The Beckham's are self serving walking PR machines, sure they give lots to charities, after all you have to speculate to accumulate. Real philanthropists donate money quietly behind the scenes without fuss and without holding a photoshoot.
This is how they make money, the fame train keeps rolling which leads to a perfume launch, a fashion line launch etc. Even to the extent of giving their children the most ridiculous names ever heard to make the headlines yet again. They crave attention, they seek the spotlight and generous as they may be to whatever charitable cause, be under no illusion, it is merelt to keep them in that spotlight and open more money making doors. Some have said that the end justifies the means and if charities benefit then so be it. I personally have only contempt for people that use charities and people in unfortunate situations to further their own lifestyles in the long run.

BluePhoenix (U1189)

Everything you've just said is one big assumption, with no factual basis whatsoever.

There's plenty of evidence of Beckham being charitable to causes that the public do not know about, and I know first hand that he's that type of person.

Personally, I have only contempt for people that invent a motive for someone's behaviour, and then judge them for it.

As avid Bible readers, I'm sure you're all conversent with the parable of the Widow's Mite.

I personally have only contempt for people that use charities and people in unfortunate situations to further their own lifestyles in the long run.

---

I have no doubt that it was a PR stunt, or a tax dodge, or both. You're right, they quite obviously do enjoy the attention. But what I cannot fathom is how you can have contempt for those that give to charity, regardless of whatever motives. Most people give to charity to make themselves feel better, or have some personal affiliation with said charity. I can't see how giving to those less fortunate in any vein can be seen as a bad thing.

Personally, I couldn't care less what the Beckhams gain from it, it really doesn't matter. What does it matter if they're slightly more famous, or slightly richer than they were before? Which ever way you spin it, £3m is a lot of money to those that the money will filter through to.

Boris "Inky" Gibson (U5901)

We know from previous articles that your attempt at judging the relative value of donations usually results in you using the wrong figures...

... and using a bible reference doesn't change that.

Never read a bible Boris, though I keep meaning to just see what all the fuss is about. For those less versed, mind giving us a quick lesson?

Jay MUFC (U16498)

It's a tale that speaks of how the sacrifices of the poor mean more to God than those of the rich, because they proportionately higher.

The problem for Boris is that last time he tried that game, he had to manipulate the figures to make his point, and when he was picked up on it, he just resorted to petty posts rather than admit his error.

Some basic maths then. Becum's salary is a reported £5m which will be taxed at 70% meaning he would have recieved approximately £2m, which he has pledged to an unamed charity, well done.

What wasn't emphasised in the media is that his salary package also included the bill for his £14,000 a night hotel suite and a lucrative and tax free 'consultation' job with the Qatari's after his PSG stint has finished. There are possible other add-ons like use of a company carand general living expenses that haven't come to light yet.

Invest a little, gain a lot.

Some basic maths then. Becum's salary is a reported £5m which will be taxed at 70% meaning he would have recieved approximately £2m, which he has pledged to an unamed charity, well done.

---

Your basic maths is wrong though. Charity donations are made before the tax is done, if I remember correctly. Which means that the whole £5m would then go to charity, rather than him receiving the £2m.

So while he is only 'losing' £2m, the charity is gaining £5m because of him.

Yes, he will gain a lot, but so will those the money affects.

The general gist of the Widow's Mite story was that the rich were gibving away money they wouldn't miss in order to gain higher social standing whilst the widow gave away all the money she had in the sole belief that it would help others.

Boris "Inky" Gibson (U5901)

Last time, you used his 5 month payment - post tax - against his annual earnings - pre tax - as a percentage, and you were obviously happy with the figure.

Using your own figures, but fairly, it equates to approx. 18% of his earnings donated to charity.

That is £3 million, as a percentage of his estimated £40 million annual income. Not my figures, yours.

So the argument that his donations are proportionately lower doesn't hold up, does it?


But as I have said, the over riding point here is that by criticising him, you are making a crass assumption about his motives and intentions - with absolutely no credible reasons for doing so.

That's a fact.

PSG were going to shell out £5m which ever way you look at it, it just means that Bekum's bit is going to a charity instead.

PSG were going to shell out £5m which ever way you look at it, it just means that Bekum's bit is going to a charity instead.

---

Aswell as the bit that would otherwise have been going to the French treasury. So it's obviously not all bad

I don't rememember quoting those figures Winston, I may have been scaling Kilimanjaro at the time with Jessica Alba though.

comment by Boris "Inky" Gibson (U5901)

posted 5 minutes ago

The general gist of the Widow's Mite story was that the rich were gibving away money they wouldn't miss in order to gain higher social standing whilst the widow gave away all the money she had in the sole belief that it would help others.

======================================

The problem with this, of course, is that it means no public donation from 'the rich' can ever be considered anything other than an attempt to gain a higher social standing.

Despite the vast charitable donations that come from the Beckham's that are not featured in the press, of course.

I may have been dreaming of scaling Jessica Alba though.

---

Fixed it for you.

Boris "Inky" Gibson (U5901)

"I may have been scaling Kilimanjaro at the time with Jessica Alba though"

Er... okay?

Here's your comment:

=========================================

comment by Boris "Inky" Gibson (U5901)

posted 3 weeks, 5 days ago


To your new point - Beckham earns what - 30/40 million a year? His annual salary equates to 8.5 million.

His reprted salary at PSG is £4m of which 75% would have been deducted in tax, hence the reason I said he's pledged £1m to an unamed charity, his off field earnings come to about £35m a year which he is keeping.

Do try and keep up.

======================================

I think the 'do try and keep up' part was the reason you were so sheepish when your error was pointed out.

I've actually taken a lower figure on Beckham's wages than you did, so it could be even higher.

Good reserarch, you've added a considerable amount of weight to my argument with that quote so I'll let you debate both against me and on my behalf as you obviously have more time on your hands than I do.

Boris "Inky" Gibson (U5901)

On the contrary, it merely serves to highlight that you'd made some incorrect calculations, and the suggestion that Beckham pays proportionately less is clearly wrong.

It took about 45 seconds to find the quote. (The clue is the 3 minute gap between my posts. Nice try though.)

Given that you spend most of your evenings on this forum, I reckon you probably have more time than I do to extend your argument further.

Well, I say 'extend your argument'. Clearly, you don't have one - as we found out last time this was discussed.

I'm glad you linger on my previous quotes and have found time to index, catalogue, collate, file and bookmark them.

Boris "Inky" Gibson (U5901)

Such a predictable route you're taking.

I can't help but laugh, however, at the irony of you trying to mock me for remembering a post from three weeks ago, yet felt nothing of bringing up some random forum contributor that was banned years ago who obviously affected you, and accusing me of being him.

Oh dear, Boris - I think that's sewn that one up.

But here we go again. You made some ridiculous assertions about the proportion of Beckham's earnings that he gives to charity.

You realise you're wrong.

You move the conversation onto silly bickering to avoid admitting your error.

And repeat.

So glad that winston plick is filtered, Christ there is a guy who's so obstinate and sure he's correct about everything.

Danny, you were one of the more memorable BBC 606 posters and I don't mean that in a good way.

Boris "Inky" Gibson (U5901)

There we go again.

Amusing irony, and a rather embarrassing exclusion of the topic being discussed.

All rather predictable.

You're easily amused.