3 ms·
Sure, but they're now a publicly traded company aren't they, it couldn't be say 60% whereas <=10% is a decent chunk but can still be justified to shareholders i
by matt-p 2y ago
Sure, but they're now a publicly traded company aren't they, it couldn't be say 60% whereas <=10% is a decent chunk but can still be justified to shareholders in the context of renting the trademark (which I HOPE resides in the foundation) and good will/marketing.
- mytailorisrich 2y agoThat's not quite how it is. The commercial subsidiary is a publicly-traded company and the Foundation (the charity) owns about 49% of it (last year it wasn't publicly traded and they owed ~98% of it iirc). The Foundation received £213m from "other trading activities" last year (which I interpret as income from their share of the commercial subsidiary) out of a total income of £220m. Out of this, the Foundation spent £12m on "charitable activities" and £195m on "raising funds"... [1] [1] https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/5002372/charity-overview https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/ch...