Has racing been hijacked by charities? - Page 3 - General running

TimR

10/10/2012 at 12:11

100k is around 0.025% of their 400m uk income so if you raise 2k you could legitimately claim 50p.

Edited: 10/10/2012 at 12:12

Womble

10/10/2012 at 12:12

Potto, if you have gold bond places at VLM then they are carried over automatically if your runner doesn't show up on the day. It's annoying as the income is deferred a year but you don't lose the place. Perhaps you have places through the silver bond scheme and the rules are slightly different? Really difficult for any charity now to get gold bonds for London.

My earlier comment about trolls refers to this constant carping on about charity fat-cats. As has been said above, people do work for charities and need to be paid at a rate to get the right person for the job. It is generally accepted that salaries are lower in the sector than might be the case elsewhere.

Wilkie

10/10/2012 at 12:15

LIVERBIRD wrote (see)

lardarse wrote (see)

I think i'll run for Cancer research next year and take my pay out of my fund raising, since i'll be working a damn sight harder for 4 months than the CEO, what do you think would be fair cut, 20%?, 40%? ...After all, apparently £100k for sitting on your arse is fine.

How do you know how hard the CEO of Cancer Research UK works? Have you shadowed them? You're talking a lot of rubbish today Lardarse.

I was going to ask that, LB.

It is probably that he/she spends a lot of time sitting his (it probably is a him) arse - but then so do most people who work in offices. It doesn;t mean they don't work hard.

Since Cancer Research UK (if that's who you mean) has an income of £492.6 million in 2011/12, I guess he's doing something right.

Edited: 10/10/2012 at 12:16

LIVERBIRD

pirate

10/10/2012 at 12:21

I wish it were a her, Wilkie. We need more female CEO's but that's another debate!

Womble

10/10/2012 at 13:18

We have a female CEO where I work and the one before that was female too. But then females are the carers in society, that's why we work for peanuts for charities

Robert Matheson

10/10/2012 at 13:35

Hi all, is it a fact then that if you don't raise what you pledge to on a charity place you are liable for the amount?

LIVERBIRD

pirate

10/10/2012 at 13:38

Did you imagine they were joking Robert? They're very serious!

Womble

10/10/2012 at 17:21

Not it is not a fact. It's a pledge not a contract. However, they may hound you for a while. They get particularly pissed off if you seem to have made little or no effort to raise the money. In the case of VLM, there used to be a blacklist where charities could put your name if you were deemed to have abused a gold band place and other charities would be able to withdraw a gb place given to you if you were found on the list.

Contrary to popular belief, charities are trying to raise money for their cause, not provide an alternative means of entry to certain events.

Peter Collins

10/10/2012 at 17:25

I thought that blacklist still existed. You can understand it in the sense of people pledging to raise money then not even attempting to. I can understand it from the other side too. In answer to the original question....No.

Peter Collins

10/10/2012 at 17:28

Quote: "I'm quite happy for a race like the Belvoir Challenge to make money for the local school. But these big corporate charities are no better than the bankers. They pay themselves big salaries on the back of the scmhucks who run for them and the schmucks who sponsor them. After the fat cats have taken their money there is little left for the people who need it. It's a scandal that survives because no-one wants to criticise a "good cause"." I'm afraid that's just not true. Nearly all charities will give you a breakdown of what percentage goes to the cause - and it's much more than most people would guess. The idea that charity leaders generally pay themselves so much that there's nothing left for the cause is ridiculous. Charities have to justify their public benefit, even the big ones, and if they existed mainly to pay huge salaries to chief executives and other staff, they would soon have their charitable status taken away from them by the Charity Commission.

Peter Collins

10/10/2012 at 17:33

As an example, here is Cancer Research UK's explanation on its website...

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/frequently-asked-questions/our-finances/

Peter Collins

10/10/2012 at 17:38

Sorry to bang on, but I would add that (apart from a few 'excepted' organisations) charities have to supply an annual report and accounts to both the Charity Commission AND to Companies House (although the latter might change), so you can always forget about the rumour and supposition and check them out.

Lå®Ðä®§€

10/10/2012 at 17:43

LIVERBIRD wrote (see)

lardarse wrote (see)

I think i'll run for Cancer research next year and take my pay out of my fund raising, since i'll be working a damn sight harder for 4 months than the CEO, what do you think would be fair cut, 20%?, 40%? ...After all, apparently £100k for sitting on your arse is fine.

How do you know how hard the CEO of Cancer Research UK works? Have you shadowed them? You're talking a lot of rubbish today Lardarse.

I don't think anyones worth £100k a year, what ever they do. It's far more than anyone needs a year to live on.

Lå®Ðä®§€

10/10/2012 at 17:44

"You're talking a lot of rubbish today Lardarse."

Just today? I'm flattered! lol

Peter Collins

10/10/2012 at 17:48

I'd agree with your 100k point, lardy, but that's a wider social question. I don't think there are many charity chiefs earning that much anyway, given that most charities come under the heading 'small' (about 85 per cent according to the Charity Commission, and often defined as having income of under £0.5m - although the Small Charities Coalition defines it as under £1m). A great many charities are the proverbial one person and his or her dog, struggling to keep going with a motley crew of part-timers and/or volunteers.

Narrow feet

10/10/2012 at 17:52

My mates who play football don't seem to need to get themselves sponsored for £300 a pop each time they play a match. Then again, there are plenty of local races that aren't hijacked by charities either.

My local race is the Great North Run. I live and work about a mile from the start and have never needed a charity place. I get fed up being told that I 'should' do it for charity at the same time that I'm asked by about 25 people at work to sponsor them to do it. I always give at least a fiver to each one. Costs me a bloody fortune every year.

Dave The Ex- Spartan pirate

pirate

10/10/2012 at 18:09

When I started at my last place everyone was amazed that I ran just for the sake of running, seemed to be a begging bowl round every week

LIVERBIRD

pirate

10/10/2012 at 19:56

Well I know plenty of people who are worth 100K a year. I hope you never need a heart/lung transplant and you're lying on the table and there's no surgeon available because they've all pissed off abroad to earn better pay because we've capped it.

Perhaps we mix in different circles. I think if you work hard, train in a very demanding role and add value to a company that justifies your salary, you are worth whatever the market will pay for you.

Muttley

10/10/2012 at 20:11

Actually, what they're worth is what their mates on the remuneration committee say.

As for the OP - yes, the charities are hijacking races and I don't like it. Too much already. Like others, I've been asked who I'm running for and been greeted with bemusement when replying that I actually do this for fun.

I'm perfectly happy for races to contribute the profits to charity and ditto if they add a quid or so to the entry fee. But I avoid events that require sponsorship. Each to their own.

AgentGinger

11/10/2012 at 09:50

I'll start asking the guys from my office who play a weekly 5-a-side match who they're playing it for?