It had to Happen - now questions about the money

[AVB]

Is that really true TT? Where can the definitive answer to that be found? I only ask, as after my father/father in law died at Christmas i started a direct debit to Cancer Research UK. If it is the case i'd rather donate to Macmillan, if they're better???

Ask Cancer UK themselves. They quote that 80% gets spent on research.

[Vince Green]

Its all the advertising agency costs and fund raising companies that operate on their behalf but take a cut that eats into the total. TV adverting is incredibly expensive but they obviously need the exposure

Edited June 22, 2017 by Vince Green

[AVB]

Its all the advertising agency costs and fund raising companies that operate on their behalf but take a cut that eats into the total. TV adverting is incredibly expensive but they obviously need the exposure

 

 

For those that are interested in how much Cancer UK spend on research vs admin costs here is their annual report and accounts. Please don't believe anybody who says that they spend 90% on admin, they don't. The numbers are in the report from page 28 onwards with page 32 showing that they spend 80% on research and therefore 20% on admin. All of this is in the public domain but I also know one of the Cancer UK Trustees.

 

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/cruk_annual_report_2016-17.pdf

 

I'll find the same for Macmillan.

[jam1e]

 

 

For those that are interested in how much Cancer UK spend on research vs admin costs here is their annual report and accounts. Please don't believe anybody who says that they spend 90% on admin, they don't. The numbers are in the report from page 28 onwards with page 32 showing that they spend 80% on research and therefore 20% on admin. All of this is in the public domain but I also know one of the Cancer UK Trustees.

 

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/cruk_annual_report_2016-17.pdf

 

I'll find the same for Macmillan.

Thanks AVB.

James.

[silver pigeon69]

 

 

For those that are interested in how much Cancer UK spend on research vs admin costs here is their annual report and accounts. Please don't believe anybody who says that they spend 90% on admin, they don't. The numbers are in the report from page 28 onwards with page 32 showing that they spend 80% on research and therefore 20% on admin. All of this is in the public domain but I also know one of the Cancer UK Trustees.

 

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/cruk_annual_report_2016-17.pdf

 

I'll find the same for Macmillan.

Could you find the same for RSPCA pls? or point me in the correct direction?

[Lloyd90]

Could you find the same for RSPCA pls? or point me in the correct direction?

It should be on their website.

 

Or look up RSPCA yearly statement or similar?

[silver pigeon69]

Thanks Lloyd90, i have found it, now to try and make sense of it!

[panoma1]

Beware creative accounting! When anyone quotes you a figure such as 80%........the first thing to ask is 80% of what? The whole or what is left after "certain deductions"

 

Remember "there are lies, damn lies and statistics"

[panoma1]

Take Cancer UK as an example. 80% of what they get is spent on fighting cancer. 20% is admin. Oxfam say that they spend 16% on admin. I don't know where people get these 80-90% on admin quotes from!

 

 

A few years ago Cancer Uk's highest paid employee £220/230K.

And 189 employees paid OVER £60K

Not to mention add ons, perks, travel, expenses etc etc......

 

Save the children highest paid employee £257/267K

And 184 employees paid over £60K

Not to mention............etc etc

 

I wonder if they deduct this money before working out the percentage income they claim is spent on Cancer research or the children?

[toontastic]

A few years ago Cancer Uk's highest paid employee £220/230K.

And 189 employees paid OVER £60K

Not to mention add ons, perks, travel, expenses etc etc......

 

Save the children highest paid employee £257/267K

And 184 employees paid over £60K

Not to mention............etc etc

 

I wonder if they deduct this money before working out the percentage income they claim is spent on Cancer research or the children?

perhaps you think all those scientists at cancer research earning £60,000 + should work for free.

[panoma1]

perhaps you think all those scientists at cancer research earning £60,000 + should work for free.

I don't know how many of the 189 employees paid over £60k p/a (or how much over £60K p/a?) by the cancer uk charity are scientists ....do you?

I also don't know what the 184 employees of the save the children's charity paid over £60k p/a do either!

 

Oh! and these were pay figures declared in 2013! So I wonder what they are paid now in 2017?

