You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Just interested in the range of views.
It was only when my wife was working for a charity that I became aware/ thought about how much it costs charities for the places at the marathon and similar events or the costs to the charity for the parachute jump fundraisers and the like. How many people are aware how much it costs a charity to buy a guaranteed place (still called a golden bond place I think) in the marathon for one of their fundraisers? I don't know the exact figures today but at the time it was around £400 when a standard ballot place would cost an individual around £40.
Talking to folk in the know who do this sort of thing for a living, a charity will normally make zero or very minimal 'profit' from a charity participant doing a run/triathlon/parachute jump etc if they only raise the minimum amount once the cost of the place, admin and advertising for participants is taken into account. Putting it another way, if you have just sponsored someone to do todays marathon and they raise the minimum required non of your money will go to a good cause; if they raise twice what is expected of them half of your donation will be used for good works. The sad bit of the conversation is the charities find themselves between a rock and hard place - the British public seem to have been conditioned into donating like this and are much less inclined to just give for the sake of giving. And then once they have given through sponsoring a friend they are much less likely to donate in a more efficient way as well as they think they have done their bit.
I'm pretty militant these days and refuse to donate if a friend or colleague is doing something unless they have paid for the event themselves. I temper that by being very generous when they have and giving money monthly by direct debit to specific charities I want to.
So, do you give? And if you do, do you do it because its the right thing to do, because you haven't really thought about it or because you feel pressured into it?
That's why it's important to hit your target designated by charity. In 2012 I ran for bowel cancer and raised over £2500. Gold bond place cost them over £1000. So at least I helped. I think different charities are charged different rates. Large charities like oxfam probably pay less and hence their targets for runners are less.
Personally if I run again will be through ballot or club. As hard to ask friends and family to dig so deep again. So just meet ur set target and all is good.
What happens if you don't raise the required amount?
For charities of less well known causes there must be some value in just raising awareness via it? Maybe not directly on the day as I guess that with that many people not many will notice but during fund raising etc... the people donating will at least hear about it and maybe look into it.
The charity would be better off if everyone gave directly to them rather than sponsoring someone else via justgiving or whatever , as they would then have all the dpa agreements needed to contact those people again to ask for support, and may gain more in the long run. As posted above a lot of people use the charity as an easy way in to their event and don't actually give a damn who they do it for,.
Though... If anyone's interested in the ride London 100 I may know of a charity with a few places left to fill 😉
What happens if you don't raise the required amount?
I think some are getting tougher/more realistic and pursue the participate to cover the costs, but I don't know how binding their case is. I'd imagine pursuing them to court might be a PR disaster. For most charities though if the participant does not make the minimum the charity makes a loss that it hopes to recoup with those who collect more than the minimum. It's an incredibly inefficient way of converting contribution into good works but it is a very efficient way of getting more folk out there getting donations for you.
So just meet ur set target and all is good.
If by your set target you mean the charities set target for you, that's my point - all is not good - the charity has just about broken even. The participant should not have a warm fuzzy feeling they have done some good work, they've just not cost the charity any money.
Surely the companies charging £400 to charities instead of £40 to ballots are the villains here, the overheads must be the same for both, they are making profit out of people's generosity
I think the London marathon and similar events are a bit of an exemption, as the actual entry cost etc. is fairly insignificant - rocket dog is right if organisations are doing that, though I think that the marathon organisers hand entries to some other charities direct for them to resell.
I won't sponsor people's holiday (Great Wall of China, Kilimanjaro etc.) or parachute jumps though
I think the London marathon and similar events are a bit of an exemption, as the actual entry cost etc. is fairly insignificant
I'm afraid you think wrong - the golden bond place scheme is a London marathon thing from the actual marathon organisers direct - not via a reseller. It cost charities circa £400 for a place at the FLM at the turn of the millenium so I guess it will be more now (jonno above implies it is now £1K).
I agree with RD, I don't understand why the places cost more than ballot places, it seems cynical, but that's the deal. I guess it is a guaranteed place whilst the ballot is massively oversubscribed. You are paying a premium to push to the front of the queue.
It's a horrible racket and I won't sponsor anyone to do something like that unless I think they really won't enjoy it.
I give to friends, friends of friends and STWers who do charity events. Any marathon is a major achievement and deserves recognition.
I do have some concerns over the amounts charged to charities for these guaranteed places, it just feels wrong.
enter the Ballot, run a decent time in a feeder event, or enter as a charity runner.
For folk looking to do London as an experience, there are only a few ways of entry, it's massively popular and oversubscribed.
I wouldn't do it (charity fund raise that way, or run London ) but it's pretty much a feeding frenzy. I understand a lot of the Big Marathons are.
