Very interesting reading St. George. I looked at the accounts for the Surrey Assembly Hall (a.k.a. Haysbridge) - where our cong is assigned. The charity has funds of over £4 million, takes almost £300k a year and has costs of £160k. We are encouraged to live a simple life, just enough to get by. If the assembly hall was doing the same they would be saying don't worry about donating, we have the costs covered.
Not only do they not do that, they are disingenuous in how funds are solicited. The accounts when read out at the SAD or CA relate to the circuit attending the event and often are showed to be in deficit. So you get people encouraged to donate using the cash boxes or credit/debit card machine for a building with loads of spare cash. Would people donate if they knew the hall had £4 million in the bank?
So, effectively you have a business raking in a tax free profit of almost £160k a year. On the basis of the hall's own accounts it could be run for 20 years with no need for any more donations.
What am I missing here? I must be wrong somehow? Surely if they really had funds like this then they would go to benefit others in some way? Surely there would be no solicitation of funds with guilt laden begging talks?