Just a third of Tower poppy cash is going to help our heroes
Jol44
Posts: 21,048
Forum Member
✭✭✭
A company set up by the Tower of London and the artist behind the project, Paul Cummins, could potentially receive millions from the artwork, meaning businessmen who helped fund it could make substantial returns.
The Mail tracked down one of the private financiers who lent money to help set up the project, Ben Whitfield, and put it to him that he was making an estimated profit of more than a million pounds.
Speaking from his home in the Alps, he said: ‘Yeah, well, I don’t think I’ve got any comment actually.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2754319/Just-Tower-poppy-cash-going-help-heroes-So-WILL-pocketing-rest.html#ixzz3DJyGt4dM
Charities these days are often big business, where those doing the donkey work paid nothing.
The Mail tracked down one of the private financiers who lent money to help set up the project, Ben Whitfield, and put it to him that he was making an estimated profit of more than a million pounds.
Speaking from his home in the Alps, he said: ‘Yeah, well, I don’t think I’ve got any comment actually.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2754319/Just-Tower-poppy-cash-going-help-heroes-So-WILL-pocketing-rest.html#ixzz3DJyGt4dM
Charities these days are often big business, where those doing the donkey work paid nothing.
0
Comments
I don't think anyone does.
It's about balance though isn't it.
It doesnt matter what the job, if the money is good the same people fill them, big buisness, BBC, FIFA, charity, independent regulators, all headed by the same group, judges, politicians and millionaires, its a jolly boys club.
Look at the heads of a lot of these sorts of things and you can bet they all moved sideways into another role on megabucks.
Does anyone really believe David milliband lest politics and joined a charity to be...charitable?, of course not, he left to get greater power and money, if he was interested in the charity, theres a clares hospice on laygate south shields (his home town) who are desperate for volunteers, but we all know he wont do that, and we all know why.
In this case people get the poppy... and the chance to dedicate it etc, so it may be that they would be prepared to buy it even though only a third of the money is going to good causes - but they should know the details before they make their decision.
You mean like having to register with the Charities Commission and file public accounts with them that anyone can look up at no cost?
Yesterday Historic Royal Palaces, which runs the Tower of London, said that as well as the poppies’ manufacturing costs, there were additional expenses, including ‘a retail website and contact centre to handle thousands of sales, credit card fees, cost of installation, accounting, legal, insurance and transportation costs’.
Except that this isn't a charity - it is a community interest company that gives some of its 'surplus' to charities. They operate in similar ways to ordinary companies and so it is much harder for people to know what their costs are (or even how much they are). Hence my comment that they should make it plain at the point of sale.
I don't think anybody thinks that but 2/3 NOT going to the charity is well excessive
A big lump of that 2/3 is tax and another big lump is actual costs that won't be reducable. Yes it would be nice if all the rest went to charity, but thats not the world we live in - as I said above someone had to stump up the startup cash and I assume no-one was willing to do it for no return. Maybe we should look at the charity cash actually raised - it would be a shame if people stopped donating just becouse a portion is going back to the initial investors.
Well, I suppose a third of something is more useful to them than all of nothing, so it's still a good thing that they did.
Yes, it would be better if the people funding it were truly altruistic and the poppy fund got all of the money, but if that's not the case then it's okay to settle on a compromise that pleases everybody involved.
That's what i like about the daily mail.
Edit: I have just checked the figures for the charity I am treasurer for, and 2.3% of our spending is on governance (legally obligatory accounts and auditing support); there are no other costs at all. I am sure our kind donors are happy with the 97.7% of their donations that go straight to the charity.
The only way all the money could go to the charities is if the charities had funded the whole thing. It would have made some difference, but probably less than people think (and certainly less than the Mail, in their endless search for some shit to stir, pretends). If the charities had got together and commissioned, installed and marketed a huge art installation, their costs for this year would have increased sharply (just as they do when a charity opens a shop, or string of shops). It may be a fully justified expense, but in this case it would probably have been seen by their supporters as a high-risk venture, gambling their resources on an area where they had no experience or expertise.
As it is, the project was funded and organised by private, non-charity people and organisations; they will have charged a good deal more, since they can't rely on volunteers, but will have been in a far stronger position to enter into a risky transaction. Charities have to be VERY careful not to invest in anything that has an area of risk; theoretically the treasurer/ trustees could face criminal charges if they are seen as having been reckless with the money.
The website probably could be a bit more specific. It says that "net profits" will be given to the charities, which is honest enough; maybe the Mail could suggest wording that would have made them happier, and stopped them acting as if it was wicked for anyone to treat a fund-raising activity as having investment possibilities.