Children in Need sitting on £87.75m
Discussion
Charity beloved by our friend at the BBC have lots of cash...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/tim-walker/...
Needs some PH investigation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/tim-walker/...
Needs some PH investigation
I should say. That bloody stinks!
But not surprising. Charities, eh?
A spokesman for the corporation sees nothing wrong in sitting on quite such a huge sum. over £87 million!
“BBC Children in Need typically awards grants over a three year period. Money is released on a quarterly basis as projects demonstrate the impact they are having on young lives,” he says.
So, I had a decko at their grant bit.
'There is no upper limit for Main Grants
but we make very few grants over £120,000 and most grants are for much less. Each year we are asked for much more money than we are able to give.'
Oh yeah?
I for one, will seriously be considering whether I bother anymore.
But not surprising. Charities, eh?
A spokesman for the corporation sees nothing wrong in sitting on quite such a huge sum. over £87 million!
“BBC Children in Need typically awards grants over a three year period. Money is released on a quarterly basis as projects demonstrate the impact they are having on young lives,” he says.
So, I had a decko at their grant bit.
'There is no upper limit for Main Grants
but we make very few grants over £120,000 and most grants are for much less. Each year we are asked for much more money than we are able to give.'
Oh yeah?
I for one, will seriously be considering whether I bother anymore.
Edited by dandarez on Tuesday 14th October 18:38
Down pitchforks. There is a straightforward explanation.
Children in need have their own their own financial trust, which generates profits that are used to cover all the running costs of the charity. It is precisely this 'cash pile' that enables them to use every single pound donated for good causes, rather than syphoning off a percentage to keep the charity afloat like most others do.
But of course that's a lot less fun than forming an angry mob...
Children in need have their own their own financial trust, which generates profits that are used to cover all the running costs of the charity. It is precisely this 'cash pile' that enables them to use every single pound donated for good causes, rather than syphoning off a percentage to keep the charity afloat like most others do.
But of course that's a lot less fun than forming an angry mob...
It seems accrual accounting is beyond a social diary journalist.
The £87m that the Telegraph quote represents their Current Asset Investments, mostly invested in short term corporate bonds but also some Certificates of Deposit.
To put that into perspective, they had Grants Payable of £60m, which is grants they've awarded but not yet paid (£36m due <12 months). The reasons why they haven't yet made the payments may be because some projects a multi-year (their accounting policy is to recognise the full award in the year of award incidentally) while others they may require milestones to be met to ensure that the project is moving in the right direction and made effective use of funds to date.
As their accounting year ends on 30 June, about 7 months after the previous appeal, it is understandable that they have not yet fully awarded all funds received in the 2012 Appeal. By 30 June 2013, they had awarded £19.1m of the 2012 Appeal funds, leaving £24.3m budgeted to be awarded by the end of December 2013.
Add those figures together and you begin to understand precisely why CIN have £87m of current assets, sensibly invested in the short term instruments.
Or if you're social diary journalist, let's put it this way: in the year to June 2013 (so roughly 6 months of Appeal 2011 and 6 months of Appeal 2012), they had incoming grant funds of £44.021m and outgoing grant expenditure of £43.912m (after return of unused grants/withdrawing grants from projects that haven't met their conditions).
Mr Will said:
Down pitchforks. There is a straightforward explanation.
Children in need have their own their own financial trust, which generates profits that are used to cover all the running costs of the charity. It is precisely this 'cash pile' that enables them to use every single pound donated for good causes, rather than syphoning off a percentage to keep the charity afloat like most others do.
But of course that's a lot less fun than forming an angry mob...
Not quite. The charity has Fixed Asset Investents of £12m, which includes the net assets of Children in Need Limited (the trading arm responsible for Pudsey teddy bears). These assets exist to generate an income to meet the short term running costs in the event of a unexpected shortfall of funds (running costs are normally met from Gift Aid funding) and otherwise to top up grant making funds in good years.Children in need have their own their own financial trust, which generates profits that are used to cover all the running costs of the charity. It is precisely this 'cash pile' that enables them to use every single pound donated for good causes, rather than syphoning off a percentage to keep the charity afloat like most others do.
But of course that's a lot less fun than forming an angry mob...
The £87m that the Telegraph quote represents their Current Asset Investments, mostly invested in short term corporate bonds but also some Certificates of Deposit.
To put that into perspective, they had Grants Payable of £60m, which is grants they've awarded but not yet paid (£36m due <12 months). The reasons why they haven't yet made the payments may be because some projects a multi-year (their accounting policy is to recognise the full award in the year of award incidentally) while others they may require milestones to be met to ensure that the project is moving in the right direction and made effective use of funds to date.
As their accounting year ends on 30 June, about 7 months after the previous appeal, it is understandable that they have not yet fully awarded all funds received in the 2012 Appeal. By 30 June 2013, they had awarded £19.1m of the 2012 Appeal funds, leaving £24.3m budgeted to be awarded by the end of December 2013.
Add those figures together and you begin to understand precisely why CIN have £87m of current assets, sensibly invested in the short term instruments.
Or if you're social diary journalist, let's put it this way: in the year to June 2013 (so roughly 6 months of Appeal 2011 and 6 months of Appeal 2012), they had incoming grant funds of £44.021m and outgoing grant expenditure of £43.912m (after return of unused grants/withdrawing grants from projects that haven't met their conditions).
Mr Will said:
Down pitchforks. There is a straightforward explanation.
Children in need have their own their own financial trust, which generates profits that are used to cover all the running costs of the charity. It is precisely this 'cash pile' that enables them to use every single pound donated for good causes, rather than syphoning off a percentage to keep the charity afloat like most others do.
