Sticking His Oar In: Naked Rowers Critic Comes Back For More
The anonymous critic of the naked rowers canoe-t lie down
The anonymous commenter who disparaged the Naked Rowers and their charitable efforts has again come back fighting after the hunky boatsmen denied his claims.
Angus Malcolm, who worked closely with the rowers to produce the calendar, told us he was “absolutely disgusted” with the response, and hit back with enough statistics to convince us that this would be the end of the debate.
However, the anonymous commenter has come forward again to valiantly fight his corner, and tells his side of the story exclusively to The Tab:
“Angus, Thank you for your response. However, despite the length and detail of your reply, it seems that you haven’t really countered these accusations or provided any substantial counter-evidence, particularly with regard to the allocation of funds from last year’s calendar.
To reiterate my main point, the allegation centred on last year’s calendar raising over £40,000, with half of that going to the producer/photographer and the vast majority going to the rowing club. Only a few hundred pounds went to the elected charity. The fact that your response fails to mention, let alone counter, these claims can only be interpreted as you trying to dodge this issue.
These doubts are reinforced by the fact that it is practically impossible to find online records or articles of your charitable giving. The only record of Warwick Rowing’s charitable contribution is on the RAG portal on the SU website, where on the bottom left it lists previous giving from Warwick Rowing as £613 to the Ben Cohen Stand-Up foundation (the charity the calendar supported last year).
This would mean that only 1-2% of the calendar’s total takings went to charity, in contrast to the suggestion by The Boar and other national news sources that the calendar is primarily a charitable enterprise.
Just to clarify my moral standpoint on the issue, I do not have any problem with calendars or other things that fundraise for sports clubs.
The problem I have is that the success of the calendar is hugely reliant on the support from the general public and specifically the gay community, who I feel have been misdirected with regard to where the money from the calendar goes – whether this is intentional or not, the media certainly promote the calendar as being primarily for charity.
Were there to be more transparency with regard to the purposes of the calendar, I highly doubt it would be able to generate as much income for Warwick Rowing as it currently does. Whilst your response suggests that the charitable element of the calendar is being taken more seriously this year (as it should be), I still don’t think you can be proud of these figures.
As you’ve said, the minimum commitment is for 10% to go to Sport Allies. If you rephrase this to say that 90% goes to non-charitable purposes, the charitable proportion hardly seems significant. I do not think these numbers justify the calendar’s philanthropic reputation, although I do concede that the 500 hours of community service is impressive.
Furthermore, your attempt to pass off the 50p per film donation as substantial again is very unconvincing – if you sell 1000 films, the donation is £500 – a miniscule fraction of the total takings from a calendar that is entirely reliant on its charitable reputation. I look forward to your response – hopefully this time with some concrete facts and figures that you can be proud of.”
Will the rowers respond? Or will we see a battle commence to rival any Henley race? Keep your eye on The Tab to find out…