RNLI 2013 accounts : highlights

[Biggles Wader]

What's fantastic about this thread is the broad support for the RNLI.
Like others here I've a reasonable amount of experience having been incolved at the sharp end, in several roles, for 20 years ish. At the sharp end the operational managament is by volunteers and while nothing is perfect and there are clear tensions between pressure for local solutions and maintenance of a clear corporate approach by the RNLI, the reasons for these are pretty obvious and it seems to work well.
There is concern centrally about a potential fall in income from legacies in the future and so the clear plan is to get the shore building stock up to scratch, get the lifeboat fleet modernised with a reduction in the number of different classes of boats deployed to make efficiency savings and to ensure sufficient funds behind the organisiation to provide a hedge against a fall in income in the future. I'm not an accountant, but it all seems pretty sensible to me, theyre a great organisation to be involved with and they do the job.

Right.You get a small but vocal minority who attack the RNLI,but the vast and often quiet majority are very supportive.

 

[bluemackerel]

Sybarite, you are simply becoming a bore on this topic, as well as wrong & irrelevant.

Most of us who live in the UK & who donate to the RNLI are happy with the way they operate. In fact I am more than happy, I am delighted, to have such a well funded & organised outfit ready & available should I ever need them.

However I shall continue to do my best not to call upon their services.

Perhaps the NHS might learn something from this model?

 

[Sybarite]

Your big problem is that you seem to have the simplistic view that the only thing that matters is expenditure on new boats. You should really try and understand the way that the RNLI operate and the projects it is currently undertaking and then you might realise that purchase or building boats is a very small part of its costs. This is nothing new, as people here who know the organisation have tried to explain.

However you choose to ignore information that does not fit with your warped view of the world, so it really is a waste of everbody's time trying to engage with you.

Never was the old chestnut "There is none so blind as those that choose not to see" so true as in your case.

I have run my own business, I have been a partner in an insurance business (which used insurance products in financial engineering montages) and have been a director of several trading organisations. I have also participated in the running of a family business. I therefore don't think I need lessons on business awareness. (In fact a pyschological assessment for a post indicated that I was good at seeing the big picture.).

That said if people are happy with a "usine à gaz" then what more can I say? After all it is your money.

 

[JumbleDuck]

You might like to know I was an FCA, European Finance Director, Finance Director in a household name company with a department of 160 people, and I have been responsible for the audit of several major charities, also Treasurer of a few.

I have run my own business, I have been a partner in an insurance business (which used insurance products in financial engineering montages) and have been a director of several trading organisations. I have also participated in the running of a family business.

My, you have been busy.

 

[Resolution]

My, you have been busy.

Now, now, that's almost a willy-wave!

 

[Sybarite]

Now, now, that's almost a willy-wave!

It's a pity that support comes mainly in the form of pm's.

 

[JumbleDuck]

It's a pity that support comes mainly in the form of pm's.

Yes, yes, of course it does. I expect you're flooded with them.

 

[jordanbasset]

After all it is your money.

I think that is the heart of the matter, you do not need to pay anything to the RNLI unless you want to. If people think it is being mis-managed or people paid too much then don't give any money. Unlike the French system where tax payers have no choice as to whether to pay, the RNLI is not compulsory.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

It's a pity that support comes mainly in the form of pm's.

Prime Ministers? You are high powered.

 

[Burnham Bob]

THe original post was simple figures. Even if sybarite does have a thing about the RNLI, maybe this whole thread would have been cut short if I had jumped oin with my opinion.......

"I pay my RNLI membership happily and I was bl**dy glad to see them when I got a rope round the prop and got stranded. "

As for bringing the Catholic Church into it, they wouldn't have been much use with the rope round my prop. Had the second dog not snapped at the first, we wouldn't have all been barking........or maybe we are barking to keep posting like this

 

[Tranona]

I have run my own business, I have been a partner in an insurance business (which used insurance products in financial engineering montages) and have been a director of several trading organisations. I have also participated in the running of a family business. I therefore don't think I need lessons on business awareness. (In fact a pyschological assessment for a post indicated that I was good at seeing the big picture.).

So what? So have many other people. You have a particular view that the rescue services in the UK could be run at a lower cost.

