Everton FC

[Lew-T]

Once again, proving why they are a classy club. An outstanding gesture tonight giving £200,000 to the young Sunderland mascot who is going through treatment with cancer. 

I've always respected Everton but they've gone even further up in my estimations. 

[Robbored]

I would guess that several PL clubs make similar gestures but don't announce it publically. 

[Betty Swallocks]

2 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I would guess that several PL clubs make similar gestures but don't announce it publically. 

But why?

There are far too many negative stories regarding football and money, surely clubs should be encouraged to publicly announce these sorts of things. 

[husshen]

5 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I would guess that several PL clubs make similar gestures but don't announce it publically. 

Why wouldn't you announce it publicly? Doing so gets even more attention (and hopefully encouraged more contributions) for a very worthy cause.

Hats off to Everton.

[Betty Swallocks]

1 minute ago, husshen said:

Why wouldn't you announce it publicly? Doing so gets even more attention (and hopefully encouraged more contributions) for a very worthy cause.

Hats off to Everton.

Exactly, I'm pretty sure he's chatting nonsense, again.

[allyolly]

48 minutes ago, Robbored said:

I would guess that several PL clubs make similar gestures but don't announce it publically. 

Isn't it a win -win situation for the club and the recipient of any donation? I cant think of any reason why you would not want to generate publicity for mutual benefit in this type of situation. 

[Robbored]

7 hours ago, Betty Swallocks said:

But why?

There are far too many negative stories regarding football and money, surely clubs should be encouraged to publicly announce these sorts of things. 

Because if whichever football clubs made such a donation public they'd be inundated with similar requests fot other sick children who can't afford the specialist care thy need.

On a smaller scale that's why City never used to donate football shirts to local schools or good cause raffles and I doubt they do these days either.

[Betty Swallocks]

10 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Because if whichever football clubs made such a donation public they'd be inundated with similar requests fot other sick children who can't afford the specialist care thy need.

On a smaller scale that's why City never used to donate football shirts to local schools or good cause raffles and I doubt they do these days either.

As with most clubs and companies there are people who deal with these sorts of requests. 

My company are inundated with requests for donations, some are successful, some aren't. The ones that aren't are treated with respect and are given a letter explaining decision and the offer of help ie helping with future raffles etc. 

City were at the forefront of the appeal for Oskar and rightfully received a lot of praise along the way.

Goodwill goes a long way, sponsors love this sort of thing. If a club donates this sort of cash or time in City's case with Oskar then you can be sure the public know about it. And rightfully so.

[Charliesboots]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37341891

[CotswoldRed]

A lovely gesture. 

A donation from the government might be nice too. 

[Dollymarie]

The thing that always disgusts me about these stories is the prices that drug/treatment companies now put on kids lives. How can any treatment cost that much money? One part of me thinks that as long as people keep fundraising these massive amounts, the drug companies will just keep putting up the prices cos they know people will pay.

Its wrong on so many levels, and it's the kids who suffer at the end of the day. 

[Big Red Rich]

2 minutes ago, Dollymarie said:

The thing that always disgusts me about these stories is the prices that drug/treatment companies now put on kids lives. How can any treatment cost that much money? One part of me thinks that as long as people keep fundraising these massive amounts, the drug companies will just keep putting up the prices cos they know people will pay.

Its wrong on so many levels, and it's the kids who suffer at the end of the day. 

Without knowing too much about it, surely the high costs are down to research & trialling rather than production costs? Agreed they make a lot of money but they also save a lot of lives?

[CotswoldRed]

13 minutes ago, Dollymarie said:

The thing that always disgusts me about these stories is the prices that drug/treatment companies now put on kids lives. How can any treatment cost that much money? One part of me thinks that as long as people keep fundraising these massive amounts, the drug companies will just keep putting up the prices cos they know people will pay.

Its wrong on so many levels, and it's the kids who suffer at the end of the day. 

Fair points Dolls. 

My own son was on a drug trial for a few years and from a layman's point of view I can see how colossal the expense was, and the drug failed. Most do. 

Just for my son there were 60 visits to London and many hotel stay overs, not to mention the actual hospital and doctor costs and background research. This drug was for a few thousand kids at best in the UK and it didn't work. After 50 years of research there is still no drug yet the tab is still being picked up. 

