Ride London 2019 anyone?

The Ballot for the 2019 Ride London is open. Anyone going for it?
«13456715

Posts

  • stueysstueys Posts: 1,332
    Did it 3 years back, it’s a fun fast course. If I could be guaranteed an early start time then I’d do again, otherwise the sheer number of people combined with the average bike handling skills on show make it a bit too sketchy for my liking.
  • ugo.santaluciaugo.santalucia Posts: 23,863
    I put my price tag at 500 quid... if the organisers pay me 500 quid plus all the travel and accomodation costs I incur, then I will ride it, you have my word... :-)
  • mrfpbmrfpb Posts: 3,926
    I believe it's forecast to rain that day.

    However if the forecast changes to hell freezing over, then I'm in
  • sniper68sniper68 Posts: 2,883
    I've entered the Ballot for the third time and will probably get a knock back again followed by an offer of a charity place.Not fussed TBH as it's not that important.If I get in I'll ride if i don't I'll ride somewhere else.
  • phreakphreak Posts: 2,211
    It's about the dullest route imaginable, so a no from me.
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,281
    I've done it 3 times now - didn't bother with this year and won't bother next - unless Mrs Slowbike suddenly decides she wants to try.
  • fat_catfat_cat Posts: 556
    I've stuck an entry in the ballot.

    Currently 1 for 5 in getting through the ballot, so law of averages suggests I've got a chance next year. Won't make or break my year either way!
  • ugo.santaluciaugo.santalucia Posts: 23,863
    Fat Cat wrote:
    Won't make or break my year either way!

    So why bother?
    I don't really get it, is it just lack of inspiration? There are some truly inspiring rides...
  • meursaultmeursault Posts: 1,476
    Can you ride it unofficially?

    I'd be tempted to join in the festival atmosphere. Apart from that, I suspect the ballot is a con with majority of places going to corporate pigdogs, and the real motivation of the event is to raise money through bolox charities.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • Shirley BassoShirley Basso Posts: 3,132
    Why are the charities 'bolox'?
  • ugo.santaluciaugo.santalucia Posts: 23,863
    Why are the charities 'bolox'?

    In essence because they are high maintenance organisations, often with the same costs as for profit organisations.
    When the boss gets six figure salaries, I'm not quite sure what is charitable about the all thing.

    For every pound donated, nearly 90 p goes to pay for salaries and overheads... that's why crowdfunding is becoming so popular
  • fenixfenix Posts: 4,669
    Ugo - do you have anything to back that up or are you talking bolox ? All charity accounts have to be declared - can you point out which of the associated charities have expenses taking up 90% of their donations ?
  • ugo.santaluciaugo.santalucia Posts: 23,863
    fenix wrote:
    Ugo - do you have anything to back that up or are you talking bolox ? All charity accounts have to be declared - can you point out which of the associated charities have expenses taking up 90% of their donations ?

    you got to believe the mail online, don't you? :lol:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -work.html
  • fenixfenix Posts: 4,669
    FFS - so you're a DM reader ? This explains a lot.

    And you're writing off all charities based on this report ? I'm sure there's explanations for most - but the DM isnt interested in that.
  • ugo.santaluciaugo.santalucia Posts: 23,863
    fenix wrote:
    FFS - so you're a DM reader ? This explains a lot.

    And you're writing off all charities based on this report ? I'm sure there's explanations for most - but the DM isnt interested in that.

    I don't read anything and I have lost any interest in being one side of the argument or the other... unfortunately they are as bad as each other at the moment.
    90% was a figure I had heard and most likely coming from the tabloid press. If the reality is closer to 50%, then fair enough, I still think that crowdfunding is a leaner mechanism and you get a clearer picture of what goes where and for what.

    I am against charity as a matter principle... I think essential services should be funded by taxpayers without this silly mechanism whereby they have to compete for breadcrumbs.
    I am also, as I am sure many others are, a bit fed up of folks coming around asking for money to either do something completely unchallenging like walking a mile or to do something they actually enjoy doing and it's a bit of a holiday... just not into the all charity thing at all.
    If you want to ride your bike, why do I have to give you 10 quid?
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,281
    fenix wrote:
    And you're writing off all charities based on this report ? I'm sure there's explanations for most - but the DM isnt interested in that.

    I suppose the issue is down to when is a Charity a charity ...

    take the RNLI for example - a huge Charity and they publish the Chief Execs pay package (https://rnli.org/footer/faqs/chief-exec ... alary-faqs) > £160k for 2016.

