Jock given the total market is in reality a few charities and a handful of operators how hard can it be??
I'm not sure what you trustees do when the Marks and Spencer luxury biscuit selection get pulled out several times per year but how hard can it be to benchmark against each other, and actually if the aim is to provide the best value for money then as a trustee I'd have thought you'd want to do that.
I'd want to know that my AA was paying the correct rate for its EC135, MD900, etc (Especially since half the time you are actually dealing with the same operator - how hard would that be to see that you're paying the same for your 135 as the next guy is from Bond??) I'd want to ensure that my overheads were inline with the rest, and actually I'd be pushing to meet with the other operators / charities to standardise the format of reporting so that it was as easier for me to read-across all charities.
The compensation to some of these entities is on a par at director level to FTSE250 organisations and yet these things have revenues in the £2-4m range; that is a joke.
You asked what I was getting at and I suppose the title of the thread says it all - are UK AA having it off? Looking at a range of P&L's some most certainly are and actually long term it will blow up in the face of AA collectively as one or two bad apples will turn the public off.
You might also notice that despite me asking several times you still haven't answered the question "what metric is used to measure value"...
I was thinking you might be able to offer something like £X per rotary hour is the industry mean and we are within X% of that. Or X% of income generation spending to income received... etc....
Finally if you believe in the "because I'm not convinced that 'what is right for patients' is driving his agenda" statement re: TCAA then wouldn't you consider it a good thing to reveal what you believe his agenda is, and if that isn't noble to raise it as a worry/complaint?
Last edited by Pittsextra; 28th May 2013 at 17:23.