Charities CEO Salaries

[elgreco]

Comparing it to what 22 grown men get for kicking a bag of wind about for 90 minutes puts all into perspective 

[rimfire4969]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

It's hardly a lot for what they manage. Pay peanuts get monkeys. These are largely high profile jobs making often difficult decisions, managing media, staff, budgets and politics. Without looking at individual cases they deserve the cash. You do not get a lot of CEO for £100k. 

This. 

[Paul1440]

If it's a problem for somebody there's nothing stopping them putting themselves forward yo do it free. Doesn't put a roof over your head  though and not everyone's ambition is to be a saint.  

If someone is doing a job and it brings in £16k a year it's because anyone can do it with minimal training and making a mess of it will have  minimal implications on the organisation. Others more senior will call it out before any real harm is done. 

I guess these jobs have extensive impacts on other people's lives. 

 

[team tractor]

2 hours ago, toontastic said:

 

You don't half talk rubbish, cruk executive pay amounted to 1.7 million last year while 125 million was spent on salaries of all other staff. So in reality it's the scientists and researchers who are draining the funds.

The actual costs of running things  also took up a huge amount of funds ( office space, laboratorys, energy costs, phone bills, office equipment and other office supplies)

Still can't see where 80% of the money is wasted.

Or maybe I do actually know what I’m on about . 

I run a business and know what having 16 staff at one point cost so I’m aware of what a multimillion pound company costs to run .

it’s a charity ( big clue) I watch people run for cancer research and earn £1000 and then it’s lost on a ceo taking a wage that’s way to high. 

Oh and as to talking rubbish . You can’t beat a keyboard warrior 🙄

Edited November 24, 2018 by team tractor

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, team tractor said:

Or maybe I do actually know what I’m on about . 

I run a business and know what having 16 staff at one point cost so I’m aware of what a multimillion pound company costs to run .

it’s a charity ( big clue) I watch people run for cancer research and earn £1000 and then it’s lost on a ceo taking a wage that’s way to high. 

 

Rubbish. Its the opposite. You pay more and save the Charity in the long term by having it more efficient. If you have run a business you know what you are worth. A charity is and has to be a business. 

[toontastic]

2 minutes ago, team tractor said:

Or maybe I do actually know what I’m on about . 

I run a business and know what having 16 staff at one point cost so I’m aware of what a multimillion pound company costs to run .

it’s a charity ( big clue) I watch people run for cancer research and earn £1000 and then it’s lost on a ceo taking a wage that’s way to high. 

 

Well as you appear to be so knowledgeable about running a huge company why don't you offer your services to run one on the cheap. Chances are it's a bit envy and if you were offered 240,000 to run a big company you'd take it, I know I would.

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

Why would we want these charities to be run by numpty's on half pay? Do you expect the people working there to be a charity to themselves? We want these things run properly. Poor management is a cost to the business and proper management costs money. 

Its not a business , its a charity !
What do these people do besides 'make tough decisions' ?

http://offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/NewsAttachments/NST/Feat1PayStudy3.pdf

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Its not a business , its a charity !
What do these people do besides 'make tough decisions' ?

http://offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/NewsAttachments/NST/Feat1PayStudy3.pdf

A charity of this size is a business but formed as a charity.

Edited November 24, 2018 by oowee

[team tractor]

16 minutes ago, toontastic said:

Well as you appear to be so knowledgeable about running a huge company why don't you offer your services to run one on the cheap. Chances are it's a bit envy and if you were offered 240,000 to run a big company you'd take it, I know I would.

I already do charity work for epilepsy £1200 last time and the local cancer ward.

i also try to help anyone out that I can. 

You do realise money is just that ? I family is worth millions to me and no amount of money would alter that.

lets not forget as I run a business I’m aware that £240,000 is £500,000 cost roughly. Plus company cars , phones, pensions etc . That £240,000 could cost £6-700,000 a year in the end plus the meals , function expenses. 

If I pay a lad £10 an hour I have to charge £20 just to break even with almost 6 weeks of holidays (28 days ) 

yes a charity has to be ran properly to succeed but not milked 

ceo relies on the staff to advise still . 

 

12 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Its not a business , its a charity !
What do these people do besides 'make tough decisions' ?

http://offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/NewsAttachments/NST/Feat1PayStudy3.pdf

100% behind you there .

Edited November 24, 2018 by team tractor

[Rewulf]

48 minutes ago, oowee said:

A charity of this size is a business but formed as a charity.

As a mason , I do a fair bit of charity work, I dont ask a fee for doing so.
Couple of months back I helped out another clay ground run a Help the Heroes charity shoot, took a day off work to do it, travel ect.
At the end of the day, got given an envelope with £50 in for services rendered, a bit surprised as it was never mentioned, but it got put straight back in to the collections bucket.
A few years back I organised a 3 peaks charity event over a number of years, it cost ME a good few quid to do it , with accommodation and travel, as it did all the participants who made donations and collected sponsorship.
Should I have used my sponsorship to pay for the trip ?

