One for Lance fans
Comments
-
Organisations such as Charity Watch encourage people to only give to those charities that meet their criteria. The LAF does not meet these criteria...emerywd wrote:I'm still not expecting any concrete facts from aurelio stating that people should not give to the LAF. Cheap, slanderous hearsay.
That made me laugh! China is every neo-con's wet dream, and if you haven't noticed most western capitalist corporations from Apple to Nike get their products made there!emerywd wrote:Cancer and drug treatments are in market place. It's called capitalism. If you're not happy with it, move to china.0 -
Whose figures are those. The LAF's?colint wrote:Anyway, a quick look at the latest set of accounts shows 15.9% spent in fundraising and 5.7% spent on admin, which is much healthier. It seems to be being run on a much more efficient basis now, which is good news.
As Charity watch notes:
Q. Won’t a charity provide me with all the information I need to make an informed giving decision?
A. A charity that wants your donation has little incentive to criticize itself. They may choose not to reveal true but unflattering information about themselves. Also, the financial information that charities are willing to make easily available to donors is often unclear and incomplete. You need an independent watchdog who can objectively analyze a charity’s finances and management practices.0 -
It's from their audited accounts, so independantly and legally verified. The chaity watch article is good, but frankly it's out of date. Their findings are backed up by the accounts in the early 2000's, but based on this years accounts they're not longer applicable / relevantPlanet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
...if you want a wrist band... get a Geoff Thomas foundation green one... a good bloke, a good bikey and...... he certainly don't cheat
MGcG0 -
mgcycleguy wrote:...if you want a wrist band... get a Geoff Thomas foundation green one... a good bloke, a good bikey and...... he certainly don't cheat
MGcG
You clearly didn't see some of his 'tackling' for Crystal Palace then
Joking aside, you make a good point.Twitter: @RichN950 -
colint wrote:It's from their audited accounts, so independantly and legally verified. The chaity watch article is good, but frankly it's out of date. Their findings are backed up by the accounts in the early 2000's, but based on this years accounts they're not longer applicable / relevant
nice one...you don't usually see Aurelio go quiet...he even refused to admit SCA paid out several million USD to LA after LA instigated legal proceedings, when they did actually pay out millions...so let's see what A replies with tomorrow...even with the facts you present.0 -
RichN95 wrote:mgcycleguy wrote:...if you want a wrist band... get a Geoff Thomas foundation green one... a good bloke, a good bikey and...... he certainly don't cheat
MGcG
You clearly didn't see some of his 'tackling' for Crystal Palace then
Joking aside, you make a good point.
lol ... fair point... for any younger readers football was a sport in those days, not a form of showbusiness, and tackling was actually allowed !!!!
... http://www.geoffthomasfoundation.org worth a look,
(ps... sorry to hi-jack but then again, its nice to think an LA thread is "actually" going to raise awareness of a good cause afterall) 0 -
You are a card, making up such nonsense. I have never argued that SCA didn't pay Armstrong his bonus and costs. (After it was ruled that all the evidence of Armstrong's doping was immaterial to the case, and all that mattered was that Armstrong was the official winner of his first 5 Tours, SCA had no choice but to pay up).Dave_1 wrote:you don't usually see Aurelio go quiet...he even refused to admit SCA paid out several million USD to LA after LA instigated legal proceedings, when they did actually pay out millions.0 -
Have you actually looked at the figures?colint wrote:It's from their audited accounts, so independantly and legally verified. The chaity watch article is good, but frankly it's out of date. Their findings are backed up by the accounts in the early 2000's, but based on this years accounts they're not longer applicable / relevant
In 2004 'Revenues and other support’ totalled 41 million dollars of which 3.67 million were declared as being spent on fund raising and management, or 9% of the total.
In 2005 'Revenues and other support' totalled 55.4 million dollars of which 8.73 million were declared as being spent on fund raising and management, or 15.8% of the total. Now this is the year of the Charity watch report which said that the true total cost of the LAF's fundraising efforts was not 15.8% but 45 dollars for each 100 dollars raised.
In 2006 'Revenues and other support' totalled 36.8 million dollars of which 9.66 million were declared as being spent on fund raising and management, or a huge 26% of the total.
In 2007 'Revenues and other support' totalled 31.2 million dollars of which 7.66 million were declared as being spent on fund raising and management, or a whopping 24.6 % of the total.
The figures actually suggest that the fundraising efficiency of the LAF is getting much worse than back in 2005 and like in 2005 it also appears that many items that Charity Watch would consider as being 'promotional' costs are not included in the LAF's 'fund raising' totals. I am not suggesting that the accounts are fraudulent, but I am sure that it is quite legal to put some 'promotional' expenses in the column marked 'Program services' rather than 'fund raising costs', even when that money does not go to helping anyone directly.
Also interesting in the 2006 and 2007 figures is the way the promotional costs of 'Program merchandise and services' are not listed separately in the expenses section, again suggesting that the 'Program costs' do include a large proportion of expenses associated with promotional work, rather than helping people.
