Authorities investigate medical service deal with league star Greg Inglis

[soc123_au]

GI has a clothing range. So in this made up world of fake morals and ethics it would be ok for the charity to pay him to produce shirts with their logo on them?

At a fair market rate yes it would.

 

[BranVan3000]

Yes. You seem to be learning.

It's not the charity that's morally wrong, it might actually generate a great deal of marketing value and be worth it to them. It is the famous person taking the money that is morally wrong when 99% of celebrities and sportsmen do it out of duty, respect for the charities work or just to give somehing back to the community.

 

[Matchball]

"All I know is that Greg's accountant invoices them on a monthly basis and the fee is currently $4583.33, inclusive of GST.

Invoicing them monthly. What scum.
This need to be investigated thoroughly.

 

[eozsmiles]

I do get it. I get that Greg Inglis is not a criminal and that he took money willingly given to him in a type of business transaction that is common in the charity world.

BM is right.

Some blokes help sick kids and stuff because it is a decent thing to do. Some blokes charge an appearance fee and make a profit off it.

It might not be illegal but it's still s**t.

Greg knows boats. He knows what he is doing here. He can own that.

 

[BranVan3000]

Players and celebrities are time limited. They all have the opportunity to do "charity work", and these charities operate like businesses offering them incentives to use their time for their particular charity. Fact of life. You guys are naive if you think celebrities are out there doing these things for free

The only cases where you wouldn't have an ambassador making something from the situation is when they own the charity

And I'm sure these guys still do plenty of free things, showing up to schools or a sick kid's bedside etc. But the cases of being a consistent ambassador for the project is being employed on a professional capacity. It's not volunteer work.

 

[BunniesMan]

At a fair market rate yes it would.

My understanding is he makes appearances for this organisation to talk to disadvantaged people about the importance of healthcare and going to a doctor and things like that. As well as helping raise the profile of the charity to increase donations. Based on how many hours he puts in I'm sure the charity and he negotiated what both parties saw as a fair market rate.

How is that so much worse than any media company running a paid ad for a charity in a newspaper or channel 9 running an ad on tv or a catering company feeding them or any one of thousands of people, rich or middle class, who do business with charities around the country.

 

[Perth Red]

Your wrong bran, I've worked for charities for 15 years and never had to pay an ambassador. Plenty of reasons celebs get involved, not all altruistic, but payment is not one I have ever heard of. Maybe you know of a charity that is paying a celeb? If so do tell.

 

[BunniesMan]

Players and celebrities are time limited. They all have the opportunity to do "charity work", and these charities operate like businesses offering them incentives to use their time for their particular charity. Fact of life. You guys are naive if you think celebrities are out there doing these things for free

The only cases where you wouldn't have an ambassador making something from the situation is when they own the charity

And I'm sure these guys still do plenty of free things, showing up to schools or a sick kid's bedside etc. But the cases of being a consistent ambassador for the project is being employed on a professional capacity. It's not volunteer work.

First post of sense in this entire thread. Paid marketing is common for charities. And just because he gets paid with this organisation does not mean he never does any sort of free charity work for anyone else.

Typical overreaction from the usual mouth breathing Souths haters on here.

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

A newspaper is a business, while GI is a person(a person just not much of a one.)

 

[BunniesMan]

Your wrong bran, I've worked for charities for 15 years and never had to pay an ambassador. Plenty of reasons celebs get involved, not all altruistic, but payment is not one I have ever heard of. Maybe you know of a charity that is paying a celeb? If so do tell.

It is a f**ked up moral standard that is ok with paying a newspaper or tv company to market your brand but not Greg Inglis.

 

[Perth Red]

My understanding is he makes appearances for this organisation to talk to disadvantaged people about the importance of healthcare and going to a doctor and things like that. As well as helping raise the profile of the charity to increase donations. Based on how many hours he puts in I'm sure the charity and he negotiated what both parties saw as a fair market rate.

How is that so much worse than Rupert Murdoch running a paid ad for a charity in a newspaper or channel 9 running an ad on tv or a catering company feeding them or any one of thousands of people, rich or middle class, who do business with charities around the country.

Because it is not the norm and trading on your celebrity status to get money out of a charity is seen as low by 99% of the population. You are in the minority in your opinion it is an ok thing for a millionaire sportsman to do.

 

[BunniesMan]

A newspaper is a business, while GI is a person(a person just not much of a one.)

So self employed businessmen are not allowed to profit from a charity service, only corporations?

 

[Matchball]

So people are fine with taxpayers money going on this?
As a taxpayer, I say it stinks.

 

[BunniesMan]

Because it is not the norm and trading on your celebrity status to get money out of a charity is seen as low by 99% of the population. You are in the minority in your opinion it is an ok thing for a millionaire sportsman to do.

Again. It is ok for faceless international corporations to get money out of charities for services provided but not Greg Inglis. It is a complete and utter failure in logic.

 

[Perth Red]

It is a f**ked up moral standard that is ok with paying Rupert Murdoch to market your brand but not Greg Inglis.

Again your missing the point, the charity can pay who they like for marketing (within their funding agreements) it is the recipient that is the low life. Is Inglis helping them raise money? Have you seen any donate now ads featuring him in Sydney for this charity? As said numerous times the vast majority of people who have made a mint and become famous chose to use that fame to help out charities they relate to for free. It's the decent thing to do.

 

[ram raid]

I personally don't care if he steals directly from handicapped people.

 

[BunniesMan]

So people are fine with taxpayers money going on this?
As a taxpayer, I say it stinks.

No I'm not ok with that if it's against the rules of the organisation. But Greg Inglis is not responsible for that. The people running the organisation are. If they've violated their guidelines they should be held accountable.

Just like if the boss of this charity took cash from it and spent it at a strip club. You wouldn't be saying the strippers are scumbags for taking his money.

It is not GI's responsibility to tell the CEO of this charity how to do his job. If they gave him money when they weren't allowed he is not the bad guy, the people running the joint are.

 

[El Diablo]

Again. It is ok for Rupert Murdoch or other faceless international corporations to get money out of charities for services provided

source please

 

[BunniesMan]

Again your missing the point, the charity can pay who they like for marketing (within their funding agreements) it is the recipient that is the low life. Is Inglis helping them raise money? Have you seen any donate now ads featuring him in Sydney for this charity? As said numerous times the vast majority of people who have made a mint and become famous chose to use that fame to help out charities they relate to for free. It's the decent thing to do.

He does do things with other organisations for free. But his time is limited. There is a limit to how much you can expect one person to do for free.

 

[BranVan3000]

Your wrong bran, I've worked for charities for 15 years and never had to pay an ambassador. Plenty of reasons celebs get involved, not all altruistic, but payment is not one I have ever heard of. Maybe you know of a charity that is paying a celeb? If so do tell.

It's not a 100% rule, some charities do it and some don't. And if some do pay their ambassadors they won't admit it, because its a bad look.

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Commun...lysis-paying-celebrities-charities-draw-line/

Fact is though, charities are essentially businesses and they work under the same concepts of competition in the market that other businesses do. Paying for that celebrity endorsement is sometimes far more effective. And if you can get 5-10 hours of the week from Greg Inglis that he might have spent in a competing indigenous charity, then you bring the incentives to the table. You are naive if you believe this doesn't happen.

I would only have a problem with this if GI was personally calling it charity work. As I see it, it's ambassador work as part of his TPA that just happens to be for a charity