Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Captain Tom Moore (ed. RIP)

17891012

Comments

  • ROTW said:
    The usual gang have arrived.
    Like clockwork....
  • edited February 2022
    Gribbo said:
    Maybe a rule that only a certain percentage of the Charity's previous 3 years avarage can be used on any individual salary, could be brought in.

    It could also be banded depending on the size of the Charity.
    I don't know but think that this is why the regulator (Charity Commission) flagged this up.

    £150k pa to head up a major national charity with 1000s of staff and £££m budget is reasonable and less than someone with the same responsibilities would get in the private sector.

    For a small charity like Captain Tom's it's not reasonable.

    It's out of kilter with the other expenditure and the amount of work and skills needed.
    Would £150k be a reasonable salary for the head of a L1 football club based charity without thousands of employees? Just asking for a friend…
    Not at all.

    Fees more likely to be £100  to £150 a day and then only if grant funded.

    At present, as previously stated, no one gets paid at all.
    That’s odd, because according to accounts published by the charities commission, CACT (formally the South of England Foundation) had an employee whose benefits totalled £120-£130k in the year ending March 2021.
    I think we are talking at cross-purposes.

    I'm not a trustee or an employee of CACT.
    I’m not suggesting you are. You’ve assumed the charity I referenced was the museum. It wasn’t. That never occurred to me because I wouldn’t have assumed anyone there is being paid.

    My question was where you think CACT sits in this hierarchy, given you had set out a model for someone being paid £150k. Its senior management pay seems to be on a par with that for a small lower-tier local authority (i.e. a district council). I wonder if the level of responsibility and skill set is really comparable.
    Well, your description matched the museum more than CACT given the trust does employ lots of people (I don't know how many but many will be part time and/or sessional.)  It also has a multi million turnover, unfortunately not something the museum can boast although @charltonnick is giving it a good try.  I submitted our annual accounts last month BTW.

    And I'm more likely to think about the museum than CACT for obvious reasons.

    Regardless CACT being linked to a league 1 club isn't relevant as their work is with the community and would be similar whichever division were in.

    The £150k pa figure didn't come from me either. It was the figure in the press reports regarding the Captain Tom Foundation and the RSPCA.

    So a whole package, that might include a pension and a car, of £120k for a CEO of a successful charity with turnover in the millions might well be reasonable.  How much do CEOs at other football trusts earn?  Are they as good? Certainly the charity commission must have agreed it wasn't unreasonable. 
    I was interested in your metrics and responding to that - thousands of staff and £££m budget. I’m aware of where the £150k came from.

    CACT has 189 employees (not thousands) and a turnover of about £5m. It has four employees with benefits over £60k, the top one £120-£130k.

    By comparison the Millwall trust has 31 employees and a turnover of about £1.5m. It has one employee at £60-£70k. 

    The Palace for Life Foundation has a turnover of £2.5m and 89 staff. It has one employee at £70-£80k.

    Not sure what any of that proves, although it’s interesting to see their relative scale - and relate them back to Capt Tom, and people in high profile public sector jobs I do know about which I would argue include far more responsibility.


  • So CACT is bigger, and I'd argue better,  than its neighbours.

    So the debate could just as well be that Jason Morgan deserves more because he runs a much bigger, and better, trust which he also helped create from scratch.

    Or maybe CACT is bigger and better because it pays its senior staff well?

    Some would say that local government jobs are easy with no pressure, no fear of the sack and big pensions.

    Personally, while that might have been the case once upon a time in some jobs I doubt it is now.

    And in any case that one sector is underpaid doesn't mean that another should be.

    But to get back to my original point the charity sector is not generally corrupt or overpaid or at least no more than the public or private sectors.


  • I don’t know what the appropriate remuneration would be, but looking at their last filing, if you assume the executive administers the charity and the other staff expenses are all program related, the admin costs are less than 10% of the revenue. That’s normally a good sign for a charity. 
  • edited February 2022
    So CACT is bigger, and I'd argue better,  than its neighbours.

    So the debate could just as well be that Jason Morgan deserves more because he runs a much bigger, and better, trust which he also helped create from scratch.

    Or maybe CACT is bigger and better because it pays its senior staff well?

    Some would say that local government jobs are easy with no pressure, no fear of the sack and big pensions.

    Personally, while that might have been the case once upon a time in some jobs I doubt it is now.

    And in any case that one sector is underpaid doesn't mean that another should be.

    But to get back to my original point the charity sector is not generally corrupt or overpaid or at least no more than the public or private sectors.