Personally I stick to the more low key ones, they're still 26 miles 😀
I don't mind sponsoring people, it's usually work colleagues BUT I had a colleague who expected everybody in the office to sponsor him and he kept on and on about what he was raising money for (just me and him in the office on a night shift so I was a captive audience) so I said no. Bloody Hell you'd of thought I was responsible for the ills his charity was trying to correct.
If by your set target you mean the charities set target for you, that's my point - all is not good - the charity has just about broken even
well, that's the charity being incompetent in setting such a low minimum.
give to friends, friends of friends and STWers who do charity events. Any marathon is a major achievement and deserves recognition.
Munqe-Chick is grateful for your Ironman support. Doing an IM was a personal challenge for her, but having a charity and the support/expectation of those who sponsored her was an extra motivation to train when it was cold and wet, and to complete the event when she was in a dark place.
I do have some concerns over the amounts charged to charities for these guaranteed places, it just feels wrong.
I agree, but I refer to my first reply. Justgiving and such sites make a profit out of charitable giving for providing a pretty basic service.
What happens if you don't raise the required amount?
They should be barred from entering events run by the same company.
I don't mind if somebody's actually making a big effort - running a marathon when you're not a runner, great; running your 10th marathon, no way.
That said, I did once get sponsored to go cycling but the SDW in a day was waay beyond what I'd done before.
Folk who expect me to essentially pay for them to go skydiving can **** right off unless they can prove that they have a massive fear of heights.
It's a racket! Panorama did a programme a few years ago about the absolutely enormous salaries the organisers pay themselves.
well, that's the charity being incompetent in setting such a low minimum.
Whilst I agree, talking to folk in the know, it's a race to the bottom. Charities are in effect in competition with each other to get folk to run for them. The runners, in the main, are after the easiest option and choose the charity that will be easiest to raise the required money for(rather than choosing the charity because of the charity's worth). The minimum value needed to be raised plays a big part in their decision.
And it's not charity singular that set their targets like that, the same model is used by all the charities.
Munqe-Chick is grateful for your Ironman support.
Did Munqe-Chick do IM Wales on a free (to her) bonded place, or buy her own place and then choose to do it for charity?
I don't like this form of sponsorship for a range of reasons, costs as descibed above being one. I don't like the peer pressure of being expected to donate from colleagues etc. I don't like that it devalues the achievements of those running for themselves. I also don't like supporting the whole charity industry. There are some charities i will support and do so directly via gift aid but there are many out there who i don't think should be supported.
It was only when my wife was working for a charity that I became aware/ thought about how much it costs charities for the places at the marathon and similar events or the costs to the charity for the parachute jump fundraisers and the like.
Anecdotally,
I'm doing the Manchester 10K in a couple of weeks. I wanted to raise money for the National Autistic Society (because Reasons), they wanted a fairly high minimum sponsorship and I'd still to pay for my own place.
In the end I opted to buy my entry outside of their procedures and then raise money for them anyway, dodging the 'minimum fund' requirement. Until the event has sold out and the only way to get entry is via a charity, I can't see any earthly reason why this approach shouldn't be standard practice. The whole thing is a bit... odd.
Also, sponsor me! I'll throw a JG page up in the near future.
and I'd still to pay for my own place.
This is the bottom line for me, I've always payed my own entry or covered the minimum requirement myself. Anything anyone gives me in sponsorship goes to the charity. Normally I'll only sponsor those people who do the same, normally that is I'm not an arse about it.
The runners, in the main, are after the easiest option and choose the charity that will be easiest to raise the required money for
And this is another thing that grates on me. I do sponsor people when they're raising money for a cause which means something to them, but when it's just as a means to get an entry. Screw that.
Cougar - How much is running 10km going to hurt you? I want to know you're really gonna suffer if you want any of my dough.
(actually I'll sponsor you anyway - abuse your power and make a sticky thread for your run)
I wasn't aware of that convert - in that case that's shocking, clearly taking the piss, I thought it cost them the same as a ballot place.
I know that 'Marie curie' get bugger all from the all from the etape organisers too.
I suppose this is unfortunately how the 'charity industry' works now!
I had a friend working in Africa with NGO's and some of the tales he came back with were truly disgusting.
Cougar - How much is running 10km going to hurt you? I want to know you're really gonna suffer if you want any of my dough.(actually I'll sponsor you anyway - abuse your power and make a sticky thread for your run)
Oh, agony, almost certainly. I take to exercise like a duck to petrol.
(And, thanks!)
I'll always give to people that are doing a self supported challenge.
I personally feel the same as most here that I won't give a free holiday, to easy to get a free experience by tagging a charity to it.
I do loads of personal challenges but will never have them sponsored as I feels that taking the focus away from my intention, to challenge myself. Forcing myself out of comfort zone is part of that challenge so I don't need to name a charity to help me. I'd only be picking a charity at random anyway as they're a nothing close to my heart.
