Radioshack Black Jersey

moray_gub

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Its a gag mate, dont get narked !.. I was expecting the pun hence the rolling eyes.

They were made to change their jersey's on Sunday...


on never mind. You didnt get it.

Ok missed that :oops:

rick_chasey

Anyone want to start a team called "the clap" ?

We'll wear pink and green jersies.

nic_77

Moray Gub wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

Charity is a tax on the sympathetic.


I’m afraid that from a purely charitable perspective buying and wearing a branded jersey does not seem very worthwhile. If you like the jersey buy it – just don’t try to convince me you are curing cancer by wearing it.

Does that go for all cancer jerseys then as i have previously purchased one with Macmillan Cancer Charity does that meet with your scorn as well ?

It wasn't scorn - it is pragmatism.

Did the money the jerseys cost you all go directly to the causes that this particular charity promotes... or did some go to producing the shirt, and some go to the marketing executives employed by the organisation...?

Giving to charity, even indirectly, is a noble act... but your money would have certainly gone further if you'd taken it directly to one of the Macmillan care homes and bought them some much needed equipment. That and that alone is my point.

dougzz

nic_77 wrote:

Giving to charity, even indirectly, is a noble act... but your money would have certainly gone further if you'd taken it directly to one of the Macmillan care homes and bought them some much needed equipment. That and that alone is my point.

I think a lot of what you say is valid. But it's flawed for expensive items. If 100,000 stick in a £1 you can buy an item very few individuals could realistically pay for. So you start a business to handle the admin of lots of little donations, the business (Charity) thrives and uses ever more of the resources it gathers to fund it's own operation. It's a dilemma, but what do you do?

shipley

Kléber wrote:

Maybe BB can prepare the landing net and chime in with the profits made by Nike and Livestrong from the sales of wristbands, leisurewear and other consumer goods?
.

Welcome to the world of organised charity. Have you ever seen the palatial Cancer Research offices in London ? Even the RSPCA (who have huge corporate offices) turn over in excess of £90m. Most of this is left to them by little old ladies who think it will help some half eaten moggy to a better life.

The commendable thing about Livestrong is that it is focussed on a cure for the cause as opposed to symptom treating. Armstrong himself brings hope to sufferers, commits huge amounts of personal time to calling sufferers and doing publicity etc.

Nike and Oakley pass a minimum of 20% of the brand takings to the cause.

Its better than nothing.....

dougzz

One thing I always like to know about any charity is what proportion of it's funding is used for it's causes, versus what proportion for it's own admin.

When you have a really high profile person at the head of a charity, say Lance for Livestrong, when he flies in a private jet to Dublin for a community ride to raise cancer awareness, who pays for the plane?

Kléber

Shipley wrote:

Welcome to the world of organised charity. Have you ever seen the palatial Cancer Research offices in London ? Even the RSPCA (who have huge corporate offices turn over in excess of £90m. Most of this is left to them by little old ladies who think it will help some half eaten moggy to a better life.

The commendable thing about Livestrong is that it is focussed on a cure for the cause as opposed to symptom treating. Armstrong himself brings hope to sufferers, commits huge amounts of personal time to calling sufferers and doing publicity etc and Nike and Oakley pass 20% of the brand takings to the cause.

Its better than nothing.....

Of course it's better than nothing but like I said in the original post that got the rise, people are making a lot of money out of this. As you say Oakley and Nike kick back a share of the money but plenty of cash is kept.

So it's better than nothing but other charities are doing better:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... orgid=6570

They too have shiny offices and pay their staff chunky salaries, only they tend to deliver more bang for the buck.

dougzz

Shipley wrote:

The commendable thing about Livestrong is that it is focussed on a cure for the cause as opposed to symptom treating. Armstrong himself brings hope to sufferers, commits huge amounts of personal time to calling sufferers and doing publicity etc.

