A little more info in case anyone is interested in seeing the actual published accounts. As cbarb says, SMC is obliged to provide a copy to anyone who asks in writing. I am not sure whether they are able to (or will chose to) charge, but you do have to write to them.
If you want to obtain a copy without contacting the church, you can download the accounts form the companies house website for a small fee (£1 last time I used it, I think).
The analysis on the Latigo site comments on the figures in the accounts published by SMC.
One other thought n the way funds are used, and the members are mislead. To quote cbarb:
Quote
cbarb
The amalgamated losses of the school, for the past three years, is something in the region of £300K plus. That shortfall had to have been covered by the general church funds because there was no money from anywhere else to cover it, since the coffee shops make very little contribution to overall church funds. Therefore, the money given by the ordinary members of the church is being used to subsidise the private school - which is ALLEGEDLY 'Paying for itself'.
Specifically, "That shortfall had to have been covered by the general church funds because there was no money from anywhere else to cover it" That certainly seems to be the case, but I think it then goes beyond that, as it looks like they then ran out of money in the general fund.
The Latigo article on the 2011 accounts says: "In 2008 restricted funds were £238,000, in 2011 they were £4,000." Now my understanding of "restricted funds" is just that - they are restricted in some way. They may for example be from a legacy and the restriction might be "to maintain the church buildings in the west of scotland" , "to further the gospel by providing a range of missions and activities that spread the good news" or "to help the poor in Glasgow by providing grants of up to £1000 to relieve hardship" - something like that. I have no idea what the actual restrictions were of course, but there is presumably a reason for calling them restricted.
The thing is, I can't see any "restricted" use of funds - instead, there is a strange statement about redesignating funds as this better reflects their use. I am not sure what that means, but I think it means that they have used these funds for some purpose other than the designated purpose, so want to change the records to reflect their (obviously infallible) financial decisions. If so, this is entirely the wrong way around. You are meant to use the funds in line with the restrictions, not use then however you want then redesignate the amounts in the accounts.
What I am getting at is that it is not just the general funds that may have been used, it may be that restricted funds have used to prop up the general fund, which is in turn propping up the private, fee-paying school, which is in turn buying iPads and getting lots of publicity for doing so. Interesting to say the least. If this is what is happening, I wonder what those who provided the restricted funds would think if they knew. To me, that is the point of openness and transparency - letting people know what is actually going on. I for one would love to see what the restrictions were and whether they included the purchase of iPads for people rich enough to afford private education, and I am sure that the families of those who made donations would also be interested.
It is worth noting that these questions are all there in black and white on the Latigo site, but no-one has made any attempt to answer them. SMC know about the site - they have mentioned it in at least one sermon - so they are aware that questions are being asked, but they seem to be pathologically incapable of answering questions, whether about the finances, their detailed beliefs or their values and how they should treat people.
Finally, cbarb, you say that the coffee shops make a small profit, but I think the figures show that they actually make a loss, in spite of being mainly staffed by volunteers. That means more of the congregation's unrestricted giving - or restricted giving - is also being siphoned off, this time to subsidise the coffee and cakes they provide to members of the public. Now this may be commendable -we could probably all do with cheaper coffee - but it does seem a strange use of the donations made by members. If I was putting money on the plate, I would like to know why it was being used to subsidise coffee to the people of Greenock, Falkirk and Cumbernauld.