Charity running comparison site

Nayan

I was wondering how the charities line up when it comes to minimum pledge amount for VMLM for example. It turns out that there is quite a spread- some charities clearly they have more cache and kudos than others, so they are more choosy about picking runners who are more likely to raise large sums and/or more likely to actually run the race. This website seemed to give you the overall numbers quite well: http://www.crunch.org.uk Some will ask you to commit to a minimum of say 2.5 grand but will ask you how much you are good for. I suspect they then pick and choose if folks come I. Saying they expect to raIse more. Smaller charities will be happy to quickly sign up runners who can bring them 1500 quid, say. I thought about it and having done this a few years back (for Manchester in fact) I don't want to do it again for a while. Still good luck to anyone who is going for it.

VDOT52

I would rather run a race and then hand 50 quid to the first hornless person I spotted than pay an inflated entry price to a race which also ties me into raising enough money to pay a 'charity worker' their salary for a month, or pays for massage and s cup area at the race.



At least if you give it to the person in need they can decide if they want to piss it up the wall or have a few decent days eating instead of some gap year twit deciding what would be better for them.



Anyway, rant over.



On another note, I think I may do Manchester as my first marathon in 2017. Flat as fook now they have changed the route a bit.

Cheerful Dave

What have you got against horns?  People with horns not good enough for your handouts, eh?

VDOT52

. Dave!

Nayan

Horniness aside I just figure that after all the ranting and bitching some of the disappointed ballot applicants with go for the charity route to London 2016. And the charities have to compete for your fundraising skills...

VDOT52

It is a great post for those mad enough to want to run London at any cost.



I'll only ever do London if I can get a gfa. Seems fairer to leave the ballot to the fun runners.

Wardi

I thought you were just being bullish

 

Peter Collins

Surprise surprise, charities have overheads and pay their staff. Whatever next. What you could do, if you really wanted, is check out the accounts of a particular charity and try to work out if in your mind it gives enough of what it raises to the cause. Most of them spare the vast majority of what they raise for that. Bear in mind that any charity that says it gives 100 per cent of what it raises to its beneficiaries is either lying or... well, being economical with the truth. Phones, premises, staff don't cost nothing.

FerrousFerret

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/showcharity/registerofcharities/SectorData/SectorOverview.aspx

Nayan

Charities have costs just like any organisation does. The point is that their aim is to raise money and dole it out to their causes - which of course is what they do. Some, like that one with the batmangoulash woman were bent but for the most they do good work and their causes get much more benefit than if they relied on folks running s marathon then remembering to donate 50 quid.

Peter Collins

Actually, if you look at the history of Kids Company - the charity founded by Camila Batmanghelidjh to give her her proper name - it identified a pressing need and did good work, which was why successive governments gave it support. She certainly grew too big for her boots and didn't pay attention to maintaining reserves, but bent is a wee bit strong. Anyway, the simple truth is that most charities carry on doing what works for them - if it brings money in, they'll carry on doing it. That's why there are still chuggers - we all say we hate them, and yet enough people seem to hand over their details to make it worth their while to, mainly, pay agencies to do the work. I think the same goes for marathons and other events. You also cannot underestimate the 'brand awareness' charities get from being there at national, televised events. Anyway, handing over £50 - I can remember a time when people were saying 'don't give beggars money; give it to a charity that helps beggars'. You really can't win either way.

VDOT52

Indeed Peter. I agree there are pro's and cons to both avenues. Either the homeless drunk pisses it up the wall or a charity pisses up the wall having lunch meeting and talking about helping said alcoholic mend his ways.



I'm just a bit cynical I guess.

Peter Collins

I would answer that by saying look at the work of Crisis or Shelter. They don't piss money up the wall.