    I’m not arguing that senior local government officers are underpaid. They’re not. But any idea that being CEO of a charitable trust of this kind is in any way comparable to being CEO of a local authority (which will have far more staff and much bigger budgets, even now) is laughable, in my opinion.
  • But no one was making that comparison until you introduced it.
  • Shame how a thread about a thoroughly decent man has become derailed and besmirched over time. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • iainment said:
    lolwray said:
    Shame how a thread about a thoroughly decent man has become derailed and besmirched over time. 
    It looks like his family facilitated that.
    That was my point in posting the update - it does seem to be the case
  • https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/royal-charity-spent-98percent-of-its-cash-paying-10-staff/ar-AAU6oa1?pfr=1

    Another example:

    A Royal charity that has partnered with Prince Harry's life coaching firm paid its staff 98 per cent of the money it raised in a year, the Daily Mail can reveal.

    The Queen's Commonwealth Trust (QCT) brought in £796,106 from donors but paid out £787,314 in staff costs to its ten employees in the 12 months to March 2021.

    Over half of the cash went to its five most senior executives who earned £420,000 between them, Charity Commission accounts show. 

    Chris Kelly, the chief executive, earns at least £140,000 – a similar salary to the boss of the RSPCA, despite the animal charity raising some £130million in donations and employing nearly 2,000 staff.

    The figures spent on salaries raises serious questions over how much emphasis the organisation, with the Queen as patron, puts on charitable endeavours. 

  • I bet a certain ex CEO of ours has read this thread and is already working out how to set up a charity of his own.
  • I bet a certain ex CEO of ours has read this thread and is already working out how to set up  buy a charity of his own for a quid.  Then find someone to sell it to. 

  • edited February 2022
    I bet a certain ex CEO of ours has read this thread and is already working out how to set up a charity of his own.
    Charity begins at home, unless you’ve had it repossessed.
  • An inquiry has been launched into the charity set up in honour of fundraiser and Army veteran Capt Sir Tom Moore.

    The Charity Commission has concerns about The Captain Tom Foundation's management and decisions that could have generated "significant profit" for a company run by his family.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-61986597

  • edited July 2023
    All payments in and out of the charity have been put on hold as a result of the ongoing investigation.

    His daughter has also been ordered to demolish a spa built in the grounds of her home in the charity’s name after a retrospective planning application was turned down.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-66100178


  • His daughter is the worst of people.

    Not a single penny of the money he raised went to the NHS, some of it went to NHS related charities, which isn't the same thing.

    She exposed him to such a risk by flying him to the Caribbean, for her benefit, that you could conclude it was murder, manslaughter at best.

    Absolutely vial human being.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Cafc43v3r said:
    His daughter is the worst of people.

    Not a single penny of the money he raised went to the NHS, some of it went to NHS related charities, which isn't the same thing.

    She exposed him to such a risk by flying him to the Caribbean, for her benefit, that you could conclude it was murder, manslaughter at best.

    Absolutely vial human being.
    The rest of it may (or may not) be true……but come on…..
    High risk people were told not to leave their house unless it was strictly necessary at the time! 

  • Cafc43v3r said:
    His daughter is the worst of people.

    Not a single penny of the money he raised went to the NHS, some of it went to NHS related charities, which isn't the same thing.

    She exposed him to such a risk by flying him to the Caribbean, for her benefit, that you could conclude it was murder, manslaughter at best.

    Absolutely vial human being.
    I am not saying you are wrong in your views regarding his daughter but until now there’s been no concrete evidence that she has done anything with bad intentions.
    I hate people being pilloried on the basis of some things that are perpetrated by the often vindictive and poisonous media.
    I will be the first to level criticism at her if she has definitely been found guilty of any shenanigans but I don’t believe she has AS YET been found guilty of being so.
    I would never have written anything like you have done at this juncture.


  • Cafc43v3r said:
    His daughter is the worst of people.

    Not a single penny of the money he raised went to the NHS, some of it went to NHS related charities, which isn't the same thing.

    She exposed him to such a risk by flying him to the Caribbean, for her benefit, that you could conclude it was murder, manslaughter at best.

    Absolutely vial human being.
    I am not saying you are wrong in your views regarding his daughter but until now there’s been no concrete evidence that she has done anything with bad intentions.
    I hate people being pilloried on the basis of some things that are perpetrated by the often vindictive and poisonous media.
    I will be the first to level criticism at her if she has definitely been found guilty of any shenanigans but I don’t believe she has AS YET been found guilty of being so.
    I would never have written anything like you have done at this juncture.

    So you think he set up a fund raiser for "THE NHS" during a pandemic? 

    Not a single penny went to THE NHS and thousands of people thought they were giving money to THE NHS, to buy PPE, ventilators, oxygen etc.  They weren't.

    It's been a grift from day one and, unfortunately, poor Sir Tom was a victim as well.

    Absolute shameless behaviour.  She gets everything she deserves.

  • Cafc43v3r said:

    Cafc43v3r said:
    His daughter is the worst of people.

    Not a single penny of the money he raised went to the NHS, some of it went to NHS related charities, which isn't the same thing.

    She exposed him to such a risk by flying him to the Caribbean, for her benefit, that you could conclude it was murder, manslaughter at best.