Is this true? I understood Livestrong did nothing to find a cure, it's all about helping cancer sufferers.

Seanos

dougzz wrote:

Shipley wrote:

The commendable thing about Livestrong is that it is focussed on a cure for the cause as opposed to symptom treating. Armstrong himself brings hope to sufferers, commits huge amounts of personal time to calling sufferers and doing publicity etc.

Is this true? I understood Livestrong did nothing to find a cure, it's all about helping cancer sufferers.

http://www.livestrong.org/What-We-Do
http://www.livestrong.org/What-We-Do/Ou ... Money-Goes

Seanos

nic_77 wrote:

Did the money the jerseys cost you all go directly to the causes that this particular charity promotes... or did some go to producing the shirt, and some go to the marketing executives employed by the organisation...?

Giving to charity, even indirectly, is a noble act... but your money would have certainly gone further if you'd taken it directly to one of the Macmillan care homes and bought them some much needed equipment. That and that alone is my point.

Wouldn't it be great to live in a perfect world where selfless individuals donated money to charities without any prompting?

In real life that just doesn't happen, which is why virtually all charities have to have fundraising activities of one sort or another. Still, at least it gives you an opportunity to snipe at the efforts of others eh?

paulcuthbert

eh wrote:

Thing is though Livestrong have no real presence in the UK, so you'd be better off givng your local NHS £60 or one of the many cancer charities like Cancer Research

I take the view that any charity that can spend money on national television advertising has too much money already.

If you're going to give money to cancer charities, find a local or smaller cancer foundation to donate to. There a lots all over the UK, who need the money a lot more than Cancer Research UK!

PS. Don't give it to the NHS. Why give a government funded institution money? Giving it to a hospital foundation or research laboratory would be better

micron

Not just awareness but 'improving the cancer experience' - what a very unfortunate choice of words.

Is it just me, or are the words 'cure' and 'research' entirely absent from these statements (though to be fair the LA Foundation does give out research grants)?

dougzz

micron wrote:

Not just awareness but 'improving the cancer experience' - what a very unfortunate choice of words.

Is it just me, or are the words 'cure' and 'research' entirely absent from these statements (though to be fair the LA Foundation does give out research grants)?

Well you could argue that the mental health and general well being of sufferers is as important as a cure. Especially in light of the money that's been spent on finding a cure.

This entire thread because someone wanted a nice black jersey :?

nic_77

dougzz wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

Giving to charity, even indirectly, is a noble act... but your money would have certainly gone further if you'd taken it directly to one of the Macmillan care homes and bought them some much needed equipment. That and that alone is my point.

I think a lot of what you say is valid. But it's flawed for expensive items. If 100,000 stick in a £1 you can buy an item very few individuals could realistically pay for. So you start a business to handle the admin of lots of little donations, the business (Charity) thrives and uses ever more of the resources it gathers to fund it's own operation. It's a dilemma, but what do you do?

Spot on. The model is defendable until the organisation becomes bloated. In my mind the problem is caused because charities are required to raise their own funds (which means an advertising and marketing budget). If resources were collected centrally (i.e. taxes) then the same pot of money would go so much further.

In some respects, the well meaning donators are indirectly responsible. If people weren't so generous, funds for important causes would need to be allocated by some more efficient means.

Seanos

paulcuthbert wrote:

eh wrote:

Thing is though Livestrong have no real presence in the UK, so you'd be better off givng your local NHS £60 or one of the many cancer charities like Cancer Research

I take the view that any charity that can spend money on national television advertising has too much money already.

If you're going to give money to cancer charities, find a local or smaller cancer foundation to donate to. There a lots all over the UK, who need the money a lot more than Cancer Research UK!

PS. Don't give it to the NHS. Why give a government funded institution money? Giving it to a hospital foundation or research laboratory would be better

You seem to have made some assumptions here:

1) TV advertising is an inefficient way of generating income
2) Large charities are 'worse' (in some unspecified way) than small charities

I'm not sure either of those is true.

