$5 Pads, Balls, Cap, Bags, Socks at The Mcgrath Foundation Online Store + Delivery (Shop Pink)

Related Stores

mcgrathfoundation.com.au

• 

  [Deactivated] on 01/01/2017 - 16:44

  +1

  No matter what the price this is a great foundation

• 

  rawm on 01/01/2017 - 16:59

  +1

  Sale items (sorted by lowest price) http://imgur.com/a/09hH2

• 

  Maverick-au on 01/01/2017 - 16:59

  +4

  No matter what the price this is a great foundation

  In what way?

  Over 25% of the money goes on administration costs.

  "In the most recent year it raised $16 million, gave away $10 million and had expenses of $4 million, saving a bit for next year."

  Still not as bad as Shane Warne's foundation scam - http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/costs/the-problem-with-…

  • 

    fred nerk on 01/01/2017 - 17:11

    +9

    How much for a guided tour of an African park so I can shoot an elephant?

  • 

    Diji1 on 01/01/2017 - 17:22

    +5

    People are negging you because you're ruining the sacred image of these Gods men by informing them that the charities they set up behave like dirty profit creating enterprises rather than the part tax haven for the wealthy dirty profit creating enterprises/charitable organisation that they actually are.

  • 

    freefall101 on 01/01/2017 - 17:25

    +3

    75% of funding going directly to the cause isn't bad and stacks up well against other large charities in Australia, World Vision spends about 25% on administration costs, 19% of Doctors Without Borders spending for 2015 was administration costs (despite being about 10% globally for the organisation). Running a charity in Australia is generally more expensive.

    • 

      Maverick-au on 01/01/2017 - 18:29

      +1

      75% of funding going directly to the cause isn't bad and stacks up well against other large charities in Australia, World Vision spends about 25% on administration costs, 19% of Doctors Without Borders spending for 2015 was administration costs

      The true costs are not that easy to work out as they can report however they like. For example the money they claim is spent on the charity could be spent via another company that takes a share of the money.

      "The big differences in the cost of fund-raising are partly the result of no clear accounting guideline as to which costs should be classified as fund-raising expenses and administration."

      http://www.smh.com.au/national/charities-fundraising-costs-s…

      • 

        freefall101 on 02/01/2017 - 06:06

        You're misreading that article a little. They can't report it in a misleading fashion, i.e. they can split between "Administration" and "Fundraising costs" (which both make up the 25% you're talking about) but they can't hide admin costs in a specific programme spending (i.e. the Breast Care Nurses programme). Whether that programme is effective (it's going into the pockets of nurses mostly, but nurses who provide an excellent service) should be the basis of whether you donate or not. Because if they're just syphoning off funds, it won't work.

        This is why complaining about admin costs is pointless to begin with though. Ultimately a charity should be judged on how well it does what it's doing. I could start a charity to save the blue-eared dingo, have volunteers build special refuge areas and only spend 2% on administration. There's no such animal, but at least the administration costs would be low!

      • 

        Maverick-au on 02/01/2017 - 10:19

        +1

        @freefall101:

        You're misreading that article a little. They can't report it in a misleading fashion, i.e. they can split between "Administration" and "Fundraising costs" (which both make up the 25% you're talking about) but they can't hide admin costs in a specific programme spending (i.e. the Breast Care Nurses programme)

        I'm not misreading it at all nor claiming they are hiding admin costs (although they could if the company delivering the services was a subsidiary or related). What I said was that they can use say an agency to employ the nurses that may take 33% of the money intended to hire nurses which changes how effective the proceeds are.

        But you do have a point and in this example 25% is admin with 75% for nurses but as 33% of the 75% is an admin cost that is really only 50% going to the nurses.

        Is it more effective to hire nurses directly on contact or via a third party taking 33% to handle the contacts? I would expect a charity to do the former.

        Plenty of charities may pay out 90% but after all the people are paid along the way to the recipient they may only get a much smaller amount particularly any organisations that deal in Africa or the middle east due to corruption.

        Ultimately a charity should be judged on how well it does what it's doing.

        Certainly but it's very hard if not impossible to measure so admin costs are one of the few ways to quickly compare charities.

        In my example above however it can be skewed as you could have 30% admin costs and contract 33% more nurses direct or have an agency contract them and have 25% admin costs.

