Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ScamRam

Rooney 120th Cap

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

If we were dragging jimmy greaves out of retirement for one last cap, then I might take issue with it. But Rooney is still a top class player, eligible for selection. Everybody calm down. 

He isn't usually though, and therein lies the problem. He has retired. He shouldn't get to decide as and when to un-retire temporarily in order to participate in certain marquee fixtures. It cheapens the value of an international cap. That isn't an opinion, it's an objective fact that allowing someone who wouldn't otherwise have been selected to play for purely sentimental reasons devalues the international cap. How good Rooney has been, or still is, is completely irrelevant. He wouldn't have been selected under normal circumstances.

I also severely doubt that this would be happening if the opponent was anyone other than the USA. A very lucrative market where Rooney is busy expanding his brand. Call me a cynic, I'll call you naive.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

**I'm using your post Anon, but of course none of this is aimed at you pal.**

Of which, almost 1/3rd will be spent on further fundraising activities, another 5-7.5% will go on salaries. Do people realise these charities pay "telesales" companies almost a third of anything they raise?

Save the Children International (1bn) and Save the Children UK (400m) raised 1.4 BILLION in donations alone last year, the child poverty figures in the UK are at their highest level ever. The donation (and legacies) figures don't represent total turnover as the charities also have "service" arms and investment portfolios.

Save the Children has 375 employees earning above £60k per year, the CEO is on just short of £200k. Ignoring the big wigs and just looking at a flat rate of 60k, its £22.5million on managerial salaries.....

Foundations? Look at the personal benefits of running a private foundation before getting all giddy about it being a game for charity.

I'm sure Wayne has good intentions but the charities are failing I'm afraid.

He'd be better off using the 500k of his own cash and lining up 170 families and giving them 3 grand cash each A £60 a week, that would help them directly and lift 350 kids above the poverty line, instead of sending them to foodbanks. 

As somebody who works for a charity and has done my whole career these "only X% will go to the actual cause" arguments really anger me. Charities are businesses and have to be run as such. This means having to incur costs to increase business and compete with other companies for the best employees which means paying decent wages. I've worked for a charity that tried to cut costs on wages before and you end up with a terrible workforce and a charity that is even more inefficient. People have to be employed and costs incurred for charities to continue to exist and continue to do good work, which they do!

Running a private foundation does bring it's tax benefits, yes, but I feel these are deserve and it encourages other rich people to do good with their money. Our charity is heavily reliant on trusts and foundations which are essentially rich families giving hundreds of thousands of pounds each year to charity. That totals a great deal more than the money they save on tax cuts. Everyone is trying to make money, we shouldn't be having a go at those who are using theirs to do some good in the world whilst ignoring all the people who do nothing for anybody. 

The charities aren't failing, the public are failing to understand how charities work. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, AdamRam said:

That’s your opinion behind the decision though, and even if correct it’s still one that isn’t going to happen that often. When is another player going to get over 100 caps and doesn’t have the opportunity to get the accolades be invited back, realistically another 10, 20, 30 years even ?

Ive still not seen one good reason given why this shouldn’t happen, and what damage it actually does.

As someone reckoned earlier that there are approximately 11 internationals per year plus finals, I would say in about 8 years when Derby County World Cup winning midfield pair Mason Mount and Will Hughes get their 100th caps in the same game 😊

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Anon said:

He isn't usually though, and therein lies the problem. He has retired. He shouldn't get to decide as and when to un-retire temporarily in order to participate in certain marquee fixtures.

This isn't earth-shattering either. The FA could have said no to him un-retiring. Marquee fixture? 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, RoyMac5 said:

This isn't earth-shattering either. The FA could have said no to him un-retiring. Marquee fixture? 🤣

The FA should've said no. They are out of line here.

The second paragraph of my previous post outlines why I think the Rooney marketing team would view this as a marquee fixture.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Anon said:

The FA should've said no. They are out of line here.

The second paragraph of my previous post outlines why I think the Rooney marketing team would view this as a marquee fixture.

Oh, I thought you meant marquee as in relating to the football, you meant the marketing.

I'm with the FA on this, what does it really matter and it looks good all round.

Share this post


Link to post

Madness - all about expanding the Rooney brand in the US. If I'd been England manager, he'd become so ponderous and an encumbrance to the team, I wouldn't have picked him for England any time this decade. Great when he burst onto the scene as a youngster, but quickly downhill thereafter.

I don't think Frank got an England testimonial and he played in America too, so maybe he can dust off his boots for this one as well?

