simple poll of members to choose

For the 'quorum' composition:
1. invite members to offer themselves as candidates
2. invite members to propose candidates

IMPORTANT: all candidates should state what qualifications, expertise, experience, skills etc., they have that makes them approriate candidates for the task. This would help members better able to make a decision should a poll be desirable or necessary

NOTE: I propose that Diver is a de facto member of the 'quorum'.


  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 01:04

Here's a 21 point list of strategic objectives

This list includes strategies already being pursued together with a number of complementary new strategies which DAG could adopt..

  1. To make MP’s & other key persons aware of DAGs Mission, & seek their active support for the recovery of depositors’ money

  2. To highlight to the House of Commons & HMG that it is mainly British Expat taxpayers who are being sidelined whilst others who have deposits in KaupthingUK, Icesave & Landsbanki have been rescued because they are resident in the UK

  3. To bring to the attention of the public the plight of depositors who have saved responsibly for their retirement only to have had their savings & pensions snatched away by catastrophic events following a few irresponsible words from the Chancellor

  4. To spell out to the media that depositors are ordinary people, not fat-cat, tax-dodging carpetbaggers that the British Chancellor would like the public to believe

  5. To demonstrate the betrayal of the trust depositors put in the Bank

  6. To expose any malpractice & misadministration on the part of those charged with the responsibility of protecting depositors’ money

  7. To call the Icelandic Government to account for its failure to incorporate the honouring of the Parental Agreement in the nationalised Kaupthing hf Bank

  8. To get the provisional Liquidator to listen to the voice of depositors & to be transparent in his role to secure the best interests of depositors

  9. To highlight to the Treasury Select Committee & the Judiciary Committee the miscarriage of social justice that makes depositors victims of HMG’s dismissal of having any responsibility for its citizens who have of necessity deposited off-shore

  10. To see that Lord Bach is called to account for his very serious misinformation to the Judiciary Committee on 10:12:08 (the transcript of which carried a qualification by him to the effect that he was referring to depositors of Kaupthing UK & not KSFIOM ).

11.. To consider whether there has been a breach of depositors’ rights under the European Charter of Human Rights

  1. To consider the desirability/necessity for a Judicial Review of the Court’s decision of 8:10:08

  2. To ascertain why HMG has singularly failed to reach an agreement with the Icelandic Government on behalf of the IOM Government

  3. To ascertain why the amicable outturn of the autumn meeting between the PM of the IOM & The Lord Chancellor has subsequently failed to lead to a favourable outcome for a resolution of the KSFIOM affair

  4. To consider in what way the internet could be utilised to promote DAG’s Mission

  5. To warn others of the risk involved in depositing in an IOM bank

  6. To consider the pros & cons of direct action by way of public demonstration(s) and/or sit-ins in strategic buildings

  7. To consider the involvement of other lobby organisations (political, civil rights, etc.,) in representing & speaking up for DAG

  8. To press for a speedy restoration of the £500+million of KSFIOM deposits presently frozen in Kaupthing UK

  9. To make the IOM Government & the IOM High Court aware that DAG will not allow ANY of its members to lose one penny of their legitimate claim to have restored to them the money they entrusted to KSFIOM

  10. To consider what legal redress DAG might have to compensate members not only for loss of Interest on deposited funds but for the huge emotional suffering and financial & material damage that has been the consequence of this fiasco

It might be helpful for these strategies to be set out in a 3 column table, with each column headed thus:


The third cokumn would outline who is implementing the tasks in respect of each strategy(eg: Diver's Team, expatriot, IOM Team, group of members, IT Team, etc...)