  • 

    Pinchie on 01/01/2017 - 17:31

    +2

    https://www.mcgrathfoundation.com.au/Portals/0/Financial/McG…

    Down on page 16, admin costs account for $1.275m of $4.1m "non-programme" expenses. They received $16.5m total revenue in that time. Now whether you brand all "non-programme" expenses as "administration costs" is up to you and/or the journalist, but that's oversimplifying the situation a great deal. People donating to a charity/NFP understand that they have to advertise, expend money to raise funds (hopefully at a profit), and pay staff to run the organisation. To throw advertising and fundraising costs under "administration costs" is a bit short sighted.

    • 

      Tal_Shiar on 01/01/2017 - 17:40

      thank you!

    • 

      Maverick-au on 01/01/2017 - 20:23

      To throw advertising and fundraising costs under "administration costs" is a bit short sighted.

      Not really as the accounting for all the charitable organisations is poor at best as I posted above.

      "The big differences in the cost of fund-raising are partly the result of no clear accounting guideline as to which costs should be classified as fund-raising expenses and administration."

  • 

    abc on 01/01/2017 - 17:55

    +4

    Some of the admin staff who work on a full time basis would have to be paid. Would you work on a daily basis for free even if it was a charity or non-profit? How would you live and pay your expenses?

  • 

    psylence on 01/01/2017 - 18:50

    +1

    We are viewing charities the wrong way. I used to have the same opinion as you however this ted talk helped change my mind please take some time to watch 20min. https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou…?

• 

  Pinchie on 01/01/2017 - 17:22

  +1

  Cheers, great deal on half a dozen balls.

  Don't forget the option to add a cash donation at the end - give back some of what you saved. :)

• 

  derdew on 01/01/2017 - 17:58

  +1

  does anyone know if the balls are hard or rubbery?

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 01/01/2017 - 19:15

    Definitely look rubber by the looks of the seam

• 

  bboarder on 01/01/2017 - 18:10

  +9

  My housemate was working for McGrath Foundation doing door to door sales in commercial areas. She was contracted through Apollo Group which McGrath were using for sales. For each $39 monthly membership she signed up she would get $100. Her team leader then gets her own cut. Then Apollo group gets their own cut before the rest goes to McGrath.

  It's Apollo group that are the shady ones. They bring in naive pretty girls and sign them up as contractors so they don't have to pay them a wage and they get no benefits. 100% commission. It's a lot like a pyramid scheme. Some girls would only get 3 sales a week. After only 2 weeks they saw my housemate had potential so they tried to sign her up as a team leader and teach new girls. They also made the girls travel to remote areas and mining towns by promising lots of new sales. No travel allowance only accommodation.

  I'm not sure McGrath are fully clued into what actually happens at the lower level.

  • 

    Maverick-au on 01/01/2017 - 20:19

    +5

    I'm not sure McGrath are fully clued into what actually happens at the lower level.

    They know exactly what goes on and this is why they contract a third party.

    There is a pot of money and this is shared amongst the various organisations but the more there are the less per organisation so they pay scumbags to hit the streets and the phones to hassle people into giving them money that would have gone to another organisation or a new donation.

    Each organisation has an admin requirement and the more organisations and you have more duplication and wastage plus they all start spending a large percentage of money on attracting donations. A huge amount of money is wasted in this country because of all the organisations, look at the Shane Warne one where a tiny percentage makes it where its supposed to go.

    Organisations like the McGrath foundation do nothing but take money from existing organisations and result in less money going to where its supposed to go. This while idea that a sports person is somehow supposed to be a good person to run any organisation seems to be tied into the way that some Australians worship anyone that can play with a ball as some kind of hero.

    And personally I am no fan of McGrath because of his behaviour when his wife was ill, the hunting expedition to kill game in Africa which he blamed on the stress of his wife's illness and other behaviour.

    Soon there will be more of these charitable foundations then population.

• 

  whucenoath on 01/01/2017 - 18:10

  +1

  Pink pads. I knew there was something missing from my gear.

• 

  MynyMouqe on 01/01/2017 - 18:51

  FYI, this is most likely stock with the old logo being cleaned out ready for the new logo stock.

• 

  kosh52 on 01/01/2017 - 19:28

  i clicked the link and cant find the items

  • 

    kosh52 on 01/01/2017 - 19:48

    never mind found it. pads look like keeping pads so sadly will give it a miss