Quick Hello and P4C

[nirvana]

I find it odd that people would begrudge someone £155 per week (even with employers ex's and other ex's on top) whatever the % of the total budget that represented.

If wages = money given to good causes then, since it's not a zero sum game we can say that money given to good causes is greater than zero - this is good. There may be a line where this makes no sense, ie taking 1 million to raise 1 million is probably slightly unjustifiable, taking 10k to give 10k to good causes is 10k up on someone sitting around doing nothing and nothing being raised.

All the points about transparency and clarity are fair and like Satcom, I've met all the people at G4L a few times so am very hopeful this will be resolved -  and I hope my confidence that it will be is well placed.

But getting antsy about a wage of £155 per week is just a bit silly

[tikay]

I find it odd that people would begrudge someone £155 per week (even with employers ex's and other ex's on top) whatever the % of the total budget that represented.

If wages = money given to good causes then, since it's not a zero sum game we can say that money given to good causes is greater than zero - this is good. There may be a line where this makes no sense, ie taking 1 million to raise 1 million is probably slightly unjustifiable, taking 10k to give 10k to good causes is 10k up on someone sitting around doing nothing and nothing being raised.

All the points about transparency and clarity are fair and like Satcom, I've met all the people at G4L a few times so am very hopeful this will be resolved -  and I hope my confidence that it will be is well placed.

But getting antsy about a wage of £155 per week is just a bit silly

I don't have any problem with that wage, and I have only met 2 folks who have, though both of them speak from  a position of considerable knowledge & experience in this field. The wages are not the issue, in my opinion.

[nirvana]

Yr right that it's not been made big mention of but it was mentioned a couple of times - the nature of the thread may mean that people silently assent to the view that the amount given versus amount taken is not appropriate.

So I give my tuppenceworth. There are bigger issues maybe, but they've been well covered in what's been written so far

[tikay]

Yr right that it's not been made big mention of but it was mentioned a couple of times - the nature of the thread may mean that people silently assent to the view that the amount given versus amount taken is not appropriate.

So I give my tuppenceworth. There are bigger issues maybe, but they've been well covered in what's been written so far

Yes, I see now, point taken.

[Fred Titmus]

I find it odd that people would begrudge someone £155 per week (even with employers ex's and other ex's on top) whatever the % of the total budget that represented.

If wages = money given to good causes then, since it's not a zero sum game we can say that money given to good causes is greater than zero - this is good. There may be a line where this makes no sense, ie taking 1 million to raise 1 million is probably slightly unjustifiable, taking 10k to give 10k to good causes is 10k up on someone sitting around doing nothing and nothing being raised.

This may be true where charities don't already exist. You could argue that new charities, with their additional expenses, actually detract from the total amounts disbursed. If P4C didn't exist, would it have been possible for Maureen's family and the hospital to receive donations? Of course it would.

[MPOWER]

I cannot see this thread going any further untill Tikay travels to stoke.

regards

M

[FlyingPig]

Most charities pay their employees although some do work on volunteers alone. Although when you attend a specific fund raising event you would expect one hundred percent of that money made on the day and all donations (IE. Spin Palace) should go direct to the cause that the event is for.

If the money is taken away and wages deducted from the total, this then (to me) becomes a sort of business, these people not wanting to do it out of the goodness of their heart. Although any costs the charity incurred in setting up the event should/could be deducted from this total. Or maybe the charity could of donted the setup costs of the event.

Either way its a total minefield and I hope that it gets sorted for all the people involved. I don't know anyone involved and have not attended any events (not that I didnt want to - just didnt know about them) but I would feel agrieved if someone took wages out of my donation on the day, in fact I would be furious.

[tikay]

Most charities pay their employees although some do work on volunteers alone. Although when you attend a specific fund raising event you would expect one hundred percent of that money made on the day and all donations (IE. Spin Palace) should go direct to the cause that the event is for.

If the money is taken away and wages deducted from the total, this then (to me) becomes a sort of business, these people not wanting to do it out of the goodness of their heart. Although any costs the charity incurred in setting up the event should/could be deducted from this total. Or maybe the charity could of donted the setup costs of the event.