With the new international cup thingie there are very few friendlies (ie non competitive games) for Southgate to experiment and try things, and we're losing one for this nonsense. He seems a man of integrity so should have refused to be part of it, with us bringing in a "celebrity manager" for what the FA has effectively turned into one of those socceraid celebrity charity matches.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

**I'm using your post Anon, but of course none of this is aimed at you pal.**

Of which, almost 1/3rd will be spent on further fundraising activities, another 5-7.5% will go on salaries. Do people realise these charities pay "telesales" companies almost a third of anything they raise?

Save the Children International (1bn) and Save the Children UK (400m) raised 1.4 BILLION in donations alone last year, the child poverty figures in the UK are at their highest level ever. The donation (and legacies) figures don't represent total turnover as the charities also have "service" arms and investment portfolios.

Save the Children has 375 employees earning above £60k per year, the CEO is on just short of £200k. Ignoring the big wigs and just looking at a flat rate of 60k, its £22.5million on managerial salaries.....

Foundations? Look at the personal benefits of running a private foundation before getting all giddy about it being a game for charity.

I'm sure Wayne has good intentions but the charities are failing I'm afraid.

He'd be better off using the 500k of his own cash and lining up 170 families and giving them 3 grand cash each A £60 a week, that would help them directly and lift 350 kids above the poverty line, instead of sending them to foodbanks. 

Instead he's using a game of football where ordinary folk will cough up for tickets supporting his cause but have no say in where or how that cash gets used.

As for using an England game as a vehicle for a players private foundation, staggering.

Does this mean the players called up will all be donating their appearance fee to his foundation irrespective of whether they "believe" in it or not?

If they wanted to give him a goodbye game they should have made it an exhibition match. I'm genuinely shocked there hasn't been a massive outcry over this.

The only way the public can ever really say goodbye to an International player is if the manager at the time announces it's his last cap. 

I loved him as a player, I still like him a lot. I already said goodbye once he left to go the US and retired from International football on his own accord.

If you have a opportunity to raise funds for a charity who not use a vechicle that presents itself, I’m sure given the chance you’d do the same 🤔

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, MK said:

As somebody who works for a charity and has done my whole career these "only X% will go to the actual cause" arguments really anger me. Charities are businesses and have to be run as such. This means having to incur costs to increase business and compete with other companies for the best employees which means paying decent wages. I've worked for a charity that tried to cut costs on wages before and you end up with a terrible workforce and a charity that is even more inefficient. People have to be employed and costs incurred for charities to continue to exist and continue to do good work, which they do!

Running a private foundation does bring it's tax benefits, yes, but I feel these are deserve and it encourages other rich people to do good with their money. Our charity is heavily reliant on trusts and foundations which are essentially rich families giving hundreds of thousands of pounds each year to charity. That totals a great deal more than the money they save on tax cuts. Everyone is trying to make money, we shouldn't be having a go at those who are using theirs to do some good in the world whilst ignoring all the people who do nothing for anybody. 

The charities aren't failing, the public are failing to understand how charities work. 

How do you qualify a decent wage? National Average? is that decent?

To be clear, I'm not talking about the vast majority of third sector workers

There is no evidence that the CEO of Save the Children makes any difference whatsoever, perhaps to fundraising. 

I'm not going into this blind, I've done a lot of research.

How much has been raised to take the child poverty figures backwards? - every charity has the tag line "we'll eradicate child poverty by 2025" - the top four childrens charities in the UK raised more than 500million last year, where is it all going?

How much has been raised by homeless charities to see rough sleepers on the increase. - every homeless charity has he tagline "we'll eradicate homelessness by 2025" - the top 4 homeless charities raised over 100m last year, where is it all going?

Every charity sets its targets or key measures of success, do you know in how many of those areas they are failing? Where they don't fail is in fundraising, that keeps going up.

I used to make 150k plus bonusses a year running a sales department. I'd work for a charity for 36k a year. That's what I need to live comfortably.

In the corporate world you chase money and promotions, working for a charity should be about making a difference. 

You shouldn't work for a charity to be paid at the high end of the scale, you should work for a charity because you believe in making a difference.