The table could then be easily accessed from the navigation menu so that all members may see at a glance a summary of DAG;s STRATEGY, TACTICS, and ACTION BEING TAKEN

lucky jim...agree with your strategy

  • hippychickrobbed
  • 03/11/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 12:27

We need to keep going and fighting if we want 100 percent back, thats it really.I agree with your strategy, lets fight on, we want our money back.

hear hear hippychickrobbed

  • sambururob
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 21:00

Ideas above are good. The footsldiers just need direction. _ who to mass email and who to write to. 100% for all. Substantial payment up front to allow people to get on with their lives and a promse of ALL of the rest - for depositors and bondholders - within a fixed time period. Say two years (preferably tomorrow!!)

I don't see anything new here

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 12:20

I don't see anything new here all these avenues have been explored to a greater or lesser extent on the forum. I don't see a way forward without establishing a formal structure with a democratic element sufficient to allow decisions to be made on behalf of the DAG.

You have missed the point of the exercise

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 14:55

nivit....with respect you have missed the point of the exercise behind ng's Post.

I stated at the outset: this list includes strategies already being pursued together with a number of complementary new strategies which DAG could adopt.

I am sure members will feel that it is helpful to be able to see in one place

---- DAG's Strategy, both present, ongoing, and suggested

---- and to see in the same place the Tactics that are being pursued, or proposed, to achieve the strategic objectives

---- and to see who is involved in following through the tasks

Under ng's Post members are invited to suggest any new strategy along with their ideas for the tactics to accomplish the strategy.

Re You have missed the point........

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 17:34

I don't think so, I just don't think we are going to get anywhere until there is a structure in place which everybody can understand and in which peoples responsibilities are clearly defined. This is necessary to establish trust, especially when most of us know very little about the people who are acting for us. One could say we should know some thing about people by their postings and to a certain extent I would agree but its not enough, how many people were sucked in by Aidan Doherty's reassurances? If you like you could say I am proposing a strategy that would seek to create a transparent democratic structure which has legal status and where responsibility and accountability are defined. I would be concerned by the motivation of anybody opposing these principles. Perhaps some body might be interested in exploring these possibilities with me.
There was a certain amount of disappointment expressed after the 15th and judging by hints from various sources we are going to be even more disappointed after the 29th as time goes on the need for a structure that can resist setback and possibly provide support to some increases.


  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/01/2009 - 12:13

Do you not think that qourums and committees and sub committees and cores etc might get the rest of us confused?

Would it be possible to have a little organism chart? you know, one of those things where we can see graphically who the hell everyone is?

Simple solution !

  • Lucky Jim
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 01:07

Thanks Cap'n !

I propose a tag on the menu bar that will take members to the place where they can see exactly WHOs WHO and WHAT THEY DO (:

Who's who

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 13:36

This was my proposal long ago. The issue for some was the need to maintain anonymity. It follows then, then that if the "who's who" is to be made clear, then parties involved must be prepared to fully expose their identity. Not only an organization chart, but a mini-CV. We did this internally with the original core group concept and it worked very well in helping to establish trust within the group and to help know who was good at what.

Do we need a new strategy?

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 12:04

Just added the link to Edward de Bono's site above, and while there did a search for strategy which found among others this page where he says the following:

1. You have tried hard with information, analysis, and logic and you have not gotten anywhere. Creativity is your only hope.
2. You have produced some alternatives through information, analysis, and logic but you are willing to try creativity to see if there might be a fresh approach.
3. These are old problems (situations) that have been around a long time and upon which a lot of logical effort has been expended. It is worth using creative thinking right away.
4. In the course of your analytical and logical thinking you have defined certain focus points where you know you need new ideas. The creative effort is focused on these points.
5. There is a constant switching from the analytical/logical mode to the creative mode as you go along.

[1] would definitely seem to apply, [3] could apply, as "old" in this case is anything going back a month or more, and the others may apply to a greater or lesser extent.

Really the point is: if we need a new strategy (perhaps we don't) it would seem sensible to try to avoid whatever mistakes led to the failure of the previous strategy.

  • A change in thinking might be needed.
  • A change in thinkers might be needed

A relevant example perhaps is this post.

Even if there is a valid strategy in place already, defining it might be a really good idea.

