Gareth Southgate Does Right

"Give us money or we will name and shame you"............

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2188771,00.html

 

Aye he does right. Don't think Im going to send them my 5 figure daily wage either now.

 

tight get !!!!

 

shame he can't manage a football club though

well, not really a shame. hope he sends the bigheaded smoggy Barstewards down

 

football apart

He's just gone up in my estimation. I'm glad someone is taking on these charity fascists.

 

He's a knob

he'd prefer no relegation from and promotion to the Premier League.

Reckons it would make the Premier "better". Load o twaddle

 

RE: He's a knob

Don't think Boro fans were too thrilled when he said that - many reckon they might be heading down this season!

 

Tw

at.

 

in general?

or for the nurses thing?

 

How can he be in the right?

If you have signed up/promised to send a donation to a Charity and then don't pay up, how can you be morally or physically right to be offended if the Charity then says "We were promised a donation from xxxxxx but he hasn't paid and nows says he will not pay us"?

Being a (Major) Fund Raiser for a Charity(CFSN), I know how hard it is to get people to offer to pay and how much harder it is to then get them to pay - especially if they have put their name down on a sponsor form and then conveniently never have the money available when you ask them for it afterwards. You end up putting the money in on the promise of them paying you next time they see you.

I know lots of players (people) do things for Charity and don't want or receive recognition but when you agree to pay surely you are entering a contract?

If you offered to pay his expenses to attend a Charity function and he arrived and was told you'd changed your mind would he object? I bet he would.

 

WHY ...is he a tw@ in your esteem...he is totally right

too many charities do this very aggressive fund raising...you cannot wallk down your street hardly without some form of charity hitting out at you in some way. I am sick of it. I would if asked give up some time and do some work for them FREE but my money will normally remain in my pocket ,as by the time admin costs etc are taken up the actual donation isnext to nothing per pound you donate...well almost
We had a thing in the post from the breast cancer people , besides the actual envelope and literature contained within was a pen and a pink ribbon badge....and I know for a fact that the postie got 2p per delivery( therefore the Royal mail got a lot more than that per item) so therefore the cost of that fund raising "attack" was quite considerable when you look at it nationwide... surely that money would be better spent on the actual thing its aimed at researching.

 

I mean Southgate and yes, for the nurses thing. nt

 

Fair enough if you disagree with donating to charities

However, that's not the point here, he and others previously pledged a donation and have now gone back on it. If they didn't agree then they shouldn't have pledged a donation.

 

He is right though, in that the way they went about it was almost blackmail but like laura says, once he'd agreed to pay he really should have.

Nurses don't need donations anyway, they earn enough to live off.

 

but Laura I think his point is

they are naming/shaming people who have not agreed to donate. Of course you are 100% correct in the fact that if someone signs up to donate cash/services or whatever to a cause then does not deliver , then thats not on. But to go down the road of saying for inastnce " Beckham donated the sum of... but Gigggs gave us nothing" is totally out of order. and my anology was pure fiction for illustrative purpose so before anyone says I was getting at Giggs I was not ..just a hypothetical example ... that and hes Welsh.

 

What was aggressive about

asking football players to donate a days wage?

They could have said No straight away.

 

ohh erm ok have I missed summink here

i was getting the picture that they were naming players who just would not donate.

 

I think that southgates argument is that they changed the goalposts after he agreed to a donation. They then started naming players and he disagreed with it.

 

RE: but Laura I think his point is

Yep, while I agree with your sentiments Laura, the fact is that by naming the people that have paid - you are not just naming and shaming the people who haven't paid after agreeing to donate, you are also naming and shaming the people who refused to participate in the first place, which, while it is a bit cheap on the behalf of the player, it isn't really fair to name and shame their lack of participation.
</p>

 

Thats the thing though isn't it? By naming the players that have donated, they are not just naming and shaming the people who agreed to donate but haven't - they're also naming and shaming the people who never agreed in the first place.