But of course that's a lot less fun than forming an angry mob...
And think of all the teams of "Non Profit" Directors they need to manage all that lot on massive bonus related salaries.Children in need have their own their own financial trust, which generates profits that are used to cover all the running costs of the charity. It is precisely this 'cash pile' that enables them to use every single pound donated for good causes, rather than syphoning off a percentage to keep the charity afloat like most others do.
But of course that's a lot less fun than forming an angry mob...
Bet my life on it!
Four Litre said:
Mr Will said:
Down pitchforks. There is a straightforward explanation.
Children in need have their own their own financial trust, which generates profits that are used to cover all the running costs of the charity. It is precisely this 'cash pile' that enables them to use every single pound donated for good causes, rather than syphoning off a percentage to keep the charity afloat like most others do.
But of course that's a lot less fun than forming an angry mob...
And think of all the teams of "Non Profit" Directors they need to manage all that lot on massive bonus related salaries.Children in need have their own their own financial trust, which generates profits that are used to cover all the running costs of the charity. It is precisely this 'cash pile' that enables them to use every single pound donated for good causes, rather than syphoning off a percentage to keep the charity afloat like most others do.
But of course that's a lot less fun than forming an angry mob...
Bet my life on it!
Define "teams"...
jogon said:
Expensive business running these charities you know you need to pay the CEO at least £250k plus expenses and don't forget the swanky London office professionally fitted out with the finest Italian furniture to house the pretty ex public school PR, smedia and fund raiser girls.
Someone better alert Children In Need then. No remuneration for trustees, CEO on £110,000 and expenses usually around £500, only 4 other staff over £60k and sharing BBC offices.http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
ninja-lewis said:
Someone better alert Children In Need then. No remuneration for trustees, CEO on £110,000 and expenses usually around £500, only 4 other staff over £60k and sharing BBC offices.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
Well maybe Children in Need are a bit from frugal than the rest on their remuneration packages. They are still sat on £87m while many children are still in need. http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
jogon said:
ninja-lewis said:
Someone better alert Children In Need then. No remuneration for trustees, CEO on £110,000 and expenses usually around £500, only 4 other staff over £60k and sharing BBC offices.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
Well maybe Children in Need are a bit from frugal than the rest on their remuneration packages. They are still sat on £87m while many children are still in need. http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
Kippers in angry about everything shocker. It's always someone else enjoying gravy train that they themselves are denied access to. Obviously not through sheer lack of intellect or ability. No, it's a conspiracy. But dear Nige will sort that out.
While entertaining, it is quite sad to think that there are people out there who chose to spend their life looking for conspiracies and finding reasons why their lives didn't turn out as well as hoped. Doing something proactive to actually better themselves is obviously too hard.
While entertaining, it is quite sad to think that there are people out there who chose to spend their life looking for conspiracies and finding reasons why their lives didn't turn out as well as hoped. Doing something proactive to actually better themselves is obviously too hard.
league67 said:
Kippers in angry about everything shocker. It's always someone else enjoying gravy train that they themselves are denied access to. Obviously not through sheer lack of intellect or ability. No, it's a conspiracy. But dear Nige will sort that out.
While entertaining, it is quite sad to think that there are people out there who chose to spend their life looking for conspiracies and finding reasons why their lives didn't turn out as well as hoped. Doing something proactive to actually better themselves is obviously too hard.
What on earth has UKIP or UKIP supporters got to do with this? Are you on the wrong thread, or forgot who you are?While entertaining, it is quite sad to think that there are people out there who chose to spend their life looking for conspiracies and finding reasons why their lives didn't turn out as well as hoped. Doing something proactive to actually better themselves is obviously too hard.
Edited by steveT350C on Tuesday 14th October 21:47
steveT350C said:
What on earth has UKIP or UKIP supporters got to do with this? Are you on the wrong thread, or forgot who you are?
I know that you are slow, usually blaming 'holiday beers'. If you look at this thread, people having issue with rather well run charity are kippers. I don't know how to put it differently. And I still do read UKIP thread. It's like comedy central there. Edited by steveT350C on Tuesday 14th October 21:47
As for who I am, that really doesn't matter. If you think that I'm using multiple logins you should alert mods.
ninja-lewis said:
jogon said:
Expensive business running these charities you know you need to pay the CEO at least £250k plus expenses and don't forget the swanky London office professionally fitted out with the finest Italian furniture to house the pretty ex public school PR, smedia and fund raiser girls.
Someone better alert Children In Need then. No remuneration for trustees, CEO on £110,000 and expenses usually around £500, only 4 other staff over £60k and sharing BBC offices.http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
as for the 250 k Salaries of the CEO - that's rubbish it;s certainly not the norm even in Charities whi ch have onerous regulatory requirements and substantial trading activities as part of deliverigntheir charitable objectives.
league67 said:
steveT350C said:
What on earth has UKIP or UKIP supporters got to do with this? Are you on the wrong thread, or forgot who you are?
I know that you are slow, usually blaming 'holiday beers'. If you look at this thread, people having issue with rather well run charity are kippers. I don't know how to put it differently. And I still do read UKIP thread. It's like comedy central there. Edited by steveT350C on Tuesday 14th October 21:47
As for who I am, that really doesn't matter. If you think that I'm using multiple logins you should alert mods.
Ninja-Lewis has explained things. 'Accrual accounting'. - thanks Ninja-Lewis
Not sure what to suggest for your problem of seeing 'kippers' everywhere.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff