[Closed] How do you feel about sponsoring people doing the London marathon and the like?

convert,

It's a championship club, with a generous chairman, they're not short of a bob or too. And the academy is for young talent who've signed contracts.

Though... If anyone's interested in the ride London 100 I may know of a charity with a few places left to fill

https://www.justgiving.com/Mike-Dudley3

mefty - Member

most people sponsoring you would assume that the majority of their contribution goes to the work of the charity. If it doesn't they are deceived and that can't be right.

If they assume wrongly, they're not being deceived, they're just mistaken.

A quick google onto various articles in the papers, and the Despatches documentary (I thought it was Panorama) suggests that only 25% of the money raised actually makes it to charity, and that a few years ago (the latest figures I could find) the director of the organising company paid himself a cool £250,000 salary. Which doesn't seem that charitable, to be honest.

I ran 10km this morning for free in the Park.

Please text YES to 70600 to donate £10 to the Red Cross Nepal appeal.

It's a championship club, with a generous chairman,

In which case, I see your point.

If they assume wrongly, they're not being deceived, they're just mistaken.

That's glib, if businesses raised money on a similar basis you would expect to have the book thrown at them. Charities are beneficiaries of substanital favours from the tax system, tax deductibility of donations, business rates relief etc. I think there should be more transparency about where the money goes as a quid pro quo.

With Convert on this. There's some very interesting research about charity giving and altruism etc, and it backs up much of what Converts says. The best way to give is basically quietly through direct debits, but people don't do it because it doesn't get them the brownie points/kudos/social media likes etc that doing an event does. It's a slightly sad state of affairs. Not saying all events are pointless or not worth taking part in, but there's another, darker side to the fashion for parading our 'generosity'.

I ran 10km this morning for free in the Park.

Please text YES to 70600 to donate £10 to the Red Cross Nepal appeal.

Good call. I just gave them £100.

the fashion for parading our 'generosity

Couldn't have put it better myself. I'm sick of the whore charidee thing, especially with what I see on my visits to Africa.

And another point; African government minsters and officials will continue to rape and loot their own countries, neglecting their social responsibilities as long as they know the charities and NGOs are there to pick up the pieces.

I reckon they'll do it regardless of whether there's anyone there to pick up the pieces. It's probably more important to the pieces than the governments.

mefty - Member

That's glib, if businesses raised money on a similar basis you would expect to have the book thrown at them.

Not really- the entire point is that charities are operating like businesses

I think it's a pretty complicated issue tbh. For an individual charity, it can be more effective- it's worth paying more, if it gains you more. But then is it the case that there's more money raised total, or is it just that you're more effective at taking a share of what's out there? In which case, it's a positive thing for your charity but a negative thing for charities on the whole.

(some charities no doubt are effectively run for the benefits of those in charge)

African government minsters and officials will continue to rape and loot their own countries, neglecting their social responsibilities as long as they know the charities and NGOs are there to pick up the pieces.

Utter tosh, that's just an excuse not to give a shit. Corrupt officials don't care about their people, so charities make no difference to their behaviour; but they do help the poorest with direct aid.

We get 4 places in work for london and tap up clients and contacts for funds... in the fours years I run it we raise into 6 figures.

I stepped back this year let some others have a go.... and damn I missed running it.

But on course to get a good for age spot next year.... Then I can have a go at getting the fastest person dress as a cucumber of something and all funds raised will go to the charity.

But as much as there are some glum postd above... have any of you guys run London or even watched ?.... It's undoubtably a force for good.

The world would be a much better place if we could keep that London atmosphere everyday and use it throughout the land... well thats my little dream. 🙂

the entire point is that charities are operating like businesses

I am not sure people are aware of this and should they be always be subsidised by the taxpayer?

I think it's a pretty complicated issue tbh.

So do I, which is why I think transparency is the key rather than regulation. I certainly will reduce the amount I sponsor people in the London Marathon now I know the numbers.

EDIT: I have run London twice, didn't find it particularly overwhelming. The idea of doing it is more exciting than the reality.

Sure there are some 'glum' posts - mine included - but the reality is rather glum I'm afraid. Time we faced up to it and were a bit more real and honest with ourselves. And I'm not suggesting the London Marathon isn't a force for good, but it might not be quite as clear cut as many people (and the popular press and some runners and corporates themselves) would have us believe.

mefty - Member

So do I, which is why I think transparency is the key

But you seem to be suggesting deception and secrecy is the current situation, which I don't think is the case- as we can see in this thread, it's no secret. The issue seems to be mostly that people make a false assumption, not that they're misled. Transparency doesn't change that.

My guess is most people would be unaware, this is one of those few issues where this site is generally well informed, but it is only my guess. I certainly had no idea how much charities paid for their places and now I know I will change my behaviour. I already refuse to sponsor subsidised holidays. The worst is advertising in charity ball programmes, hardly any of that goes to charity and most of it subsides a good night out and a big commission to the firm selling the space.

London is a bit of an anomoly really, as it's the one big race that most non-runners and a large proportion of club runners are desperate to do.
The ballot over subscription every year is massive and after a few failed attempts many give up tyring and go down the charity route for a guaranteed entry.
No real objection to this if they choose a charity close to them for whatever reason and do something other than the run to raise some funds (like quiz nights, bake cakes to sell etc); begging only gets so far.
Some will also pay a fair chunk of the target ammount themselves as their 'entry fee'.
I've done a couple of things for charities i have no real link to, but made sure i raised the minimum (which was easy enough as i wasn't very fit then, so friends could see it was a challenge).
My first marathon last year (Brighton) was for a charity very close to me and i raised well over the target as family and friends knew the importance to me and twitter followers/blog readers also stumped up brilliantly.
At work i did awareness talks as part of staff training on the condition i had and just left a collection tin near the door if anyone wanted to donate, but didn't shake it under their noses.
Now i'm a more serious runner i wouldn't ask for donations as i'm sure people would say "well you run 60 miles a week already so why should i?".
IF i ever run London (and i'm in no hurry to as logistically it looks a nightmare), then it'll be because i have run 3:15 (for a 40+) in a local marathon and qualify as good for age ... maybe next Sunday if it goes well 😕
For genuine 'charity runners' doing a one off run for a charity that means a lot to them, then fair play that's a proper challenge and i'll give to it ... if they are going to try their best, train and RUN it. Not if they are just going to rock up on the day and walk round. If they do the training they might even start to like it and keep it up afterwards.

I think there's 2 sides to this.

1 is an ideological side whereby you should not be asked to pay for someone to run/cycle/climb/whatever something and should just cut out the middle man and sponsor the charity directly. You should also transfer the money direct and not go through Just giving or such like. Personally, I think this is a wonderful idea in principle but in reality, very few will do it.

The other, more real world side is that people give more overall if they're being sponsored or are sponsoring someone. An example is me, I did London to Paris last year for a charity I support in private. If I asked people to give even a fiver to the charity they would politely decline, tell them I riding 280 miles and there wallets are out. I raised £1700 in sponsorship doing that ride, even if I hadn't paid the entry fee/true costs out (£350 ish, which I did pay) the charity would £1300 better than it would have been had I just gone round with a charity tin. Arguably, I should have just given them £350 and left it there but that too would have left them somewhat shorter than me doing the ride.

FWIW the charity i support get charged £140 for Brighton and have a minimum target of £250 (same target as Great North Run).
Entry if you pay for it yourself is over £50.
For London the target is £2500 and all places are taken for the next 2 years already.

The alternative is no marathon an no donations. Or a marathon that still costs money to stage and that has nothing to do with fund raising, and that nobody is really interested in....

zilog6128 - Member

No, the alternative would be a better marathon that was actually about running

Better for who? Not better for the charities who benefit, not better for the less serious runners who do it as a Life Event rather than just a bit of running, not better for the spectators either- it's a massive event, as much a circus as a race...

I'm doing the Outlaw triathlon this year, along with my wife, and we're both doing it for Cancer Research UK. She's paid the upfront £500 to the charity for her place, and I've gone for the free place and raising sponsorship option. If I was already capable of doing iron-distance triathlons, it's not how I'd do it, I'd get a standard entry and then possibly raise some money on top. However I'm a fat lad, the very thought that in less than 90 days I'm going to put myself through that gets me sweating, and as my sister recovered from breast cancer recently I feel it's a charity I have a connection with.

Not down with using charity places and hitting the minimum target purely to get into a race. However if anyone feels a biscuit-loving bloke is worth a few quid for up to 17 hours of misery, feel free: [url= https://www.justgiving.com/matt-helen-outlaw ]https://www.justgiving.com/matt-helen-outlaw[/url] 😉

However I'm a fat lad, the very thought that in less than 90 days I'm going to put myself through that gets me sweating, and as my sister recovered from breast cancer recently I feel it's a charity I have a connection with.

Good luck with your attempt at outlaw (don't worry, it's a flat course so great for a fat lad!) but I don't buy your argument. To me that's saying because it will be tougher for you, you deserve the charity to pay for your place. Or looked at the other way around, the folk that donate your first £500 pay for your place for you rather than give to the cause your feel a connection with.

If that's how you want to view it then fine. However CRUK already had the places allocated to them, general entries were full, otherwise we would have taken 2 normal entries and raised funds ourselves. In this case the entries didn't cost the charity £500, and between the two of us raising funds we'll have covered far more than the charity will have spent in getting us on to the start line.

Yes, in an ideal world, charities would get all their money for zero expenditure, but sadly that doesn't work. They have to advertise, buy entries in races and so on, and as others have pointed out above, the people to point the finger at here are the event organisers charging high fees to the charities for places.

If you are happy with that fair enough - will you be brave enough to explain to your donators that they are paying for your place as a fraction of their donation when you ask them for money?

Yes, I have and will. And most people I've spoken to don't see it as me getting a free jolly out of it. Tend to get looked at like I'm mad. However the other way to look at it, is as I like to think of myself as at least a somewhat decent person, the fact that the charity incurred a cost for my place makes me want to raise as much as I can to give them a greater return on that. Nearer the time I'll also be putting in a donation myself.

I'd rather see the charity slots filled up, with people raising funds, than see empty slots paid for but unused. Going back to previous posts though, it seems some event organisers charge ridiculous fees to charities, and I suspect they go along with it as they expect to be at least somewhat better off than if they hadn't bothered. If bond places are £40, then charities shouldn't be paying anything over that, otherwise they're either a) lining someone's pocket, or subsidising the event for the bond entries