[Twistedsanity]

The question to ask is what their definition of "administration" is? A paperclip and roll of tape? If you want to help charities get off your **** and get your hands dirty now and again rather than paying for the ceo's daughters pony club membership

[geordieh]

hello, latest news on yahoo mail, Grenfell Tower victims to receive £5,500 from no 10

Does that include the illegals that were there anybody that is found to be here illegally should just be deported

[AVB]

A few years ago Cancer Uk's highest paid employee £220/230K.

And 189 employees paid OVER £60K

Not to mention add ons, perks, travel, expenses etc etc......

 

Save the children highest paid employee £257/267K

And 184 employees paid over £60K

Not to mention............etc etc

 

I wonder if they deduct this money before working out the percentage income they claim is spent on Cancer research or the children?

No they don't. It is part of their wages bill which is part of their administration costs.

 

You have it in for them don't you. Why?

 

Charities are governed by the trustees who decide on the compensation of their CEO. They obviously think they do a good enough job to justify their salary. Now of course they could decide to not pay any of their staff but I suspect if they did it wouldn't be as well run and wouldn't generate as much revenue. The losers would be the patients benefiting from cancer research.

[Gordon R]

AVB - in fairness, these are charities. Should their CEO get more way than the Prime Minister? The number of employees over £60k is troubling. There is a big difference between not paying staff at all and staff earning well in excess of the national average.

 

Whilst some of the charities I regard as worthwhile, some I view with disdain.

 

I don't see panoma1 as having a dig, merely pointing out that charities might not have "charity" at the top of their agenda.

Edited July 15, 2017 by Gordon R

[Rewulf]

 

 

Whilst some of the charities I regard as worthwhile, some I view with disdain.

 

I don't see panoma1 as having a dig, merely pointing out that charities might not have "charity" at the top of their agenda.

 

Indeed ,there is a point where it ceases to be a charity, and is simply a business.

Im not saying cancer research dont do some good, but save the children in particular, have come in for some considerable flak for their 'admin' fees.

 

Ive done some fundraising for a masonic charity over the past 4 years, and they are very proud of the fact they only take 20% admin

[AVB]

 

Indeed ,there is a point where it ceases to be a charity, and is simply a business.

Im not saying cancer research dont do some good, but save the children in particular, have come in for some considerable flak for their 'admin' fees.

 

Ive done some fundraising for a masonic charity over the past 4 years, and they are very proud of the fact they only take 20% admin

Of course they are a business and so they should be. What's wrong with that?

 

Look at the executive board of cancer UK and the pedigree that they have. If they didn't get paid market rate then I suspect a lot of them would work elsewhere and I don't think that would benefit the 'charity'.

 

The comparison to the PM's salary is irrelevant. A lot of people earn more than the PM. I would say that the UK PM is one of most underpaid jobs in the UK. I wouldn't do it for what they get paid.

[panoma1]

No they don't. It is part of their wages bill which is part of their administration costs.

You have it in for them don't you. Why?

Charities are governed by the trustees who decide on the compensation of their CEO. They obviously think they do a good enough job to justify their salary. Now of course they could decide to not pay any of their staff but I suspect if they did it wouldn't be as well run and wouldn't generate as much revenue. The losers would be the patients benefiting from cancer research.

So you know that for sure do you? Perhaps you could explain how so?

 

Who recommends the level of renumeration to the trustees?.........The Chief Exec? Lol!

 

I assume you meant renumeration.......rather than compensation?

 

I ain't got it in for anyone I just believe in clarity, honesty and accountability!

[AVB]

So you know that for sure do you? Perhaps you could explain how so?

 

Who recommends the level of renumeration to the trustees?.........The Chief Exec? Lol!

 

I assume you meant renumeration.......rather than compensation?

 

I ain't got it in for anyone I just believe in clarity, honesty and accountability!

What are you referring to with your "know that for sure" comment?

 

Most trustees are not paid. Those charities that do so can only do so with approval of the Charity Commision. The CEO has nothing to do with it.

 

Compensation/remuneration = same thing. Some companies refer to remuneration others compensation.

 

Have you read the Cancer UK annual report and accounts? What is it that you think isn't clear or honest?

[Gordon R]

The comparison to the PM's salary is irrelevant. A lot of people earn more than the PM.

 

 

Sorry, but it is relevant. People in the private sector earn more than the PM - many of them - but this is a charity relying on donations.

 

If these charities ran advertisements - saying that they want our money for a good cause, but by the way, many of their employees earn far more than the people they expect to donate - I suspect their donations would dry up rather rapidly. Most people assume charities are not businesses, even though many are just that.

