- Thread starter
- #81
This.
I think the only reason lotteries don’t do this, is because far fewer people would bet. The headline jackpots draw in the punters.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Finance] EuroMillions £105m won by Sussex couple
- Thread starter Weststander
- Start date
This.
I think the only reason lotteries don’t do this, is because far fewer people would bet. The headline jackpots draw in the punters.
Norman Potting
Well-known member
Old joke alert - think when I heard it first it was about a £75000 win on Littlewoods which ages me......
"....but what about the begging letters? ...I expect we will still keep sending them....."
"....but what about the begging letters? ...I expect we will still keep sending them....."
- Thread starter
- #84
Traditionally in a football club, that comes with having to inject a very large sum.
I like it but still feel there's room for tightening between those with too few posts and those that have way too many!
I do agree, surely a top prize of £10m is enough for anyone, get to that and then top up the smaller prizes, very few of us are programmed to deal with this sort of wealth. Two years and it'll be £105 lottery winners split and he or she runs off with a younger model.
You could be a short, fat, balding bloke, but pull up at a restaurant or office in an Aston Martin and some of the Ladies seem to see through that!!
Miami Seagull
Grandad
I would set up and run the charity myself. You wouldnt believe some of the salaries that the big charities pay...
I'd swerve charity, so many of them are run like big business and so little benfits the cause.
A Joseph Rowntree type Philanthropic approach must be commended. perhaps invest £50m in local housing to be rented at affordable rates via the local authority even . . . . . you'd make a handsome return without profiteering. . . . I could resurect my old cement works holiday park idea. . .
A Joseph Rowntree type Philanthropic approach must be commended. perhaps invest £50m in local housing to be rented at affordable rates via the local authority even . . . . . you'd make a handsome return without profiteering. . . . I could resurect my old cement works holiday park idea. . .
I have had a standing order for 30 plus years with two charities that do great work, but in general you are correct. I can think of two extremely well known ones where the CEO is on more than £80K a year. Numerous other employees there also pull in very decent salaries. One charity I know has income of over £1.5 million a year from a research journal, and spends £0.5 million a year (probably more than that now) on salaries. The rest is supposed to go on funding research meetings and studentships. The least amount goes on the studentships. Historically the finance officer was forever going on about how the charity needed to spend spend spend or the charity commission would remove the cahrity status. This has resulted in profligacy and waste. I was invited to a meeting in London some years ago held by the charity, because I had a role with its journal, and was put up in a £350 a night hotel. The annual meeting cost £250K. The amount of wasted food and expenses for officials....mind boggling. At least these people don't source income directly from the public (just by sale of a science journal to university libraries, funded by the taxpayer. Oh.).
Another much bigger charity all of us will recognise, but which I won't name, spends a huge amount on research (40-50 million a year) but its mission, to help discover new medicines, has failed (nothing new discovered in 40 years). This is because the money goes to academic research, which is all about pulishing papers in high 'impact factor' journals obsessed with molecular mechanisms rather than drug discovery. Meanwhile there are countless employees in a massive swanky building raking in millions of pounds in salaries a year. One of my mates left his job as a Russel Group professor to become the science director of this charity a wile back, so we are looking at £100K plus salaries. The income for this charity is from it's highly visible high street shops and nationwide volunteer events, plus, of course, investments. Yes, charities invest in stocks and shares. And property. Who knew?
If I won 100 million I wouldn't give anything to these buggers. I have plenty of good causes I'd support but I'd do so quietly and anonymously, keeping control of process and outcome. I'd probably devote most of my time to this, actually. I'd also invest in a drug I am currently trying to develop (via venture capital, but that's another story).
On a personal privacy and family level, I would not move house, and I would not stick a swanky car outside. But I would buy property elsewhere and gradually relocate (I'd not move from here immediately as we have a nipper in a school, with a network of friends etc).
Likewise, I'd help out my family but not in a way they'd end up drawing attention to themselves.
Yes, that could be quite fun. Maybe I'll start buying a ticket.....someone remind me of the odds of winning......
ps - stop daydreaming, Westy
Mellor 3 Ward 4
Well-known member
That's quite a sweeping statement.
Yes - SOME charities pay big salaries - but to say so little benefits the cause is WAY off the mark with many charities - particularity the smaller ones.
Yes it is, I was referring to the larger ones . . . whilst they may be 'not for profit' they have some very generous expenses.
a simple example being dogs trust vs say Wadurs in Lancing. Wadurs is a small charity, with minimal funds and they do great work, they must be very efficient to survive. Dogs trust is a £100+M a year business . . . with a dozen shiny new vans in Shoreham alone they are no way as efficient in doing the same job. they spend £20m a year just 'generating income' so paying people to persuade us to donate. . .
A day rate for Terry Wogan on Children in need for example.
Birdie Boy
Well-known member
- Jun 17, 2011
- 4,280
Before you ring the national lottery print off a syndicate contract and put all the members in that you want and get them to sign it. Predate it to before the draw. Everyone in the syndicate will then receive their share tax free.
You have not been charged for this information but if you were to win it and use this plan, please remember me.
Sent from my WAS-LX1A using Tapatalk
BensGrandad
New member
I was at sister in laws and we were talking about it with her daughter and son in law who live in East Preston ... Her son in law wasnt impressed as to quote him 75% of the residents of Kingston Gorse are a lot more wealthy than that. I doubted that and he followed up by saying that recently a house was sold on Kingston Gorse for £300m but googling that did not reveal anything like that amount. Apparently Frank Lampard paid £1,1m for his house and the dearest one on the market at the moment is £2.4m.
If anybody knows of a dearer one being sold I would be interested to hear.
If anybody knows of a dearer one being sold I would be interested to hear.
- Thread starter
- #97
Being thick, I got confused with everyone in the story being an in-law.
Folk originally from Norfolk?
It must be like a group of 10 year olds having a 'my brother is bigger than yours' argument.
Not impressed by £105m
£300m
I don't think a Lampard lives on Kingston Gorse, I believe they bought a place in Ferring. (although that's not a hill I'm prepared to die on)
The only thing right about BG's missive is he's finally dropped the Angmering On Sea nonsense in favour of EP.
Although he's done that without noting how wrong he was previously.
Last edited:
Official Old Man
Uckfield Seagull
If £195 million is a lot for Euromillions, someone in South Carolina has just won $1.34 Billion. That's £1.11 billion english pounds.
Spending a million is easy. £10m buys a decent house. £100m sets up a lot for life and dificult to spend. But £1,110,000,000 takes forever just to count it.
Spending a million is easy. £10m buys a decent house. £100m sets up a lot for life and dificult to spend. But £1,110,000,000 takes forever just to count it.
- Thread starter
- #100
Would set £10m aside. £11b to charities.