Wiggins

iainf72

Thanks Bradley, you're going to make BikingBernie have a rant now

http://www.bradleywigginsfoundation.org/site/index.php

And WTF is the point of launching something like this without any content on the website?

nweststeyn

Ugly website. No content. Why is it online?

B3rnieMac

Are we all chipping in to get him a decent haircut?

Art Vandelay

Shock, horror - Professional cyclist in possible charitable contribution. I share your outrage.

ratsbeyfus

Is he trying to cure modishness or simply relieve pain and give hope to sufferers?

timoid.

Have to admit he's very clever with his branding, adopting the whole mod thing.

Let's see what it's about before judging.

sherer

the thing is do we really need another foundation ? Maybe he would be better promoting a foundation that is already established.

There's only so much money to go round all these charities

nweststeyn

I'm perfectly happy that he is setting up a foundation. Can't argue that it's not a good thing!

I'm just confused as to why they've uploaded a half finished website?

liquor box

sherer wrote:

the thing is do we really need another foundation ? Maybe he would be better promoting a foundation that is already established.

There's only so much money to go round all these charities

I dont know how your foundations/charities work in the UK but In Australia it is quite a good tax dodge to be the leader of a charity or foundation, this can increase your earning by Millions each year.....oh and you get the satisfaction of helping if this is what you are after

dougzz

^^^
Reminds me of a few years ago with all those "Site Under Construction" pages.

mroli

I would like to know more details - twitter seemed to suggest it was a sports foundation encouraging participation in sport and people to exercise on a regular basis.

The website is a shocker too - and the guys who do it don't seem to have strayed too much from their own standard form: http://www.ellmoreconsultancy.co.uk/index.php

Its as bad as our site (which due to lack of computer skills is a "Mr Website" site...)

inkyfingers

Sounds like a good cause, but the launch seems incredibly half baked.

Whilst I don't want to belittle his attempts to use his reputation to do some good, as somebody who works with a lot of charities I am always sceptical as to the benefits of there being yet another one.

Yellow Peril

Bradstrong, I like it. I bet there is a kit already in the making which has the target motif on it.

I'll probably buy it TBH

Gazzaputt

I really don't get some people on here.

Guy trying to do something worth while and it seems it isn't cool to support anything like this it you must slate it. is this an unwritten rule of being a follower of the sport or a fellow cyclist?

Sad.

inkyfingers

Gazzaputt wrote:

I really don't get some people on here.

Guy trying to do something worth while and it seems it isn't cool to support anything like this it you must slate it. is this an unwritten rule of being a follower of the sport or a fellow cyclist?

Sad.

I'd just like to say that I wholeheartedly support the (rather briefly) outlined aims as I'm sure most people do. My problem is as follows:

A: The fact that it seem to have been formally launched with a couple of tweets (which by their very nature are lacking in detail) and a website that has almost no information whatsoever - no stated aims, no charity number etc. if you are going to do something like this properly then you launch it with the website etc all in place, so that people can have a proper look at it.
B: The costs of launching and running a charity are considerable, it is usually far more efficient for somebody to lend their support to an existing charity (such as the Braveheart Fund or similar) so that more of the money goes directly to the end cause rather than being sucked up in admin costs, legal fees and marketing.

BikingBernie

inkyfingers wrote:

I don't want to belittle his attempts to use his reputation to do some good..

Sorry to be cynical, but I would say that most of such initiatives are designed to do the reputation of the rider some good, not visa-versa. After all we live in an era when every rider has a team of PR and 'Reputation management' types helping to create a positive public image for them, and then there are the tax benefits and so on to be had.

My cynicism is also fuelled by the fact that those riders with the highest profile foundations always seem to be those with the most need of a bit of 'reputation management'. Hence the LAF and the Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton foundations, both of which are now defunct.

inkyfingers

BikingBernie wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

I don't want to belittle his attempts to use his reputation to do some good..

Sorry to be cynical, but I would say that most of such initiatives are designed to do the reputation of the rider some good, not visa-versa. After all we live in an era when every rider has a team of PR and 'Reputation management' types helping to create a positive public image for them, and then there are the tax benefits and so on to be had.

There is nothing inherently wrong with celebrities improving their public image by doing charitable work, it's a win win situation. The problem comes with how they go about it. In this case it's been poorly launched, in the case of Livestrong it's too hard to tell where the charity ends and the commercial operation begins. The funds set up by Tyler and Floyd are a slightly different case and I don't think companring Brad's new venture with them is fair.

My mum is involved in a local charity, when she joined they were struggling to raise money so having previously worked in PR the first thing she did was approach a local celebrity to be a patron. Suddenly all the press releases she sent to the local papers were all getting published and their fundraising events were suddenly well attended when they annoucned that their new patron would be in attendance. Sure the patron got some good coverage and all they had to do was lend their name to it and attend a couple of events each year, but the charity has been able to continue and in fact grow, allowing them to help a lot more people in the local area.

ermintrude

BB - How dare you mention Wiggins in the same breath as Landis and Hamilton

Abdoujaparov

BikingBernie wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

I don't want to belittle his attempts to use his reputation to do some good..

