[TV] Captain Sir Tom Moore - *Died 2 Feb 2021*

[Weststander]

Chap who serviced the air conditioning system at the office also did the cat protection league's head office on Ashdown Forest. He said the car park was full of top of the range, very expensive cars.

Interesting, I donate to those particular cars! I’ll have a nose at their accounts, looking at admin costs as a proportion of donated/legacy income.

 

[Icy Gull]

Interesting, I donate to those particular cars! I’ll have a nose at their accounts, looking at admin costs as a proportion of donated/legacy income.

Post your findings

 

[Weststander]

Post your findings

2022:
£86m income, 73% of which from the public.
£57m spent on their raison d'etre.
The gap being largely the cost of fundraising, marketing, shops. I’d assume that once charities become large and complicated, the %age spend on the cause falls?
For an £86m entity with a 1,000 employees, the following packages seem fine to me in the region of £100k-£130k before tax, do they fund a car park of luxury company/personal cars? I’ll happily keep donating.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

RSPCA is truly corrupt.

 

[Weststander]

RSPCA is truly corrupt.

Are you vehemently anti fox hunting and the ****s who carry it out?

 

[dsr-burnley]

Some charities do better than others. Mary's Meals is a charity that arranges for children round the world to get a free school dinner. (£20 provides lunch for 1 child in Malawi for a year.) The idea being that children will go to school and get an education and get food, instead of stopping at home working for food.

£19m income last year, of which 93.86% was spent on charitable activity. Four of the directors get gross pay over £60k, the highest one being between £70k and £80k.

They feed about a million children per year.

 

[Eeyore]

Some charities do better than others. Mary's Meals is a charity that arranges for children round the world to get a free school dinner. (£20 provides lunch for 1 child in Malawi for a year.) The idea being that children will go to school and get an education and get food, instead of stopping at home working for food.

£19m income last year, of which 93.86% was spent on charitable activity. Four of the directors get gross pay over £60k, the highest one being between £70k and £80k.

They feed about a million children per year.

93% is very good, although I don't know if it includes fundraising costs. But still, very good. Sounds like a great cause.

 

[jcdenton08]

93% is very good, although I don't know if it includes fundraising costs. But still, very good. Sounds like a great cause.

And corruption.

 

[dsr-burnley]

93% is very good, although I don't know if it includes fundraising costs. But still, very good. Sounds like a great cause.

Fundraising costs are part of the 7% admin. It's about 85% actually feeding children and 8% "raising awareness", or campaigning I suppose.

It's a pdf on google and I can't download the figures.

 

[dsr-burnley]

And corruption.

I think they keep corruption down by delivering actual food to the schools, not money. The modus operandum is that they build kitchens at poor schools and then the work is done by volunteer mothers at the schools. Under authority of the teachers, presumably. They get food delivered rather than given cash to but it.

It isn't food like we would call food. A sort of maize porridge, in Malawi, for example. But when you have no food at all ...

 

[jcdenton08]

I think they keep corruption down by delivering actual food to the schools, not money. The modus operandum is that they build kitchens at poor schools and then the work is done by volunteer mothers at the schools. Under authority of the teachers, presumably. They get food delivered rather than given cash to but it.

It isn't food like we would call food. A sort of maize porridge, in Malawi, for example. But when you have no food at all ...

Excellent. Thank you for the extra info. A child fed is worth £20 of anyone’s cash.

 

[Husty]

It’s not just the CEO’s. I know someone who works for a registered charity, below Board/management level, on £100k.

100k isn't a lot of money in 2023, don't we want people at charities to be competent, well motivated people in order to deliver the difficult, stressful jobs they often do effectively?

 

[dazzer6666]

100k isn't a lot of money in 2023, don't we want people at charities to be competent, well motivated people in order to deliver the difficult, stressful jobs they often do effectively?

Agree - 100k pa for a major role in a big charity isn’t out of whack at all. Precisely why politicians should be paid more than they are perhaps…..

 

[Eeyore]

2022:
£86m income, 73% of which from the public.
£57m spent on their raison d'etre.
The gap being largely the cost of fundraising, marketing, shops. I’d assume that once charities become large and complicated, the %age spend on the cause falls?
For an £86m entity with a 1,000 employees, the following packages seem fine to me in the region of £100k-£130k before tax, do they fund a car park of luxury company/personal cars? I’ll happily keep donating.

View attachment 163126

Most organisations have to spend a lot on administration and fundraising costs as a matter of course. They can't function otherwise.

A good example is the Red Cross in 2022:

72.9% Direct charitable work
16.4% Fundraising and retail
10.7% Support costs

That's about right and the Charity Commission would be fine with it.