    Do people think of Charities as organisations where everyone is a volunteer - perhaps a token amount going to a professional for legal and accountancy advice. There are plenty of charities like that - small, looking after local needs,. but when they grow they start to need more time and experience to administer and direct - is it fair to expect someone to deliver services for nothing in preference to a paying job?
    Perhaps theres a bit more conflict when it comes down to paying someone to be a fund raiser - paid out of donations...
  • I suppose you could get a ballot place and raise money for a charity of your choice off of your own back that isn’t even on the official list. But I guess if you didn’t get a ballot place you’d have to choose your charity from the official paid up charities of the event. This opens another can of worms regarding whether or not you’re actually riding for the charity or because it was the only way you could get into the event. Obviously the charity still gets money from you but is that the point? I don’t know. As long as the charity gets money that’s the main thing.
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,281
    I am also, as I am sure many others are, a bit fed up of folks coming around asking for money to either do something completely unchallenging like walking a mile or to do something they actually enjoy doing and it's a bit of a holiday... just not into the all charity thing at all.
    If you want to ride your bike, why do I have to give you 10 quid?

    Totally agree - I disagree with the "sponsor me to ride" bit - if it's a dead cert, why does it need sponsoring - I may as well just go round and ask for donations to the chosen charity. For me to ask for sponsorship now it would need to be for something that is difficult to complete and may not happen - riding 100 miles isn't (for me). Riding 100 miles within a specific time would be more of a challenge and I think sponsorship needs to change to reflect that - because at the moment there's no condition on it.

    That said - riding for a charity and fund raising for that charity does go toward raising awareness of the charities aims - and that in turn can help the charity immensely - so perhaps it's not such a bad thing after all ...

    as for the necessity of a charity - it would be nice not to need charity at all - but if we did that then either the work wouldn't get done or the state would have to decide which ones to do - at least this way we can individually chose if/when to support a cause and how much we want to support it - better that than be forced into paying tax for things we disagree with.
  • ugo.santaluciaugo.santalucia Posts: 23,863
    slowbike wrote:

    as for the necessity of a charity - it would be nice not to need charity at all - but if we did that then either the work wouldn't get done or the state would have to decide which ones to do - at least this way we can individually chose if/when to support a cause and how much we want to support it - better that than be forced into paying tax for things we disagree with.

    I was talking about essential services... how can the RNLI something we disagree on? Maybe we can disagree on the pay package...
    Air ambulance, shelter for the homeless etc... these are essential services!

    Then we can decide whether we want to help drilling wells in Rwanda with our own money or help save the elephants or whatnot
  • fenixfenix Posts: 4,669
    As someone who's called out the air ambulance for a fallen cyclist - it's a very worthy charity.

    If it wasn't there - would the Governmnt be funding them ? I doubt it. In an ideal world we'd need no charities - but this is very far from an ideal world.

    As to execs having six figure salaries - why not ? If their expertise makes the charity raise more cash and operate well - then they should be rewarded. I doubt if anyone here works for free ? You pay for expertise.

    I've only raised for charity when it meant something to me. If you have a personal story or it is a massive challenge then often people are very happy to donate. I'd not be asking for donations for this ride but to a lot of people this would be a big challenge and something significant to them.
  • meursaultmeursault Posts: 1,476
    slowbike wrote:
    fenix wrote:
    And you're writing off all charities based on this report ? I'm sure there's explanations for most - but the DM isnt interested in that.

    I suppose the issue is down to when is a Charity a charity ...

    take the RNLI for example - a huge Charity and they publish the Chief Execs pay package (https://rnli.org/footer/faqs/chief-exec ... alary-faqs) > £160k for 2016.

    Do people think of Charities as organisations where everyone is a volunteer - perhaps a token amount going to a professional for legal and accountancy advice. There are plenty of charities like that - small, looking after local needs,. but when they grow they start to need more time and experience to administer and direct - is it fair to expect someone to deliver services for nothing in preference to a paying job?
    Perhaps theres a bit more conflict when it comes down to paying someone to be a fund raiser - paid out of donations...

    No, I don't expect everyone to be a volunteer. I do expect any charity worker to take the minimum possible salary. Preferably work in your spare time. It's a charity. If you want to earn 162k then go to the private sector. As a charity worker, your whole being, should be to put as much time and resources and effort into the charity, not your bank account.