Possibly need to break things down into areas such as PR strategy, UK strategy, IoM strategy, etc.

I seem to be talking to myself again.

I think 100% return should be

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 17:11

I think 100% return should be our aim and I think one potential element of our overall strategy could lie here:

  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 22:59


100% return or realism

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 19:39

I have no problem with the aim of 100% return and in fact it was me who first suggested on this forum that that should be our aim. However, I have to point out again that the illustrative data for the SoA that has been supplied to the "team" assumes a 65% overall return. Now I know the figures they have been given are illustrative only, but since that data is being used to "sell" the scheme to the "team" and the "informal committee", I think it is safe to assume that that figure of 65% is either optimistic or realistic.

If I am correct, and we intend to keep to the original aim, that means we must look elsewhere for the additional money that is needed (say £300m). The proposed scheme (which envisages a limited amount of money from the IoM banks and the IoM government, which they expect to be able to recover), would not provide it if the illustrative figures are realistic. Nor would the DCS, and Alix have assumed that no more money would be available for one scheme than for the other - the comparisons of the two schemes offered by Alix assume 65% recovery for depositors under either scheme.

So either we drop the aim of getting back 100% and start to be realistic, or else we identify another source of money and go after it. It's no use looking at the money held in the UK, because the 65% overall return mentioned above assumes that will be recovered in the UK liquidation after set-offs and at a realistic rate in the pound (I am guessing around 50p in the pound).

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 03:16

Wow, if only I was as good....

1) Predictions of recovery down to one decimal point :-}
2) Choice of IoM/London Lawyers
3) Suggesting 100% return before anybody else had a lightbulb moment and wanted all their dough back - I mean I only ever wanted enough back to buy a secondhand bat until it was suggested that I get it all back.


  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 03:32

"page cannot be found" was the message


  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 03:36


  • coldlightofday
  • 20/10/08 31/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 25/01/2009 - 05:19


KSF IoM is in the

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 22:39

KSF IoM is in the jurisdiction of the IoM and supervised by the FSC. I have nothing per say against the IoM government and I suspect that somewhere along the line they themselves are, at least in part, victims but that does not change the fact that as far as we are concerned the buck stops with them. We should apply pressure by what ever means available to assure 100% recovery of our funds. There is no point in pursuing the UK gov (even if I do think they a bunch of bastards) we just don't have the means and nor should we have to its simply not our role. The IoM can take the UK and Icelandic governments to court if they feel that they have been victims of illegal activity and if they don't pursue this course it would seem to indicate that they were at fault.


  • chd
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 17:35

Exactly what we need. Excellent stuff. Thank you for doing that.

It seems that we are now at

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 01:59

It seems that we are now at risk of drowning the principal objective of recovering as much as possible as quickly as possible. In the words of Austin Powers - "I want a toilet made out of solid gold, but face it, it just ain't going to happen".

The problem with making decisions here is that if the DAG decide for example to opt for a SoA over liquidation and DCS, even if the SoA promises the world, then there will still be someone who whines about fairness or something, that's life. In some respects it is better if that choice is taken away from DAG, then any complaint or legal action cannot be directed towards DAG. That is what is going to happen anyway, it seems at the moment that DAG is just being humoured to buy enough time for whatever evil plan has already been decided.

Ramsey Peel mentioned that we are in danger of turning the DAG into a full time occupation for some, and in some respects I echo his sentiment.

I also recall Diver mentioning that he didn't like to provided updates because he felt they tended to cause upset and bickering, but we have now gone from one extreme to the other - no one has a half a clue what the committee or core is discussing, or indeed what the difference is between the core and the committee, or indeed if the whole committee is having tea with the Queen.
Of course that is his right to post as he wishes, he has no statutory duty towards any of us, but there has already been too many secret discussions that appear to have not born fruit - it would be interesting to know who and what they were about.