That said if I did want to support a specific cause I would bend over backwards to do so.
Has it happens I'll be one of a group of MTBers riding 240miles to bivvy on the summit of Snowdon next Saturday.
It'll cost all riders involved a fair chunk of money and time to do aside from the blood, sweat and tears but something's are worth the effort. In this case it's a local family who will loose two young children to Battens disease in the near future and I'll do my utmost to give these kids some good experiences whilst they're still able.
If you're in the mood...
www.justgiving.com/oasnowdon
some of it yes but not all of it. You need to do what Cougar is doing really and make sure yourself that the max is going to the charity. Same with donating to charity work eg. Nepal at the mo. You need to read the stuff carefully to make sure they are working there rather than just taking a cut and passing it on to international rather than local partners.I suppose this is unfortunately how the 'charity industry' works now!
Not sure about the big charities, but the smaller ones make you pay the £50 entry fee, so it's not like you're getting a free place by raising money. Having to raise a few quid in exchange for bypassing the ballot is completely different to the folk who get a free holiday whilst walking up a mountain somewhere.
Whilst I agree, talking to folk in the know, it's a race to the bottom. Charities are in effect in competition with each other to get folk to run for them
Fair point. As in you make a good point, not that it is fair!
Did Munqe-Chick do IM Wales on a free (to her) bonded place, or buy her own place and then choose to do it for charity?
A stand-alone entry was ~£400. A charity entry was £100 to the competitor and a (non-enforced) minimum £1000 to be raised for the charity. Munqe Chick raised £2000; we know of entrants who raised bugger all which sticks in the craw-at the very least they should have to pay the full £400 entry fee, and for an event as popular and highly regarded as Ironman I'd expect you to be barred (especially given how strict IM are when it comes to the wider image of the event - you can get DQ'ed for littering on the course).
For me it depends on the person, th event and the charity. If a regular marathon runner asks me to sponsor them for London marathon then no, but the 20stone pie eating office dweller doing a half maybe. Clearly as it is a big challenge for them.
In the same vain it depends on the charity someone at work keeps asking for money for Pensions for paws! Money to pay for medical treatment for retired police dogs....as they deserve pensions too! Surely the owner pays...so no!
Personal choice and if they ram it down my throat they get nowt!
I either give direct to charities or will sponsor someone doing something actually useful - such as picking up litter or doing something of direct practical benefit to other people or the community.
Time wasting utterly self indulgent activities such as "sponsor me to bike round Iceland for 3 months" or "sponsor me to drive 6 different vehicles in 45 minutes" or for running from one place to another get short shift as they achieve little in real terms for anyone other than the participant and if supported by an events company of some sort, are just cash cow events being milked by greedy events organisers lining their pockets.
Don't even get me started on the salaries of the board members of charities and some of their perks. In my personal view some of the inflated salaries verge on being theft from the good causes charities are supposed to support. The lower level workers are often very decent, honest, committed types though and great respect to them.
thepurist - MemberThe charity would be better off if everyone gave directly to them
Yep, but that's the point isn't it, events get people to donate who otherwise might not.
Folk at work keep trying to convince me to do events for charity, that I'm already doing not for charity. Seems to defeat the point to me but then if I did it, I'd be able to raise a couple of hundred quid. Messy
I take to exercise like a duck to petrol.
so that how you make a duck go woof
Don't even get me started on the salaries of the board members of charities and some of their perks. In my personal view some of the inflated salaries verge on being theft from the good causes charities are supposed to support.
Board members of charities don't get paid salaries - the board members / trustees etc[i] are[/i] the volunteers that give rise to the name 'voluntary sector'. Directors and executives get paid and if they're very good why shouldn't they get paid well. Its a false economy not to have the best people and not to implement the best strategies if the result is a charity raises less income and does less work as a result. Its perverse that people are repulsed by the idea someone being paid well to do good, caring, publicly beneficial work. Plenty of people who do shit things to people for a living- nobody cares how rich they get doing it.
Regardless of what the operating costs are if the result of the Marathon is more money finds its ways to charities than would if there was no marathon then job done. If £9 of your £10 sponsorship is eaten up by event costs then thats still £1 to charity rather than non.
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.... and no donations.
My experience is they're mostly dead wood. The problem of a culture of low pay for voluntary sector work is it attracts a glut of people who don't really need to work, but who feel like they're doing something worthwhile simply because they turn up. Thats not to say there are also people who are startling, sparkling, selfless, imaginative and brilliant - but those brilliant people find themselves mired in a sector that clogged with bimblers and freewheelers.The lower level workers are often very decent, honest, committed types though and great respect to them.
I've done a few chariy events - not things you could do nomally, things like abeiling off the Finnieston Crane. But morally I objected to getting other people to pay for my fun, so I just paid the cost myself. Also donate to charities of my choice.