Either way its a total minefield and I hope that it gets sorted for all the people involved. I don't know anyone involved and have not attended any events (not that I didnt want to - just didnt know about them) but I would feel agrieved if someone took wages out of my donation on the day, in fact I would be furious.

The Spin Palace Donation was a two-parter - £3,000 to the Charity, & £500 to "the business", for, one assumes, expenses. I have no argument or quibble with the £500, though I think that doing it that way does muddy the water considerably as it makes the "how much in the £ raised goes to Charity" an impossible question to answer. For the purposes of "The Western Affair", the Spin Palace donation has been accounted for as £3,000 towards the total of just over, by most calculations, £7,000.

Wages for Charity Workers? I have made my point on that, I see no problem with it, not at all. But Rob Yong, who knows a thing or two about running a Charity, tells me he strongly disapproves of charity workers being salaried, if the salary comes out of "donated income". I think Iron holds similar views.

Anyway, lets await tomorrow's meet. I feel an obligation to continue to mediate in this thread to keep it fair, balanced, & even-handed,&  I'd like to thank my fellow Mods for doing the same. You cannot imagine how many PM's on the subject we have fielded!

[Ironside]

i have no problem with people taking a wage for raising money

my problem is the ratio between expenss and the money going to good causes

ideally IMHO the good causes should get 90% of money raised as a minimium but

think 85% is a reasonable figure during lean times

[tikay]

i have no problem with people taking a wage for raising money

my problem is the ratio between expenss and the money going to good causes

ideally IMHO the good causes should get 90% of money raised as a minimium but

think 85% is a reasonable figure during lean times

Thanks Iron, & my apologies if I misrepesented your views.

Are you saying, in effect, that between 85p in the £ & 90p in the £ is, in your view, a reasonable ratio? (Thats 85p or 90p to Charity, 15p or 10p as "overheads/admin costs").

[ariston]

seems about fair to me tony that figure although I would probably prefer to know before I donate anything. If a diclosure is made that says 90p in every poiund is going directly to the cause then at least everybody would know where they stood.

[ifm]

i have no problem with people taking a wage for raising money

my problem is the ratio between expenss and the money going to good causes

ideally IMHO the good causes should get 90% of money raised as a minimium but

think 85% is a reasonable figure during lean times

Thanks Iron, & my apologies if I misrepesented your views.

Are you saying, in effect, that between 85p in the £ & 90p in the £ is, in your view, a reasonable ratio? (Thats 85p or 90p to Charity, 15p or 10p as "overheads/admin costs").

LOL percentages not your strong point boss?

[Ironside]

close tony

i am saying that i think 90p in the £ miniium is the good causes get

when times are lean (ie  high unemployment etc etc) i would go as far as 85p but thats exeptional circumstances

if a fund raising charity cant manage that then its time that the fund raising took a different direction

[tikay]

i have no problem with people taking a wage for raising money

my problem is the ratio between expenss and the money going to good causes

ideally IMHO the good causes should get 90% of money raised as a minimium but

think 85% is a reasonable figure during lean times

Thanks Iron, & my apologies if I misrepesented your views.

Are you saying, in effect, that between 85p in the £ & 90p in the £ is, in your view, a reasonable ratio? (Thats 85p or 90p to Charity, 15p or 10p as "overheads/admin costs").

LOL percentages not your strong point boss?

Quite the opposite Mr ifm Sir! But in these matters, it's imperative to ensure there are no misunderstandings. Trust me, I'm in territory I understand fully here.....

[RED-DOG]

The main problem with the wage issue for me is this

The amount the charity takes as wages/administration costs is neither here nor there, IF the people making the donations have free and open access to this information at all times. Then, they themselves can determine whether this is the most cost effective way of making a donation.



If the amount taken is a set figure, i.e. a wage instead of a %. It seems to me that this could result in a situation where in any given month, the amount raised could be say. £1000, and the wage/admin bill £800, so only 20% of donated money would go to the beneficiary.

IMHO, it then becomes a business and not a charity.


If people know where their money is going beforehand, and have the ability to check that it did indeed go there afterwards, no one could possibly complain.