We have forgotten one finally string to our bow - that he have the very real and ultimate sanction of revenge, whilst we may not achieve any of our objectives, we can boil the IoM government in their own juices and reduce them back to the band of incompetant shopkeepers that they are.
This may seem childish and without benefit, but in actual fact may serve to remind the IoM that it is on the edge of financial disaster - we will maybe find that this will serve to focus the minds of those who do have the ability to do something positive to resolve this situation.

Yes, but can we get back to the point?

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 12:01

All good points CM, but may I respectfully request we return to the topic of objectives and strategies? Perhaps IOM would treat the DAG with increased respect if they see us as a well organised and focussed operation, rather than a squabbling rabble.

I am proposing that the DAG fundamentally has two purposes:

  1. Financial - return of deposits
  2. Human - providing whatever help and support we can to our own members.

If it can be established that that is correct, then I suggest that the next step is to define clear primary objectives for both those purposes. Any suggestions as to what they might be?

Yes we can

  • Captain Mainwaring
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 12:17

With due respect though, you guys have been party to much information in the past regarding interested purchasers etc, and even now, you are sat of information that cannot be disseminated -

To be honest, even at it's worst, the "rabble" has behaved pretty well, considering what has happened, and I think that if the IoM and PWC have been trawling here as I think they have (and you will know they have), then they will be very aware of the level of determination.

Perhaps all of this information that was gathered before and was kept to one side can now be laid on the table so that we stop going around in ever decreasing circles?

To be honest with you, I feel that there shouldn't be any confidentiality now, it isn't as if those who have the info, have the final say by voting power, so if it isn't liked, then it will get shot down at the vote in any case - why not lay it on the table?

Point 2 is very difficult, you have to be aware what could happen if you start assisting people and something goes wrong - yes this is exceptional, but you still must be careful doing much other than providing this forum for people to vent their spleen or gain some small comfort. It's been pointed out before, but please take care when deciding to take intervention or to provide other than non-pecuniary support.

It may be necessary to view

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 12:43

It may be necessary to view the DAG as a long term project and it is probably better if we take this on board now and start to put the appropriate structures in place. To do this the following issues will need to be addressed;
Lack of a legal statute for the DAG.
Lack of accountability of the core to the members.
Lack of openness in decision making, this already poses problems for some people, and frankly the argument that negotiations are delicatewont do. The core team speaks with authority because it speaks for the DAG and thus I believe there is an implicit duty of transparency and consultation.
Lack of democratic structure, democracy may be inconvenient but it will be essential to the long term survival of the group if that becomes necessary.

I acknowledge the hard work that has been put in by the core members but I regard as unhealthy the almost obsequious expression of gratitude in some postings, the acts of the core members are not altruistic and in most cases (not all) their efforts are proportional to the amount they have lost and the significance of that loss to their total wealth. It is the membership of the DAG and their persistent lobbying of all and sundry that has given the core members sufficient stature to be heard. It is my fear that if things go badly wrong the gratitude may turn to something far less helpful at a moment when we will really need solidarity. We have already had a fore taste of this in the aftermath of the disappointing result of the 15th. We should not have unreasonable expectations of the core team nor should they expect us to follow them blindly.

The existing team Good

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 23:47

The existing team

Good points, but I really want to try to stay on topic with this. So quickly, yes, existing team has undoubtedly done great work ("core" isn't really the right name but it seems we can't shake it off). And let's not forget sheer hours put in - not many here, if any, could and would do the same.

So, back to strategy, objectives and actions/tactics...

Formalised entitiy

...the following issues will need to be addressed:
* Lack of a legal statute for the DAG.
* Lack of accountability of the core to the members.
* Lack of openness in decision making, this already poses problems for some people, and frankly the argument that negotiations are delicate wont do.

The argument for not forming a legal entity has always been that its not worth it (work, cost.) But I have always believed it would make many thing simpler, and certainly solves the second two points on your list if people were appointed "directors" or similar - but in turn that would logically mean they would need remuneration - responsibility would be involved. So it starts to incur cost, add set up fees, legal etc. That's why the "its not worth it" argument holds out.

