Just a third of Tower poppy cash is going to help our heroes

Jol44Jol44 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.

Comments

  • Billy_ValueBilly_Value Posts: 22,919
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    anyone who thinks all the money donated to charity goes to the actual Charity is very naive
  • ShrikeShrike Posts: 16,592
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Shame the Daily Mail didn't stump up the million quid startup cash in the first place, wonder why they didn't?;-)
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    anyone who thinks all the money donated to charity goes to the actual Charity is very naive

    I don't think anyone does.

    It's about balance though isn't it.
  • Jol44Jol44 Posts: 21,048
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Speaking in general, there's something very wrong about huge profits being made for a few under the guise of 'charity', and where many people are working for nothing generating those profits.
  • Gordie1Gordie1 Posts: 6,993
    Forum Member
    anyone who thinks all the money donated to charity goes to the actual Charity is very naive

    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.
  • jesayajesaya Posts: 35,597
    Forum Member
    It's difficult to judge this particular case as there is so little detail. My personal view is that no group should be able to set themselves up to receive donations for charity unless they clearly state (on their website etc) what their actual 'pass through' to charity will be and the costs they are covering. Then people can decide for themselves whether they are prepared to buy one of these poppies (or whatever).

    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.
  • paulbrockpaulbrock Posts: 16,632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    More shit stirring from the Daily Mail. "0h those nasty charities, fancy them paying their bills and having to pay their staff and pay back loans".
  • paulbrockpaulbrock Posts: 16,632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jesaya wrote: »
    It's difficult to judge this particular case as there is so little detail. My personal view is that no group should be able to set themselves up to receive donations for charity unless they clearly state (on their website etc) what their actual 'pass through' to charity will be and the costs they are covering. Then people can decide for themselves whether they are prepared to buy one of these poppies (or whatever).

    You mean like having to register with the Charities Commission and file public accounts with them that anyone can look up at no cost?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,720
    Forum Member
    In typical DM fashion, the detail is at the bottom of the article:

    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’.
  • jesayajesaya Posts: 35,597
    Forum Member
    paulbrock wrote: »
    You mean like having to register with the Charities Commission and file public accounts with them that anyone can look up at no cost?

    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,510
    Forum Member
    anyone who thinks all the money donated to charity goes to the actual Charity is very naive

    I don't think anybody thinks that but 2/3 NOT going to the charity is well excessive
  • ShrikeShrike Posts: 16,592
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.
  • Paul_DNAPPaul_DNAP Posts: 25,801
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just a third of Tower poppy cash is going to help our heroes

    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.
  • DinkyDoobieDinkyDoobie Posts: 17,786
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Meilie wrote: »
    In typical DM fashion, the detail is at the bottom of the article:

    That's what i like about the daily mail. :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    anyone who thinks all the money donated to charity goes to the actual Charity is very naive
    Depends on the charity, surely. There are three charity treasurers in my home (different charities) and all our charities run at extremely low cost. None of us even claims expenses for our work.

    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.
    Paul_DNAP wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,889
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Easy. JUST DON'T GIVE'M A FUNK ING PENNY. buy yourself a nice top.
Sign In or Register to comment.