Whilst I understand a large charity needs organisation, office and admin costs, in what moral capacity should it be allowed to make people rich off the back of it ?
Some of these CEOs are already very wealthy anyway, they dont even need the salary, yet the heads of some of them have their snouts in a trough of money that people donated to causes close to their hearts, or to help those less fortunate.

To then say that 'To get the best, you need to pay top money' certainly means you havnt got the best person for the job.
The best people would be those that asked for nothing.

[oowee]

12 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

As a mason , I do a fair bit of charity work, I dont ask a fee for doing so.
Couple of months back I helped out another clay ground run a Help the Heroes charity shoot, took a day off work to do it, travel ect.
At the end of the day, got given an envelope with £50 in for services rendered, a bit surprised as it was never mentioned, but it got put straight back in to the collections bucket.
A few years back I organised a 3 peaks charity event over a number of years, it cost ME a good few quid to do it , with accommodation and travel, as it did all the participants who made donations and collected sponsorship.
Should I have used my sponsorship to pay for the trip ?

Whilst I understand a large charity needs organisation, office and admin costs, in what moral capacity should it be allowed to make people rich off the back of it ?
Some of these CEOs are already very wealthy anyway, they dont even need the salary, yet the heads of some of them have their snouts in a trough of money that people donated to causes close to their hearts, or to help those less fortunate.

To then say that 'To get the best, you need to pay top money' certainly means you havnt got the best person for the job.
The best people would be those that asked for nothing.

I guess most of us do charity work and that is charity. These on the other hand are big business charity's. You are unlikely to get some voluntary piece of carp running them properly. If you did they would not get my money for a start unless they were the best person for the job. I want to know that a charity is well founded with a properly constructed board and set of rules that it follows. Many of these get large government contracts as well as large private donations and must be properly founded. I do not consider any of these salaries to be even close to excessive. I can hardly believe that Oxfam pays so little but then again they have taken a lot of stick recently for management controls. 

Edited November 24, 2018 by oowee

[toontastic]

Rewulf, it was I who said "to get the best you need to pay top money". It was said in relation to cruk recruiting top scientists/researchers are you honestly saying you expect them to work for nothing. If so perhaps you could pack in your job and work in a local charity shop (unpaid of course)

[Rewulf]

9 minutes ago, oowee said:

I guess most of us do charity work and that is charity. These on the other hand are big business's charity's. You are unlikely to get some voluntary piece of carp running them properly. Are you saying there is no one with a moral compass and sufficient skill ? If you did they would not get my money for a start unless they were the best person for the job. I want to know that a charity is well founded with a properly constructed   obscenely well paid board and set of rules that it follows. Many of these get large government contracts as well as large private donations and must be properly founded squandered. I do not consider any of these salaries to be even close to excessive.I dont suppose you work for a charity by any chance ? I can hardly believe that Oxfam pays so little but then again they have taken a lot of stick recently for management controls. 

Jobs for the boys, often funneling the money back into 'friendly companies' 
Fat cat figureheads, taking a large percentage of the charities donations.
Its a shameful scandal , and completely unjustifiable .
What percentage of money gets through to the people or research its designed for ?
If more donors knew how little of their hard earned cash got through , you know as well as I do , donations would nose dive.
It should be compulsory to publish this information, but the people in charge of the charity commission are as complicit , and well paid as the CEOs scooping up their salaries.
Its disgusting.

Just now, toontastic said:

Rewulf, it was I who said "to get the best you need to pay top money". It was said in relation to cruk recruiting top scientists/researchers are you honestly saying you expect them to work for nothing. If so perhaps you could pack in your job and work in a local charity shop (unpaid of course)

Were talking about CEOs and excessive admin, not about researchers.

Plus ,I think I do my bit charity wise.

[toontastic]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

Jobs for the boys, often funneling the money back into 'friendly companies' 
Fat cat figureheads, taking a large percentage of the charities donations.
Its a shameful scandal , and completely unjustifiable .
What percentage of money gets through to the people or research its designed for ?
If more donors knew how little of their hard earned cash got through , you know as well as I do , donations would nose dive.
It should be compulsory to publish this information, but the people in charge of the charity commission are as complicit , and well paid as the CEOs scooping up their salaries.
Its disgusting.

If you read up on facts instead of posting rubbish you'd know how money was spent. As said earlier cruk pays all its executives 1.7 million while 100 million+ goes to the wages of researchers/scientists etc. Hardly fat cats creaming off a huge %.

Let's take a look at Macmillan, CEO paid 161,000 so where does the rest of the approx 400 million go. Well about a third goes to pay for Macmillan nurses and another big chunk goes out in cash handouts to ease hardship. So tell me wheres this 80% of money wasted on admin people talk about, wheres the examples of very little being spent at the sharp end 

[Rewulf]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3357458/One-five-UK-s-biggest-charities-spending-half-public-donations-good-causes-spend-little-ONE-CENT-charitable-work.html

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/how-much-charities-spend-good-causes

This is why Oxfam dont pay top dollar any more
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxfam-charity-lay-off-100-people-haiti-sex-scandal-funding-cut-a8357476.html

8 minutes ago, toontastic said:

If you read up on facts instead of posting rubbish you'd know how money was spent. As said earlier cruk pays all its executives 1.7 million while 100 million+ goes to the wages of researchers/scientists etc. Hardly fat cats creaming off a huge %.