I think the cost is as much in the failed drugs as the successful ones. 

If they can't cover costs, it's not commercially viable. Not sure there's an easy way around it without the public picking up the tab and pressing for that. Doesn't win votes though! 

Rightly or wrongly, it is also surrounded in so much red tape. It's quite incredible how much 'proof'  is needed to certify a drug as safe. 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

9 minutes ago, Dollymarie said:

The thing that always disgusts me about these stories is the prices that drug/treatment companies now put on kids lives. How can any treatment cost that much money? One part of me thinks that as long as people keep fundraising these massive amounts, the drug companies will just keep putting up the prices cos they know people will pay.

Its wrong on so many levels, and it's the kids who suffer at the end of the day. 

Sad to say but that is the unwanted legacy of Live Aid.  When Bob Geldof virtually overnight invented mass charitable fundraising, Thatcher immediately realised that it got her off the hook and cynically exploited it, and ever since then successive governments have been happy to sit back and allow people to raise money for things that should be funded centrally.  Its just another form of taxation, except it's random and inequitable.  Imagine how much bigger a mess the NHS would be in without charitable funding?

[Son of Fred]

8 hours ago, husshen said:

Why wouldn't you announce it publicly? Doing so gets even more attention (and hopefully encouraged more contributions) for a very worthy cause.

Hats off to Everton.

If I were wearing one,I'd take it off...Bravo!

[CotswoldRed]

6 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Sad to say but that is the unwanted legacy of Live Aid.  When Bob Geldof virtually overnight invented mass charitable fundraising, Thatcher immediately realised that it got her off the hook and cynically exploited it, and ever since then successive governments have been happy to sit back and allow people to raise money for things that should be funded centrally.  Its just another form of taxation, except it's random and inequitable.  Imagine how much bigger a mess the NHS would be in without charitable funding?

Bang on. Charitable fundraising should be a top up. 

I once looked at the global investment (government) in drugs versus weapons. Can't remember it exactly, but the ratio is utterly depressing. 

It's easy to be emotive on the subject, so I'd challenge everyone - when you voted at the general election did you even consider policies relating to research investment, or were a few thousand Poles more important? 

[Son of Fred]

4 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Sad to say but that is the unwanted legacy of Live Aid.  When Bob Geldof virtually overnight invented mass charitable fundraising, Thatcher immediately realised that it got her off the hook and cynically exploited it, and ever since then successive governments have been happy to sit back and allow people to raise money for things that should be funded centrally.  Its just another form of taxation, except it's random and inequitable.  Imagine how much bigger a mess the NHS would be in without charitable funding?

Not that much bigger,the hole is,well,huge...

[View from the Dolman]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

Because if whichever football clubs made such a donation public they'd be inundated with similar requests fot other sick children who can't afford the specialist care thy need.

On a smaller scale that's why City never used to donate football shirts to local schools or good cause raffles and I doubt they do these days either.

Yep, there's certainly not a Charity Policy on the official site (although it does need to be updated) which links through to the application page at Bristol Sport. 

[CotswoldRed]

2 hours ago, Robbored said:

Because if whichever football clubs made such a donation public they'd be inundated with similar requests fot other sick children who can't afford the specialist care thy need.

On a smaller scale that's why City never used to donate football shirts to local schools or good cause raffles and I doubt they do these days either.

Many companies will give money/goods to causes and appeals and when it's run out they regrettably say no to others.  It's just life and those asking are used to being turned away and understand why it often happens.

Personally, if BCFC have that policy, I think its something of an own goal and feels unpleasantly distant and corporate.

[Drew Peacock]

1 hour ago, CotswoldRed said:

 - when you voted at the general election did you even consider policies relating to research investment, or were a few thousand Poles more important? 

And when you were cheering on the British Cycling Team at the Olympics and feeling proud at the number of medals we had, did you think the amount of money, charitable or otherwise, would have been better spent on the NHS and we had our usual handful of medals?

[Drew Peacock]

1 hour ago, CotswoldRed said:

A lovely gesture. 

A donation from the government might be nice too. 

The NHS is presumably spending quite a lot on him as it is.  Where would you stop with government donations?