Where you do need lessons is in understanding organisations in their context rather than extracted small parts of them to try and nitpick. The RNLI is a product of its history and has evolved in a particular way. It may well be its function could be performed with a different kind of organisation, even at a lower cost but there is no pressure to do that.

It is pointless you constantly popping up here claiming superior knowledge and trying to use figures to show that the organisation is wasteful and inefficient when you have no idea how it is actually run.

Laughable that any sort of support you get is conveyed to you privately when you are trying to conduct a debate in a public arena. Are your supporters- whoever they are - so unsure of their position that they are not prepared to show it in public? Or do they only exist in your mind?

 

[Sybarite]

So what? So have many other people. You have a particular view that the rescue services in the UK could be run at a lower cost.

Where you do need lessons is in understanding organisations in their context rather than extracted small parts of them to try and nitpick. The RNLI is a product of its history and has evolved in a particular way. It may well be its function could be performed with a different kind of organisation, even at a lower cost but there is no pressure to do that.

It is pointless you constantly popping up here claiming superior knowledge and trying to use figures to show that the organisation is wasteful and inefficient when you have no idea how it is actually run.

Laughable that any sort of support you get is conveyed to you privately when you are trying to conduct a debate in a public arena. Are your supporters- whoever they are - so unsure of their position that they are not prepared to show it in public? Or do they only exist in your mind?

I realize that people do not like their sacred cow touched. However out of the £190m of revenue, £118m was the result of legacies. This is all very well but it's not necessarily a sustainable source. If legacies dried up tomorrow and you have an organization which costs £160m to run you are in soapy bubble. I have seen it in practice. A client laughed at my recommendation of prudence in a period of strong growth. They went bankrupt within a year.

Better to trim your sails before the storm arrives.

 

[Bru]

Damn me, somebody HAS invented a time machine! I go away sailing for a fortnight and come back to find the clock has gone back a year.

 

[SimonFa]

I realize that people do not like their sacred cow touched. However out of the £190m of revenue, £118m was the result of legacies. This is all very well but it's not necessarily a sustainable source. If legacies dried up tomorrow and you have an organization which costs £160m to run you are in soapy bubble. I have seen it in practice. A client laughed at my recommendation of prudence in a period of strong growth. They went bankrupt within a year.

Better to trim your sails before the storm arrives.

Aha, it was G Brown, wasn't it?

 

[Tranona]

I realize that people do not like their sacred cow touched. However out of the £190m of revenue, £118m was the result of legacies. This is all very well but it's not necessarily a sustainable source. If legacies dried up tomorrow and you have an organization which costs £160m to run you are in soapy bubble. I have seen it in practice. A client laughed at my recommendation of prudence in a period of strong growth. They went bankrupt within a year.

Better to trim your sails before the storm arrives.

And the point is? First you criticise them for being wasteful, then you object to their source of income and just to make us laugh for a lack of prudence! All organisations that generate their own income are subject to some risk. It is how you deal with and minimise the risk that is important.

The reality is that they are just about exclusively self financing. No draw on the taxpayer, no alternate funds to fall back on. legacies is, and always has been their major source of income, but they have progressively developed other sources. There is no reason to think that legacies will suddenly dry up, but there is well accepted concern that it is not as reliable a source as in the past. The organisation has along term commitment to maintaining and developing its service from within its own resources, hence the build up of investment (although the income from this is is only a small proportion of overall income) and investing in its own boat building facilities.

If you want to judge the management of the RNLI you judge them against their objectives, not against some hypothetical model of an alternate way of providing the service - or even the way the service is provided in other countries. You could easily construct an alternate model for providing the service, but in reality the only way it could be funded is through general taxation or a levy on every potential user. No government would even consider such an option when an effective means of providing the service already exists at no cost to the treasury.

BTW if you want to get into a p***ing competition on relevant qualifications and experience I can easily top you - plus I have the benefit of having worked with the organisation under discussion including being responsible for the management education of a number of their managers in the past. That does not mean that I agree with everything they do, nor that there is not room for efficiency improvement (which they are not afraid to implement), but I do find from my own observation that overall they stand up well if judged against their objectives.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

I realize that people do not like their sacred cow touched. However out of the £190m of revenue, £118m was the result of legacies. This is all very well but it's not necessarily a sustainable source. If legacies dried up tomorrow and you have an organization which costs £160m to run you are in soapy bubble. I have seen it in practice. A client laughed at my recommendation of prudence in a period of strong growth. They went bankrupt within a year.

