So you are certain that your billionaires will pay up?
Fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris | 15th April 2019
- Thread starter Lyricist
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Didn't Nietzsche mumble something about if all donations were made out of altruism all beggars would've died out? These richers don't give a feck, they just want the little people to fawn over the kind souls of their rich and powerful overlords. Feck the lot of 'em. Why the feck does anybody need to be so rich they can give away half a billion and still remain rich.
Twilight zone we live in.
Twilight zone we live in.
I don't know but would imagine it will not show in their favour if they didn't.
The article is lazy and a distortion.
If they don't pay up then people can have a go, if they don't pay their taxes have a go -- fine.
Just tired of lies and distortions.
It's an opinion piece in The Guardian and I'm sure you'd have told us which parts were factually incorrect if there were any.
It summarises very aptly what is going on in our major cities in the UK with what was once public space and now become very private space policed by global corporations and entrepreneurs own security forces who can and cannot use those spaces. The selling off of public buildings and public space because Governments can't afford the upkeep. These buildings are historic and on land that isn't being re-produced for the use by lower income citizens.
Perhaps it is a sensitive subject which I'd understand.
All churches in France are owned by the state.
The article was meant to suggest there wasn't enough money to pay for salaries etc whereas €100million has been collected including from "the billionaires". Work on restoration still hasn't started , they are still clearing up and restoration work will not start for months and nobody yet knows how much it will cost.
It's an opinion piece on nothing.
Okay, clearly you've focused on one part of the article where at one time they did not have enough to pay the wage bill and of the E100m donated only £20m has come from just two of the original 'Billionaires'.
As I said it is also talking about the sale of public space, it is also about the sponsorship of public buildings and how freely money has been promised for the re-building so quickly while homelessness is still a huge issue without a glamorous attraction.
It's an opinion piece, but not untrue apparently.
Last edited:
Do you think that that everyone who pledged the money should have already paid the money? We don't know where each cent of the money has come from and clearly nor does the writer of the article. Nor does he know how much it costs , when anyone has or will pay it. So the billionaires are criticised for paying money towards the restoration and then criticised for not having paid it all yet. It's pathetic journalism and I'm not defending the billionaires.
The article was penned a day after the date of the coverage of the french culture minister visiting the site and the article and it's contents I posted but the writer makes no mention.
Discussion of homelessness vs restoration of historical sites is another discussion covered 3 months ago in this thread but the writer spent most of the article away from that subject.
I think you are focussing very much on this being about France perhaps when it is a series of articles starting way back with perhaps as I said was the policing of public space and homeless being turfed out of these spaces by security or just stopped from perching by spikes or other devices. The Mayor of London (BoJo) doing private deals with private sponsors for public space on the proposed and now dead (Khan) Garden Bridge. These are opinion pieces as well as news items but it's the Guardian, they highlight these issues.
If you are going to donate money the article is asking do you put restrictions on it's use or some return of value? Have you asked for a summarised list of expenses? Have you enjoyed the limelight your promises have gained and will your money be there when it is needed? Some of it was needed, some of it has been donated - E20m meanwhile and the rest has come from the public at large.
I understand what you mean but because it's not because it's France but the writer is not giving the full story and is too lazy to gather information. This is because some unnamed official (could be the caretaker) says so and not someone who is actually in charge of co-ordinating the receipt and expenditure of funds. The final paragraph of the article:
The tragedy of Notre Dame came with a flatpack happy ending: of France’s wealthy dipping into their pockets to save a chunk of world heritage. But what once appeared tragic now looks grotesque: a wealthy few who are all press release and no cheque and who rely on thousands of ordinary French people to stump up instead, even while the entire economy is turned inside out to benefit those who already have the most.
He's even contradicted himself about the money.
I'm not religious, can't stand Pinault and have no sympathy for people who do not pay taxes but seem to end up defending them only for someone's lack of information writing about a subject (Notre Dame) he clearly knows almost nothing about.
If there is some full story that you know the details of and that this article has left out then I've asked you already where it is inaccurate.
Has the money been promised? Were there any restrictions placed on its use within the re-building? Has it been paid yet either by cash or by cheque - not sure what you mean by a contradiction??
