No Hello, just P4C.

[suzanne]

If the grants awarded on the day were from previous events that would explain the discrepancy in the amount raised versus the amount awarded in grants/spent on expenses, but its odd that no explanation of this has been offered, just some figures that without knowing this, don't make sense.

What we should be told is how the £935 odd quid raised at the Cardiff event after expenses were then subsequently used. If the grants awarded on the day were predetermined and handed over from funds raised at previous events, they should not be included in any accounts for the Cardiff event.

No offence...im not the sharpest knife in the box but even I realised that money rasied would have to go through the books before it could be reallocated.

Thats why im saying we need to look at the bigger picture

[ariston]

I did actually wonder that myself Mr Raab. Now they have admitted giving only 30% to good causes then they backtracked and gave Maureen a lot more than the 30% (deservedly obviously) does this mean the money from some of the other events has in effect just paid for the shortfall? I would imagaine 2 or 3 other events have in effect done nothing but pay for the "missing" 70% in the costs that has been given to Maureen, Stacey and Reece. If this is the case the other events weren't charity events they would have been business events covering nothing more than operating costs- ie a business fundraiser.

[RED-DOG]

In fairness I think all the back stabbing should stop until p4c have done what has been asked of them and printed up all the figures.

Only one event has been printed out so far and immediately everyone is up on high horses.

If you look at the figures they have for Cardiff it would suggest that they made just over 50% profit on the day as presumably the grants given out on that day was from previous donations/games.

I know the number of people that attended Cardiff was FAR less than expected and I for one can hold my hand up and say I didnt go when I posted I would.

The amount raised could/would have been far greater if everyone on the list had turned up.

Can we just wait till we have a bigger picture before jumping to conclusions.

ok so if this is the case sue.......it has taken 17 days and over 530 posts on this subject to get one statment (figures) up from p4c then i have worked it out on a ratio of one every seveteen days   (no posts to nag them)  it would take1 whole year to get 34 statments (figures) up you think this is fair ?  for a business

All im saying is give them a chance.

For 17 days everyone has been asking for figures and as soon as ONE set of figures is up everyone is up on their high horse. I would assume that now we have 1 set of figures the rest will follow shortly.

Lets wait and see the bigger picture and THEN make constructive comments.

We don't have any figures on here, and we are not allowed to copy them to here, why not?

[sofa----king]

In fairness I think all the back stabbing should stop until p4c have done what has been asked of them and printed up all the figures.

Only one event has been printed out so far and immediately everyone is up on high horses.

If you look at the figures they have for Cardiff it would suggest that they made just over 50% profit on the day as presumably the grants given out on that day was from previous donations/games.

I know the number of people that attended Cardiff was FAR less than expected and I for one can hold my hand up and say I didnt go when I posted I would.

The amount raised could/would have been far greater if everyone on the list had turned up.

Can we just wait till we have a bigger picture before jumping to conclusions.

ok so if this is the case sue.......it has taken 17 days and over 530 posts on this subject to get one statment (figures) up from p4c then i have worked it out on a ratio of one every seveteen days   (no posts to nag them)  it would take1 whole year to get 34 statments (figures) up you think this is fair ?  for a business

All im saying is give them a chance.

For 17 days everyone has been asking for figures and as soon as ONE set of figures is up everyone is up on their high horse. I would assume that now we have 1 set of figures the rest will follow shortly.

Lets wait and see the bigger picture and THEN make constructive comments.

listen sue thats all people are saying,,,i presume on behalf of p4c,,,why should people have to wait and see?it was their money they gave all they want to do is see how it was distributed ? its not bloody rocket  science....accounts, leddgers, petty cash, it should all be to hand asap

[sofa----king]

I did actually wonder that myself Mr Raab. Now they have admitted giving only 30% to good causes then they backtracked and gave Maureen a lot more than the 30% (deservedly obviously) does this mean the money from some of the other events has in effect just paid for the shortfall? I would imagaine 2 or 3 other events have in effect done nothing but pay for the "missing" 70% in the costs that has been given to Maureen, Stacey and Reece. If this is the case the other events weren't charity events they would have been business events covering nothing more than operating costs- ie a business fundraiser.

its all to cock m8,i think they may have thought if they pulled the wool over it may be forgotten...

