sailing for charity - self indulgence or altruism?

[Gwylan]

displacement activity

I have decided that I am going to invent and adopt a charity for KTL

it will be called GOFPS - Grumpy Old F*rts Preservation Society.

All funds will be be used for the provision of stationary, stamps and green pens to impoverished old men so that they can write to newspapers, magazines and local councils.

-after we've opened head quarters in major world capitals and equipped a fleet of planes to transport the presidential team from event to event. Probably need a few Chalets in strategic centres of influence for the skiing season - both Northern and Southern Hemisphere.

- Facilities in the Caribbean for all the essential sailing events that attract GOFs

Later on, as the charity grows, the money will be used for funding internet connections for the same sad old men so that they can carry on the important work of highlighting the follies of the young and promulgating downbeat down-to-earth good common sense opinions around the globe thereby making the world a better but slightly duller place.

I have already sent emails to Beneteau, Raymarine, MDL, Force 4 and all the other usual suspects. I am pleased to tell you that Musto have agreed to launch a new range of comfortable branded sailing clothes in beige and navy blue with the GOFPS logo emblazoned on the inner zipped pocket where we like to keep our wallets - which are rarely if ever opened, even then just that nano second later than the sucker who pays for the round

I wonder if anyone would like to suggest a mission statement for GOFPS

- To boldly moan where moan kind dares to go

We wil also be looking for a team of 40 top executives to run GOFPS -

- salaries will be starting at £60,000 a year [for 1 day a month] and rising to £120,000 for the CEO [ who does not have to ever turn up - just be in jail or the news]

Need a Patron - Phil the Greek seems an ideal candidate.

Far too low!
Need to have at least £4 mio in the pension kitty for the CE and pro rata for the rest of the team.

 

[rotrax]

There is a lot of cynicysm on this post ,only a little justified. There have been other posts where the subject of charity salaries have been done to death-enough is enough. Getting back to the post of course some entrants in charity events get the pleasure from doing some events and will use some of the money for their expenses. BUT the charities will benifit in some way by taking the surplus. I suggest that if highly skilled well paid staff could administer this the problem would be less of a talking point........ Before you post, remember sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but today I felt a little sarcastic!

 

[snowleopard]

some entrants in charity events get the pleasure from doing some events and will use some of the money for their expenses. BUT the charities will benifit in some way by taking the surplus.

When you give money to a charity, how much of it can be syphoned off before you consider it no longer acceptable. If you give £10 to someone for a sponsored parachute jump and £8 of that goes to paying for the jump, do you feel you'd have been better giving it direct to the charity? How would you feel if they were more up front about it - 'will you give me £8 to do a fun thing and £2 to a charity as well?'

How do you feel about charities that only use a small proportion of your money to the good works? Do you give money to the Salvation Army for their work for the homeless? Do you know how much of that actually goes to the homeless work and how much to their religious activities? (around 15% I have heard).

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Sadly, a lot of the time the youngsters are being taken for a ride. They are sold these packages on the basis of "doing good", which appeals to their youthful idealism.

The "charity organiser".....or "tour operator" in any other language.... puts a package together, continually pushes the charity aspect and charges a very high fee. I'm sure the youngsters do get something from it; but the charities get little and the tour operators get lots.

 

[rotrax]

Sadly, a lot of the time the youngsters are being taken for a ride. They are sold these packages on the basis of "doing good", which appeals to their youthful idealism.

The "charity organiser".....or "tour operator" in any other language.... puts a package together, continually pushes the charity aspect and charges a very high fee. I'm sure the youngsters do get something from it; but the charities get little and the tour operators get lots.

Hi, In June 2000 First Mate, who was fat and fifty, raised £6000.00 for a cancer charity. She paid her own expenses-about £800.00 plus the special insurance required should she need heli-evac fron the area.She rode a motorbike 18,380 feet up the north Indian Himalaya's to Kardung-La,the highest motorable road in the world. If it had meant running a marathon, swimming 250 lengths of the olympic pool or climbing half a dozen Monroes she would not have done it. Others who went on the trip she was on were not in her position. At the time she was self employed,had enough resourses to pay and did'nt have to ask her boss for time off-3 weeks.Most of the others had issues as above and had to subsidise all or some of their expenses from what they raised.The end result was that McMillan cancer nurses now work in rural Indian villages to offer palliative care to terminaly ill paitients.The £19,000 the group raised paid for the training of local health care workers in this sensitive area. If you were an indian villager with little money and cancer your demise had a lot of pain and no dignity.While this is still the case in some places in India, due to Global Cancer Concern it is improving constantly. Before posters start shouting about charity begining at home you must remember the world was a different place in 2000. But consider what I said earlier-she would not have done many events but this ones physical challenge,spectacular scenery and charitable intention ticked her boxes. If,as other posters imply,organisations are useing tour companies who are making substantial monies fron charitable activities,this is of course deplorable and indefensable.

