Society/Culture Glenn McGrath - White Hunter, Pink Heart

Remove this Banner Ad

Interesting looking at their 2014 Financials.

Around $14 million in income, of which only $8.5 million went to what the charity is designed for, with over $3.5 million spent on marketing/general/admin expenses.

I have seen plenty of people complain about how charities waste money on "other than what the charity is designed for".

Maybe this one is no different?

http://www.mcgrathfoundation.com.au...s signed with Audit Certificate in Colour.pdf
 
sherb said:
It was a rhetorical question on my part. I knew the answer already.

McGrath's isn't the only cancer (or even breast cancer) charity by the way. If people strongly object to his killing for fun, there are other charities they can donate to.

So any implication that cancer research may suffer is a bit disingenuous.
Click to expand...

really? so which other charity is performing the exact same role the Jane McGrath foundation fills? breast cancer nurse for example? who's ready to step up and cover the role they fill?

and if it wouldn't suffer why did it take the jane Mcgrath foundation to address the short fall despite all these other charities existing before the jane Mcgrath foundation? why wasn't the research the foundation has helped fund, already being funded?

you don't like hunting..............don't hunt.
you despise hunting................ support groups that try to end it.

targeting a ******* cancer charity, particularly when you own products made from animals enjoy eating animals or fishing keeping pets, etc, etc, Because you don't like hunting is being an ill informed Hypocrite.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sydney Bloods said:
really? so which other charity is performing the exact same role the Jane McGrath foundation fills? breast cancer nurse for example? who's ready to step up and cover the role they fill?

and if it wouldn't suffer why did it take the jane Mcgrath foundation to address the short fall despite all these other charities existing before the jane Mcgrath foundation? why wasn't the research the foundation has helped fund, already being funded?

you don't like hunting..............don't hunt.
you despise hunting................ support groups that try to end it.

targeting a ******* cancer charity, particularly when you own products made from animals enjoy eating animals or fishing keeping pets, etc, etc, Because you don't like hunting is being an ill informed Hypocrite.
Click to expand...
McGrath is the face of the charity. If people don't like what he does strongly enough, they won't support it.

Hypocritical? Maybe. But, it's human nature I'd suggest. Not much you can do to change it.

Why do you think he put out such a half-hearted, spin driven apology? Because he knows that the charity risks taking a hit because the public face has been portrayed in a negative light.

And if you read what I said, I didn't say that there were charities out there which did identical work to McGrath's. So don't put words into my mouth just to make a point. Please.

I was referring to cancer research, which was what you brought up in your post.
 
Last edited:
sherb said:
McGrath is the face of the charity. If people don't like what he does strongly enough, they won't support it. It's human nature. Not much you can do to change it.

Why do you think he put out such a half-hearted, spin driven apology? Because he knows that the charity risks taking a hit.

And if you read what I said, I didn't say that there were charities out there which did identical work to McGrath's. So don't put words into my mouth just to make a point. Please.
Click to expand...

you said saying that removing funds from the Jane McGrath foundation would lead to a drop in cancer support and research is disingenuous. you based this on the fact that other charities existing.

If those other charities don't perform the same role as the foundation and support for the foundation drops. how does it lead to anything other then a negative outcome? you've removed vital funding for research and support and haven't replaced it you've shifted funds to other areas at best, leading to a shortfall in area that the foundation targets.

the entire reason it exists is due to that shortfall existing in the first place.

and your wrong, you can change stupid behaviour. you change it showing people the stupidity of their chosen course of action.
 
Sydney Bloods said:
you said saying that removing funds from the Jane McGrath foundation would lead to a drop in cancer support and research is disingenuous. you based this on the fact that other charities existing.
Click to expand...
Point me to where in my sentence I said the word "support". That word changes the whole meaning of what I said. You seem to have plucked it out of nowhere. I think we know why.

This is what I actually said. Sentence in question in bold.
McGrath's isn't the only cancer (or even breast cancer) charity by the way. If people strongly object to his killing for fun, there are other charities they can donate to.

So any implication that cancer research may suffer is a bit disingenuous.

You were the one who mentioned research, and that is what I responded to.

There's no point my debating someone who deliberately misrepresents what I say.
 
sherb said:
Point me to where in my sentence I said the word "support". That word changes the whole meaning of what I said. You seem to have plucked it out of nowhere. I think we know why.

This is what I actually said. Sentence in question in bold.
McGrath's isn't the only cancer (or even breast cancer) charity by the way. If people strongly object to his killing for fun, there are other charities they can donate to.

So any implication that cancer research may suffer is a bit disingenuous.

You were the one who mentioned research, and that is what I responded to.

There's no point my debating someone who deliberately misrepresents what I say.
Click to expand...

and how wont it suffer? you realise the foundation does more then offer just support services?
they fund research, research that was NOT BEING FUNDED prior to the foundations existence.
if you pull their funding how will the research they fund not suffer?

your not making any sense. other charities existed prior to the foundation were not funding the research that the McGrath foundation does.

your attempting to say there's not going to be a negative effect. you know, your wrong.
 