[thetank]

My recall is ok.

Flushy actually had the 66, I had the 36o and moved in on his blind from early position in the final.

In the table before that, I'd gone very deep, helped by doubling through Flushy on my immediate left. Moved on his blind with ace rag, he woke up with KK. I lucked out.

Then I went short again just before the final, trying to bully a calling station. There were trophys for all the finalists, I was over estimating his desire to get his hands on one, and he called my huge KQ re-raise with AJ. It was a 3 way pot, Tighty with a very short stack was the 3rd player from the big blind, he had K8.

After that pot where I donked off the last of my chips with 36o, Flushy ran over the rest of the locals in the final and took the cup, it was a good effort.

Can't remember my Mum's birthday was last week though 

[suzanne]

Woooooahhhh....hold on a minute.

I am NOT a spokesperson for p4c.

I went to 3 live events (including the Reece game), played in the VC p4c rebuy frenzy league, am a gold member and even donated my second place winnings in one online game. I dont know exactly how much I have donated but more than I could afford to be honest being a single parent.

I am as keen as everyone else to know where the money went.

Im just saying give them a chance to explain.

[Royal Flush]

I did actually wonder that myself Mr Raab. Now they have admitted giving only 30% to good causes then they backtracked and gave Maureen a lot more than the 30% (deservedly obviously) does this mean the money from some of the other events has in effect just paid for the shortfall? I would imagaine 2 or 3 other events have in effect done nothing but pay for the "missing" 70% in the costs that has been given to Maureen, Stacey and Reece. If this is the case the other events weren't charity events they would have been business events covering nothing more than operating costs- ie a business fundraiser.

I think either you are doing it intentionally or you are overlooking some matters here.

It's not as simple as "30% goes to good causes the other 70% is admin" if you walked up and gave P4C £1,000,000 then almost all of that would go to good causes.

Now i am not a spokesperson for P4C but i would imagine most of the admin costs are covered by the corporate donations. Then the money from the actual events, the money raised through poker players mostly gets spent on grants.

When we quote a figure of 70% for the year then try to apply it to specific events things don't add up because they are completely different.

[ariston]

I did actually wonder that myself Mr Raab. Now they have admitted giving only 30% to good causes then they backtracked and gave Maureen a lot more than the 30% (deservedly obviously) does this mean the money from some of the other events has in effect just paid for the shortfall? I would imagaine 2 or 3 other events have in effect done nothing but pay for the "missing" 70% in the costs that has been given to Maureen, Stacey and Reece. If this is the case the other events weren't charity events they would have been business events covering nothing more than operating costs- ie a business fundraiser.

I think either you are doing it intentionally or you are overlooking some matters here.

It's not as simple as "30% goes to good causes the other 70% is admin" if you walked up and gave P4C £1,000,000 then almost all of that would go to good causes.

Now i am not a spokesperson for P4C but i would imagine most of the admin costs are covered by the corporate donations. Then the money from the actual events, the money raised through poker players mostly gets spent on grants.

When we quote a figure of 70% for the year then try to apply it to specific events things don't add up because they are completely different.

ah ok mate now i understand. Some events (the ones where a fuss is made)  can get almost 100% of the money going to good causes but some dont. The overall average is a 70/30 split though on the year. Makes it a lot clearer for everyone that.

[sofa----king]

Woooooahhhh....hold on a minute.

I am NOT a spokesperson for p4c.

I went to 3 live events (including the Reece game), played in the VC p4c rebuy frenzy league, am a gold member and even donated my second place winnings in one online game. I dont know exactly how much I have donated but more than I could afford to be honest being a single parent.

I am as keen as everyone else to know where the money went.

Im just saying give them a chance to explain.

with all due R.E.S.P.E.C.T. sue they wont explain its been 17 days not once has the owner of the charity come on here to explain ok hes been ill ok his dads not well ,but bloody hell 17 days and cant find 10 minutes to post anything on this topic ? i think he deserves a kick up the arse personally,we all know that poker players are night owls and im sure 10 minutes to post anything would have been better than posting nothing at all.evn if solicitors are involved atleast get someone(a spokesperson)or even trace to say he cant say anything due to solicitors....just say something for christs sake instead of nothing.....