As regards wages, to attract the best people organisations need to pay. Generally, wages in the charitable sector are not as high as the commercial sector though. I've worked full time with charities for many years. I couldn't see myself returning to the commercial sector because my heart wouldn't be in it like it is here. It's my life and I'm 110% committed. I only have ten years till retirement anyway.

Unfortunately, some charities have been badly run and the tabloids love to put a spin on stories generally that people just accept without asking questions. The Cats Protection posh cars thing for example. The Chelwood Gate offices for them also have a large adoption centre. So they may well have been adoptees. Or may well have been not that posh at all.

I don't know anything about the Sir Tom thing though, so couldn't comment on that. It would be sad if his name was being tarnished by bad practice.

 

[Weststander]

Most organisations have to spend a lot on administration and fundraising costs as a matter of course. They can't function otherwise.

A good example is the Red Cross in 2022:

72.9% Direct charitable work
16.4% Fundraising and retail
10.7% Support costs

That's about right and the Charity Commission would be fine with it.

As regards wages, to attract the best people organisations need to pay. Generally, wages in the charitable sector are not as high as the commercial sector though. I've worked full time with charities for many years. I couldn't see myself returning to the commercial sector because my heart wouldn't be in it like it is here. It's my life and I'm 110% committed. I only have ten years till retirement anyway.

Unfortunately, some charities have been badly run and the tabloids love to put a spin on stories generally that people just accept without asking questions. The Cats Protection posh cars thing for example. The Chelwood Gate offices for them also have a large adoption centre. So they may well have been adoptees. Or may well have been not that posh at all.

I don't know anything about the Sir Tom thing though, so couldn't comment on that. It would be sad if his name was being tarnished by bad practice.

When I dug deeper with the Cats Protection salaries table, after tax, a car park full of the charity’s staff luxury cars didn’t stack up.

Besides, with PCP or personal lease, someone personally could have a premium brand car at £500 a month. That’s their business.

By comparison I was going to post the Southern Water directors emoluments table. But I gave up when finding the parent is based in Jersey …. pas de surprise. I realise they’re a much bigger entity, but I wanted to highlight the snouts to the trough in a quasi public sector monopoly.

 

[Eeyore]

Fundraising costs are part of the 7% admin. It's about 85% actually feeding children and 8% "raising awareness", or campaigning I suppose.

It's a pdf on google and I can't download the figures.

Yeah 'raising awareness' is normally promotional activities, events, social media campaigns. All essential for the end product.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I have bought quite a few car magazines over the years and I have noticed that many “owners cars” are CEOs of charities. Nearly always supercars too.

Makes me very suspicious and reluctant to donate because of it. The salaries some of these CEOs take is nothing short of scandalous imo when you consider they are supposed to be charities.

This one smells the same to me

I'm not sure it's always the case, but I know of charities that have recruited a successful CEO – with a salary befitting of that status – on the proviso that they (the CEO) can access a higher level of income from the charity through their connections.

The same goes for getting celebrities involved with charities. I'm not sure of the salaries/expenses involved in that world, but having a well-known person fronting a charity campaign does wonders for the coffers...

In this case, however, it seems more than a bit dodgy – I'm guessing they thought they could get away with it. But the fact that the charity was so well-known through the original fundraising effort and Captain Tom himself – they didn't really stand a chance.

 

[cloud]

Besides, with PCP or personal lease, someone personally could have a premium brand car at £500 a month. That’s their business.

Given that Land Rover is one of the Red Cross sponsors, it's more likely that any luxury vehicles are gifted for the duration of the sponsorship, rather than personally paid for by staff.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Are you vehemently anti fox hunting and the ****s who carry it out?

The structure of the RSPCA has been questioned time and again. The charity commission has raised many concerns over the management. I too have first hand knowledge of their dealings at the top. Our neighbour when I was growing up was on their board and lived in a nice 4 bed house owned by the charity when he retired he was given it. At the time it caused a real stink locally as on the estate lived a few RSPCA officers who were poorly paid and even had to turn their back gardens into sanctuaries for injured animals.

I have given loads of money to animal care centres but will not give a penny to the RSPCA.

 

[Icy Gull]

I'm not sure it's always the case, but I know of charities that have recruited a successful CEO – with a salary befitting of that status – on the proviso that they (the CEO) can access a higher level of income from the charity through their connections.

The same goes for getting celebrities involved with charities. I'm not sure of the salaries/expenses involved in that world, but having a well-known person fronting a charity campaign does wonders for the coffers...

In this case, however, it seems more than a bit dodgy – I'm guessing they thought they could get away with it. But the fact that the charity was so well-known through the original fundraising effort and Captain Tom himself – they didn't really stand a chance.

You are probably right, but it doesn’t sit well with me that you run a charity and coin it whilst doing so. It’s naive I accept. People who probably haven’t got much make donations and the lower levels work for nothing in the shops etc. The fat cats drive around in their Ferraris and Lambos and live the high live as CEOs