Sydney Bloods said:
and how wont it suffer? you realise the foundation does more then offer just support services?
they fund research, research that was NOT BEING FUNDED prior to the foundations existence.
if you pull their funding how will the research they fund not suffer?

your not making any sense. other charities existed prior to the foundation were not funding the research that the McGrath foundation does.

your attempting to say there's not going to be a negative effect. you know, your wrong.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I will outline it more basically for you. And this is it.

You said this:
after all isn't that what the outraged people are trying to do? protect African animals by getting everyone to refuse to open their 100% genuine leather wallets and and handbags when it comes to vital cancer research?

I said this:
McGrath's isn't the only cancer (or even breast cancer) charity by the way. If people strongly object to his killing for fun, there are other charities they can donate to.

So any implication that cancer research may suffer is a bit disingenuous.

And somehow you manage to take that entirely clear and straightforward exchange out on various tangents.
 
sherb said:
only $8.5 million went to what the charity
Click to expand...
lol wow

you don't generate $8.5mil in donations by having volunteers rattle a few tins (of course they bought their own tins as well, can't have that taken out of the charity income)

it costs a decent amount of money to generate significant support and therefore donations for charity - if you're getting a 4 to 1 ROI that's pretty damn good going.
 
sherb said:
Fair enough, I will outline it more basically for you. And this is it.

You said this:
after all isn't that what the outraged people are trying to do? protect African animals by getting everyone to refuse to open their 100% genuine leather wallets and and handbags when it comes to vital cancer research?

I said this:
McGrath's isn't the only cancer (or even breast cancer) charity by the way. If people strongly object to his killing for fun, there are other charities they can donate to.

So any implication that cancer research may suffer is a bit disingenuous.

And somehow you manage to take that entirely clear and straightforward exchange out on various tangents.
Click to expand...

there's no tangent. even if you take your funds else where overall research still suffers for the reasons i've outlined.
the fact is SJW never think there decisions through. suggesting that if the course of action is followed their wont be a net drop is bullshit.

use your head not your heart.
 
kfc1 said:
lol wow

you don't generate $8.5mil in donations by having volunteers rattle a few tins (of course they bought their own tins as well, can't have that taken out of the charity income)

it costs a decent amount of money to generate significant support and therefore donations for charity - if you're getting a 4 to 1 ROI that's pretty damn good going.
Click to expand...
I am aware you need to spend money to raise it.

You reckon the ratio is fair though?

It seemed high to me.
 
sherb said:
I am aware you need to spend money to raise it.

You reckon the ratio is fair though?

It seemed high to me.
Click to expand...
You wouldn't make anywhere near 4 to 1 ROI in a commercial venture; 1.5 to 1 ROI is an extremely profitable business.
What are the ratios for other charities? Seems pretty harsh to be making judgements on something you have nothing to compare to.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sherb said:
Interesting looking at their 2014 Financials.

Around $14 million in income, of which only $8.5 million went to what the charity is designed for, with over $3.5 million spent on marketing/general/admin expenses.

I have seen plenty of people complain about how charities waste money on "other than what the charity is designed for".

Maybe this one is no different?

http://www.mcgrathfoundation.com.au/Portals/0/June 2014 Statutory Accounts signed with Audit Certificate in Colour.pdf
Click to expand...

Wow.

And you would know precisely what about running a charitable organisation?
 
Interesting timing for the McGrath Foundation.

The McGrath Foundation has relationships with many organisations who provide generous support to help us achieve our mission; providing access to breast care nurses for families experiencing breast cancer. Due to allegations of live baiting exposed in the media this week we have suspended our relationship with Greyhound Racing Victoria.
Click to expand...
 
thurmanmunson said:
681579-cb83682e-b989-11e4-a901-79cc3d20af7b.jpg


http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...ures-cause-storm/story-fnii0bxe-1227233680679

Felt slightly uneasy reading this story and looking at the pictures (as a staunch vegetarian and animal lover) but at least the guy issued an apology (not that he essentially had to). Props to the guy.

I will never understand the attraction of game hunting
Click to expand...

PETA credlin

stitched up
 
yaco55 said:
Why did McGrath apologise ? No point doing this when someone out you on social media - A weak effort by McGrath - Like Jono Brown who renounced his ambassadorship of the greyhound Industry in QLD, after the Four Corners report.

Branding is all important.
Click to expand...
Jonathan Brown. What a Campaigner. I can see why branding is important too him. He branded quite a few people over his career. It would be nothing for Brown to bite a rabbits head off himself.
 
Hunting isn't my cup of tea (to put it mildly) and the elephant thing made me raise an eyebrow, but - elephants aside - hasn't this pretty much been common knowledge with McGrath for twenty-odd years? The whole 'boy from the bush who loves hunting and shooting' thing? Just seems strange that people are getting outraged by it now. And media outlets were trying to drag Brett Lee into the 'scandal'.

As an aside, McGrath handled himself pretty well in the interview with Robert Craddock that they're showing during the World Cup. Answered questions about situations that made him look like a bit of a campaigner at the time (e.g. the Sarwan incident) with a fair bit of class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Society/Culture White people arent so bad afterall
Replies
1
Views
590
Malifice
Malifice

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top