Dispaches - Tracing London Marathon Millions

Well I think the press result sums it pretty well.

Couldn't believe it when Mike O'Reilly came on the programme! The works black and kettle came to mind.

I find it sad that someone should attack LM, which after all did not exist there would be none of the money raised for charity as there is.

I've run the race 5 times and no I wouldn't run it again for all off the reasons stated. However a lot of runners in my club do want to and we're always over subscribed for our club places.

Dutch Johnny wrote (see)

I find it sad that someone should attack LM, which after all did not exist there would be none of the money raised for charity as there is.

Dont you also find it sad that there are people around willing to give £47 million to worthy causes but will keep the money in their pockets if some idiot in a banana costume doesnt have a day out in London?

People DO NOT need the LM to exist to give money to a worthy cause, they can do it simply because they feel the charity deserves their support. Where does banana man's escapades come into the equation?

parkrunfan wrote (see)

Dutch Johnny wrote (see)

I find it sad that someone should attack LM, which after all did not exist there would be none of the money raised for charity as there is.

Dont you also find it sad that there are people around willing to give £47 million to worthy causes but will keep the money in their pockets if some idiot in a banana costume doesnt have a day out in London?

People DO NOT need the LM to exist to give money to a worthy cause, they can do it simply because they feel the charity deserves their support. Where does banana man's escapades come into the equation?

People are much happier to give if they think that the collector is doing something to earn it. You might think that's "sad" but it's how we are. I give a fair amount to charity via fund-raising events, but am less likely to just send a cheque to a charity unprompted.

Exactly - and thats the bit I just dont get!

Either a cause is deserving or not - why does a third party collector have to 'earn' the donation?

I'm not sure thats 'how we are' but  most people put their name on a sponsor sheet just because its the easiest, least hassle thing to do (and the easiest way to get rid of the person asking). Most people couldnt give two hoots whether the 'arm twister' actually goes on to do whatever deed they were planning to do...... and I doubt that many people actually noticed which charity they donated their couple of quid to.

I agree RC, first marathon I ever did, which was London and I got in via the ballot so did not have to run for a charity but did, which was for a local hospital kids ward, I had people almost throwing money at me when I was going around with my form (pre internet days) and I doubt if they would have made any donation just off their own backs.

If people see you getting off your backside in a good cause they're more likely to give. Okay I was going to run anyway and the charity was a by product but the point's the same. Plus I didn't even have to wear a Banana suit!

RunningCommentary wrote (see)

There would be a furore if the golden bond system was scrapped, and the most vocal criticism would come from the charities themselves. With the GB system, they can resell the places, effectively creating a sort of contract with the runner to raise a minimum amount for their particular cause. If charity places vanished, it has to be assumed that a large majority of current golden bond places would go to people with no plan to fund-raise, just as the the great majority of people in other UK races don't fund-raise. And even if they did decide to collect for a charity, there is no incentive to aim for the sums that the charities can demand. The charities greatly benefit from the current system, and would hate to see a free-for-all as their LM income would plummet.

Before the GB were created, all places were available to runners and most did raise for charity.
If the GB were scrapped and the LM push the entry fee up and put a clause that the
runner needs to run for a charity. Then charities will still not lose out. Charities will still
advertise asking for runners. But more will run for the charity of their choice.
Smaller, local ones will greatly benefit which are the ones who sadly miss out.

The LM coped without the GB system for years. It coped on its income too. The marathon
gets good money via its sponsors as well as runners. It gets a good deal from councils and
police who charge them little for roads and policing. They sell places to charities to make
money for their own purpose. That's understandable. But it would be nice that more places
were available through the ballot. Push the fee upwards and let runners run for their own cause.

Part of the marketing of the event is that it is "the biggest annual fundraising event on the planet".

They are not going to do anything to change that - except to make it bigger. 

There are other routes into the marathon, such as GFA places for good runners, and the chance of club places for anyone who joins a club.

There is so much hype around this event, and it just generates the idea that it MUST be the best marathon.

But it's not - as someone succinctly put it, it's shite.  The organisation is cracking (they've had a lot of practice), but the race itself is just 26.2 miles of being jostled, barged, interrupted and having to go round people.

I did it once, and wouldn't bother again.  There are MUCH more enjoyable marathons around.

For Puffy ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264596/Just-25p-pound-taken-London-Marathon-organisers-paid-charity.html   One of about 20 articles I found on google

Sorry I only "thought" I could "remember" the guy's salary!  Was I right though?

runnerman wrote (see)

Before the GB were created, all places were available to runners and most did raise for charity.
If the GB were scrapped and the LM push the entry fee up and put a clause that the
runner needs to run for a charity. Then charities will still not lose out. Charities will still
advertise asking for runners. But more will run for the charity of their choice.
Smaller, local ones will greatly benefit which are the ones who sadly miss out.

I really don't think that putting a clause in stating a runner 'has' to run for a charity would be enforcable, practical or particularly sensible for the LM. The LM is there to make money which it does by charging the GB places at £300 or whatever it is and the ballot runners however much it is. If they reduce the number of charity places then increase the price, they probably make more money, but the chairies support will wane when they make less money. After all, if yuoare a charity you would want a guaranteed £2,000 each from 20 or 30 runners rather than an unknown figure from people who may want to run for your charity. People who want to run for a charity will do regardless of having a GB place. So they aren't likely to make as much.