 

[taz]

I take exception at all the sniping and general criticism of charities and their worthy causes.

I have been involved with one charity in particular for many years, infact I was the founder and I am the CEO. We only take the general running costs out of the donations(which currently runs at about 85%) which leaves 15% going to the good cause.

Any forumites wishing to donate and help the poor street urchings of Monaco can send their donations to me at the following address

Cell 3
`C` Wing
HMP Starngeways
Manchester
M13 1GW

I will be taking all the monies over to Monaco, by yacht, upon my release.

 

[Lakesailor]

When you give money to a charity, how much of it can be syphoned off before you consider it no longer acceptable. If you give £10 to someone for a sponsored parachute jump and £8 of that goes to paying for the jump, do you feel you'd have been better giving it direct to the charity? How would you feel if they were more up front about it - 'will you give me £8 to do a fun thing and £2 to a charity as well?'

How do you feel about charities that only use a small proportion of your money to the good works? Do you give money to the Salvation Army for their work for the homeless? Do you know how much of that actually goes to the homeless work and how much to their religious activities? (around 15% I have heard).

Correct. Forget the heroic efforts and just raise some money for the cause.

Won't be so many interested now, eh?

The conservation lot in the lakes tried to get charity fellwalkers to do their gruelling efforts in city parks or on athletic tracks as the damage caused by 1000s of extra boots clatting up and down the fells is costing a lot to repair.

Unintended consequences.

 

[chinita]

I take exception at all the sniping and general criticism of charities and their worthy causes.

I have been involved with one charity in particular for many years, infact I was the founder and I am the CEO. We only take the general running costs out of the donations(which currently runs at about 85%) which leaves 15% going to the good cause.

Any forumites wishing to donate and help the poor street urchings of Monaco can send their donations to me at the following address

Cell 3
`C` Wing
HMP Starngeways
Manchester
M13 1GW

I will be taking all the monies over to Monaco, by yacht, upon my release.

Ahaaa, I always suspected; now you have confirmed it.

 

[AngusMcDoon]

I am a charity branding and market awareness consultant. I recommend that the charity is called Grumpy Old F@rts Assistance Society instead, as this spells out GOFAS.

To whom do I send the invoice for consultancy fees?

 

[QFour]

We only take the general running costs out of the donations(which currently runs at about 85%) which leaves 15% going to the good cause

Never a truer word spoken in jest.

When you look at what some of them spend the money on. Re-Branding, New Image, Bringing shops into line with other retail outlets. Some do a very good job but there are alot that don't

 

[Ubergeekian]

I take exception at all the sniping and general criticism of charities and their worthy causes.

I don't. I fact I think the belief that charities should somehow be exempt from criticism explains why there are a lot of poorly managed to dodgy ones out there, ranging from the very small to the very large. Of course there are many, many excellent and well intentioned charities as well, but that does not excuse the whole sector from inspection.

 

[Clyde_Wanderer]

I would like to put another point of view. Some people deliberately do challenging and difficult sailing exploits for charity. It isn't fun; it take time when they could be sailing in much more enjoyable modes, and they are usually pushing themselves very hard to do it. If they were sailing just for fun, they'd have done something else! Such events are usually endurance tests (e.g. sailing singlehanded a distance rather more that a days sail)

I have supported such efforts a) when the charity was one I support and b) when it was clear it wasn't just a jolly. However, in these cases the person concerned was not asking for a contribution to expenses or anything else; they asked for a straight donation direct (or through JustGiving) to the charity concerned.