PS Plenty of NHS cancer wards would be happy to receive a few quid that they wouldn't otherwise get from centralised coffers. Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do to me, until such time as we live in a perfect world where the extra money is not needed or wanted. And the last place I would give money to directly is a research laboratory. Why on earth would you do that? Where's the accountability, auditing and reporting?

seemunkee

A bit old and US centric but worth a read
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/cancer.html
The Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF), founded by the champion bicyclist and cancer survivor of the same name, is celebrating its 10-year anniversary this year. Wouldn’t you think a charity that receives massive publicity for having one of the most popular causes and most admired celebrities as the face of the organization would be able to easily raise lots of money? Unfortunately this is not the case. LAF spent as much as $45 to raise each $100, exceeding AIP’s 35% recommended fundraising ceiling by a significant margin.

Also
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... orgid=6570

Monkeypump

nic_77 wrote:

Did the money the jerseys cost you all go directly to the causes that this particular charity promotes... or did some go to producing the shirt, and some go to the marketing executives employed by the organisation...?

Giving to charity, even indirectly, is a noble act... but your money would have certainly gone further if you'd taken it directly to one of the Macmillan care homes and bought them some much needed equipment. That and that alone is my point.

If we don't know charities exist, we can't donate to them. Some money has to be spent on raising awareness of the condition/disease and the charity.

Monkeypump

The question might just be:

a) Do I want a nice new jersey?

b) Do I want a jersey that says I support cancer research/awareness?

c) Do I want to actually support cancer research/awareness?

The three aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and there's nothing wrong with just 'a' !

conceptual_primate

nic_77 wrote:

Charity is a tax on the sympathetic.

Government money should be allocated directly to health research, to look after the sick, to fund the building of wells, and to care for the vulnerable and elderly, etc etc… It should not be down to well meaning individuals who donate to charity to fund this important work.

Unfortunately this is not the case, and even if it were there would still be considerable competition for the resources. As a result charity can thrive, and each organisation must pitch their case against other equally worthy causes. All this achieves is greater inefficiency, and less of the money being spent on the actual problem. Think about it, many people make their livings working for charitable organisations – not everyone is giving their time or product for free? How many free pens, and marketing brochures have you received from the larger charitable organisations?

The single goal of every charity should be to put themselves out of business, but this doesn’t happen – why do you think that is?? My (probably controversial) view is that people are benefiting along the way.

When I choose to give to charity, I try to give directly to the people who need the money (e.g. sponsoring the costs of a local hospice), or to pay directly towards a cause with a defined and achievable goal (e.g. purchasing equipment for a local youth facility), or I give my time (e.g. running various youth activities)…

I’m afraid that from a purely charitable perspective buying and wearing a branded jersey does not seem very worthwhile. If you like the jersey buy it – just don’t try to convince me you are curing cancer by wearing it.

You're entitled to your opinion, but sorry I disagree with your thinking on several points.

Firstly, should governments fund the work that charities do? That is certainly a very idealistic view. In practical terms the government isn't set up to be able to manage this. Even without considering the tightening of the fiscal belt that is happening at the moment, the simple fact is that the government would have to increase their own revenues to then facilitate this. Hello tax rises!! It also opens a massive can of worms as to how this money would be distributed - animal charities for example - that would never, ever reach consensus. Don't also forget that there are many international charities as well, so it is not always appropriate to look at a charity solely at a national level.

Not all charities in the same field are focusing on the same goal - Cancer Research UK for example focuses on research, publishing information and raising awareness of cancer. Macmillan Cancer are aimed at care and support. I'm not saying there are grey areas of overlap in places, but on the whole they have different focuses and people give to both for different reasons.

