Would BBC report average man donating £150?

Garnett

Garnett

Suspended / Banned
Messages
191
Name
Sam
Edit My Images
No
Steven Gerrard has donated £96,000 to charity and the BBC describe it as a huge donation.

I'm not knocking Gerrard but I don't understand the BBC.

The man earns £17.2 million a year in salary and endorsements. The donation amounts to 0.56% of his annual salary. The average salary in the country is £26,000. So an equivalent 0.56% donation would be £145.

It somehow doesn't seem outrageously generous.

Again, not knocking the footballer. He didn't have to donate anything. I'm just puzzled by the reporting.
 
It is still a very worthwhile sum of money. and who knows what else he gives in cash or kind.

Most churches expect a 10 % donation.
 
Yes you have a good point there we and lots like us donate to charity too but arnt in the news
 
One of the reasons he donated was to get the beneficiaries back in the news - job done! Pretty sure 96 grand will be a great help to them too. FWIW, my nephew raised a couple of hundred quid for the RNLI a few years back and was in the local papers for it, so in answer to the OP, yes! (If the donor wants the publicity.)
 
I'm not a Liverpool fan, but this is something good to report about footballers rather than them in scandals. He also has his own charity the Steven Gerrard Foundation and his own 10 year old cousin was killed at Hillsborough, so again it's nice to see a footballer put something back in especially when he is personally involved.
 
I raised £9780 for trail walker in 2011 and got nothing! It's PR as he is in the public eye, plus it's good on his tax return :D
 
Well done to Gerrard, but he could've rounded it up to 100K.
 
Garnett said:
Steven Gerrard has donated £96,000 to charity and the BBC describe it as a huge donation.

I'm not knocking Gerrard but I don't understand the BBC.

The man earns £17.2 million a year in salary and endorsements. The donation amounts to 0.56% of his annual salary. The average salary in the country is £26,000. So an equivalent 0.56% donation would be £145.

It somehow doesn't seem outrageously generous.

Again, not knocking the footballer. He didn't have to donate anything. I'm just puzzled by the reporting.
Click to expand...

So you think donating £145 is normal?

What world do you live in?
 
Mikesphotaes said:
So you think donating £145 is normal?

What world do you live in?
Click to expand...

£2.80 a week and you've donated 145 quid in a year, hardly bank breaking. We don't earn much but donate a fair bit more than that in a year. One-off lump sum donations are probably rarer, though with all the charity events that happen every other day, maybe not..

Anyway, as said regarding the OP, it's the good that this single donation can do for the charity that results in the reporting. You can do a lot more with 96 grand (and having a celebrity name attached to your organisation) than you can with 150 quid.
 
Tax forms have to be in by the end of the week - icluding declrations of donations.
 
Slimbert said:
Either that's a really poor joke, or you need to read up on the Hillsborough disaster.....the "96" part is very significant.
Click to expand...


This^^^^^
 
It might only equate to £145 in other peoples wages but how many other people would just give £145 out to one charity, while running another charity foundation and also donating time and money to other causes. Besides which, it might be £145 in comparison but £96,000 is a hell of a lot of money to a charity so close to his heart.

Most of the time it's all done without publicity but as the inquests are being re-opened in the near future this cause deserves the publicity. How many other people would want to wait this long to find out what had happened to their kid and whether they could of been saved. The families have been lied to and cheated and the fans have been lied about for too long. JFT96
 
It didn't take a lot of working out.
 
BRASH said:
It didn't take a lot of working out.
Click to expand...
perhaps not if you like football I don't and again didn't realise the link as i didn't look to see which charity he had donated the funds to
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jin
Well, I thought it was a strange amount too. I didn't know the significance straight away but it took me about 30 seconds to work it out:rolleyes:
 
Mikesphotaes said:
So you think donating £145 is normal?

What world do you live in?
Click to expand...

I dont think it is normal. My issue with charities is that there are too many and who knows what happens to much of the money? Every week it seems there is either a red nose day, sport relief, someone in the office doing a marathon or cycling to Brighton, someone else growing a moustache... it goes on... Not to mention the amount we are forced to give out of our taxation in foreign aid to countries who do not need it!
 