 

Most donors do not ask to see audited accounts for their chosen charity and are unaware of exactly who gets what. Whilst it might not be dishonest, it is certainly not open and readily available.

[toontastic]

 

Sorry, but it is relevant. People in the private sector earn more than the PM - many of them - but this is a charity relying on donations.

 

If these charities ran advertisements - saying that they want our money for a good cause, but by the way, many of their employees earn far more than the people they expect to donate - I suspect their donations would dry up rather rapidly. Most people assume charities are not businesses, even though many are just that.

 

Most donors do not ask to see audited accounts for their chosen charity and are unaware of exactly who gets what. Whilst it might not be dishonest, it is certainly not open and readily available.

Cancer research is basically a pharmaceutical/medical research company, and they are competing with other companies for the best talent. So to get the best they have to pay the going rate, pay peanuts and they may as well employ me as lead researcher.

As for chief executive, I don't know what he does so I don't know if he's deserving of his pay.

Edited July 15, 2017 by toontastic

[CaptC]

The National Trust is a "charity" - Dame Helen Ghosh's alleged salary is £185,000 a year. I am a tenant on one of their estates where daily I watch money squandered as their rented houses rapidly fall into damp decline!

The old expression "I could write a book about it" comes to mind but we would be evicted!

[Gordon R]

Sorry, but I remain totally unconvinced. Out of these:-•

Sir Harpal Kumar, Chief Executive

•

Mark Allen, Executive Director,

Human Resources

•

Ed Aspel, Executive Director,

Fundraising and Marketing

•

Dr Iain Foulkes, Executive Director, Research and Innovation, and

Chief Executive, Cancer Research Technology Ltd

•

Nick Gaynor, Executive Director, Philanthropy and Partnerships*

•

Nick Grant, Executive Director, International Partnerships

•

Professor Peter Johnson,

Chief Clinician

•

Ian Kenyon, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Director, Corporate Resources

•

Frances Milner, Executive Director, Philanthropy and Partnerships*

•

Professor Karen Vousden,

Chief Scientist

•

Sarah Woolnough, Executive Director, Policy and Information

 

Few seem to have a medical role. It looks like a money making outfit.

[panoma1]

What are you referring to with your "know that for sure" comment?

Most trustees are not paid. Those charities that do so can only do so with approval of the Charity Commision. The CEO has nothing to do with it.

Compensation/remuneration = same thing. Some companies refer to remuneration others compensation.

Have you read the Cancer UK annual report and accounts? What is it that you think isn't clear or honest?

Read your own post #64 and you will see what I was referring to!

 

A lot of trustees of charities are politically motivated, they are not interested in money, they want to influence policy, see RSPCA for example!

 

And if you believe the chief exec has no opportunity to influence the trustees, and benefit from doing as they bid, I think you are too trusting!

 

No ones salary is referred to as Compensation! At least I have never heard renumeration described so.

 

Are you for real? Read the annual report and accounts, don't make me laugh! The reports are produced by people the organisation employ to write the annual report and accounts! They will likely say what they are told to say! And they won't say what they ain't!

Edited July 15, 2017 by panoma1

[Vince Green]

Sorry, but I remain totally unconvinced. Out of these:-•

Sir Harpal Kumar, Chief Executive

•

Mark Allen, Executive Director,

Human Resources

•

Ed Aspel, Executive Director,

Fundraising and Marketing

•

Dr Iain Foulkes, Executive Director, Research and Innovation, and

Chief Executive, Cancer Research Technology Ltd

•

Nick Gaynor, Executive Director, Philanthropy and Partnerships*

•

Nick Grant, Executive Director, International Partnerships

•

Professor Peter Johnson,

Chief Clinician

•

Ian Kenyon, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Director, Corporate Resources

•

Frances Milner, Executive Director, Philanthropy and Partnerships*

•

Professor Karen Vousden,

Chief Scientist

•

Sarah Woolnough, Executive Director, Policy and Information

 

Few seem to have a medical role. It looks like a money making outfit.

 

I don't believe that Cancer Research is doing the research themselves, as far as I know, they fund research programmes within hospitals and Universities. This is entirely sensible because the real experts are deeply embedded within their own Departments in these places and are not going to leave.

Edited July 15, 2017 by Vince Green