Charity expenses... yes naturally any organisation above a certain size will incur operating expenses. That may be through the production of branded paraphenalia, such as pens or leaflets etc. or salaries. You think it is wrong these charities have these costs? The simplistic view is that they shouldn't exist; they take money away from their ultimate 'reason d'etre.' True, however you have to consider the end position. If a charity raises £1m with costs of £0 or £10m with costs of £3m, which is the better scenario for the ultimate recipients? To rephrase an old maxim; 'you need to spend money to raise money.' To give a real example of this Cancer Research UK's financial statement for 2008/09 shows they raised £489m with £142m of costs. Would they have raised the £347m (net) without that cost base? Unlikely. Agreed though, there also has to faith that such charities are employing due cost management controls.

Whilst the work you mention being involved in is commendable, if you look at causes that don't just affect local communities, but everyone (for example cancer again) then is it not always possible to go 'direct.' Donating to Cancer Research UK (for whom I do a lot of fundraising) means I you know they will attempt to get the best value from in the fields of research and information (simply through economies of scale) despite some of your donation being 'absorbed' through their overheads. Also, the benefit of work from these charities is felt nationally/globally (whether directly or indirectly) as opposed to ring-fenced charities (local hospices etc) where the benefit is contained within a discrete area (however the benefit received is often more personal). * Please note, I am simply pointing out here that there are different types of benefits when donating to national or local charities (i am not advocating one over the other).

Finally I think the OP has already clarified that he wanted the jersey because he liked it and liked the fact that a charity benefited. I don't think they (or anyone who donates to such a charity) claims, or has claimed, they are curing cancer.

Thanks,

andyp

If we can afx to post in here we'll have a full sweep of monkeys.

afx237vi

andyp wrote:

If we can afx to post in here we'll have a full sweep of monkeys.

Well spotted.

Bikerbaboon

afx237vi wrote:

andyp wrote:

If we can afx to post in here we'll have a full sweep of monkeys.

Well spotted.

nahhh i would have to post here first..... dam

RichN95.

andyp wrote:

If we can afx to post in here we'll have a full sweep of monkeys.

This post is the only one worth reading in this entire thread.

Kiwi Kranker

Kléber wrote:

Shipley wrote:

Welcome to the world of organised charity. Have you ever seen the palatial Cancer Research offices in London ? Even the RSPCA (who have huge corporate offices turn over in excess of £90m. Most of this is left to them by little old ladies who think it will help some half eaten moggy to a better life.

The commendable thing about Livestrong is that it is focussed on a cure for the cause as opposed to symptom treating. Armstrong himself brings hope to sufferers, commits huge amounts of personal time to calling sufferers and doing publicity etc and Nike and Oakley pass 20% of the brand takings to the cause.

Its better than nothing.....

Of course it's better than nothing but like I said in the original post that got the rise, people are making a lot of money out of this. As you say Oakley and Nike kick back a share of the money but plenty of cash is kept.

So it's better than nothing but other charities are doing better:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... orgid=6570

They too have shiny offices and pay their staff chunky salaries, only they tend to deliver more bang for the buck.

This is undoubtedly true but perhaps another way to look at is without someone as headline grabbing as LA we may see only a small percentage of potential donations shifting from LA's foundation to other more efficient/generous foundations.

Whether or not LA's foundation is generous/greedy, overall research into cancer is in a better position because of it. It would not be true to say that if they didn’t exist the extra money would automatically go to other foundations. It is through the smart generation of a brand that people are donating by wanting to be a 'part' of the brand while contributing to research, it even if it is only 20% of the cost of a pair of yellow and black Oakley sunnies.

While LA may be making money out of it at least overall there is a positive outcome. As has already been said charity is basically big business these days and people in the street need to be educated about where their money is going so they can decide if they want a shiny piece of clothing while still feeling good about a small donation or truly want to be selfless and give cash directly to the coalface.

Perhaps we should just give LA some credit for actually setting this up, I know that if I could have done what he did and made some coin out of it I would have, surely that’s better than owning a business that doesn’t give anything back at all?

