Printable View
I've just seen a story about Only Watch 2023 being postponed indefinitely due to some controversy.
A google has thrown up a few articles stating the same but not really breaking down what that controversy is.
Can anyone shed some light on what's happened in simple terms?
It always seemed a great charity initiative to me and I always enjoyed seeing the watches all the manufactures made for it so it'd be a shame if there's been some wrongdoing.
"This morning, Only Watch provided documentation in support of efforts for greater transparency. In it are links to financial statements dating back five years (2018) which cover 70% of the funds that have been raised by the organization, a list of projects funded by the auction over the last ten years, and financial statements for the two biotech companies supported by the charities (SQY Therapeutics, and Synthena AG) going back to 2017. Only Watch also promises to have its financial statement audited by a certified auditor starting with the 2023 statements. Only Watch has committed to sharing the results of that audit in the first trimester of 2024. It will also create an annual report "presenting certified accounts, the new governance, and a progress report on the projects funded." "
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/on...tponed-to-2024
no financial statements for the last five years, and 70% accounted for the period before.
A longer, but still incomplete piece, from two weeks ago:
https://watchesbysjx.com/2023/10/onl...-research.html
If I read correctly, they provided the statements for the last five years, which covers about 70% of the total 100 Mio raised so far. A bit better than what you started, but a far cry from transparency.Quote:
Originally Posted by thedontheniro
I have no idea how the watch brands were willing to support a big dollar charity if there were no financial audits until now?
Very strange.
This also helps:
https://revolutionwatch.com/santa-laura-only-watch/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Smells fishier than Grimsby Docks!
As far as I can tell it's due to the main guy being already in the industry and his story with his son. And it just picked up from there because he was 'one of us' and a 'good guy'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raffe
Apparently the chap's daughter has been creaming some of the money too in various guises.
The fact that the bulk of the funds disbursed to date went to SQY, a company where "the organisation behind Only Watch" (ambiguous phrase) owns 49% and Luc Pettavino and his wife and/or daughter own another 15%, certainly bears further scrutiny. It's said that the remaining shares are owned by other parents of DMD kids, and that there are restrictions on the payment of dividends and sale of shares, which is something. But there are lots of other ways of getting money out of a company, and unless those other parents have involvement in, or real oversight of, the management of the company then there's still plenty of scope for expropriation. It seems likely that once money is out of the charity and in SQY it is also outside the scope of charities regulation in Monaco, and just subject to general company law.
It's to be hoped all this is on the level but the information so far raises as many questions as it answers.
That's pretty damning if true... sordid affair all told and can't believe no one was keeping close track of where the funds were going to ensure they actually met their charitable commitment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullbreakfast
Been following this on instagram for a little while wondering when the journalists would pick up the story.
Funny how it takes a near billionaire watch collector and enthusiast to do the work journalists are meant to be doing. I hope Santa Laura logged his charity days on Workday.
I did enjoy this kicking:
But perhaps on reflection I shouldn’t have been surprised — by the way that this letter was received and considered by those who reported on it, with seasoned watch journalists taking it at its word and openly chastising those who had dared to ask the questions in the first place; and others simply not considering it worthwhile to even comment on.
The simple fact of the matter is that the symbiotic (some might use the word incestuous) relationship that exists between the watch industry and those who make a living “reporting” on it is fundamentally accountable for the reason why we are here today.
How many times every year do we see the same group of people being flown around the world, put up in fancy hotels, and wined and dined in order to “report” on a watch launch, or to get them to write yet another hagiographic puff piece on a brand? This week we even had the ludicrous example of an “Editorial Director” of the self-proclaimed “number-one website for watch lovers and watch professionals” extol the virtues of her job precisely because of the feting they receive from the brands? They just came right out and said it, as if it was something to be proud of, and to aspire to!
And we expect honest, probing, objectivity from these people into what happens to the money paid for the most expensive wristwatch ever sold? So, to answer your question: Regardless of the outcome for Only Watch themselves, the legacy of this debacle should be that those responsible for allowing this situation to escalate to where it has got to today, take a long hard look in the mirror this morning, and reflect on how they may have contributed to the problem staring the community in the face.
At the end of the day, who pays for those flights, fancy hotels, parties, cocktails and canapes that these so-called journalists so enjoy sharing on their social media, and openly promote as primary reasons as to why people should consider a “career” in watch journalism? We do — the people who buy the watches.
The whole thing absolutely reeks - but then a vast amount of what goes on below the surface of shrieky-clean oversanitised bloatocrat-asylums like Switzerland and Monaco is absolutely rampantly corrupt, that's kinda their raison d'ętre, so we shouldn't be surprised that this is bent as a nine-bob note, too.
It'll be interesting to see how this particular sepulchre is whitewashed back to acceptability...
Defrauding a charity is gross, I hope that if true, those involved get their comeuppance. Having said that, pointing a finger at the enthusiast press is bizarre though. That dude is confusing Worn & Wound with the New York Times.
I don’t think anyone believes James Stacy and Robert Van should be doing forensic accounting on the watch industry. Their job is to write fluff pieces about watches they like, which draws in readers and creates advertising revenue. If their job comes with perks, good on them!
They’re not even on par with film or music critics who (should) make intellectual arguments about the artistic merit of their relative media.
I’m perfectly happy to read someone’s short essay on a watch to pass the time or build my enthusiasm for a purchase. I guess it must also be their fault that watches are so expensive, that women are all but ignored as a consumer base and that an increase in watch production is partly responsible for global warming. I always knew that Danny Milton and Michael Stockton were no good!
The problem is there is no real journalism anymore in watches and many other areas ,people write puff pieces saying everything is great ,because they want to keep going to luxury launches of new watches and have nice trips hotels and meals
Sent from my Pixel 6 using TZ-UK mobile app