BLUEMOMENT

Julian wrote: I do get fed up with this attitude that things must somehow only create value, a rescue or tow should be justified in some way, a statue is a waste when it can buy 4 hospital beds, a park can buy a sub post office etc.

When it comes to Charity surely value is everything.

If charity a) saves 10 lives per million & charity b) saves 9.9 lives per million, all other things being equal I'm gonna donate my 50p to charity a).

If charity a) saves 10 lives per million & charity b) saves 9.9 lives per million, all other things being equal I'm gonna donate my 50p to charity a).

All other things are rarely equal though . . .

If Charity a) is saving discredited politicians and charity b) is saving impoverished web designers then my money would go to charity b) even if they are saving fewer lives.

(Actually it perhaps wouldn't because it would be better if my competitors all perished - but you get my drift . . . )

.
I think the RNLI are by and large very happy with the status quo and do not want to see it changed, so why not help keep them happy by putting all your loose change in the lifeboat box so things can continue as they are.

Lifeboat crews will risk everything to save lives, but after that they are the ones who make a decision about salvaging property etc, so lets leave it up to them.

I think you will find that most lifeboat crews would relish more opportunities to put to sea when lives were not in danger. The retained coxswains and mechanics in particular can get pretty bored sitting around waiting for their ten or twelve shouts a year.

Interesting concept -value.

Sport Scotland has an operating budget of £32.5M

What they operate is giving a mixture of taxpayers and Lottery money to sporting things in Scotland.

The exact sum that they give away is not clear to me but is in 100s of millions.

I'm not getting at Scotland - its just that for reasons I can't go into I have some knowledge of this. There is a parallel organisation in England which no doubt has proportionately larger budgets.

The point is all this money goes into people running about, jumping over things and doubtlessly kicking things.

None of these running, jumping and kicking people are in any way controlled by the government. The judgment is that their running etc is of some benefit to Scotland as a whole, despite the fact that most people see nothing of any direct benefit.

Now can a parallel argument be made for the RNLI (on a national basis, not just Scotland)

Can the Government not give grants to the RNLI not for fishing soggy yachties out of the 'oggin, but for the service to maritime communities, sport and recreation as a whole.

No-one can say that sport is "nationalised" (or indeed rationalised) - the government (surprisingly) do not try to micro-manage what runners, jumpers and kickers do or how they do it. The payments are not even performance related (fortunately)

It is arguable, I would suggest, that sailing, although supported at competitive level, is not supported at all as a recreational sport, whereas many other things are.

I would commend the notion that Sport Scotland and England should give financial support to the RNLI on the basis that sailing provides a recreation that benefits the country as a whole.

.
Sport Scotland already put a lot of money into sailing in Scotland . . .

Thursday 19 June 2008

sportscotland Chair, Louise Martin CBE and Minister for Communities and Sport, Stewart Maxwell took to the high seas today to announce a £337,080 investment in Royal Yachting Association Scotland (RYAS), the governing body for the sport of sailing in Scotland.

Accompanied by the National 420 Youth Champions, Peter Irwin and David Kohler, the new sportscotland Chair confirmed that the money, of which £189,080 is from the sportscotland Lottery Fund, would be used to develop the sport across the country.

See HERE

Yes I know.

I did acknowledge that

"It is arguable, I would suggest, that sailing, although supported at competitive level, is not supported at all as a recreational sport, whereas many other things are."

What I was suggesting was an additional possible route to support the RNLI financially without subjecting the organisation to all the problems of making it a government controlled "nationalised" industry.

I know the Institute is financially sound at the moment. I also know that it will be significantly affected by inflation in both current account running costs and in capital cost for new boats and other equipment. Further, as inflation begins to increasingly affect people's disposable income, it is likely that charitable donations to all good causes including the RNLI will be hit.

It would be prudent, I would suggest, to make plans to maintain the present levels of expenditure with a decrease in revenue. I am sure that the Institute's managers are actively doing this now, I certainly hope they are.

One further point that should be watched is the way other charities are increasingly being used as service providers, particularly by local authorities, for a range of mainly "caring" roles, old people's homes etc. In doing this they almost inevitably become Dependant upon taxpayer's money - usually council taxpayers. This in turn allows these authorities to exert an unfortunate level of influence and control over the running of these charities. This would most certainly be something to be very wary of.

Arguably its already begun with the beach lifeguards - could this be the thin end of the wedge?

Olivepage wrote: It would be prudent, I would suggest, to make plans to maintain the present levels of expenditure with a decrease in revenue. I am sure that the Institute's managers are actively doing this now, I certainly hope they are.

The RNLI is secure for the forseeable.

They're currently raising more than they spend and could run for 2 years with zero income.

The RNLI is awash with money. I noticed in Southend (don't ask!) they have fixed crane costing ££££ to deploy the RIB instead of davits! If times were hard they could manage without the nice-to-haves.

If there ever came a day when they were short then countless people, like me, who don't currently make serious contributions would start to make contributions.