    Absolutely vial human being.
    I am not saying you are wrong in your views regarding his daughter but until now there’s been no concrete evidence that she has done anything with bad intentions.
    I hate people being pilloried on the basis of some things that are perpetrated by the often vindictive and poisonous media.
    I will be the first to level criticism at her if she has definitely been found guilty of any shenanigans but I don’t believe she has AS YET been found guilty of being so.
    I would never have written anything like you have done at this juncture.

    So you think he set up a fund raiser for "THE NHS" during a pandemic? 

    Not a single penny went to THE NHS and thousands of people thought they were giving money to THE NHS, to buy PPE, ventilators, oxygen etc.  They weren't.

    It's been a grift from day one and, unfortunately, poor Sir Tom was a victim as well.

    Absolute shameless behaviour.  She gets everything she deserves.

    Jesus Christ man…..untwist yer knickers. 🙄
  • Cafc43v3r said:

    Cafc43v3r said:
    His daughter is the worst of people.

    Not a single penny of the money he raised went to the NHS, some of it went to NHS related charities, which isn't the same thing.

    She exposed him to such a risk by flying him to the Caribbean, for her benefit, that you could conclude it was murder, manslaughter at best.

    Absolutely vial human being.
    I am not saying you are wrong in your views regarding his daughter but until now there’s been no concrete evidence that she has done anything with bad intentions.
    I hate people being pilloried on the basis of some things that are perpetrated by the often vindictive and poisonous media.
    I will be the first to level criticism at her if she has definitely been found guilty of any shenanigans but I don’t believe she has AS YET been found guilty of being so.
    I would never have written anything like you have done at this juncture.

    So you think he set up a fund raiser for "THE NHS" during a pandemic? 

    Not a single penny went to THE NHS and thousands of people thought they were giving money to THE NHS, to buy PPE, ventilators, oxygen etc.  They weren't.

    It's been a grift from day one and, unfortunately, poor Sir Tom was a victim as well.

    Absolute shameless behaviour.  She gets everything she deserves.

    Jesus Christ man…..untwist yer knickers. 🙄
    Why because some evil woman rinsed 10s of millions out of people that probably couldn't afford it on the back of her 100 year old dad and ended up killing him in the process? 

    So she could have an extra office block on the side of her, already 7 bed room, house and a spa and swimming pool on the side?
  • Cafc43v3r said:
    Cafc43v3r said:

    Cafc43v3r said:
    His daughter is the worst of people.

    Not a single penny of the money he raised went to the NHS, some of it went to NHS related charities, which isn't the same thing.

    She exposed him to such a risk by flying him to the Caribbean, for her benefit, that you could conclude it was murder, manslaughter at best.

    Absolutely vial human being.
    I am not saying you are wrong in your views regarding his daughter but until now there’s been no concrete evidence that she has done anything with bad intentions.
    I hate people being pilloried on the basis of some things that are perpetrated by the often vindictive and poisonous media.
    I will be the first to level criticism at her if she has definitely been found guilty of any shenanigans but I don’t believe she has AS YET been found guilty of being so.
    I would never have written anything like you have done at this juncture.

    So you think he set up a fund raiser for "THE NHS" during a pandemic? 

    Not a single penny went to THE NHS and thousands of people thought they were giving money to THE NHS, to buy PPE, ventilators, oxygen etc.  They weren't.

    It's been a grift from day one and, unfortunately, poor Sir Tom was a victim as well.

    Absolute shameless behaviour.  She gets everything she deserves.

    Jesus Christ man…..untwist yer knickers. 🙄
    Why because some evil woman rinsed 10s of millions out of people that probably couldn't afford it on the back of her 100 year old dad and ended up killing him in the process? 

    So she could have an extra office block on the side of her, already 7 bed room, house and a spa and swimming pool on the side?
    Correct me if I’m wrong but I have never read that a swimming pool was part of the planning application.
    I can perfectly understand why an office would have to be built.
    As for the spa, let’s see what the purpose was behind that before jumping to conclusions.
  • It has emerged the Ingram-Moores requested planning permission for a "Captain Tom Foundation Building", which was "for use by occupiers... and Captain Tom Foundation", according to documents submitted to Central Bedfordshire Council in August 2021.

    The local authority granted permission for the single-storey structure to be built on the tennis courts at the Grade II-listed home, as first reported in The Sun.

    Then, in February 2022, the family submitted revised plans for the already partly constructed building, which called it the "Captain Tom Building".

    The plans included a spa pool, toilets and a kitchen, which the Design & Access and Heritage Statement said was "for private use".

    In November 2022, Central Bedfordshire Council refused the retrospective planning permission for the revised plans.

    A council spokesperson said: "An enforcement notice requiring the demolition of the now-unauthorised building was issued and this is now subject to an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate."


  • She's a propper Would Ya
  • Gribbo said:
    She's a propper grifta

Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!