My dog bled to death 2 hours after leaving veterinary practice

jacques_chirac

gb12345 wrote: »

I do .

.....

Me too, and it is far below the average for charity CEO's, and far less than the OP suggests. In fact I'd say it is more than reasonable

peachyprice

hachette wrote: »

So my estimate of 70 million is not really correct

And there we have it :rotfl:

paddyrg

2012 figures

4 Trustees' remuneration and expenses
None of the Trustees or any person connected with them (other than the Secretary & Chief Executive, who is a
Trustee ex officio, whose earnings are disclosed in the highest band in Note 7) received any remuneration during
the year. Nine Trustees were reimbursed for expenses totalling £7,121 (2011 £6,511) covering travel, subsistence
and accommodation incurred in connection with their duties as members of the Council of Dogs Trust. No
allowances were paid to trustees, no direct payments to third parties were made on their behalf.

Number of employees of the group who earned from:
£60,001 to £70,000 - 2
£70,001 to £80,000 - 1
£80,001 to £90,000 - 3
£90,001 to £100,000 - 1
£100,001 to £110,000 - 1
£120,001 to £130,000 - 1

Frankly, this is not extraordinary for anyone dealing with £72M/year

WTFH

WTFH wrote: »

Just to clear something up, the audited accounts for the Dogs Trust for 2012 show that on 31/12/12 they had £4,919,000 cash in the bank and in hand, which was down £607,000 on the start of the year.

I realise that those figures were only by BDO LLP, the authorised auditors, so they are probably not as accurate as hachette's facts.

paddyrg wrote: »

£72M income, spending £65M, £7M retained for future use.

Assets held (eg facilities) for revenue and/or use. This is all completely normal.

hachette wrote: »

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/find-charities/

Since 2008 to 2012 Dog Trust income was 311,778,000
They spend 271,309,000 so in those 5 years they had 40,469,000 left in the bank. Well Dogs Trust have been around for many many years and each year they had a substantial amount of money unused. So my estimate of 70 million is not really correct it must be much much more now. As I said my original figure goes back 8 years

Hachette, you are MAKING YOUR FIGURES UP.
What sits in "retained for future use" this year becomes an asset next year, listed under "other assets".

Since you're good with figures, why not look at the audited accounts for the Dogs Trust. That's where everyone else gets their facts - even the charity commission use it to produce their figures. But like all the facts in this thread, you choose to interpret them in a way that is contrary to what they say.

hachette

gb12345 wrote: »

So you're admitting that you are basing your prejudice against Dogs Trust on information that is 8 years old and that you are unable to prove was even accurate in the first place.

Please provide evidence that in 2005 executives of Dogs Trust were earning in excess of £150,000.

My prejudice against Dogs Trust is based on more that that. 8 years ago a very small charity (they did not have much funds) had a very sick dog that they have looked after for over 1 year. The dog needed
operation on his legs that would cost £5000. The charity did not have it. I have approached Dogs Trust (Chris Laurence) asking if they could pay for this (as they so well in funds) Do you think they did? No . They have offered £100 towards the op.
There are some rules regarding the unused funds set by the charity commission I cannot remember the exact wording but it did mention something about helping other charities that do not have enough funds.

gb12345

hachette wrote: »

My prejudice against Dogs Trust is based on more that that. 8 years ago a very small charity (they did not have much funds) had a very sick dog that they have looked after for over 1 year. The dog needed
operation on his legs that would cost £5000. The charity did not have it. I have approached Dogs Trust (Chris Laurence) asking if they could pay for this (as they so well in funds) Do you think they did? No . They have offered £100 towards the op.
There are some rules regarding the unused funds set by the charity commission I cannot remember the exact wording but it did mention something about helping other charities that do not have enough funds.

You have still failed to provide evidence to back up the claims that you make about the salaries paid to Dogs Trusts executives - so how can we believe anything you say? I'm beginning to wonder if this whole thread is a web of lies and fantasy.

hachette

WTFH wrote: »

Hachette, you are MAKING YOUR FIGURES UP.
What sits in "retained for future use" this year becomes an asset next year, listed under "other assets".

Since you're good with figures, why not look at the audited accounts for the Dogs Trust. That's where everyone else gets their facts - even the charity commission use it to produce their figures. But like all the facts in this thread, you choose to interpret them in a way that is contrary to what they say.

I did look at their audited accounts years ago very closely with this issue I have managed to move on.
Do you agree that they have by now over 70 million of unused funds or not? Because that is a fact.

hachette

gb12345 wrote: »

You have still failed to provide evidence to back up the claims that you make about the salaries paid to Dogs Trusts executives - so how can we believe anything you say? I'm beginning to wonder if this whole thread is a web of lies and fantasy.

Well, best to leave this thread alone.

gb12345

hachette wrote: »

Well, best to leave this thread alone.

Still not backing up your claims with any solid evidence?

halibut2209

hachette wrote: »

Now that was a mistake that I feel you should get over.

Good to see irony is alive and well.