There are plenty of struggling charities - the RNLI isn't one of them. Quite the opposite.

Just how rich is the RNLI?

According to Windfinder:-

"The RNLI is secure for the forseeable.

They're currently raising more than they spend and could run for 2 years with zero income.

The RNLI is awash with money. I noticed in Southend (don't ask!) they have fixed crane costing ££££ to deploy the RIB instead of davits! If times were hard they could manage without the nice-to-haves.

If there ever came a day when they were short then countless people, like me, who don't currently make serious contributions would start to make contributions.

There are plenty of struggling charities - the RNLI isn't one of them. Quite the opposite."

But Para has the view:-

"the only comment abt windy's post is that the funding of the RNLI is not that secure. It costs £100m annually to run and the last stockmarket collapse (1999 to 2003) hit it hard as its assets to annual running costs got close to parity and there's some clause in their Deed (or a requirement from the Charity Commissioners) which require the RNLI to have greater reserves than that. Current stockmarket is lower than 1999 (but not as low as it got 2 yrs later) and there's a dearth of spare cash the noo and legacies."

Perhaps we should suspend the debate waiting for the auditor's report.

Olivepage wrote:Perhaps we should suspend the debate waiting for the auditor's report.

RNLI 2007

The free reserves (what windy refers to as capable of supporting the RNLI for 2 yrs with zero income) are at 12 months, not 2 yrs.

The capital reserve including the free reserve is £280m of which £160m is directed reserve ie it comes from a donation for which the giver has specified how the legacy will be spent.

The £280m is invested £121m in equity, £14m in property, £52m in fixed interest, £13m in cash and £81m in real/absolute return fund. Taking a weighted average, the total loss on these investments *could* be £32m as at this morning.

If you then reduce the free reserve proportionately, the reserve stands at 10months. Earlier this decade the RNLI did some sums under the scrutiny of the government & Charity Commissioners and restated their free assets requirement from 1 to 3 years free assets to 8 to 16months. Some vehemently objected to this because it was part of this governments assumption that, to put it crudely, the good times would continue ad infinitum. It was the same strategy that forced pension funds to divest their surpluses. What the strategy did was to increase expenditure in the UK economy at the expense of the holders long term security.

The suggestion earlier by another that the RNLI was not a business and that "you don't get it" is an utterly abysmal misunderstanding of what the RNLI are engaged in.

Gosh

Need to think about that a bit.

Am I right in assuming that the £160M directed reserve will only or almost only be available for "capital" spend - new boats equipment etc.

If so that will leave £120M available for "current" spend - actually running the organisation - paying wages buying diesel etc etc.

Also the possible loss of £32M as of today will be a reduction totally in the £120M figure since the directed reserve would not be available for current expenditure?

Does the £32M include a reduction in the values of property owned by the institution?

If my assumptions are correct - and you will have gathered i'm not an accountant - it would seem things are not quite as rosy as one might believe.

Or have I got it wrong

Again

PS

Thats the quickest audit I've ever known!

Olivepage wrote:Am I right in assuming that the £160M directed reserve will only or almost only be available for "capital" spend - new boats equipment etc.

Not always. A gift might be for a particular station; leaving it to the Trustees discretion how its spent.

Olivepage wrote:Also the possible loss of £32M as of today will be a reduction totally in the £120M figure since the directed reserve would not be available for current expenditure?

Does the £32M include a reduction in the values of property owned by the institution?.

Not quite and not given. The *possible* £32m is across the whole £280m.

I'm not including the potential deficit on their pension fund. In fact, the fund Trustees seem to have made a decent fist of it.

In isolation, the RNLI is in fine shape but it comes after a few years of asset growth and the public's generosity. The picture ahead is much less favourable. Most would be happier if there was more fat on the bones ...

Julian wrote:

magdar wrote:Dont even think about state involvement in our lifeboats. The red tape would degrade and dilute the service.
Most mountain rescue is carried out by self funded volunteer organisations and Government funded SAR services are suffering from cuts. Rescue 177 based at Prestwick have three cabs but usually only one crew on station. The yougest of the three Seakings is now over 30 years old. I am told that service and training budgets have also been slashed.

I think this is a fair indication of what would become our lifeboats given Government involvment.

Magdar

I do hope when your house has turned into the largest bbq in the UK you turn away the retained firemen as they are diluted and rubbish.


I hope disagreeing with the forum zeitgeist does not bar me from flying a bluemoment burgee, I know we are meant to agree on everything, sorry.

Julian
only back from holidays and read this.
I simply said, that I think, Government involvment in our Lifeboats, would degrade and dilute the service.

NO mention of any service being RUBBISH??

I only say this through personal experience in my local area.

BTW, if you are ever unfortunate enough to need any assistance at sea in the Larne area, you may find our boat crewed by more than one of the aforementioned firemen!

Don't get me started about the EU.

I think my feelings on that bunch of tosspots is well known

The sooner we get out of that &*^%$, the better

[/rant]