I have often wondered whether creating the DAG is a formalised NP organisation is the way to go. I don't know enough about it, I have only ever had a standard Ltd company. But I believe a "private limited company limited by guarantee" may be what we need.

IMO this comes back to objectives again. We can never meet the 100% return objective if costs are involved. But allocating even just 0.1% to funding a formalised DAG entity might make sense, and make many more things possible. Actual funding is a different matter, since many members are strapped for cash. So then we might start getting into loans, probably feasible but complex and incurring further cost.

The human element

It seems we need to accept - Jan 29th will certainly not be the end of the DAG, perhaps, to use a cliché, the end of the beginning.

So getting back to defining the DAG's primary objective(s). We have understandably always focussed on the financial one (return of deposits) but isn't it time to start considering the human element? - survival of the depositors, both financially and emotionally, whilst we endeavour to meet the financial objective.

So, what about "human element" objective(s)? Should we have one, or is it outside of our scope?

Unfortunately I don't have

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 00:38

Unfortunately I don't have any experience of NP organisations in the UK but have been involved in two "associations" the French equivalent, one for a sports club and the other more relevantly an environmental pressure group. They were excellent vehicles for our purposes, was no need for remuneration for officers, we were a legal entity and as such holding a bank account and raising funds posed no problems. Does anyone in the UK or the IoM have experience in this area.

Since various contributions have already been made via the DAG the100% return is already unattainable for some, and if you count (and you should know better than anybody) the countless hours invested then I imagine we are all already losers.

The human element, this is, judging by the postings on the site already in place. The very existence of the DAG is a source of comfort to a large number of people myself included.

I still think direct action is a good idea but it needs somebody on the ground in the UK and/or the IoM to get this off the ground and I think this sort of think would be facilitated by a more formal structure

NP organisations

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 08:06

No experience either, other than belonging to some - such as family history societies which collect subscriptions for expenses (journals etc) but in which there are no paid officers. Until recently at least they were able to claim money from the Inland Revenue for subscriptions from UK tax-payers under the Gift Aid scheme. Not sure if this still applies (I'm not a UK tax-payer), but it strikes me there'd be a certain satisfaction if we could reclaim taxes for the DAG!! Maybe we could be set up as a charity (to provide help and support to victims) - I'm pretty sure the scheme still works for charities.

Just a thought ...

The argument for not forming

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 00:01

The argument for not forming a legal entity has always been that its not worth it (work, cost.) But I have always believed it would make many thing simpler, and certainly solves the second two points on your list if people were appointed "directors" or similar - but in turn that would logically mean they would need remuneration - responsibility would be involved. So it starts to incur cost, add set up fees, legal etc. That's why the "its not worth it" argument holds out.
Why do you assume a cost here, there are members of this group from all professions and accordingly perhaps this could be achieved by those members providing those services at no/v low cost.
A Company limited by guarantee seems like one of the options, but there are other options such as a member managed LLC.

I agree, volunteer based may

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 11:51

I agree, volunteer based may well be feasible, but I think it would be unwise to simply assume that would be the case. It obviously depends on how many hours individuals would be willing and able to put in on a voluntary basis. We don't know. So I am suggesting that any direction towards a formal structure should assume that it may need funding. Please let's not get into nitty-gritty at this stage, I think step one is about objectives and strategies, not the detail of how it would work in practice.

Thanks for the

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 09:36

Thanks for the definition.

This link may be useful for exploring the options;

What 's a LLC?

  • nivit
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 08:55

What 's a LLC?

Limited Liability Company

  • manx-person
  • 17/10/08 31/05/09
  • not a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 23/01/2009 - 09:02

Limited Liability Company

Off-topic comments moved

  • ng
  • 11/10/08 31/12/20
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 22/01/2009 - 17:51

Off-topic comments to this have been moved here