From the accounts as provided it is impossible to tell just how much the LAF spends on all promotional costs, and perhaps Charity Watch should go through the figures again to see what the true costs are. I have a feeling that the picture they found in 2005 has, if anything, got worse.0 -
aurelio wrote:
You are a card, making up such nonsense. I have never argued that SCA didn't pay Armstrong his bonus and costs. (After it was ruled that all the evidence of Armstrong's doping was immaterial to the case, and all that mattered was that Armstrong was the official winner of his first 5 Tours, SCA had no choice but to pay up).Dave_1 wrote:you don't usually see Aurelio go quiet...he even refused to admit SCA paid out several million USD to LA after LA instigated legal proceedings, when they did actually pay out millions.
you did not deny it but you did not admit he did win the payout..someone was confused as to whether LA got his bonus and I came on and said he did via a court case ... you couldn;t bring yourself to admit it and posted all sorts of rubbish links I could find myself if I was bitter enough0 -
I've only looked at the 2007 figures, and based on those they show greater efficiency than the alledged 45% from charity watch, but as the charity watch figure is largely an assumption, and there may be hidden costs somewhere in the accounts, it's an impossible one to argue unless you sat in on the audit.
What may be more relevant is the Charity Navigator survey which compares similar charities, so LAF is compared with 4 other US based cancer charities. Only one scores 4 stars, the other 4 score 3 stars, with LAF having the lowest rating of 51.4 (compared with the other 3 starers who range from 55 to 59.
However, LAF raises more money than all of the others, including the most efficient. The most efficient raised 1.3 million at a cost of 12 cents. LAF raised 31 million at a cost of 19 cents.
So it's true according to these figures that LAF has a higher cost than comparative charities per dollar, but it raises much much much more in terms of revenue. It makes sense that a larger, higher profile campaign will have higher costs. They are still spending more on programs by a significant amount thatn the other US based cancer charities.Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
Reading the information on the Charity Watch site, it seems that their figures are based on a detailed analysis of what each charity actually received in donations and spent its money on, not assumptions.colint wrote:I've only looked at the 2007 figures, and based on those they show greater efficiency than the alledged 45% from charity watch, but as the charity watch figure is largely an assumption...
On the other hand the Charity Navigator figures appear to be based on the audit figures for each charity, which seem to disguise a plethora of 'creating accounting' practices...colint wrote:What may be more relevant is the Charity Navigator survey...
How do you know when it seems that their 'Program costs' include a very large proportion of spending on promotion?colint wrote:They are still spending more on programs by a significant amount thatn the other US based cancer charities.
I would bring your attention to what the Charity Navigator organisation itself said:
Today, the Lance Armstrong Foundation is an internationally recognized organization with 45 employees that is expected to raise $21 million by the end of the year. Last year, it paid out $3.6 million in grants to 80 cancer-related organizations around the country.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... w&cpid=215
If the LAF only paid out 3.6 million Dollars in grants, where does all the rest of the money go?0 -
aurelio wrote:
Reading the information on the Charity Watch site, it seems that their figures are based on a detailed analysis of what each charity actually received in donations and spent its money on, not assumptions.colint wrote:I've only looked at the 2007 figures, and based on those they show greater efficiency than the alledged 45% from charity watch, but as the charity watch figure is largely an assumption...
On the other hand the Charity Navigator figures appear to be based on the audit figures for each charity, which seem to disguise a plethora of 'creating accounting' practices...colint wrote:What may be more relevant is the Charity Navigator survey...
You don't know that for sure, thats just opinion (although it could be correct). All you can do is compare whats declared, which does confirm higher costs but massively higher revenue, the other charities don't even come close. The upshot is millions are being spent on support cancer sufferers, which has got to be a good thing surelyPlanet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
Not when people give money to the LAF thinking that most of it will be spent on directly helping cancer sufferers, ('80 cents in every dollar' is the claim), when in fact the greatest amount of money spent by the LAF goes on promotion / raising the market value of 'The Armstrong Brand' * to the primary benefit of Armstrong himself and the corporations who trade on his name.colint wrote:The upshot is millions are being spent on support cancer sufferers, which has got to be a good thing surely
*US & Canada: Apple Polishes Off Google on Home Turf
Apple loses the battle for world dominance this year in our Global results but soundly beats Google at home. Similar to the Global contest, the two have shared top five distinction in the US & Canada results for the last four years.
Scooping third place, Starbucks continues to waft through our world. We asked readers to choose those brands that had the most impact on them in 2005; Starbucks is for many a daily ritual, made more noteworthy by the cost and experience of choosing this retailer over the corner street vendor.
Mega-retailer Target has been sinking since holding the first place position for 2001 and 2002, before falling to second position in 2003 and then third in 2004. In 2005, it queues up at fourth position. Unique among other national retailers in its focus on design, Target probably faces steep competition with the expansion of Ikea and Wal-Mart throughout the US.