One of the bar maids in the local is doing a charity bunjee jump. She has to raise a certain amount to actually do the deed. Seems to me that she is trying to use the charity card so that she can do a freakin bunjee jump. And boy are the locals trying to get everybody to help out. Needless to say, I have not, nor will not donate.

I only donate to two causes, both because they help people in need and the needs of those people are something I have experience of. So that is it, those two and no more.
 
[quoteBRASH, post: 6077027, member: 3343"]It didn't take a lot of working out.[/quote]
BRASH said:
It didn't take a lot of working out.
Click to expand...

Not everyone follows football and I didn't see the connection until it was posted here

Anyway the point the OP was making was about celebs making charity donations for the publicity which is crap
But in this case I think Gerrard is genuinely trying to help
 
I don't follow football and have never heard of him.
However, he has donated a very large sum of money to a cause that presumably is close to his heart, good for him.

And if that money is earmarked for the legal representation at the inquest, it will get swallowed up very quickly, all the top barristers are involved and they don't come cheap...

My guess is that he has done it largely to persuade/pressurise other successful players to do the same, whether or not this donation is good for his PR, and whether the money is a significant amount to him or not is neither here nor there - he did something that he wasn't obligated to do
 
LCPete said:
[quoteBRASH, post: 6077027, member: 3343"]It didn't take a lot of working out.
Click to expand...


Not everyone follows football and I didn't see the connection until it was posted here
[/quote]

You don't have to be a football fan to be aware of the the Hillsborough Disaster for heavens sake:rolleyes:
 
I am with neil and the others.

Reading it from the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25927847 the 96 significance can be determined instantly.

But in the context that OP has given the facts in it isn't.

96k to a charity with no hints that it is hillsborough related is impossible for people who don't follow the sport to derive that connection.

Even if it was mentioned that £96,000 was donated to hillsborough family group I wouldn't have known the 96 was significant. Before reading this article I couldn't tell you the year, the number of casualties and fatalities or what match was being played. I could only have told you "it was a disaster at a football game as a result of crushing in which some people died and many were injured."
 
Last edited:
BRASH said:
Not everyone follows football and I didn't see the connection until it was posted here
Click to expand...

You don't have to be a football fan to be aware of the the Hillsborough Disaster for heavens sake:rolleyes:[/quote]

yes I know about the Hillsborough Disaster but didn't see the connection with £96,000
anyway I don't want this to get silly so will leave this thread alone now:)
 
Last edited:
Before the match last night (Liverpool v Everton), it was pointed out that Gerrard had not wanted it made public, so good for him. Looks like his PR machine pushed the 'news' into the 'limelight.'
 
BRASH said:
Not everyone follows football and I didn't see the connection until it was posted here
Click to expand...

You don't have to be a football fan to be aware of the the Hillsborough Disaster for heavens sake:rolleyes:[/quote]

No, but you may not know how many died etc... I remember Heysel and Bradford but would not have a clue on those either.
 
all the billions that is spent on aid abroad is taxpayers money so we all donate even if we don't agree with it
 
cambsno said:
You don't have to be a football fan to be aware of the the Hillsborough Disaster for heavens sake:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, but you may not know how many died etc... I remember Heysel and Bradford but would not have a clue on those either.[/quote]


Like I said, it took me about 30 seconds to find out the statistics and make the association to Gerrards donation. Google is a great search engine!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jin said:
I am with neil and the others.

Reading it from the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25927847 the 96 significance can be determined instantly.

But in the context that OP has given the facts in it isn't.

96k to a charity with no hints that it is hillsborough related is impossible for people who don't follow the sport to derive that connection.

Even if it was mentioned that £96,000 was donated to hillsborough family group I wouldn't have known the 96 was significant. Before reading this article I couldn't tell you the year, the number of casualties and fatalities or what match was being played. I could only have told you "it was a disaster at a football game as a result of crushing in which some people died and many were injured."
Click to expand...


Not impossible at all, if yuo read newspapers or interwebs. Personally I think football is a dull boring game, having preference for the oval ball - however I knew 96 lost their lives, and it's fairly obvious even to non sporting fans that someone who "earns" £17m a year chooses what appears to them to be a random amount when only £4k away from a nice round number must have some significance.

As to people who have "never heard of him" I assume they do not read papers, watch tv (including news)....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top