Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 121788	2011-11-13 19:50:00	I thought "fight for life was a charity event ...	SP8's (9836)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1243316	2011-11-13 19:50:00	An extract from the story here ... www.stuff.co.nz "This is a serious fight and I've made no secret that we pay all the guys. There are two streams of revenue from this, there's commercial which is TV, sponsorship and table sales and GA [general admission] sales and I pay all the boys out of that and take the risk on whether it makes money or loses money." No mention at all of how, or how much, the charity gets ... or is this just a case of the way it's been reported and the "boys" get paid only from the General Admission sales ?? Not very well written and I was surprised to learn the boxers actually got paid for doing a fundraiser ... and no doubt Lonergan will donate his "fee" for organising the event, back to the charity .... Tui Ad Here.	SP8's (9836)
1243317	2011-11-13 20:43:00	your point is.....?? Most charities have paid employees..how is that different, do they give their salary back to the charity..no Most charities use 3rd parties to to organise & collect donations, for a significant fee... same or different ?? just how little of your 'donations' goes to the actual cause, not the organizers or collectors that charity. In some cases its been $zero . At least Lonergan is being honest about it this has all been know for some time.. nothing new here..move along please :thumbs:	1101 (13337)
1243318	2011-11-13 20:52:00	no no no, You can't be doing a good thing unless you are actively suffering while doing it. Not like me, No suffering here, and no money for cancer either, I might use the internet to try and rip into someone else who is actually doing something.	Metla (12)
1243319	2011-11-13 20:56:00	I'm just looking forward to seeing Haley Holt fight Paige Hareb. :xmouth:	wratterus (105)
1243320	2011-11-13 21:02:00	no no no, You can't be doing a god thing unless you are actively suffering while doing it. I agree, that charity would be better off without any $$ from Lonergan's events. He should just cancel the whole event. if it make a loss , he's the one who then pays to cover that loss.	1101 (13337)
1243321	2011-11-13 22:09:00	your point is.....?? What's the use of having a charity event if it runs at a loss and the charity gains nothing .... simple.	SP8's (9836)
1243322	2011-11-13 23:27:00	What's the use of having a charity event if it runs at a loss and the charity gains nothing .... simple. So you would rather that this event wasnt run, dont even try. If Lonnigan etc werent getting paid, the event wouldnt be run..the charity would get NO MONEY AT ALL, & wouldnt get alot of free publicity/airtime: which is possibly just as important as the cash. Remember who the original charity was for these events before they dumped Lonigan ??, most wouldnt remember the original charity at all: they are now totally out of the public spotlight. See, free publicity is valueable. Lonnegan himself is personally going to cover any possible losses, should that happen . No one else put there hand up to do that. In fact why dont you quit your job & spend the next 3 months organizing something similar. Then you can give all the $$ away, & risk losing everything you own in the process. No....OK just whine & complain instead.	1101 (13337)
1