Jump to content

Is the CRT too woke?


Featured Posts

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

I seem to recall that is exactly what they did. I can remember announcements of senior fundraising staff who had previous relevant experience with other charities. To my mind the problem is that the proposition that large numbers of non boating public will pay significant sums when they can enjoy CRT's facilities for free has always been a non-starter, and there simply isn't the scope for any fundraiser, no matter how good, to do significantly better.

Trying and failing was a necessary step in the process to convince government that continued central funding is essential.

And what benefits would those be? And what would be consequence if the non-boating 'members' exceeded boater numbers, and they voted for more cycle tracks, ducks, wellness signs, picnic benches, poetry carved into lock gates etc, while simultaneously saying they saw no benefit to them in dredging or reservoir maintence?

The name that escapes you is head of fundraising, Ruth Ruderham. She joined in 2011 ahead of CRT's formation and poached some that had worked with her at other charities. She had impeccable credentials but failed to live up to her boast of 100,000 regular donors and £10m net from voluntary giving in ten years. She left fairly suddenly in 2015 to join the Prince's Trust Internationalh aving failed to meet any yearly targets set.

 

 

 

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Briss said:

If one of the stipulations laid down in applying for government grants, lottery grants, English heritage type grants, greening England type grants and all the other awarding bodies that require huge written reports before considering the benefits of divvying up their money between loads of different competing bodies is that they must show how they are addressing climate change or they don't get considered, then the CRT is going to churn out loads of stuff showing how they're addressing climate change. They'd be fools not to. And they're not going to tell us that they're only doing it to placate the awarding bodies... they'd be fools to do that, too.

 

If the CRT can show that their plans benefit as many people as possible from all walks of life, from health and well-being, to nature and education, to heritage and the future then they're more likely to be considered for funding, and the more people they can benefit, the more funding they'll get.

 

You might wish the modern world didn't work like this and go on and on about the good old days, but that doesn't get you funding in today's (changing) climate.

 

So it might well be that the CRT is being canny and realistic in their press releases.

Pretty much exactly what I said... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, IanD said:

Pretty much exactly what I said... 😉

With some pertinent other points too, me thinks... but definitely some overlap. 🙂

 

One can't always remember exactly what someone else said when developing one's own argument, and sometimes it becomes necessary to repeat previous points for the clarity of one's own argument.

Edited by Briss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The name that escapes you is head of fundraising, Ruth Ruderham. She joined in 2011 ahead of CRT's formation and poached some that had worked with her at other charities. She had impeccable credentials but failed to live up to her boast of 100,000 regular donors and £10m net from voluntary giving in ten years. She left fairly suddenly in 2015 to join the Prince's Trust Internationalh aving failed to meet any yearly targets set.

 

 

 

 

Then as she failed to reach any of her targets during her 4 year term, she had either hoodwinked C&RT about her abilities, or she was unaware of her own limitations and exagerated her skills with excessive targets that she was unable to achieve.

 

I seem to remember that C&RT actually 'watered down' her forecasts by 25% to act as a 'safety net' in case they were over optimistic, yet they /she failed to even achieve the reduced targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

"British Waterways" implies travel, "Canal & River Trust" implies existence. There's a clue about priorities there somewhere.

By the same token, "Trust" implies that people can.....well, you can guess the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Then as she failed to reach any of her targets during her 4 year term, she had either hoodwinked C&RT about her abilities, or she was unaware of her own limitations and exagerated her skills with excessive targets that she was unable to achieve.

 

It is up to the employer to know what they're looking for. They're not supposed to be naive. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Machpoint005 said:

 

Since it was you that wanted to start this dick-measuring contest, my first two canal trips were in 1964 and 1967.

 

Things weren't better back then.

 

 

 

I think you will find it was Graham that asked how long I had been on the cut but then went silent….I also said others had been on cut longer…but as ever you just read what suits your agenda. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Then as she failed to reach any of her targets during her 4 year term, she had either hoodwinked C&RT about her abilities, or she was unaware of her own limitations and exagerated her skills with excessive targets that she was unable to achieve.

 

I seem to remember that C&RT actually 'watered down' her forecasts by 25% to act as a 'safety net' in case they were over optimistic, yet they /she failed to even achieve the reduced targets.

Not quite. It was MP's that first queried the predictions and this was addressed by the second KPMG report containing a prudence factor. What Ruderham did was convince that CRT could actually improve on the original estimates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think that the experts have now accepted that there is no such thing as global warming and many countries (UK included) is likely to get much colder as the gulf stream is diverted by freshwater from the melting ice.

 

The latest terminology is "Climate change"  as it encompasses, hot / cold / wet and dry and is bound to be correct somewhere or other on the planet.

You are out of date, the latest terminology is AGW( anthropogenic global warming).

This is the net rise, caused by human activities, in globally averaged near-surface air and ground temperatures above and beyond those due to the natural greenhouse effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, matty40s said:

You are out of date, the latest terminology is AGW( anthropogenic global warming).

This is the net rise, caused by human activities, in globally averaged near-surface air and ground temperatures above and beyond those due to the natural greenhouse effect.

 

It must have changed today - at COP26, as of yesterday, it was still "Climate Change"

 

 

COP26: What are these climate talks and why are they so important? |  Climate News | Sky News

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It must have changed today - at COP26, as of yesterday, it was still "Climate Change"

 

 

COP26: What are these climate talks and why are they so important? |  Climate News | Sky News

 

 

Yes but that is junket for politicians, hardly a group noted for taking much notice of the actual science.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Not quite. It was MP's that first queried the predictions and this was addressed by the second KPMG report containing a prudence factor. What Ruderham did was convince that CRT could actually improve on the original estimates.