Either you know the article is wrong in the facts it states or you don't. I'm not going to keep asking but you don't justify your early moans.
Contradiction is one minute they have paid nothing, then they have paid 20m then to sum up they have paid nothing, whether by cheque, transfer cash , credit card makes no difference.
Who said they have placed restrictions, who said who gave the other 80 million that has been received. Are the salaries in danger - no, are the tests on pregnant women in danger because of lack of money - no. Is anything in danger regarding the restoration project because of lack of money in danger - no. I've now repeated the same three times or more plus the article from France he never consulted.
Nobody knows how much the final bill will be, maybe it's more and more donations will be needed and they may come from anywhere, the writer clearly knows none of any of this but makes an opinion, based on nothing as I said.
I can't help feeling that you are deliberately avoiding stating any facts in opposition. Anyway, for the last time:-
“The big donors haven’t paid. Not a cent,” a senior official at the cathedral tells journalists. - Those Billionaires haven't stumped up any money by June. Their promises - From François-Henri Pinault, the ultimate owner of Gucci, comes €100m (£90m). Not to be outdone, the Arnault family at Louis Vuitton put up €200m. - Finally both families come up with 20% of the money needed for wages, 80% comes from the public. Nothing like the E600m come in from the celebrity names.
As another charity executive, Célia Vérot, said: “It’s a voluntary donation, so the companies are waiting for the government’s vision to see what precisely they want to fund.” It’s as if the vast project of rebuilding a 12th-century masterpiece was a breakfast buffet from which one could pick and choose. - Any inaccuracies here?
Do you insist that those Billionaires promised their money dependent on itemised costs?
I don't know much about it but the Guardian article is inaccurate when he talks about silence from the big donators, Rousselots says that Arnault and Pinault both confirmed it by paper. The big donators were waiting for the law to be passed and the project determined before giving all the money, the law proposal was passed Tuesday and I don't really know about the rest yet.
And as of today they paid 20m.
But the article is not inaccurate. Why wait for the project to be determined is an opinion. The article talks about the circumstances that other donors have demanded in the past and how that has affected public use.
For the last time zero - 20m - zero , not my words, the writer.
Needed for the wages - 100m yeah right -20m? yeah right is the writer sure, from whom are the 80m - presumably the writer can tell us ,poor people, wealthy people, multi-millionaires (ordinary french people) - that comes from the other article saying the 3.6m$ was needed for the wages, it's bs. Does the writer know who pays the salaries or whose salaries are being paid, was there an outrage in France? It's a nonsense.
We've been over this - the article states it and yet you say it is lazy. The article stated that by June there was no money. The author doesn't talk about any outrage but obviously the article got you all antsy so i'm left with the feeling that you felt is was some sort of insult. The author has been told that the two families have only come up with E20m between them when they promised E300m - still no inaccuracies but it annoys you all the same.
Nope, no nonsense there, just from you. Somehow it got up your nose, and still does.
If the article is deliberately (or lazily) inaccurate about the Notre Dame restoration then I can't see the problem with @Paul the Wolf calling it out as agenda-driven nonsense. Considering this thread is specifically about the Notre Dame fire. The author may or may not make valid points about other buildings in other cities but that's all irrelevant to what's being discussed in this thread.
It's only invalid which I'll be happy to agree to if the money comes in and there are no strings attached. Of course it is relevant if the circumstances are similar. It's an opinion piece - of course there is an agenda, no inaccuracies have yet been stated ta.
I'll repeat the last paragraph summing up the article which you seem to ignore - who says they are not going to pay the 300m ? all inaccuracies and suppositions none of which are based on anything.
@Pogue Mahone sums it up.
Nobody said they weren't going to pay, the article did not say they were not going to pay. The article states they have not paid yet - in full. It speculates on why and whether there will be strings as there have been in other cities in the UK and the US. Still no inaccuracies, just a peeved Paul the Wolf.
Edit. Pogue has the wrong end of the sticky thing.
The original article makes the claim that no donations from the multi-million euro pledges had been received as of mid June. At that point Newswire is said to have written an article about it. Subsequent to this article a couple of the families stumped up 20 million. Subsequent (minor) investigation indicates that of Paul's 100m in donations so far received, the vast bulk has not been from these wealthy families (other than the 20m stumped up after the Newswire article).