Better to trim your sails before the storm arrives.

The Charity Commissioners take a dim view of charities who are seen to be hoarding their money rather than using it for their stated objectives.

 

[Bru]

The Charity Commissioners take a dim view of charities who are seen to be hoarding their money rather than using it for their stated objectives.

Yes and no. At the time I was a charity trustee the commissioners did indeed get a severe case of grumpiness over reserves and investments and for a while were pushing hard for income to be promptly expended and for reserves to be drastically reduced

It took a lot of discussion and negotiation to convince the CC that the endowment model was a valid option (and indeed the only option that gives long term financial security)

The CC has also long held the view that many charities should not actually be charities and indeed very few new charities are created since the advent of Community Interest Companies etc

 

[SimonJ]

"I have consistently never criticized the brave crews and so you are trying to calumny me to win an argument. I have criticized what I consider to be an over-heavy structure which has the very good fortune to enjoy the support of many donors which support the great work that the life savers do."

I agree with Sybarites sentiments and his preparedness to question a well loved organisation. In doing so he has generated a lot of flack. I too have the perception that because the RNLI is so well funded they are able and do, on occasion, spend excessively in terms of projects, HQ salaries and so on. Given the voluntary nature of the often very brave work of those at the dangerous coal face it grates that the HQ staff do not seemingly follow a similar ethos. Could not a retired Admiral already with a substantial pension not take on the Chief Exec role on an expenses only basis for example?
Many charities, civil servants (in the NHS for example), BBC managers & so on have taken the chance in recent years to ramp up salaries and expenses and so on. The RNLI management appears to joined the rest in following this unwelcome trend - they CAN spend, so they do. Or so it seems.

There is always a hesitancy to stick ones neck out to criticise or suggest an examination of those whose services one might one day have to call upon. Doctors, Fire brigade, health service, coast guards for example. We have seen the consequences in the NHS. But no organisation should be exempt from critical appraisal - frankly, the RNLI looks to be a bit bloated. This may be unfair and untrue but as the Americans are fond of saying - perception is often 9/10 ths of reality.
It is also interesting to note that many ex RNLI lifeboats regarded as obsolete go on to another life in other countries such as New Zealand where the conditions in which they are required to operate are considerably more severe than many areas of the UK.

 

[rotrax]

It is also interesting to note that many ex RNLI lifeboats regarded as obsolete go on to another life in other countries such as New Zealand where the conditions in which they are required to operate are considerably more severe than many areas of the UK.

Really?

I sailed in New Zealand last year and will do so again this year.

Extensive conversations with senior sailors of several well known Yacht and Boat clubs suggested that weather and sea conditions were similar to those we expect around the British Isles.

One experienced guy told me "Cook Strait-its like the Channel on a bad day!"

This thread is going nowhere.

If it aint broke, dont fix it.

 

[Sybarite]

BTW if you want to get into a p***ing competition on relevant qualifications and experience I can easily top you -.

That may very well be true and I have frequently appreciated the good advice that you give on this forum.

All I can say is that I earned my living by giving advice to people, and when they pay for it, they tend to be better listeners.

I have no vested interest in the subject; I wanted to point out that other models exist at a fraction of the cost of the RNLI but with results which are in the same ballpark. I have often seen organisations which become lazy when there is no pressure on resources : the first group I worked for outside the profession even had a team whose sole function was to determine the appropriate accounting principles to apply. Then the crisis hit and their payroll numbers reduced in a couple of years from 60000 to 40000. When I read in the RNLI finstats that they are trying to find out how to redeploy what they consider to be excess labour (150000 hours per year) then they certainly have a lot to learn about realistic management discipline. In France we reconstructed the group (at the time it was the largest British investment in France) earning economies of over £100m which included getting the fiscal authorities to legally pick up 100% of the losses we had incurred and resulting in us having the best financial management results of the automobile sector in France (source : Crédit National). By fiscally restructuring the deal we got a guaranteed 30% return on the gains reinvested. The group treasurer told me that it was impossible - until the mechanism was explained to him. I was seconded to the Group reorganisation team at the request of the CEO.

If people think that my criticisms are not valid, well they have every right to hold their point of view; but I do object to being called a book-keeper or a bean counter.