Strikes me that there's quite a lot of Emporer's new clothes syndrome here, in that everyone had a pretty good idea that the fundraising targets couldn't be achieved, but nobody in any position of authority wanted to be the first to put their head above the parapet and say it couldn't be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Strikes me that there's quite a lot of Emporer's new clothes syndrome here, in that everyone had a pretty good idea that the fundraising targets couldn't be achieved, but nobody in any position of authority wanted to be the first to put their head above the parapet and say it couldn't be done.

The financial case for BW becoming a charity rested largely the development of a new income stream - charitable giving. Take that away and the financial case disappears. Thus it was not in anyone's interest to say that fundraising targets would not be met.

To some extent, the lack of income from charitable giving has been offset by CRT selling off its heritage assets in contravention of its charitable objects. Since 2012 it has sold off over 60 grade II properties. It is difficult to estimate how much income this has produced as prices fetched vary enormously. To give some examples, two London properties auctioned last week fetched a combined £2.4m. A property at Tardebigge being auctioned in a few day is expected to fetch £200,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The financial case for BW becoming a charity rested largely the development of a new income stream - charitable giving. Take that away and the financial case disappears. Thus it was not in anyone's interest to say that fundraising targets would not be met.

To some extent, the lack of income from charitable giving has been offset by CRT selling off its heritage assets in contravention of its charitable objects. Since 2012 it has sold off over 60 grade II properties. It is difficult to estimate how much income this has produced as prices fetched vary enormously. To give some examples, two London properties auctioned last week fetched a combined £2.4m. A property at Tardebigge being auctioned in a few day is expected to fetch £200,000.

 

Tis interesting that in this years accounts package C&RT have also included, under 'donations', a sum of £3.8m paid to C&RT as part of the Covid Job Retention scheme.

 

Cut & paste from the 2020/21 Accounts package :

 

Donations and legacies

The Trust is a direct beneficiary of the People’s Postcode Lottery, raising a net £4.6m from seven draws (2019/20: £2.9m from five draws). The number of ‘Friends’ regularly supporting the Trust has decreased from 30,049 to 27,721, with income from Friends remaining consistent at £3.0m. Corporate fundraising income reduced by £0.4m due to a large one-off receipt of £0.3m in 2019/20. Also included in donations and legacies is £3.8m from the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

 

 

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The financial case for BW becoming a charity rested largely the development of a new income stream - charitable giving. Take that away and the financial case disappears. Thus it was not in anyone's interest to say that fundraising targets would not be met.

To some extent, the lack of income from charitable giving has been offset by CRT selling off its heritage assets in contravention of its charitable objects. Since 2012 it has sold off over 60 grade II properties. It is difficult to estimate how much income this has produced as prices fetched vary enormously. To give some examples, two London properties auctioned last week fetched a combined £2.4m. A property at Tardebigge being auctioned in a few day is expected to fetch £200,000.

But aren't the proceeds of those sales reinvested in other property assets which are supposed to produce a better return?

From a heritage point of view I may not agree with the disposals, but from an investment perspective, reasonably modern property with an established letting income is more attractive than older buildings requiring expensive maintenance and upgrading which aren't reflected in the rental income achievable.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But aren't the proceeds of those sales reinvested in other property assets which are supposed to produce a better return?

From a heritage point of view I may not agree with the disposals, but from an investment perspective, reasonably modern property with an established letting income is more attractive than older buildings requiring expensive maintenance and upgrading which aren't reflected in the rental income achievable.

 

But is 100% of the capital raised by sale of heritage properties re-invested ?

 

A company can only go on for so long spending more than its income - at some point it has to sell off some of the family silver.

 

2019/2020 = Income £216.1m / Expenditure £232.8m

 

2020/2021 = Income £215.4m / Expenditure  £221.3m

 

Whilst not a good place for a busines to be in they are not considered as trading whilst insolvent as if they sold off all of their assets they would be able to recover sufficient to more than cover their liabilities.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

 

From a heritage point of view I may not agree with the disposals, but from an investment perspective, reasonably modern property with an established letting income is more attractive than older buildings requiring expensive maintenance and upgrading which aren't reflected in the rental income achievable.

 

Doesn't that kind of mix up the status of the canal system and its historic heritage value? Is it a matter of preservation, conservation or a financial lame duck that can only remain viable by selling off what could be considered intrinsic parts of the canal system's makeup. CRT's logo is too corporate for my liking. It's isn't very sympathetic. I don't think selling off heritage assets is sympathetic either. 

 

"To some extent, the lack of income from charitable giving has been offset by CRT selling off its heritage assets in contravention of its charitable objects." 

 

In contravention.  

 

I realise I'm stuck on the word heritage, so should it become meaningless. 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

But aren't the proceeds of those sales reinvested in other property assets which are supposed to produce a better return?

From a heritage point of view I may not agree with the disposals, but from an investment perspective, reasonably modern property with an established letting income is more attractive than older buildings requiring expensive maintenance and upgrading which aren't reflected in the rental income achievable.

CRT has the option under the grant agreement to use the proceeds from such sales as it sees fit. However, according to its own charitable objects it should not be selling this type of property -
 

Quote

TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT SITES, OBJECTS AND BUILDINGS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING OR HISTORIC INTEREST ON, IN THE VICINITY OF, OR OTHERWISE ASSOCIATED WITH INLAND WATERWAYS


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

CRT has the option under the grant agreement to use the proceeds from such sales as it sees fit. However, according to its own charitable objects it should not be selling this type of property -
 


 

Perhaps they think a different owner will conserve stuff, instead of just letting it fall to bits, festively decorated with bits of red string...

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.