Is it me?

He probably didn't notice it - it's only 9K after all.

Now that it has come out expect a swift donation to be made.

horses & stable doors etc.

ian

This particular bastion thinks that the charity industry is not particularly different from the rest of industry. Why would it be?

i do find it distasteful
Wogan in need, i don't think so.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
This particular bastion thinks that the charity industry is not particularly different from the rest of industry. Why would it be?

The sustained campaign of charities, for which good organisation and administration are clearly vital, and the payment of such staff as a legitimate on-cost, may be one thing.

But a big celeb fronting a one-off (from which are derived a significant being in the public eye and PR value) is another.

But we may be being unfair... Now that it's out, Tel could - just for clarification and this without it being blowing his own trumpet - confirm that he has in fact given his 'modest' fee each time to Children in Need.

In which case he would have been behaving entirely honourably.

On reflection - it would be better for all the celebs to be paid a fee for their 'slot' (even a modest one, pro rata on the £9k Sir Tel gets for the whole night), and then give it straight to the Children in Need adding the benefit of Gift Aid - which supercharges the gift to a charity by 28%. (All of us tax payers should give to charity this way!)

Claiming one's expenses or fee, and then donating it straight back, but adding Gift Aid is perfectly legitimate. The expenses/fee itself is a straight forward in-and-out for accounting, plus the charity gets the 28%.

(That way even Children-in-Need itself, and not Licence payers, could pay the celebs' fee, and still be quids-in ... in only depends on the celebs not doing the dirty)

On the face of it, it looks bad. Taking into account that the Beeb NEED to secure TW for the programme, knowing it is worth X amount of viewing figures, and therefore donations, it isn't much to ask. If TW didn't get paid he might end up being otherwise engaged for the night and we'd have Dale Winton or Graham Norton. I wonder what the viewing figure would be for that, and subsequently the donated totals?
It's very easy to look at the fee and think it's wrong, but charities need to be run as any other business - otherwise it's down to the level of little old ladies doing coffee mornings (No offence intended - I'm sure they do a great job, but they don't have a captive audience of millions).
The bottom line is that it has to be professional and successful.

I am the Trustee of a local charity with a significant budget. I've given lots of time and resources to that charity. However I do claim some travel and other expenses from it. There came a point when I felt that just because I helped to establish and administrate the charity I should not always be consistently out of pocket on every activity I undertook for it.

I'm not quite sure if this is similar to the principles behind the 'honarium' paid to Wogan but I do know that charities need to pay to get expertise, doing it on the cheap often fails to get the best value. £9000 securing the services of the (inexplicably to me) popular Mr Wogan may be a very sound investment.

Bruce.

Can't see what the fuss is about. Diccuss, Ian, Alan - will you donate a day's pay?

I think the problem / confusion arises because the perception generated over the years is very much 'everyone mucking in together, out of the goodness of their heart' - celebs and Joe public.

Is it, in fact, something different? Is Wogan the only celeb presenter who's paid, or not? If so (and this has been suggested, I think, hence the fuss), why does he need a fee and nobody else? - others do a substantial amount too.

To be honest (but perhaps I'm totally naive) I thought celebs, toffs, etc, gave of their time and expertise to charities gratis as a way of 'putting something back'.

And perhaps it sticks in the craw a bit when Wogan himself complains about the BBC "overpaying stars who would work for the corporation regardless of salary"...

More importantly, the show needs a makeover (not that I watch it). Isn't it still just local news teams around the UK reporting on people in baths of baked beans?

Surely missing the point here?

The BBC pays Terry Wogan the fee, not The Charity. Where's the problem? Bet he's given wayyyyy more than that in time at least to CIN.

He gets 250k or there abouts for the breakfast show.

If he was not on CIN would it raise the multi millions it does? Guess we will have to wait and see, but I for one have no issue with it.

Accountants only know the amount of money pissed to the wind over at Oxfam for instance. Have you seen their charity shops? Proper sales job.

quote:

He gets 250k or there abouts for the breakfast show

£800K

I'll bet he gives more than that to charity himself...

His presence pumps many times that into children in need.

No surprise to me...

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Can't see what the fuss is about. Diccuss, Ian, Alan - will you donate a day's pay?

Honestly, no - but I don't think it is the same thing. I'm not earning that day's pay standing at the front exhorting others to donate.

Ian

I loathe Children in Need and Comic Relief, and think anyone associated with either of these events should be boiled in oil.

That'll make a welcome change from the baked beans then.

"I love doing charity gigs and only ever claim my expenses. I came here by helicopter."
Ricky Gervais

Or by Concorde, if you recall a certain P Collins and Live Aid!