More Captain Tom shennigans!

The issue seems to be failure to consider whether certain trademarks created by the company have generated profits for the company (without agreement of or appropriate payment to the charity).

The commission has found everything else to be ok.

So if there is an issue here it could easily be rectified, and indeed the trademarks may have little value.

So I wouldn't be too quick to judge.

‘The commission said it became concerned about arrangements between the charity and a company linked to Sir Tom's daughter, Hannah Ingram-Moore, and her husband Colin, as well as the trustees' decision-making and how the charity was governed.

The issues revolve around a "failure to consider intellectual property and trademark issues", including the trademarking of variations of the name "Captain Tom" by a company controlled by Ms Ingram-Moore and Mr Ingram-Moore.

This could have generated "significant profit" for the company, the commission added’

sounds a bit more serious than that m7…

plus they blocked her from trousering a 6 figure salary as chief exec. Wonder what else they will uncover 

The fact that it was a "six figure salary" is a red herring, although she makes a big point of denying it. £100k ain't big bucks for a CEO. The pertinent point is that it was her receiving it. From a governance perspective,  it raises all sorts of issues. 

Very few charity CEOs are rewarded with honours, although it's always a nice recognition. I can't name a single household name CEO on less than about £120k and many are three or four times that.

Also, surviving 10 years is something of a gold standard. It requires great adaptability. Most will be fired after five or six. In some places, life expectancy is about that of a football manager. 

Ducks, you clearly have no idea of relevant charity CEO payscales. 100k is quite punchy for this sort of gig. 

And then there are obviously questions here far beyond the pay level. 

She always struck me as on the make, purely an impression I picked up from seeing her on TV. That may be totally unfair, hope the investigation shines some proper light either way.

Plenty of charities still run by people who take no payment at all over and above basic expenses like postage.

Yeah Fence Foal but also:

(Re the IP issues): This could have generated "significant profit" for the company, the commission added’

So like I say we don't actually know.  And its rectifiable.

And

The commission had raised concerns about the payment of consultancy fees to third parties but was later “satisfied” that these were a reasonable reimbursement for expenses incurred by the companies in the formation of the charity. It was also satisfied that the payments were “adequately identified and managed”.

So the only issue is around IP, and frankly I can understand how an inexperienced person might get this wrong.  I'm just giving them the benefit of the doubt on this; maybe there was misconduct.  But its not clear.

"Ducks, you clearly have no idea of relevant charity CEO payscales."

I can only really base it on my own experience of working for two decades (in both executive and trustee capacity) in a sector with highly transparent pay scales. 

"100k is quite punchy for this sort of gig."

I think the difficult comes in assessing the sort of gig it is. it's clearly far more than just a charitable foundation formed from scratch. It broke all sorts of fundraising records and established itself very quickly in the public conscience. There's ver little precedent.

"And then there are obviously questions here far beyond the pay level."

Er, yeah. As I said, it's a governance matter, and the pay is a red herring. 

"Plenty of charities still run by people who take no payment at all over and above basic expenses like postage."

Yes, and they have no infrastructure, no strategic plan, no investment income, no ability to attract corporate partners, no influence on government, and by and large add no value. You may as well just cut out the middle man and give your money directly to someone who needs it. 

Mr G claims he always knew she was a wrong'un, based on his experience of dealing with dodgy borrowers over many years.

If she is earning £100k for this work, she's possibly thinking that it is not worth the hassle. Dealing with the CC constantly and headlines on a daily basis claiming, without being proven, she is a wrong'un.

‘If she is earning £100k for this work, she's possibly thinking that it is not worth the hassle‘
 

she is isn’t, they blocked the appointment 

Yes, and they have no infrastructure, no strategic plan, no investment income, no ability to attract corporate partners, no influence on government, and by and large add no value.

I think the people I know who run a charity that has been going since the 1940's and which in that time has provided substantial funds to the local health service to fund mobile physios including buying cars and other equipment as well as initially funding salaries might beg to differ.  The inability to find new volunteers means that they are now simply using their investment income to keep funding ad hoc purchases of equipment and are slowly cashing in their investments to wind the charity down.  It definitely doesn't have the resources to employ some full time to continue running it.