last nights Dispatches prog

[rocksteady]

Not sure if this should be on the general fellrunning thread,but still might be of an interest.
Did any one see the dispatches programe about the london marathon and the money thats involved?
apparently its a CHARITY!! and not a business??
its something that has always bugged me about these big charitable associations,if youre a charity,all the money should be given to the actual cause and not kept in accounts to build up intrests or to pay high wages to executives.that why i never give to big charities and only to small local ones.

[Witton Park]

When they offer money it is often subject to gaining other matched funding or be staged - so a grant may not be made immediately it is awarded.

It is clear though that there seems to be too much of the money being creamed off from London.

I am working with http://www.runforall.com/ who we are linking on with for our Summer race day in Blackburn.
They are trying to ensure that as much of the charity money raised goes to the intended recipients and the entry is more open and cheaper.

[wycoller]

I thought that this was one of the most biased programmes that I have ever seen. The London marathon was set up to provide a high profile sporting event for the likes of us. The fact that it has now become a fun run for charity runners is a more recent development.

In the programme they made a big play on the allocation of entries but didn't mention that athletics clubs get guaranteed entries based on membership. That's how I, and I bet a number of other forumites, have entered.

The other "major" point was that certain charities got regular golden bond entries. Other charities had a dig at this, but actually charities require regular income in order to finance their operating costs and the London Marathon is an important source of this for many of them.

Enough of my rant!

[bestathlete]

I have no real interest in the chances of anyone to get a charity place. I have been lucky (or should that be committed) enough to get an automatic entry into any event I have wished for.

I didnt see it relevant to point out that athletics clubs and people who are fast enough can get a place. For me the point of the show was the questioning of the operating costs and why they are so well guarded.

Top charity officials get paid loads because they have the skills to bring in millions for their charity - but why does the London Marathon pay their top employee twice the salary that other national charities do, when they dont really have to do anything to raise money, as testified by the 100,000 plus people who enter the ballot every year, and the dozens of charities who, despite the £300 price tag, do actually want to buy places?


And on a contrary note I think they should have clearly pointed out that the money the general public give to individuals as sponsorship to run the distance IS NOT part of the total they kept referring to. I think viewers who didnt fully understand the process may now question whether or not to give money to runners.

[pudsey]

While I have no issues wtih charities being engaged in trading activities, a high salary for chief executive (although higher than top charity CEO seems excessive) or even not being able to distribute funds due to delays- however ....the fact that charities need regular income is no argument here, the point was that the larger charities that already have a much larger income ad reserves appear to be benfiting while the smaller ones (who ALSO require regular income, , some would say even more, given their vulnerability) don't get a look in.... nor is there transparency what the chances are - other than not a hope in hell.