[CotswoldRed]

1 minute ago, Drew Peacock said:

And when you were cheering on the British Cycling Team at the Olympics and feeling proud at the number of medals we had, did you think the amount of money, charitable or otherwise, would have been better spent on the NHS and we had our usual handful of medals?

A fair point.

What bothers me most is the very narrow subject matter used to make a decision or to prioritise anything, especially where voting and funding is concerned.

Soundbite politics will win more votes than policies on child welfare ever will.

[CotswoldRed]

9 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

The NHS is presumably spending quite a lot on him as it is.  Where would you stop with government donations?

Impossible to comment on any individual and the level of funding without actual numbers.

What I do know is - as a proportion of GDP - we spend very little on most illnesses and diseases..  What needs to change is the public's and the governments appetite to tackle it properly.  Maybe not for others, but for me its a little more important than the debate about Grammar Schools or Fox hunting - both of which get far more Commons and media time than children's health.

Deal with things at the high level properly and maybe this little boy could have had this treatment if the right decisions were made in the past.

Regarding where would I stop .... I'd much prefer that we understand how much money is needed and plan to pay for it with taxation. Believe it or not, many research and charitable organisations don't need a bottomless pit - they're quite clear about the actual amounts they need to spend.  Where's the clear debate around this?  It's certainly not in the public domain often enough and never mentioned on the campaign trail.

[Drew Peacock]

9 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said:

A fair point.

What bothers me most is the very narrow subject matter used to make a decision or to prioritise anything, especially where voting and funding is concerned.

Soundbite politics will win more votes than policies on child welfare ever will.

Quite right.  Most people vote emotionally not logically.  Or so research tells us.

[CotswoldRed]

1 minute ago, Drew Peacock said:

Quite right.  Most people vote emotionally not logically.  Or so research tells us.

They certainly do.  

I am clearly a bit biased, given my own family experience. To try and level things up, i can also see that someone on the breadline and struggling to pay their food bills will easily be swayed by a simple promise of a tax break or similar financial incentive.  Everything else becomes irrelevant.

[Drew Peacock]

8 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said:

Impossible to comment on any individual and the level of funding without actual numbers.

What I do know is - as a proportion of GDP - we spend very little on most illnesses and diseases..  What needs to change is the public's and the governments appetite to tackle it properly.  Maybe not for others, but for me its a little more important than the debate about Grammar Schools or Fox hunting - both of which get far more Commons and media time than children's health.

Deal with things at the high level properly and maybe this little boy could have had this treatment if the right decisions were made in the past.

I couldn't argue with that.  I suspect there is no appetite by the government or the public to tackle it because the changes would be so fundamental and affect so many people.  Agree or disagree with the changes to junior doctors contracts look at the reaction to what would be a relatively minor aspect of fundamentally changing the NHS and you can see why there is  no appetite.

Regrettably I have spent a lot of time being treated over the last few years and due to spend some more soon.  While there is some amazing skills and dedication on display at the front line some things you see are just shocking, particularly on the admin processes.

[CotswoldRed]

5 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

I couldn't argue with that.  I suspect there is no appetite by the government or the public to tackle it because the changes would be so fundamental and affect so many people.  Agree or disagree with the changes to junior doctors contracts look at the reaction to what would be a relatively minor aspect of fundamentally changing the NHS and you can see why there is  no appetite.

Regrettably I have spent a lot of time being treated over the last few years and due to spend some more soon.  While there is some amazing skills and dedication on display at the front line some things you see are just shocking, particularly on the admin processes.

Pretty much in a nutshell.  

Front line, you meet some of the most professional and wonderful people.

Beyond this, as someone who has sold software to the NHS*, you realise that ineptitude, resistance to change and risk aversion are crippling it. The whole thing driven by government policy and poor management.

 

*I might add it cost them less than £30k and could save them hundreds of thousands!

[robinreliant]

I always had a soft spot for Everton from the Alex Young era (1960) onwards. Properly run club. Always have been and very fan friendly. Gone up even higher in my estimation having heard this.

Although I am City through and through I always look for they're results.

[David Brent]

As well as this from last season

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/watch-young-everton-fan-george-10877935

Great club

[Robin1988]

11 hours ago, Robbored said:

I would guess that several PL clubs make similar gestures but don't announce it publically. 

******* hell you are the most negative grump I have ever come across.

Are the words "that's nice" not in your dictionary?