It’s not just a graphic tbf, it’s an annual list that the Sunday Times have been doing since 2005. The criteria are the same every year as far as I know.It’s a ridiculous graphic from the Sunday Times.
Nothing yet from the Spectator. I wonder if Rashford’s PR firm have issued legal warnings on whatever they wanted to publish.
Ah yeah, that would probably make more sense.If that was the case surely he would have given away around 55%.
I believe it counts fundraising. My guess is he raised £20M, compared to his £16M net worth.
I would be surprised if Rashford was ever worth £36M. That's around what Pep is worth.
It’s not just a graphic tbf, it’s an annual list that the Sunday Times have been doing since 2005. The criteria are the same every year as far as I know.
Strange that The Spectator haven’t published anything yet, given the amount of hype generated last night. Doubt they would be cowed by Rashford’s PR team if they were sitting on something genuinely damning. Maybe the Barclay brothers don’t want their own tax avoidance to come under scrutiny?
I meant ridiculous in the fact that there’s no context to it which is leading those who support him to just share it as validation of how great he is and those who are cynical to deride it as more PR manipulation.
No one knows what 125% means. Does it mean he’s given 125% or his wealth away which is impossible or like you said 125% of what his wealth is now after he has donated. Even then surely if like you said he’s given £20m away and has £16m left, that’s surely 55%?
A plausible explanation on the delay if they have pulled it from under Neil’s rug.
Do we know why it was compared to people's earnings or wealth Domalino?So you're blaming the Times because some people on twitter have taken a screenshot that takes away all the context of the list?
People who didn't bother to read the list when it came out 3 months ago don't know what it means.
People who did read it when it hit the papers in April know the money includes money raised through causes.
It’s a load of bollox and not personal gifts. It shows what the government have given to families over the period, just like a little further down where they show Henderson giving the money that all the footballers raised for the NHS.I did wonder that at first too. I presume though it means he has donated £20m to charity, and his current wealth is £16m?
Do we know why it was compared to people's earnings or wealth Domalino?
Not really sure the correlation myself..............
I wasn't being arsey and I haven't read the original article - it was a genuine question.Because it's part of "The rich list"? Not that hard to work out.
So you're blaming the Times because some people on twitter have taken a screenshot that takes away all the context of the list?
People who didn't bother to read the list when it came out 3 months ago don't know what it means.
People who did read it when it hit the papers in April know the money includes money raised through causes.
I suggest the PL and uefa need to look into these figures and make a stand against this blatant financial manipulation, they’ve got a few years before it becomes time-barred so they can build a strong case, and Saint can always appeal at the end to CAS…I meant ridiculous in the fact that there’s no context to it which is leading those who support him to just share it as validation of how great he is and those who are cynical to deride it as more PR manipulation.
No one knows what 125% means. Does it mean he’s given 125% or his wealth away which is impossible or like you said 125% of what his wealth is now after he has donated. Even then surely if like you said he’s given £20m away and has £16m left, that’s surely 55%?
A plausible explanation on the delay if they have pulled it from under Neil’s rug.