Cancer Research UK losing the plot

Aka we'll p1ss away around £100k a year on prizes.

Makes you really want to do that race for life.

The CEO earns £240k a year.

£148 MILLION of the £493m they receive in donations does not get directly spent on research (info is scant, this was a telegraph article from 2014).

My observation is that there is huge desire and a will on behalf of the public to fund this fight. Many many research streams are also in receipt of this money through this organisation.

What I can't support is a 30% skimming of the money as ever more insidious methods of raising money are thought up be extremely well paid individuals.

The 'leave money in your will' is pretty bad - we aren't allowed the euthanasia debate but it's just fine for charities to directly target the elderly with huge guilt trips.

And now they are promoting gambling?

 

Cant say the CEO 'earns' 240k but is grossly overpaid.

 

A lot of the big charities and NGOs have gone the same way. Either they burn through funds or have become political organisations. The RSPCA is a prime example. I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.

Still plenty of smaller ones, though.

 

As snotty says it's a gravy train now. We just donate to small local ones now where we can see the effort that they're putting in and how well they spend the money.

 

Plenty of good, smaller ones

Oxfam do tend to shag the locals, which probably isn't part of their core mission.

 

Always wondered why Bazza joined

 

Baz hasn't got a beard, so could never have worked for Oxfam.

 

They've been at it for years ... At least since the 80's they've been doing mailshots with "free prize draw" shells and yes/no to donation return envelopes ... I concentrate on those amazing small local charities that deal with the effects of cancer instead.

 

You mean Cancer Research mailshots, or Oxfam shagging everyone in Africa?

 

He had one attached to his hair piece

 

I can only vouch for the former

 

If the CEOs are carrying out the same job and carrying the same risks as a non charity business of similar size and can justify that because of the way they run the business it's doing well why should he not make the going rate.

I use to work for a large arms house charity as a facilitys manager and was paid the going rate as the job was the same and had the same risks associated with the position in a normal business

 

So how do you think it should be run . I know what you mean about the high earning levels ...it's probably the same with Diabetes UK

 

You make a good point. Some of these charities are huge. It's the politicisation that really gets my goat...

 

Well, originally words like that meant something. Then the D team (Remedial Class) starting using them.

 

Any CEO that starts sentences with 'So' should be fired.

 

I've heard this arguement dozens of times and when you scratch the surface it's a nonesense.

Cancer isn't a consumer good or a service for a start, those that donate do so in good faith and good heart, so nothing at all like a typical business.

The primary goal of the charity is to fund research....I.e. to hand the money raised by hundreds of thousands of people wanting to give money willingly (something else a typical CEO never encounters) to businesses and organisations that do carry the risks of running a business in traditional sense.

From admittedly light research, very few charity CEO's have pedigree of working at that level anywhere other than public sector (though MBA's abound) and charities, so who can say what they are worth day in day out?

As for managing risk? What risk? Most of the actual hard work is done by volunteers....I.e the money being transacted is not a product of the charity, they've not produced something from nothing, that hard work has been done elsewhere. The charities don't inherit risk from the organisations they give finding to, I think the biggest has around 3500 people actually on payroll, that's not huge.

I'm not saying that simply because it's a charity people shouldn't earn a living, but how are charity bosses, leaders of organisations whose funding is solely given by those wishing to make a difference comparable to anyone running a genuine business?

And there's the rub....charities are now seeing themselves as businesses....after all, who do they compete with, that'll be other charities then. The 'give just £3 a month' malarkey that turns in to a twice weekly guilt fest as some chopper representing the 'charity' turns out to work for a private company subcontracted to raise further funds and is incentivised to do just that.

So if they are businesses then they should be scrutinised as businesses are....I'm incredulous that giving away £100k at least a year, money people have done incredible things to raise is seen as OK as it might 'fund wider revenue streams'.

They are losing the plot and need to get their eye back on the ball as what they are actually here for is vital stuff.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say but one very well known charity actually gave not just the CEO but many other top flight management interest free loans, some even purchased houses with the loan.
That is not very charitable is it