It's a daft situation - the point of charity is that it's a gift, it's not a commercial transaction, and especially not a transaction you emotionally blackmail others into paying for.
Likewise I don't support holidays or indungences in the name of charity unless the entrant had paid their own logistics and the money is a direct donation.
I have a hard time supporting NGO's as well after some of the tales I've heard from an actual front line worker. Very few do much other than get in the way and cause problems on the ground for those that are able to get things done.
Oddly enough similar thoughts were already floating about before I read this. Our local rag is reporting that there will be a sponsored walk from the war memorial to the irrelevant battle memorial, the staggeringly incomprehendible distance of 1.1miles. I'm not sure what to make of it really...
yikes this is eye opening. Had no idea a charity paid so much for a place.
I agree with the masses, I aint going to sponsor you to do something you'd quite like to do anyway...so parachute jumps, absailing, charity sportive places and fully paid trips to africa to climb kilamanjaro are all most definitely out.
So who would sponsor somebody to do the 3 peaks challenge? 👿
It's an interesting question.
I get around it by deciding each year how much I want to give to charity - usually around £500 or so (but I feel a bit guilty that it's that little given how much I earn)
I have a direct debit that takes half that, £50 usually goes on a TV relief donation and the rest to friends/colleagues doing stuff. I see those as supporting friends rather than giving to charity in the most economic way.
justgiving take about 5% too 🙁
I wont sponsor anyone fund raising this way. The whole event has turned into a business with business dressed up as charities using to make millions. Its supposed to be an event celebrating running, not a corporate fundraiser where it is very hard to get an entry without going via a charity.
I have no problem with people choosing to run for charity and raise money. I do object to the way charities have taken over the event and excluded anyone who just wants to run the race for the challenge and fun of it.
How many of you sponsor your kids when they bring home them 'Shoot as hard as you can' competition forms home from school? The ones where they bring a speed camera in, set up a goal and then the kids kick the ball as hard as they can.
Do you know they are a parasitic business all of their own? A business that goes around all of the schools, hands out all of the ready printed paperwork for the school, administers it all and then takes 50% of all the money.......
My son brought one home. Raise £50 he gets a pencil case for it (School & business split rest 50/50). Raise £100 he gets a mini football, etc etc.
If you don't join in your kid is left out. If you join in you are a hypocrite. Call the school, offer them £25 which is what they would get if you raised the £50 minimum and they look at you as though you are Satan!!!
Adults, I have no issue with telling a workmate to shove their sponsor form up their behind. Using kids to blackmail really annoys me
Regardless of what the operating costs are if the result of the Marathon is more money finds its ways to charities than would if there was no marathon then job done. If £9 of your £10 sponsorship is eaten up by event costs then thats still £1 to charity rather than non.
I just don't think this is sufficient, 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.
A friend is doing the local football team's fund-raising bike ride in a couple of weeks' time, having done it last year too. Fair play to him as he's not a slim lad to say the least and not a "proper cyclist", but here's the rub for me: half of the money raised (excluding costs I presume) goes to the Air Ambulance (fine, a decent cause), and the other half goes to the Club's Academy!!! On top of that another friend who did it last year told me (and I've had it confirmed elsewhere), that to encourage participants to raise more money, if a second higher target is met (only £350 higher than the minimum) they get a free season ticket!!!
I'll give my money to some more deserving causes methinks.
A friend is doing the local football team's fund-raising bike ride in a couple of weeks' time, having done it last year too. Fair play to him as he's not a slim lad to say the least and not a "proper cyclist", but here's the rub for me: half of the money raised (excluding costs I presume) goes to the Air Ambulance (fine, a decent cause), and the other half goes to the Club's Academy!!! On top of that another friend who did it last year told me (and I've had it confirmed elsewhere), that to encourage participants to raise more money, if a second higher target is met (only £350 higher than the minimum) they get a free season ticket!!!
Are we talking premier league club or local town club? If the latter, I'm not sure I have a problem with that - fund raising for local youth sport doesn't seem too sinister. It might not be close to your heart but there are worse causes.
My cycling buddy's wife raises money by sponsorship for her charity, which she runs with a couple of other people. They then take the cash to Kenya and pay to put Maasai children through school, with the permission of the chiefs of the villages. There's a world of differencve between this kind of charity and the massive business of charities and NGOs, who are enjoying very comfortable and somewhat secretive lifestyles in Africa spendinght the lolly. I refuse to have anything to do with those people.
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 - Membermost 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 - MemberThat'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 - MemberSo 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.
No, the alternative would be a better marathon that was actually about running; also keen runners or people who wanted to challenge themselves would stand a much higher chance of getting a place. (see also: RideLondon 100). If people wanted to raise money, they could still do that (themselves) without the parasitic middle-men.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 - MemberNo, 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