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.
It's a foundation, essentially a charity that supports other charities.
It's not unusual to have a family member in a senior leadership role of a foundation set up in someone's memory. The 2 that jump out at me as a cricket fan are the Ruth strauss foundation and the Mcgrath foundation both led by family members. The difference being I don't think either Andrew Strauss or Glen Mcgrath draw a salary at all (if I remember correctly).
A family member being in that role isn't an issue for me there are all sorts of reasons you might want to keep a connection to that person's memory at the top table. As long as you are a competent trustworthy individual.
The issue here is the salary. I'm not against large salaries in charity sector (I've posted on this issue before see below) but it has to be proportionate to the size of the charity and in this case its just preposterous.
The reports of payments to companies owned by the family just screams Southalls missus interior design company to me.
I'm sure they didn't set out with anything other than the best of intentions but greed can very easily take over when such large sums are involved. It's all very sad.
_________________________________________________
Generally I favour small charities for my donations. Ones run largely by volunteers who cover their own expenses and where at least 90% of what you donate will be going to the end aim with 10% going on costs. This is largely because I have personal connections to these charities - family members founded/run/are involved in them or my Dad as a retired chartered accountant sits on a number of boards of charities.
However I am also realistic. The impact these small charities can have is huge to the people they help but is concentrated in a very small area. They can't make wholesale change or change the bigger picture or influence governments in the same way that large charities can.
Large charities are needed and by nature of being large their costs increase. They need full time staff to deliver whatever it is they do, they need staff to process the money, they need staff to look after those staff (payroll HR etc.) They will still run as efficiently as they can, although I'm sure there are exceptions, but generally they still have the end user as the aim. Obviously this means the % of your donation that covers costs rather than going direct to the cause will be lower but often you get more impact for that donation.
Regarding CEO salaries in the third sector. Compare to the salary of a CEO in the private sector in a similar organisation, same number of people, handling the same amount of money operating in the same number of counties and it will be about a third of the salary. And that's before you consider benefits like pension, healthcare, bonuses etc that you don't get in the charity sector
You can't expect someone to do a high pressure, long hours, high skilled role for nothing no matter how passionate they are about a cause. Equally you wouldn't want them to. In order to run these organisations properly, prevent waste and actually help people you need strong leadership. You want people with the right skills and experiences in these jobs to make sure the organisation runs properly and set the direction. You can't do that if you pay nothing. Poor leadership would waste far more of your donation than the salary of good leadership.
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.
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.
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.
That sounds extreme but you also have to consider what is delivered. CACT spent £4m on staff costs in 2020/21 from a turnover of £5.4m. That won’t mean the £4m wasn’t spent in pursuit of its legitimate goals. Indeed employing people to deliver services is pretty much what it does. It’s not about volunteering.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
Comments
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.
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 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.
It's not unusual to have a family member in a senior leadership role of a foundation set up in someone's memory. The 2 that jump out at me as a cricket fan are the Ruth strauss foundation and the Mcgrath foundation both led by family members. The difference being I don't think either Andrew Strauss or Glen Mcgrath draw a salary at all (if I remember correctly).
A family member being in that role isn't an issue for me there are all sorts of reasons you might want to keep a connection to that person's memory at the top table. As long as you are a competent trustworthy individual.
The issue here is the salary. I'm not against large salaries in charity sector (I've posted on this issue before see below) but it has to be proportionate to the size of the charity and in this case its just preposterous.
The reports of payments to companies owned by the family just screams Southalls missus interior design company to me.
I'm sure they didn't set out with anything other than the best of intentions but greed can very easily take over when such large sums are involved. It's all very sad.
_________________________________________________
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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."