I dont believe I said anything to the contrary about CRUK or Macmillan , they might well be some  of the better charities, so Im not sure what youre on about there , same as this 80 % figure ?

[Gordon R]

The CEOs cream off large salaries, barely pausing to consider it is a charity that they run, in my book. As for paying top dollar to get the top people, why not pay them £1m or more and get an even better CEO?

Where there is a trough of money, you will always find snouts dipping in.

[Rewulf]

17 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

The CEOs cream off large salaries, barely pausing to consider it is a charity that they run, in my book. As for paying top dollar to get the top people, why not pay them £1m or more and get an even better CEO?

Where there is a trough of money, you will always find snouts dipping in.

If they are worth so much, why dont we make it a rule to make it very clear at point of donation.
A .What percentage of the donation makes it through to the intended target.
B . CEO s salary

If theres nothing to hide , and its all perfectly justifiable , there shouldnt be a problem with that should there ? 😂

[toontastic]

19 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

If they are worth so much, why dont we make it a rule to make it very clear at point of donation.
A .What percentage of the donation makes it through to the intended target.
B . CEO s salary

If theres nothing to hide , and its all perfectly justifiable , there shouldnt be a problem with that should there ? 😂

But it isn't as simple as that, if you tell someone donating £10 to cruk that 0.4 of a penny will go towards paying the person in charge do you honestly think they'll care. 

 

 

[oowee]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

The CEOs cream off large salaries, barely pausing to consider it is a charity that they run, in my book. As for paying top dollar to get the top people, why not pay them £1m or more and get an even better CEO?

Where there is a trough of money, you will always find snouts dipping in.

Envy is the ulcer of the sou. I think you might need treatment for this trough fetish. 

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

This is why Oxfam dont pay top dollar any more
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxfam-charity-lay-off-100-people-haiti-sex-scandal-funding-cut-a8357476.html

Evidence they should have paid more for better controls. Keep the organisation too lean and this is what you get. 

[Rewulf]

43 minutes ago, toontastic said:

But it isn't as simple as that, if you tell someone donating £10 to cruk that 0.4 of a penny will go towards paying the person in charge do you honestly think they'll care. 

 

 

Not in the slightest no, no one expects it to be run for nothing, I never said that.

Try telling them that £5 of that tenner goes in wages though, and you might get a different response.

16 minutes ago, oowee said:

 

Evidence they should have paid more for better controls. Keep the organisation too lean and this is what you get. 

Seriously ?

So they weren't being paid enough to behave themselves ?

Or they weren't the right people for the job ?

I rather think they had that much money, power, and spare time, they couldn't help helping themselves to whatever they fancied. And they were the ones that got found out.

Charities, foundations, trusts, not all ,but enough to dirty the waters in which they all swim, are corrupt, easy money scams.

Look at the Clinton's, anything Blair's involved in..I could go on , I personally know someone who runs a charitable Foundation in London , she uses its money and resources for personal gain , and advantage in her other businesses, and is not afraid to admit it, on top of that she takes a hefty wage for 'running' it. running involves doing NOTHING except turning up to fundraising events.

Yet you want to believe that for the most part , everyone deserves what they milk out of them ?

Beggars belief really.

[shaun4860]

6 hours ago, team tractor said:

as I said before mate ... take what you need , not what you want  

In your job do you just take what you need or do you take the whole wage?

Just asking

[Gordon R]

Quote

Envy is the ulcer of the sou. I think you might need treatment for this trough fetish. 

oowee - not for the first time - you post gibberish.

[oowee]

25 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Not in the slightest no, no one expects it to be run for nothing, I never said that.

Try telling them that £5 of that tenner goes in wages though, and you might get a different response.

Seriously ?

So they weren't being paid enough to behave themselves ?

Or they weren't the right people for the job ?

I rather think they had that much money, power, and spare time, they couldn't help helping themselves to whatever they fancied. And they were the ones that got found out.

Charities, foundations, trusts, not all ,but enough to dirty the waters in which they all swim, are corrupt, easy money scams.

Look at the Clinton's, anything Blair's involved in..I could go on , I personally know someone who runs a charitable Foundation in London , she uses its money and resources for personal gain , and advantage in her other businesses, and is not afraid to admit it, on top of that she takes a hefty wage for 'running' it. running involves doing NOTHING except turning up to fundraising events.

Yet you want to believe that for the most part , everyone deserves what they milk out of them ?

Beggars belief really.

 Evidence they should have paid more for better controls. Keep the organisation too lean and this is what you get.

[Gordon R]

Quote

But it isn't as simple as that, if you tell someone donating £10 to cruk that 0.4 of a penny will go towards paying the person in charge do you honestly think they'll care. 

I think they might care if you told them that for every £10 they donated - 50p went to the actual cause.

[oowee]

Just now, Gordon R said:

oowee - not for the first time - you post gibberish.

It's you that seem intent on this trough business not me. Continual envy and frustration, maybe some counselling would help?