SVR General Discussion

That is a very niche interpretation. From basically the same position, I see my £80 donation grossed up to £100 for the charity. I then get a further rebate of £15 at a later date (messy, because there are various interactions at play), which allows me more scope for other donations later on.

 

Donations for the landslip have gone above £80,000 now so continuing in at a steady pace.

 

I am curious as to why no incentive (i.e. free ticket(s)) for donations has been offered; although I have given I am also concerned that I was unable to Gift Aid it to increase my contribution because no facility to do so was provided.

 

Why would you expect a ticket in exchange for a donation? Doesn’t that rather change the nature of the transaction from “making a donation” to, erm, “buying a ticket”?

Tom

 

I guess it depends on how much you donate but yes I agree a little something back is nice.

 

And it is one of the reasons for the proposed restructuring of the SVR in way that permits it, with certain limitations. Very briefly, gift aid is for Charitiesand defined charitable purposes and cannot be used for maintenance or for routine commercial sales. More than that it we are into the realm of Our Learned Friends.

 

Surely, the something back is the ability to travel the whole length of the SVR?!

 

As they still don't have an estimate on how much it's going to repair the line, I think it's fair enough they're not offering anything in return. It's an emergency appeal, not a preplanned call for extra funds.

 

Shares in the SVR are available with the offer of priv tickets. Perhaps the learned members of this forum could advise as to whether money raised in this manner can be used for repairs?

 

Capital raised can be used in line with the purposes set out in the prospectus.

Though I have doubts about the choice of fundraising through a vehicle that doesn't attract Gift Aid, the SVR have been very clear about how they wish to receive donations. As @5944 says, this is an emergency appeal.

 

I have donated but the concern I have, as with all the natural disaster funds you see on the telly etc, is that I don't know that my money will specifically be used to fix the embankment. It will go into the resilience fund, but they might not need all the money in there to fix the embankment. So any money left over will just sit in the fund and be used on other projects as and when it is needed. It's always been my gripe about these types of funds. If they end up receiving more money than they actually need then they should refund what's left over back to the donators.

 

If it is a charitable appeal, it is open to you to stipulate that as a condition on your donation. You should also look closely at the small print on the appeal, and what it says will happen if the appeal is either unsuccessful or raises more than is required. Certainly for a surplus, it is usual to say that it will be applied in a particular way. I recently saw an appeal for Action Aid, with a very specific purpose, where the small print was clear that money would go into the charity's general fund - in other words, be available for whatever. The resilience fund is just that; if you are giving, you are supporting dealing with an immediate and serious problem and if your donation isn't required, it will still support the SVR to be, well, resilient.

If you don't like that, it is open to you to put a condition on your donation - but don't be surprised to find that the recipient finds a way to ensure that your donation is spent rather than having to manage the admin of returning it.

Having helped run a charitable appeal, one of the key things we needed to know was that we would have the money to pay the bills when they came due. Donations gave us that confidence, and the basis on which to seek grants to top that up. Underspending would have been a nice problem to have, but in reality that's unlikely.

 

I think we need to be honest here, the chances of all the money being raised is an incredibly long shot. The costs of these things generally outweighs what most appeals can every being in.

But even so, is it such a bad thing if more was raised than was needed? Ultimately it ensures that other projects on the SVR can thrive, and really the resilience fund has targeted many other track/infrastructure projects so it would do the whole 16 miles some good!

 

It's not, and as a donor, I'd rather risk being too successful than not successful enough. But @NathanP isn't completely unreasonable in his desire to see his donation to go to specifically what has been appealed for, not a broader use.

Taking the Action Aid appeal I mentioned, I'd gladly support that appeal - even if I don't have Action Aid on my list of charities that I'd generally support. Move that to being a general donation, and my wallet closes.

 

I’d be amazed if there was any surplus money - not because I doubt the SVR’s acumen in fundraising, but because infrastructure costs are always eye-watering. Made worse by having to do things in a hurry rather than a time of your choosing: “we need a digger right now” will always be more expensive than “what’s the best price you can do for a digger at some point next winter”.

People need to wake up to the cost of running a preserved railway, particularly when you are doing it in foundations built 150+ years ago.

Tom

 

If a donation is made to a charity it can be limited as to its use and goes into a Restricted Fund. If the monies raised ar insufficient for that purpose , it's abandoned for any reason ot too much is raised the charity should repay the funds unless it's been made clear from the outset that in those circustances they would be transferred to genaral funds. For a limnited company there's no restriction on what funds can be used for other than a moral obligation to use them for a stipulated purpose. In practice it can make little difference . A company's funds are one big pot so the financial effect of spending on , say, a loco overhaul or track replacement is the as using a donation to pay the wage bill.