It's inaccurate because in May 20m were paid and the article says that they didn't pay a cent which is wrong and talked about silence which is also wrong. As for the reason it's for legal reasons, the big donators will have conventions with the Notre Dame fondation for the bigger part of the donations, that fondation says that they got 38m with 20m coming from Arnault and Pinault.
My understanding for this particular organism is that Arnault and Pinault will pay the bills up to 200m and 100m, that's their legal agreement.
The article stated nothing had been paid by June, if you knew it had been paid earlier then why didn't you say if that is true? What are these conventions you talk of? Either way where are the inaccuracies? Has the E300m the two families promised been paid yet? The answer is no so I have no idea what you are griping about.
Edit - If you are going to add things to your post can you mark them with an 'Edit'?
the article said:
Why should they pay in full, the restoration work hasn't even started - has everybody who pledged the money paid in full? as 650 million was pledged and 100m (just about paid the salaries for June for 150 people?) paid so far other than 300 million there's another 250m from somewhere. The swines , who hasn't coughed up yet, even though they don't need to.
Who said there were strings. Maybe they might object if Macron decided to spend it on himself.
I'm talking about Notre Dame which is most of the article not about the rest, and I'm not peeved, just pointing out a crap article.
FFS - this is what the article is asking.
Followed by silence isn't correct. I don't even know why I should care.
the majority of that money wasn't given by the big name donors who wanked themselves off in the aftermath of the fire, it was given mostly by unnamed donors, their 20 million contribution came in the aftermath of a newsweek article which questioned why they haven't handed over a single penny
if their contribution is conditional on the cathedral not having enough money at a certain point they should shut the feck up and not make public, empty pledges
Don't ask me.
Ditto.
The worst part is that if you look at the posters engaged in this, it's never going to end. We should all know better.
Did they say when they would pay it, maybe they are in consultation with the people who are running the project and have said they will hand over the money as and when it is needed. You're saying empty pledges which suggests you think they won't pay. The writer has scraped together a few details and made an opinion on scraps. He doesn't actually know anything which is quite clear.
The worst part is that if you look at the posters engaged in this, it's never going to end. We should all know better.
Dog and bone springs to mind
Oh I see, it was for the spunks but not to be helpful.The worst part is that if you look at the posters engaged in this, it's never going to end. We should all know better.
we don't know the details and i'm not interested in these speculations of how or when they'll give the money
the bigger issue is that the restoration of historic and nonhistoric building frequently relies on the donations of random millionares and billionares who want to leave behind a personal legacy, it is an indictment of the economic system and economic prioroties we have as a society
the debate about where and which buildings should be maintained shouldn't be left to which building has a tragic fire that has an emotional impact on large numbers of the public, it should be in the hands of city planners and health and safety professionals, and they shouldn't be relying on the minority of people who have buckets of money to spare
When exactly am I helpful?
But the main point of the article was about trying to suggest the project was short of money because the billionaires hadn't paid up, which is what I'm pointing out is inaccurate.
The moral issues are for another discussion. Maybe next time the billionaires won't bother and the state will be relying more on the ordinary people or maybe nothing will be restored or cared for because of lack of money.
yes that's the point, the vast majority of things don't get restored, they don't get improved, there are still more a thousand buildings in the UK with the same cladding that killed 79 people in grenfell tower, because we live in an economic system that does not prioritise the work that needs to be done, it only encourages maintenance and restoration as a pr campaign, as a means of leaving a legacy for people who have hundreds of millions and billions that should be used to make our cities better and safer but instead sits in the bank accounts of ghoulish dipshits with egocentric requirements for this kind of investment
Last edited:
@Pogue Mahone
The report @Paul the Wolf linked says nothing about the source of the 100m received so far; the guardian opinion piece mentions that 20m was paid by celebrities. The main thrust of the guardian piece is that the charity by the rich has been slow, and it seems it will only be realised when the correct concessions are made to them.
So do you still regard the guardian article as inaccurate? Have you read it?
The Uk government should be responsible for fixing buildings like Grenfell which means the government has to spend the money and people pay more taxes. There lies the problem. If rich people haven't paid their taxes then fair enough - having a problem that someone is richer than you or me is something else.