I am not a LA fanboy either, I am just being pragmatic about charities and human nature.

Yep I have missed the point of the thread I know but its Friday and I was bored......

Mike400

conceptual_primate wrote:

Finally I think the OP has already clarified that he wanted the jersey because he liked it and liked the fact that a charity benefited. I don't think they (or anyone who donates to such a charity) claims, or has claimed, they are curing cancer.

What he said. I like the Jersey.

The fact some money might end up with the charity if I buy is a nice bonus but I wont be buying thinking "im doing something for charity", ill be thinking "im getting a nice new jersey"

I agree wholeheartedly with the LiveStrong cause, unfortunately cancer is not a stranger to my family and for that reason any charity doing good work for those suffering from cancer gets my vote, but again thats not why I want to buy this, just a nice bonus.

Annnnnnnd Im a Lance fan. Not a "fanboy" as such, but a fan nonetheless. There. Ive said it. Ive got my tin hat on and im taking cover!

nic_77

@conceptual_primate

I do accept your arguments regarding local, national and global charity... the need is certainly not the same, and it is necessary to have both a short term view focussed on alleviating the symptoms of whatever 'problem' we are discussing and a long term view to tackle the root causes. My interest is in the former, yours the later – I think we can agree to disagree there.

However, I will maintain that every charity should strive towards putting itself out of business, and not growing into a corporate machine – yes I know that you have to speculate to accumulate, but I think the competition in the charity marketplace causes overspend as the organisations are required to fight with each other for the ‘generous pound’. Charity is in danger of becoming like the X-factor – we vote for our favourite cause (fuelled by the publicity machine) and that cause becomes more widely known, beofre you know it Jedward have an album out. Charity should not be a popularity contest, it should be about helping the most worthy cause… in the most cost-effective way possible.

If money was allocated from a central pot, huge savings could surely be achieved. Yes, some group would still be needed to recognise the legitimate causes and divide up and spend the money (and this will inevitably involve some degree of inefficiency), but it could at least be operated by a group of (elected?) accountable experts. I agree that (global) government is not best placed to run this part of the operation, but why not use them to collect the cash…

According to an Office for National Statistics report http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents ... 547056.pdf the average amount given to charity per four week period in 2008-09 was £17.70 If we assume a UK population of 61M (only 74% of people donate), then we are talking about charitable donations in the region of £9,600M per year. There were 31M tax payers in 2008-09 http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/table1-4.pdf earning lets say median gross pay of £450 per week (23,400pa) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285. That makes a total salary bill of c.£725,000M.

You could levy a 1.3p in the pound tax across the board to completely replace the existing charity fund (and remember none of this money needs to be spent on advertising or marketing so there would be more cash available for those that need it). Of course it would probably be sensible to collect this tax from higher rate earners (and yes, that would include me!).

I know that the model only takes into account donations made in the UK, and I don’t know what proportion of these are actually spent overseas… but you get the idea.
Personally I’d prefer to see the legitimate good causes funded in this way, especially as it would help to prevent many individuals profiting from the current charity system. After all why shouldn’t it be a tax – we could all gain if cancer units were better equipped, and better facilities were provided for the elderly and vulnerable etc etc…

P.S. Sorry for dragging this away from cycling...
P.P.S. Does anyone want to sponsor me for an upcoming charity ride I'm doing..?? :roll:

Cleat Eastwood

What I thinks commendable about Livestrong is the concommitent effect that society is beginning to change its perception of the disease. No longer are people victims or sufferers but rather individuals who can find an inner strength to cope and in doing so can provide inspiration to others, and moreover find an outlet for that inspiration in sport.

I think that message has been underpinning all cancer charity efforts for years its just that Lance is the name most people associate with this approach, the danger is of course that such a US based focus could overshadow the dedicated work done by people in this country.

