Wow did anyone see the recent episode of Dispatches, the investigation they did on the London Marathon where it is aleged that much of the £17.8m raised from last year's marathon was spent on salaries and other unspecified costs incurred by the organisers.
The investigation alleged that charities and individuals pay race organisers as much as £1,000 to secure places to the over-subscribed event. Around 20,000 runners secure places through a ballot, paying £35 each. But a further 600 charities buy thousands of extra places, costing £300 each. Those charges can rise to £1,000 a place as charities are encouraged to buy packages that include adverts in magazines and on websites, the documentary claims.
Dispatches episode on 4 on demand
Interesting and thought provoking documentary and well worth a watch, it saddened me to see how many decent causes such as 'help for heros' miss out because of the way that the eventis handled, equally as sad was how much money appears to get diverted elsewhere than to charitable cause.
London Marathon chiefs are disputing the claims but have not yet made the information or documents available to prove the claims to be incorrect or untrue.
Comments
and thought provoking though.
Thought provoking? No.
A typical pile of journalistic crap? Yes.
And yes there is a more expensive way for charities to get places but its not just a place - its advertising too and the idea is that runners see the ads, and offer to raise money for it.
If the charities weren't making a good return on these packages - they wouldn't be buying them.
It was a rubbish 'investigation'.
Regardless of the journalistic integrity of the investigation, the most salient point for me was the comment of one runner early on in the program, where he says that if you're not prepared to raise a minimum amount for charity (and that can be a considerable burden) and with the "five rejects = 1 guaranteed place" scheme now closed to new entrants, it will be almost impossible to get into the marathon by ballot alone.
As a three-time rejectee who does not want to shackle himself to a minimum sponsorship amount, I have also come to this view and am banking on the "five rejects" scheme to get me a guaranteed place.
Considering that the VLM (or FLM as it was when I started applying) is the reason I started running in the first place, it seems a great shame that it'll only ever be able to run it once without resorting to a golden bond place.
You can get club places, good for age places or just hit lucky in the ballot.
I don't see what's wrong with charging charities for places. The event must cost hundreds of thousands of pounds (if not millions) to organise. Whether the organisers acted ethically would depend on how they spent the money. If it went on lavish wages, public sector type pensions and first class travel for employees, they might be out of order.
How did the programme say that the money was spent?
Think I remember somthing about the MD/CEO whatever he's called being on £240k and only 25p from every pound going to charity.
sell all there places to charities as it will give the LM a lot more money than us runners.
It will generate more money for charities and this is what the LM is all about.
I ask him so what about those good runners who just want to run a marathon.
His reply was that the LM is a charity event, not a race.
That sums up what charities think about the LM.
Runnerman, that is sadly the case, and a real shame.
The fact that there is someone on the council that passes decisions on other marathons means we basically can't have a race in our capital city anymore, because of this monopoly. Big shame!
There you go, you "Think" you remember "something". Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
25p in the pound? Rubbish! If you sponsor a runner, all your sponsorship goes to that runner's charity, unless of course they're stealing it, I expect they're all lining their pockets aren't they?
lol @ Mr. Puffy
Almost no charities work like that and yes a tiny fraction of sponsorship money given to those in the LM ever get to any charitable causes.
In 2009 they brought in 18m and spent 13.4m on 'costs' , 12m of that on unspecifed 'costs' lol.
You can always get their financial details (accounts) from Companies House.
THE LONDON MARATHON LIMITED (co num:01528489)
THE LONDON MARATHON CHARITABLE TRUST LIMITED (co num:01550741)
'Almost impossible' to get a place...
Aren't there 20,000 places available in the ballot and 120,000 applications? The odds aren't that bad...
And you can always run another one.
Today 12:58
I ran FLM in 2005 on a club place. Never again. It's a sh1t race and there are much better marathons.
Â
Yeah but I imagine most people would like to run it at least once.
Matchstick Man wrote (see)
Im personally more a fan of the Telegraph although I do not personally believe the content on any press as it is all presented with the perspective of the journalist. This does not however prevent the Telegraph from being thought provoking at times.
Irrespective of the completeness of the report it most certain lt appears to raise some disturbing questions in my mind.
The fact that charities such as Help for Heros receives calls from people who wish to run for them, but are unable to do so simply because on principle they want as much money as possible to reach the needy and are unwilling to pay the prices for bonds I think is shamefull.
Smaller charities also need support and money as much as larger ones, yet seem excluded due to the vast expenditures. Some such as local small hospice simply may not be able to justify the enterance fees.
I also fail to understand why charities are forced to pay more than an individual runner for a place, if the intention is simply to raise money for good causes.
I think its interesting to consider how many people realise when donating to a charity runner doing the marathon that a large proportion of the money pays enterance fees of hundreds of pounds and large wage packets of the organisers.
I feel the London Marathon have acted like many people do on forums, by simply condemning the program or making pointless quotes and meaningless comments regarding specific indivuals, which provide no value at all to address the questions raised in the program.
The fact remains the London Marathon could resolve all questions and accusations by becoming more transparent and open. They have the evidence and ability to address the information presented yet choose not to.
When all's said said done, here is the problem: there are far more people who'd like to do the race than there are places.
Organising the London marathon is a heck of a project management task, and I'm not at all surprised that the people at the top of the management pyramid earn 6-figure sums. Why wouldn't they?
It doesn't matter what one charity head thinks who someone met at a function. It's obvious that he or she will see the world through his charity's eyes. If you talked to a leading elite athlete at another do, you would get another perspective.
The organisers have to try to satisfy a number of competing interests, and all things considered, they seem to do an excellent job.A lot of places are allocated to charities; many go into the public ballot; others go to elites; to running clubs; to the emergency services; to the sponsors; to the companies who help organise the event; to celebs to help publicise the race.... the list is endless.
Finally, bear in mind that top US marathons cost more than 3 times as much to enter as the London marathon (with no deferring allowed). If the London organisers applied market forces, they could charge £150 a place and still fill it up. They choose not to.
Sorry, Madlot, I interpreted your 'but most people would like to run it at least once' as a 'loads of people who'd really like to run it never get a chance' type statement.
Hence my reply along the lines of 'I haven't met any of those people who really, really want to do it and never managed to get a place' Most persist for a couple of years and get to run eventually or their interest fades.
But I probably misinterpreted your initial post.
The London Marathon Charitable Trust is as transparent as every other charity.... in other words, pretty transparent as they have to publish their financial records. They did not appear on the programme because they were not given the opportunity to by the people who made the programme.
This is a simplistic view of fundraising, if you don't mind me saying so.
Charities are not 'excluded' from buying VLM places on the grounds of cost. They are excluded because the waiting list for golden bond places is very long indeed. The reason the waiting list is so long is that charities know that the London Marathon is a highly lucrative fundraising opportunity. If the charity you mention want to maximise the amount they raise they would jump at the chance of a VLM place. For an outlay of £300 or so, they can demand £1500 - 2000 from a runner.No other event is so high profile, and offers such a good return on the investment.
I didn't see the programme but it sounds like they are trying to make a story out of nothing. It's very common knowledge that charities buy places and then resell them to runners at a huge profit to bring cash into the charity. Seems like a pretty good arrangement all round to me.
The London Marathon is a shit race; if you are a mid level runner hoping for a PB - sure the atmosphere is great; but you better expect to walk the first 20-25 minutes; you are constantly dodging runners veering across your path.. especially at drinks stations. I've done 7 of them and never got within 20 mins of my PB.
It's wonderful if you're there to party and have a laugh - But going for a PB?
Forget it
That's why I would like to do it at least once, just to experience it.