Ruth Ruderham to Depart

[Alan de Enfield]

Personally I believe the aims of CRT were unattainable. You can't blame the lady for that.

 

Cannot argue with that.

 

Presumably she took the job knowing what her targets were, but did not understand the 'market perception' of C&RT and the task facing her.

Better to 'jump ship' than let failure ( thru no fault of her own) taint her future.

[Graham.m]

 

Cannot argue with that.

 

Presumably she took the job knowing what her targets were, but did not understand the 'market perception' of C&RT and the task facing her.

Better to 'jump ship' than let failure ( thru no fault of her own) taint her future.

I suspect no one in the charitable world could have had any idea of the public attitude to BW/CRT. From my position I see 30 odd thousand boats with an owner, I see very little other possible support. When you consider the perceived view of most boaters I know BW was not there best flavour of the month, hence nor was CRT, and as far as I can see CRT has not done much to improve the perception. So where were the friends to come from?

[cotswoldsman]

I don't know the lady, but I do know several who do similar jobs. I would doubt the lady did not do her best to do what was asked of her. People in these positions gain reputation for their abilities and shall I say honesty. Without it she would not have got the job with the Prince's Trust.

 

Personally I believe the aims of CRT were unattainable. You can't blame the lady for that.

There targets were set by BW when telling the government that as a Trust they would have the ability to raise lots of money so were set based on what they thought the government would like to hear. These targets have hardly been changed by the present management who have no idea how to run a Trust and engage the public. I hardly think drinking in a pub and agreeing to change the mooring times is the answer for a CEO running a Trust.

There seems to be no one within CRT who can see or execute on the bigger picture it is all PR without any substance.

Ruth will be a big loss to CRT and I doubt if they realise that

Edited December 3, 2015 by cotswoldsman

[Graham.m]

I agree

[NigelMoore]

Personally I believe the aims of CRT were unattainable.

 

Backing cotswoldsman's comments, If you have not done so already, you would probably be interested in reading the former CEO’s chirpy little prognostications before the House of Lords committee prior to passage of the Transfer to CaRT –

 

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/merits-statutory-instruments/Correct-Transcript-of-Merits-Committee-%28British-Waterways-Board%29-24-April-2012.pdf

 

Useful to start at the bottom of page 19 for a few pages, although you will get a real feel for the waffling nonsense in reading the whole thing.

 

“Baroness Butler-Sloss: This is obviously a very exciting project and you are all very enthusiastic about it, which is lovely to hear. However, it is necessary to go on asking a number of perhaps rather dreary questions about the financial side. I was interested to hear Mr Evans talk about £100 million of commercial income. As regards voluntary income, you are expecting to get into what I gather is called “civil society”, which I assume means the charity—a slightly odd phrase, if I may say so—as you are going to have additional voluntary activity, but what are your estimates based on and how reliable are they? Is there a danger that your early-years expenditure may be greater than the donations you receive or other voluntary payments that you get?

 

Robin Evans: When we worked out our projection for fundraising we took a lot of advice. The chairman of British Waterways and I have spoken to more than 100 third-sector charity civil society organisations to gather their views about how fundraising would go. We also employed Think Consultants, who are lead consultants advising many of the largest charities such as the Red Cross and the RNLI on how to raise funds. Therefore, we have had the best advice on our fundraising projections that is available to charities. We have employed our own fundraiser, who has come from Christian Aid and was voted fundraiser of the year three years ago. Our consultants, with our own fundraiser, have come up with projections for fundraising which they see as reasonably achievable. We have then reduced those by 75% in all our projections just to make sure that they are sensible—sorry, I should have said by 25%.

 

Baroness Butler-Sloss: I hope so.

 

Robin Evans: Sorry, by 25%, so we believe that our projections are sensible and reasonable. In the early years we will probably spend more money than we receive, but that is the nature of fundraising because you are building up a membership, not a voting membership but a band of supporters—a band of friends. Their first year’s subscription often matches the cost of recruiting them, but it is their second and third year subscriptions that are important. The key thing about fundraising is what is called the attrition rate—how quickly, or how slowly, you lose supporters. We are confident in this regard. This is all about service because people will continue to support you if you welcome them, appreciate them, and give them the benefits that they want, which is more information and opportunities to participate."

 

Unsurprisingly perhaps, both of the BW top dogs present at that Inquiry were amongst the first to hightail it out following the transfer of functions.

[DHutch]

And how much does she skim off the top of these so called charities, I am sure its 6 figures.

I really do not think we need these sorts of comment.

 

Please keep this thread civil, on topic, and non-personal please.

 

 

 

Daniel