Sacrifices. The people who need the help have to make those sacrifices every day. How can you possibly earn 200k and then claim to be in touch with the very people you're helping? Earn 200k but insits volunteers "live the brand"

You work for a charity, surely you should live and die by their ethics. There are 1000's and 1000's of volunteers expected to work out of the goodness of their hearts while the CEO, COO, CFO, Head of fundraising all make 6 figure sums,

https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-pay-study-2017-highest-earners/.../1427306

17 Mar 2017 - On mean average, the highest earners working for general charities received £186,000 and a median of £165,000. The seven charitable foundations included in the top 100 were the most generous on average, paying a mean salary of £618,000. But this figure was driven up by the exceptional pay awarded at the Wellcome Trust.

Your last point, you're spot on there. If the public knew how little of their pound went to direct help, they'd pull the plug like a shot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

If you have a opportunity to raise funds for a charity who not use a vechicle that presents itself, I’m sure given the chance you’d do the same 🤔

He has his own vehicles. He doesn't need to hijack this one.

Surely you're not comparing my project to that of Wayne Rooney getting an England cap?

I don't know exactly what will happen with "my" funds but what i do know after researching it deeply is if i give it to one of the big boys I lose control and in my humble opinion too much gets eaten by admin/marketing/salaries.

If you've got any ideas on how I can stop that happening I'd love to hear about them, I cant afford to pay you top market salary though 😉

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

If the public knew how little of their pound went to direct help, they'd pull the plug like a shot.

Charities divert people's attention away from the changes that really need to be made to help the disadvantaged.

Essentially, you pay to have your conscience salved while businesses make a tidy living out of it, and nothing actually changes. 

It's a scam that ultimately does more harm than good. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

How do you qualify a decent wage? National Average? is that decent?

To be clear, I'm not talking about the vast majority of third sector workers

There is no evidence that the CEO of Save the Children makes any difference whatsoever, perhaps to fundraising. 

I'm not going into this blind, I've done a lot of research.

How much has been raised to take the child poverty figures backwards? - every charity has the tag line "we'll eradicate child poverty by 2025" - the top four childrens charities in the UK raised more than 500million last year, where is it all going?

How much has been raised by homeless charities to see rough sleepers on the increase. - every homeless charity has he tagline "we'll eradicate homelessness by 2025" - the top 4 homeless charities raised over 100m last year, where is it all going?

Every charity sets its targets or key measures of success, do you know in how many of those areas they are failing? Where they don't fail is in fundraising, that keeps going up.

I used to make 150k plus bonusses a year running a sales department. I'd work for a charity for 36k a year. That's what I need to live comfortably.

In the corporate world you chase money and promotions, working for a charity should be about making a difference. 

You shouldn't work for a charity to be paid at the high end of the scale, you should work for a charity because you believe in making a difference.

Sacrifices. The people who need the help have to make those sacrifices every day. How can you possibly earn 200k and then claim to be in touch with the very people you're helping? Earn 200k but insits volunteers "live the brand"

You work for a charity, surely you should live and die by their ethics. There are 1000's and 1000's of volunteers expected to work out of the goodness of their hearts while the CEO, COO, CFO, Head of fundraising all make 6 figure sums,

https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-pay-study-2017-highest-earners/.../1427306

17 Mar 2017 - On mean average, the highest earners working for general charities received £186,000 and a median of £165,000. The seven charitable foundations included in the top 100 were the most generous on average, paying a mean salary of £618,000. But this figure was driven up by the exceptional pay awarded at the Wellcome Trust.

Your last point, you're spot on there. If the public knew how little of their pound went to direct help, they'd pull the plug like a shot.

 

The thing is, you say you'd work for a charity for £36k but have you actually? Sure there are people out there who genuinely don't care about money as long as they are making ends meet but most people at the top of their sector dont want to take a pay cut to move into the charity sector which means having to pay top wages to get the top employees. 

I can't speak for Save the Children, or any other large charity like that, but the charities i've worked for in the past a good CEO has been important for setting the direction, employing good managers and ensuring that everyone is motivated to do their jobs well. I'm sure we've all worked in organisations where there is some idiot running the show and it feeds down and corrupts everyone eventually. Charities are no different, you need good people and good people cost more.

Again, i cant speak for charities that i dont know about but most funds we receive are restricted, meaning they HAVE TO be spent on the cause. This doesn't mean "here you are love, there's a tenner", which is how I imagine you are measuring 'direct help'. It covers the whole project with all the associated costs - charities don't get things for free, we have to pay for things just like other companies.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

Charities divert people's attention away from the changes that really need to be made to help the disadvantaged.

Essentially, you pay to have your conscience salved while businesses make a tidy living out of it, and nothing actually changes. 

It's a scam that ultimately does more harm than good. 