I must admit the situation where people are obviously going to have the time of their lives is a bit less obvious. But then again, I have been on conferences to places all round the world, paid for by my employer. Many of these have been great fun, and allowed me to see places that I probably wouldn't get to otherwise. Of course, I am there for a purpose, and people who haven't been on such events often don't realize how hard it is - you are on duty 24/7, so to speak! So, there is a "best of both worlds" argument as well - yes, you are having fun, but you are also carrying out an important role for your employer in this case. I don't see why some of these holiday with a purpose options shouldn't be like that.

However, I'd judge each request on its merits!

Yes I agree with all AP says and would remind readers of the risks that are taken by such sailors while undertaking such charity sails and point out that most of the lower profile charity events are funded by the person/people participating (the genuine folk)
I personally know a sailor who completed such a charity sail where there were calculated risks and the sail was challenging yet he unselfishly completed it and handed over all the money collected.
I take my hat off to him, so lets give folk like him credit instead of tarring all fundraisers with the same brush and consider the fact that if there were more unselfish fundraisers like him then more of these charity/research organisations could continue with their valuable contributations to our society.
C_W

 

[Lakesailor]

To whom do I send the invoice for consultancy fees?

Aren't you doing it for charity?

 

[snowleopard]

From the POV of a charity it makes sense to give £60 to a fundraiser who brings in £100. You now have £40 you wouldn't otherwise have had. It would still make economic sense if you gave back £90.

The fundraiser is on much more questionable moral ground but if they tell the contributors that 60% of their money is going to fund their jolly, and the donors still agree, that is defensible. What I think is totally unacceptable is where the fundraiser omits to mention that most of the money is going to them and not the charity.

 

[snowleopard]

Here's a proposition - I am going to make a voyage. I would like everyone to sponsor me in aid of the RNLI. Half your contributions will go to pay my expenses and I will give the rest to the Lifeboats.

What do you think?

 

[Rigger Mortice]

It's worse that that with some of these deals.

You should have said "The first half goes to me. The second half (If I collect it) goes to RNLI"
The charity is always at the end of the line.

 

[Lakesailor]

That's the point isn't it? Those giving money would like to think (well I would anyway, can't speak for anyone else) that it all went to a charity.
We don't all have bottomless pockets so if someone said to me

"Give us £20 and I'll have a jolly and give £10 to charity. Or if you want I won't go on the jolly and if you give me £15 I'll give it all to charity."

Which is the better deal for everyone (except the jollier)?

 

[Ubergeekian]

The fundraiser is on much more questionable moral ground but if they tell the contributors that 60% of their money is going to fund their jolly, and the donors still agree, that is defensible. What I think is totally unacceptable is where the fundraiser omits to mention that most of the money is going to them and not the charity.

That's what really annoys me about chuggers. They tell people that their direct debits are going to charity - but in fact somewhere between one and three years' worth of the donations are going to the chugging company.

I don't think it reflects at all well on the charities employing them ether, as by conniving at this they are diverting money which the donor wants to go to good causes. It's all very well to say "Well, a charity gets some of it" ... but other charities could have had the rest of it.

 

[Haven't-a-Clue]

Yes I agree with all AP says and would remind readers of the risks that are taken by such sailors while undertaking such charity sails and point out that most of the lower profile charity events are funded by the person/people participating (the genuine folk)
I personally know a sailor who completed such a charity sail where there were calculated risks and the sail was challenging yet he unselfishly completed it and handed over all the money collected.
I take my hat off to him, so lets give folk like him credit instead of tarring all fundraisers with the same brush and consider the fact that if there were more unselfish fundraisers like him then more of these charity/research organisations could continue with their valuable contributations to our society.
C_W

I take my hat off to him as well.

I believe in post 16 of this thread I said SOME.

As for "tarring them all with the same brush", well harrumph to that........I'd use a roller.

 

[mikefleetwood]

The subject of this thread reminds me of something that caused me deep concern when I saw it in the press, a year or so ago.

I have mixed feelings, and may have the important details wrong:

There was much made in the media of a paraplegic chap sailing around the UK coast. As far as I can recall, it was all paid for by charitable donations. There was a specially adapted yacht and a back-up team, both water-borne and land based, to follow him around and make sure he was OK. The whole thing would have cost several £100k.

I thought - well, the rest of us have to pay for our own sailing, so why should others pay for his? I can understand a charity paying for underpriviledged kids to sail, or similar, but was using all this money so that just one man can fulfil a dream good use of charitable giving?