Anything that provides inspiration against an overwhelming disease though can only be laudable, IMO

shipley

nic_77 wrote:

@conceptual_primate

I do accept your arguments regarding local, national and global charity... the need is certainly not the same, and it is necessary to have both a short term view focussed on alleviating the symptoms of whatever 'problem' we are discussing and a long term view to tackle the root causes. My interest is in the former, yours the later – I think we can agree to disagree there.

However, I will maintain that every charity should strive towards putting itself out of business, and not growing into a corporate machine – yes I know that you have to speculate to accumulate, but I think the competition in the charity marketplace causes overspend as the organisations are required to fight with each other for the ‘generous pound’. Charity is in danger of becoming like the X-factor – we vote for our favourite cause (fuelled by the publicity machine) and that cause becomes more widely known. Charity should not be a popularity contest, it should be about helping the most worthy cause… in the most cost-effective way possible.

If money was allocated from a central pot, huge savings could surely be achieved. Yes, some group would still be needed to recognise the legitimate causes and divide up and spend the money (and this will inevitably involve some degree of inefficiency), but it could at least be operated by a group of (elected?) accountable experts. I agree that (global) government is not best placed to run this part of the operation, but why not use them to collect the cash…

According to an Office for National Statistics report http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents ... 547056.pdf the average amount given to charity per four week period in 2008-09 was £17.70 If we assume a UK population of 61M (only 74% of people donate), then we are talking about charitable donations in the region of £9,600M per year. There were 31M tax payers in 2008-09 http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/table1-4.pdf earning lets say median gross pay of £450 per week (23,400pa) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285. That makes a total salary bill of c.£725,000M.

You could levy a 1.3p in the pound tax across the board to completely replace the existing charity fund (and remember none of this money needs to be spent on advertising or marketing so there would be more cash available for those that need it). Of course it would probably be sensible to collect this tax from higher rate earners (and yes, that would include me!).

I know that the model only takes into account donations made in the UK, and I don’t know what proportion of these are actually spent overseas… but you get the idea.
Personally I’d prefer to see the legitimate good causes funded in this way, especially as it would help to prevent many individuals profiting from the current charity system. After all why shouldn’t it be a tax – we could all gain if cancer units were better equipped, and better facilities were provided for the elderly and vulnerable etc etc…

P.S. Sorry for dragging this away from cycling...
P.P.S. Does anyone want to sponsor me for an upcoming charity ride I'm doing..?? :roll:

Excellent idea, but can you imagine the public sector morons managing such a scheme in an economic way ?

Sadly they would have commissions, and quangos and all sorts of stupid processes implemented to show how fabulously they are performing, oh and that they are creating jobs in some far flung northern town...and so it all starts again.....

I do love those black Radioshack jerseys though..they look fabulous.

I'm not sure I could bring myself to wear one though...

pat1cp

nic_77 wrote:

Charity is a tax on the sympathetic.

I buried my Mum last month, Cancer. Not very nice seeing someone you love dearly waste away.

For the last 3 weeks of her life she was cared for in a hospice primarily funded by the taxed sympathetic people you refer to. At her funeral service we managed to raise 3k for the hospice. Handed over with thanks.

One day, you might throw a quid in bucket, you never know. :roll:

Edit: having seen the early comment, went off on one. Your commets later in the thread go against the original comment.

What charity you riding for ?

nic_77

pat1cp wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

Charity is a tax on the sympathetic.

I buried my Mum last month, Cancer. Not very nice seeing someone you love dearly waste away.

For the last 3 weeks of her life she was cared for in a hospice primarily funded by the taxed sympathetic people you refer to. At her funeral service we managed to raise 3k for the hospice. Handed over with thanks.

One day, you might throw a quid in bucket, you never know. :roll:

I am sorry to hear of your loss....

We are all very lucky that this sympathy exists, but in my opinion there is a better way to raise more money in a fairer and more effective way.

EDIT (AS WELL) - just seen your amended post! Group hug!