[Royal Flush]

I did actually wonder that myself Mr Raab. Now they have admitted giving only 30% to good causes then they backtracked and gave Maureen a lot more than the 30% (deservedly obviously) does this mean the money from some of the other events has in effect just paid for the shortfall? I would imagaine 2 or 3 other events have in effect done nothing but pay for the "missing" 70% in the costs that has been given to Maureen, Stacey and Reece. If this is the case the other events weren't charity events they would have been business events covering nothing more than operating costs- ie a business fundraiser.

I think either you are doing it intentionally or you are overlooking some matters here.

It's not as simple as "30% goes to good causes the other 70% is admin" if you walked up and gave P4C £1,000,000 then almost all of that would go to good causes.

Now i am not a spokesperson for P4C but i would imagine most of the admin costs are covered by the corporate donations. Then the money from the actual events, the money raised through poker players mostly gets spent on grants.

When we quote a figure of 70% for the year then try to apply it to specific events things don't add up because they are completely different.

ah ok mate now i understand. Some events (the ones where a fuss is made)  can get almost 100% of the money going to good causes but some dont. The overall average is a 70/30 split though on the year. Makes it a lot clearer for everyone that.

What i am saying is that 30% of ALL money raised has gone to good causes, this may work out as NONE of the corporate donations going to good causes and ALL of the event money going to good causes.

[thetank]

They have their fixed costs, and they try and raise as much as they can.

It's not as if they take all donations, and decide to spend 70% of them.


The issue as I see it is could these fixed costs be trimmed right down. A poker tournament raising 1.8k should be put on for less than 900 quid.

[ariston]

Fair enough flushy. If what you're saying is correct (you aren't a spokesman by your own admission so we don't know) then its the corporate charitable donations that are paying to run the business. I can imagine that the companies who have placed these donations would be pleased to hear this and the taxman maybe would as well as all corporate charitable donations are tax deductable (in effect none of the money would be going to good causes). I sincerely hope your assumption of how P4C works is wrong because if it is right it is contravening several laws.

[suzanne]

They have their fixed costs, and they try and raise as much as they can.

It's not as if they take all donations, and decide to spend 70% of them.


The issue as I see it is could these fixed costs be trimmed right down. A poker tournament raising 1.8k should be put on for less than 900 quid.

As I recall tanky you went to the Cardiff game so you will KNOW that there was a poor turnout.

If all had turned up the % would have been much higher.

[AlrightJack]

I did actually wonder that myself Mr Raab. Now they have admitted giving only 30% to good causes then they backtracked and gave Maureen a lot more than the 30% (deservedly obviously) does this mean the money from some of the other events has in effect just paid for the shortfall? I would imagaine 2 or 3 other events have in effect done nothing but pay for the "missing" 70% in the costs that has been given to Maureen, Stacey and Reece. If this is the case the other events weren't charity events they would have been business events covering nothing more than operating costs- ie a business fundraiser.

I think either you are doing it intentionally or you are overlooking some matters here.

It's not as simple as "30% goes to good causes the other 70% is admin" if you walked up and gave P4C £1,000,000 then almost all of that would go to good causes.

Now i am not a spokesperson for P4C but i would imagine most of the admin costs are covered by the corporate donations. Then the money from the actual events, the money raised through poker players mostly gets spent on grants.

When we quote a figure of 70% for the year then try to apply it to specific events things don't add up because they are completely different.

ah ok mate now i understand. Some events (the ones where a fuss is made)  can get almost 100% of the money going to good causes but some dont. The overall average is a 70/30 split though on the year. Makes it a lot clearer for everyone that.

What i am saying is that 30% of ALL money raised has gone to good causes, this may work out as NONE of the corporate donations going to good causes and ALL of the event money going to good causes.

If it was as straightforward as that, wouldn't this have been offerered as an official explanation before now...