Ex-Mayor in charity storm.

[derekgas]

I cant see the problem, I know worse ways that charities 'earn' thier money, I am aware of 2 very well known charities who, once you donate, sell your details to other charities, that is not very nice, we receive around 5 calls a week from 'charities', ranging from fire, police to raising money for children, the childrens ones are dispicable, they ring telling you 'we contacted you back in November, and you were unable to help at the time, and asked us to ring back in 6 months' then they start thier spiel to try and get a regular donation from you, when you state that you promised no such thing, they hang up, without so much as a thank you, these people probably give virtually nothing to charity, they are run as a business to make money for greedy fat cats expenses.

[MikeSz]

Tony has done a fantastic job at something which is very difficult to achieve and has simply set out at doing it in a different way. I only know a little about what has happened but this has quite literally been an exerceise in thinking out of the box, there was no nominated charity this year, all the money raised is going to fund local charities in need and this is Tony simply coming up with a new way of raising more money for local causes.

I would add that I have been taking anything coming from the Accrington Observer with a bit of a pinch of salt lately as well!

[Gayle]

What were his charities this year - does anyone know?

[ChrisMG]

Am I being thick or what?
A charity gives him a donation, he adds 10 percent then gives it back!
Hows that raising money. Looks like hes just giving his own money to the charities.
I dont get it at all, please someone with knowledge explain. The observer doesn't explain at all.
Still smells fishy to me.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I don't get it either unless he invested the money and made that much profit or something.

[MargaretR]

I think this is how he worked it
..He gave those charitable institutions an incentive to raise as much as they could for him, on the basis that they would get 10% added on when he gave it back to them.
A way to get other people to do the fundraising for him

[Bonnyboy]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

I think this is how he worked it
..He gave those charitable institutions an incentive to raise as much as they could for him, on the basis that they would get 10% added on when he gave it back to them.
A way to get other people to do the fundraising for him

Ahhh. That clears it up

I still don’t get it, someone donates say £5000, he returns £5500 to them. Looks like he is giving away funds to me…….Confused

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by Bonnyboy

Ahhh. That clears it up

I still don’t get it, someone donates say £5000, he returns £5500 to them. Looks like he is giving away funds to me…….Confused

I think there is an amount per year to be allocated to such charities.
His methods made it look like more than ever before had been given to Mayors fund
I may be wrong ... but its a logical explanation ... yes?

[Bonnyboy]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

I think there is an amount per year to be allocated to such charities.
His methods made it look like more than ever before had been given to Mayors fund
I may be wrong ... but its a logical explanation ... yes?

The logic escapes me completely

My brain must switch into extra numb mode when I visit this thread

[hedman2003]

Duh I know its late and I'm tired are we saying that he give the 10% from his own pocket?

[Bonnyboy]

Originally Posted by hedman2003

Duh I know its late and I'm tired are we saying that he give the 10% from his own pocket?

I dont know, thats what it reads like but it cant be so.

If I could work it out I'd borrow a few grand from someone, give them 10% back on top and be quids in.

[cashman]

it has me beat this one, should be explained its as clear as mud. if its all above board explanation stops mud sticking, so where is it?

[WillowTheWhisp]

I think the Observer reporter should be asked to provide a more lucid story that we can all understand.

[Gayle]

I wondered if all those organisations were his nominated charities at the end of the year, did the 10% top up that he gave them come out of the £10k that he raised through more conventional methods?

So if that's the case they raised about £80k which they put into his charity fund. He then nominated them as his charities and gave them back the money that they put in plus the 10%. I don't know if that's what happened which is why I'd be interested to know who his nominated charities were this year.

I suppose, at the end of the day, the money will go to charity in one way or the other. So, I guess the only way it's sort of misleading is that he didn't raise the money himself in the traditional way.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I think the Observer reporter should be asked to provide a more lucid story that we can all understand.

Maybe the reporter did not understand it but was told to report on it by the Editor anyway

Reading the story it looks like the reporter did not understand it.