Charities regularly successfully campaign against governments to make changes to laws and legislations, making huge changes to millions. 

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

He has his own vehicles. He doesn't need to hijack this one.

Surely you're not comparing my project to that of Wayne Rooney getting an England cap?

I don't know exactly what will happen with "my" funds but what i do know after researching it deeply is if i give it to one of the big boys I lose control and in my humble opinion too much gets eaten by admin/marketing/salaries.

If you've got any ideas on how I can stop that happening I'd love to hear about them, I cant afford to pay you top market salary though 😉

You could self fund the project yourself, give the book away for free and let anyone who downloads it make a donation to a charity of their choice.

I don’t see the issue with either “project”, if your argument is how the money is distributed and who gets paid what as part of his charity fund, the. That is a different discussion, just for info how much does the CEO of his fund get paid?

Share this post


Link to post
eddie

I don't see any problem with this at all.  It's a game where England will probably use the best part of a full team of substitutes anyway, so he is hardly going to be depriving anybody of the one international cap they are ever likely to win. I think that quite a few of the 'anti-Rooney being included in this game' posters are just anti-Rooney anyway.

Proof?

Go back and read the comments in this thread from 2015... https://dcfcfans.uk/topic/20147-wayne-rooney/

 

As the saying goes, 'Same old faces'.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

Charities divert people's attention away from the changes that really need to be made to help the disadvantaged.

Essentially, you pay to have your conscience salved while businesses make a tidy living out of it, and nothing actually changes. 

It's a scam that ultimately does more harm than good. 

In a nutshell, I'm not convinced at all there is an overall plan to eradicate anything. Too many livelihoods depend on the sector staying "strong"

I do think they do good, just not enough and not directly enough.

167,100 registered UK charities at the end of 2016.  Collectively they raised £73 BILLION.

Incredibly simplistic I know but at that level we could give 18 million households an extra 4 grand a year.

I'd prefer to see the government issue a compulsory charity tax (say 1% of National Insurance contributions - I'm not an economics and haven't worked things out, but if it was my job to do so, I'd work the fecker out) then put the benefits up of those people who need it.

Lets see what effect short term boosts have on those figures before re-developing a long term plan. It's clear whatever plan is currently in place isn't working.

Anyone above the tax rate where they don't pay tax should be included. No choice, no evasion.

Focussing on only one area, child poverty

A condition may be for single parents who cant work or for parents where one is working but still can't survive. (unforgivable AND heartbreaking, these aren't skivers we're talking about)

There really is no excuse for people to be below the poverty line these days, it's a damning indictment of the world we live in.

Coming back to Wazza, the lad has earned enough in his life, admittedly through talent and hard work, to be able to give 500k without having to go through the balls of getting 40,000 England fans to stump up and actually raise it for him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

Oh, I thought you meant marquee as in relating to the football, you meant the marketing.

I'm with the FA on this, what does it really matter and it looks good all round.

It doesn’t look good. It looks bad. It looks like England caps do not need to be won on merit. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

You could self fund the project yourself, give the book away for free and let anyone who downloads it make a donation to a charity of their choice.

I don’t see the issue with either “project”, if your argument is how the money is distributed and who gets paid what as part of his charity fund, the. That is a different discussion, just for info how much does the CEO of his fund get paid?

When I asked for help I couldn't afford to fund it myself. 

Anyone who has asked, has their money back, the rest is in a pot. In fact the whole 3,600 USD is in a pot. I personally put back in the money I paid for editing. So once the book is published the amount will be royalty sales + 3.6K - the only time it will be clear I haven't shafted anyone is when its out and finished.

Now I'm in a position where I can afford to fund it I would but I don't need to.

I don't think it's a mistake but some might, it's in the hands of a group of people who will make much more money than I could have marketing it on my own. The downside of that is I don't have any control over timing. I can't push even if I wanted to.

Not sure how it's come around to talking about my book but you'll understand why I'm answering and why I'm a touch defensive. 

I've no idea how much the CEO of Wayne's foundation earns but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the CEO had no charity background and had the last name Rooney.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

Coming back to Wazza, the lad has earned enough in his life, admittedly through talent and hard work, to be able to give 500k without having to go through the balls of getting 40,000 England fans to stump up and actually raise it for him.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/generous-everton-star-wayne-rooney-11740022.amp

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/05/25/wayne-rooney-makes-huge-donation-victims-manchester-terror-attack/amp/

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jakehayman/2017/07/02/generous-celebrities/amp/

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • 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.