American athlete and seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong brings up the tail of the top five brands. Armstrong joins craigslist and Whole Foods as new entrant notables who made the top ten for US & Canada brands.
http://designtaxi.com/news.jsp?id=1843& ... &year=20060 -
Most of is spent on cancer, thats an absolute fact. You take any of the accounts, any of the charity reports and they all confirm that. I'm really not sure how you can say it isn't, there is zero evidence to support that from what I can see.
Go back to the figure you quoted earlier, you stated yourself that 24.6 % was spent on costs etc, now you're saying it's more than 50% ? You're contradicting yourself.
Armstrongs brand does benefit I agree, thats undeniable, but going back to the advert discussion, so what ?Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
No I'm not!colint wrote:Most of is spent on cancer, thats an absolute fact...Go back to the figure you quoted earlier, you stated yourself that 24.6 % was spent on costs etc, now you're saying it's more than 50% ? You're contradicting yourself.
I said that the official accounts for the LAF declared that in 2006, 26% of its revenues were spent on 'fund raising and management', and 24.6% in 2007. However, it is clear that much of the remaining budget goes on additional promotional and operational costs.
Charity Watch said that in 2005 45% of the money raised was spent on promotion. Similarly, Charity navigator said that when the projected revenue was over 21 million Dollars, the LAF spent just 3.6 million Dollars on grants, that is the LAF was spending just 17% of revenues on supporting cancer sufferers!0 -
aurelio wrote:
No I'm not!colint wrote:Most of is spent on cancer, thats an absolute fact...Go back to the figure you quoted earlier, you stated yourself that 24.6 % was spent on costs etc, now you're saying it's more than 50% ? You're contradicting yourself.
I said that the official accounts for the LAF declared that in 2006, 26% of its revenues were spent on 'fund raising and management', and 24.6% in 2007. However, it is clear that much of the remaining budget goes on additional promotional costs.
Charity Watch said that in 2005 45% of the money raised was spent on promotion. Similarly, Charity navigator said that when the projected revenue was over 21 million Dollars, the LAF spent just 3.6 million Dollars on grants, that is the LAF was spending just 17% of revenues on supporting cancer sufferers!
Sorry but you either are or you're confused.
1) where, from the accounts, is it clear that much of the remaining budget is spent on promotional costs ?
2)Charity watch said 45%, agreed. You said "majority". Clear contradiction or mistake on your part
3) 3.6 million spent on grants, this is one specific area of support, not the full story. This year "only" 10 million was spent on grants, but a total of 23 million was spent in support. You can't cherry pick one line from the accounts.Planet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
I think you are actually quoting from the 2007 accounts. Whatever, in 2007 the LAF spent a total of 31.2 million dollars. It spent 8 million on management and fund raising. The 23 million you refer to was actually spent on running its 'Program Services'. This involved spending 4.4 million dollars on 'advocacy' (i.e. promoting the LAF and its declared aims). Then there are the 'joint costs' associated with running its 'Program Services', such as 'direct mail and other constituent relationship activities’, these clocked up another 2 million plus dollars. The LAF also spent over 6 million on 'legal and professional' fees. Almost one and a half million Dollars was spent on non-fundraising related advertising etc etc. I don't see how any of these items, plus many more, can be regarded as giving direct support to cancer sufferers. Also, these costs above add up to 22 million Dollars, or 2/3 of its total budget.colint wrote:This year "only" 10 million was spent on grants, but a total of 23 million was spent in support.0 -
It's still not a majority and you haven't addressed the earlier points in full. Lets leave it, it's become pointless.
Enjoy the TDFPlanet X N2A
Trek Cobia 29er0 -
Blimey! The depth of some of these LA arguements astounds me. There must be a few wives looking for attention out there 0
-
CFA linked to an interesting article from Slate.com which likens LA to Sarah Palin;
http://www.slate.com/id/2222407/0 -
micron wrote:The Birmie piece is excellent - I see no jealous hackery, just a well measured argument.
We recently lost a very close family friend who would have been absolutely appaled at that self aggrandising piece of sh*t selling Armstrong and Nike and exploiting cancer victims to boot. He left a significant amount to Macmillan because he'd enjoyed unflagging support from nurses who weren't doing their job to get back at the world because they're too thin skinned to take criticism, who don't get paid millions and millions on the back of dubiously achieved success and who realise that cancer isn't all about 'survivorship' and 'living strong', that sometimes it's about waking up terrified about what will happen to your kids and not wanting to make the effort to go through yet more chemo and feeling scared and lonely and in pain.
So please tell me what hope is it giving cancer patients to appear in an advert that's the equivalent of a score settling playground spat? Where's the dignity in being exploited for the greater good of Nike and it's sweatshops? And why would I want to be jealous of a thin skinned playground bully with the intellect of a classless thug whose only use for cancer patients is to make himself look good?
This pretty sums up why all Lance hater's are mentally incompetent.0