    This is why we have professional MP's now, instead of committed individuals fighting for their constituencies.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • meursaultmeursault Posts: 1,476
    fenix wrote:
    As someone who's called out the air ambulance for a fallen cyclist - it's a very worthy charity.

    If it wasn't there - would the Governmnt be funding them ? I doubt it. In an ideal world we'd need no charities - but this is very far from an ideal world.

    As to execs having six figure salaries - why not ? If their expertise makes the charity raise more cash and operate well - then they should be rewarded. I doubt if anyone here works for free ? You pay for expertise.

    I've only raised for charity when it meant something to me. If you have a personal story or it is a massive challenge then often people are very happy to donate. I'd not be asking for donations for this ride but to a lot of people this would be a big challenge and something significant to them.

    Why not?

    Because when an ordinary person see's those salaries, they ask the question, of how much of the donation goes to the charity? .009% hmmm don't think I'll bother then.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • fenixfenix Posts: 4,669
    Yeah cos what a multi million pound charity really needs is your nan overseeing it in between flower arranging classes and Bingo with Doreen from next door. That will end well.
  • fenixfenix Posts: 4,669
    meursault wrote:

    Why not?

    Because when an ordinary person see's those salaries, they ask the question, of how much of the donation goes to the charity? .009% hmmm don't think I'll bother then.

    You're making stuff up aren't you ? What charity are you talking about there ? Do you give to charity yourself ?
  • Shirley BassoShirley Basso Posts: 3,132
    In whose opinion should it be the minimum possible income? They may be stepping down from a 250K role and have a mortgage to pay.

    Rnli by its nature is a pretty expensive charity to run, and needs someone with excellent operational skills, not the person willing to accept the lowest salary.
  • harry-sharry-s Posts: 260
    It would be nice to see a breakdown of where the RL100 money goes.
    I doubt much, if any, goes to charity. That then makes it a vehicle for charitable efforts, - and if that makes people who wouldn't regularly contribute to a charity, but in this case do so because Little Johnny is riding his bike 100 miles, then that's fair enough. I agree that a lot of charities are funding essential services, and the government should be doing that, but yeah, it's not a perfect world.
  • fenixfenix Posts: 4,669
    The actual organisation is a charity Harry. So they make a profit from the ride and also charge other charities to have places on the ride.

    https://www.lmct.org.uk/

    Since its founding in 1981, The Trust has awarded in excess of £70 million to more than 1,250 projects in London and beyond.

    So your thoughts on not much if any making it to the charity is wrong.
  • slowbikeslowbike Posts: 8,281
    In whose opinion should it be the minimum possible income? They may be stepping down from a 250K role and have a mortgage to pay.

    Rnli by its nature is a pretty expensive charity to run, and needs someone with excellent operational skills, not the person willing to accept the lowest salary.
    It's not just the head bod ...

    there's all the ancillary staff too - the head bod will need a sec, other admins, various services will need to be purchased - sometimes you can outsource those, other times is more effective to have those in house - is it reasonable to expect a professional to do that for nothing? Yes, if it's incidental to their main work - not really if it is their main work (unless they're willing to do so).

    Big charities have to pay a reasonable amount for staff because they need the consistency and dedication of those staff which would be near impossible to do with volunteers - even if they are dedicated to the cause.
  • meursaultmeursault Posts: 1,476
    In whose opinion should it be the minimum possible income? They may be stepping down from a 250K role and have a mortgage to pay.

    Rnli by its nature is a pretty expensive charity to run, and needs someone with excellent operational skills, not the person willing to accept the lowest salary.

    Then don't step down.

    Is there no-one else who could do the job for a minimum salary or give their time for nothing. Is this not the definition of charity?
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • meursaultmeursault Posts: 1,476
    fenix wrote:
    meursault wrote:

    Why not?

    Because when an ordinary person see's those salaries, they ask the question, of how much of the donation goes to the charity? .009% hmmm don't think I'll bother then.

    You're making stuff up aren't you ? What charity are you talking about there ? Do you give to charity yourself ?

    I don't give to charity, because I don't want to fund CEO's on 162k a year. If I have to explain why this not very intelligent, the discussion isn't going to go anywhere.

    I've done my why capitalism is stupid on the internet. It's futile.

    Before all you capitalist apologists start typing, yes, it's the best and only system possible, yes, yes, yawn, I get it.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
Sign In or Register to comment.