A great event was held this am but the numbers were disappointing. Company was good with a gourmet BBQ at the finish and the offer of a coldie or a drop of fine SA wines to wash it down. There was a choice of 30 and 72 km rides but is the 70 km lacking the distance for some riders.What went wrong the turn out in numbers? . . With the discussion around our table it may may been said that there wasn't enough advertising the event? I only remember seeing it on AC website last year. Did Mad March have anything to do with it? There is now talk of moving it to may November instead for the traditional March due to the lack of numbers . Would November be any different?
The cost was reasonable I thought and I ended up increasing my average speed by 3 km/hr on the day.
Why so few riders? A few comments from a member of the public....
1. I hadn't heard of it - a lot of rides get a lot of publicity these days - this one didnt. not via net, not via word of mouth.
2. Was The week after BikeSA's major ride in the Hills,on 18th which a few thousand cyclists signed up for. That was a hard ride, so most of us want a rest, have things to do, or are spent up. BikeSA publish their rides programme. Perhaps in future, avoid clashing, take a vacant time slot.
3. It's not clear to me why I should support this charity . My rule , is the people the charity helps, should be worse off than me. The charity must offer help broadly to the public. But the people St Andrews Foundation helps, are likely to be either staff of St Andrews, or patients at St Andrews. Not wishing to be rude - but those patients are unlikely to be among the poorest in society. The patients, presumably can afford to pay their food bills, petrol and rent (many families can't ) . On top, they can afford private health insurance, and then gap payments. So looks to me, like the people who will benefit from my donation .. they're probalby fairly well off ... not the section of humanity most deserving perhaps?. Now, i could be wrong. Maybe St Andrews foundation does help the less well off. If so - important to get that message out.
4. When I look for a charity to support, it'salso important, it is not-for-profit, and transparent and is seen to be ethical.. It's not clear how St Andrews Foundation relates, to the for-profit business which is St Andrews Hospital. Is the Hospital genuinely interested in helping people, who otherwise wouldnt get helped? Genuinely doing more than it otherwise could? Or is the core business, merely looking for a way to off load costs, and get subsidies such as charity tax breaks and donations? I would need to be convinced it's the former. Haven't seen anything about the foundation, that tells me what they do for instance.
Some fund raising events, work well, by appealilng to the wider public. Others don't - they can gain a lot from appealing to a limited circle - but widening the appeal, doesnt net much more. I suspect this ride is one. Maybe people who have a specific link to the hospital, would be happy to support - former patients, former staff, families and friends. They might like to "give something back". But for us wider public - we don't have as much reason.
Anyway, hope tehse comments are useful.
Why do you believe that the St Andrew's Hospital is a "for-profit" organisation ? Yes its a private Hospital, that doesn't mean its purely out there to make money. Does that mean Schools like Pulteny Grammar could be classified as a "for-profit" school ?
I believe it to be a for-profit organisation, because Clive, earlier on the thread said it was! St Andrews website discloses very little, about what type of organisation StA is. Organisations that are not-for-profits, usually say so. However, I'm happy to be corrected.
Re Pulteney - again little disclosure. School seems funded by a trust, administered by trustees. So would be not-for-profit, if surplus has to be spent on the school not owners or the Headmaster.
Are for-profits purely out there to make money? Wearing my Wig, as Brisco, Bush Lawyer from the Back O' Bourke - under law, directors of large businesses, must make as much money as possible for shareholders/ investors/ owners. They can run the business any way they think will do that, e.g by providing a service people need. They can even do it indirectly e.g by sponsoring local events. But the useful service, or community benefit, is merely a means, to increase returns.
remember "not for profit" doesn't mean that at least some of the staff are not well paid.
equally should people have to take a vow of poverty because they work for a "not for profit"?
it is also possible that they could have considerable funds in investments.