Sorry to be cynical, but I would say that most of such initiatives are designed to do the reputation of the rider some good, not visa-versa. After all we live in an era when every rider has a team of PR and 'Reputation management' types helping to create a positive public image for them, and then there are the tax benefits and so on to be had.

Best form of reputation management is doing good stuff.

Cleat Eastwood

inkyfingers wrote:

B: The costs of launching and running a charity are considerable,

no theyre not - all you need is a board of trustees and and some mems and articles - anyway it's a foundation which means it will support other charities/organisations like braveheart etc- good on him I say for doing something positive. shame the downings never got the big exposure for their fundraising efforts.

inkyfingers

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

B: The costs of launching and running a charity are considerable,

no theyre not - all you need is a board of trustees and and some mems and articles - anyway it's a foundation which means it will support other charities/organisations like braveheart etc- good on him I say for doing something positive. shame the downings never got the big exposure for their fundraising efforts.

Setting up the basic legal structure may be fairly cheap, but staffing it (I assume that Brad won't be answering the phone and doing the accounts), building a good website and marketing it are not.

Pross

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

B: The costs of launching and running a charity are considerable,

no theyre not - all you need is a board of trustees and and some mems and articles - anyway it's a foundation which means it will support other charities/organisations like braveheart etc- good on him I say for doing something positive. shame the downings never got the big exposure for their fundraising efforts.

This. It isn't competing with existing charities, just a vehicle used by someone in the public eye to raise money and distribute it among charities.

ddraver

Gazzaputt wrote:

I really don't get some people on here.

Guy trying to do something worth while and it seems it isn't cool to support anything like this it you must slate it. is this an unwritten rule of being a follower of the sport or a fellow cyclist?

Sad.

Nearly - it's an unwritten rule of being British!

Crankbrother

If he lent his support to an already established and worthwhile foundation the synergistic savings and exposure would be far more beneficial ...

But ego and the taxman are difficult beasts to tame (especially with an accountant in your ear) ...

Yellow Peril

Cav has done something similar over here but on a less grandious scale. At a recent sport awards he gave some cash to a couple of Olympic hopeful swimmers. He didn't appear to make a fuss about it all and it was quite well received.

He's a good lad.

BikingBernie

Abdoujaparov wrote:

Best form of reputation management is doing good stuff.

And if you read some of the stuff put out by 'Reputation management' companies it is clear that exploiting that simple fact is done for anything but noble reasons. For example, Souter Reputation Management, who have worked with Chris Hoy, albeit representing another client, used to have a section on their website explaining why being seen to do 'good works' was a vital part of building up the public perception of a client. Basically it was so that when it was necessary to release any 'bad news' relating to the client, the public would still perceive them to be 'good guys', with the 'bad news' having little power to dent this perception. From what I can see this piece of uncharacteristic honesty has now been removed from their site. A case of applying their methods to their own case perhaps.

To my mind they are just another class of propagandists, right alongside PR people, marketing and advertising types and all the other scumbags paid to apply the theories of GCSE psychology to conning and fleecing people.

BikingBernie

Yellow Peril wrote:

Cav has done something similar over here but on a less grandious scale. At a recent sport awards he gave some cash to a couple of Olympic hopeful swimmers. He didn't appear to make a fuss about it all and it was quite well received.

He's a good lad.

See it works, even when this is the 'alternate reality'...

Yellow Peril

BikingBernie wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

Cav has done something similar over here but on a less grandious scale. At a recent sport awards he gave some cash to a couple of Olympic hopeful swimmers. He didn't appear to make a fuss about it all and it was quite well received.

He's a good lad.

See it works, even when this is the 'alternate reality'...

I think it is aq case of credit where credit is due. I think I was probably the biggest denouncer of the "Romandie salute" (check my post history on that) however his low key approach towards funding others is commendable. He's not making a big song and dance about it and it is cash out of his back pocket.

sherer

haven't the government already got schemes in place like this already to encourage people to do sport and do stuff with their kids ?

Surely he could promote one that is already out there rather than treading on someone else's toes

Yellow Peril

sherer wrote:

haven't the government already got schemes in place like this already to encourage people to do sport and do stuff with their kids ?

Surely he could promote one that is already out there rather than treading on someone else's toes

I'm sure he could but I guess it is about getting cash quickly and efficiently (minimum admin cream off) to where it should go. Govt's don't tend to be very good at that. If he can manage it then it will be worthwhile, if not...

iainf72

If it's a foundation that gets in money and then passes it on to other org's, that's double admin costs, isn't it?

I wonder if there are any tax benefits in the UK? I've got no problem with someone avoiding tax at all, I'm just curious if it's the case.