“This time he’s threatening to cancel his appearance if he doesn’t get full security protection.”
Thank you for posting the link.
Having read the article carefully I cannot decide if HE has announced to Invictus Games that he will be video streaming, as he did for the Diana Awards or if THEY have told him they prefer a video stream - in advance to the UK franchising the Games between 2025-7 (as Germany has just done) or if it’s a blackmail attempt for RAVEC.
My gut feeling is that Harry demanded to do a virtual appearance if they don't give him the full RPO detail he's requiring. He wants to be seen as important as William, and William has done the video appearances when he can't be there.
Another thing that William does, which I can see Harry trying to do as well, is deputize one of the cousins or a fellow government official to attend events in his place. Some recent instances - when William deputized Lady Gabriella to attend King Constantine's funeral on his behalf and when he asked Jacinda Ardern to speak at the UN for Earthshot immediately after The Queen died.
I can see Harry wanting to deputize Eugenie for this, or maybe he'll try to get back on the Beckhams' good side by asking them to do this.
I'm also fairly certain this isn't an ultimatum for RAVEC. This is a threat to St. Paul's Cathedral and Invictus Games, where he's telling them "YOU leaked this information, YOU need to fix this so I can attend. You can reschedule it, let me Skype in, or pay me my security."
RAVEC doesn't give a hoot about what Harry wants or what he's trying to extort out of them. Their stance, backed by the courts, is very clear: Harry doesn't get Category 1 protection like heads of state and their immediate families. He gets Category 2 protection like deputy assistant secretaries. They're not budging. Harry knows they're not budging. He's going after Invictus Games and St. Paul's with this because they can change the circumstances that could force RAVEC to re-evaluate. (I hope that makes sense - what this story reads like to me is Harry complaining to Dad that Mom said 'no' and hoping Dad does X so Mom has to say 'yes'.)
31 notes
·
View notes
Do you all have any proof that Invictus wants nothing to do with Harry or is it just a hunch based on narratives you’ve made up yourselves? Or maybe it is just wishful thinking on your part?
First off, reading and context is fundamental. No one has said Invictus wants nothing to do with Harry. We’re saying that it doesn’t make sense why Invictus keeps Harry around when he doesn’t appear to provide them any value. From a liability and risk management perspective, they have to be doing something to protect themselves from his lack of engagement.
And it is actually data-driven speculation. I don’t make stuff up here; I am always researching, I am always reading, I am always learning, and that is what informs my theories. There is very little I take at face-value.
But since your insult was polite, I’ll let you look at my homework instead of telling you to go figure it out yourself. Just this one time.
So this is the financial report from the UK charity registry:
Expenses (money going out) and income (money coming in, i.e. the donations) are virtually the same. In other words: as of 2022, Invictus is barely breaking even. This is not good; it means, more or less, they're one crisis away from some serious problems.
It also means that their actual Games - which, in 2022 would have been The Hague/Dutch IG - are expensed entirely by the host city. So basically, the charity itself is nothing more than a glorified events planner spending someone else's money. That's...not exactly the mission we're told that Invictus Games is.
Now, that orange line there on the bottom is what the UK calls "governance." (In the US, we call it "administrative.") This is what it means, from IG's 2022 financial report:
Note that this doesn't include salaries for the 12 (as of 12/31/2022) employees at IG. According to Giving is Great, a UK charity watchdog, senior staff costs (i.e. salaries and benefits) is 26%, or approximately £500,000. Add the governance/admin costs, and we're looking at £750,000 a year just to keep the charity's lights on. When your total budget is £2 million, that's a big chunk of change. 40%, in fact.
Second let's look at their income. The UK charity registry breaks the "gross income" down into several subcategories. For Invictus Games:
(The column headers were cut off but from left to right it's 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022.)
Meaning that in 2022, their income came from donations, trading, and charitable activities.
(Remember that in 2020, the Royal Foundation made a £1 million donation to Invictus Games, which I believe makes up the majority of that £1.4m donation. If that assumption is correct, then that means in 2020, Harry was only able to fundraise an additional £400,000 in donations. Now, 2020 was a very difficult year for a lot of charities and nonprofits so that steep dropoff isn't unusual to see in the financial reports.)
Now from the 2022 financial report, here's what these categories mean:
So just really quick. Unrestricted means that the recipient chooses where/how to spend the money. Restricted means that the donor directs where/how the charity spends the money. So Invictus could spend £381K of the donations (Category #2) anywhere they wanted to, but for the remaining £700K of donations they received, they had to follow specific directions on how to use it.
What this is saying is that of the total income earned by Invictus Games in 2022, only £1.08 million came from donations.
Now, in my (volunteer) experience working in nonprofit fundraising most lay people (i.e. members of the general public who donate to charities) don't usually direct or designate their donation. So most of the regular donations are going into the unrestricted pot. Corporate donors, sponsors, or partners are more likely to give restricted gifts, where they direct how the money will be spent. So based on my experience, I feel comfortable assuming, or suggesting, that £231,447 received in unrestricted donations is people like, you, me, and Sussex Squad donating to Invictus out of pocket.
That's a pretty poor showing. And in my opinion, it's a direct reflection of Harry's leadership; he isn't inspiring people to donate to Invictus. Instead, the bulk of Invictus's income/donations is coming from corporate sponsorships.
Most charities cannot survive on corporate sponsorships and partnerships. It does not guarantee long-term survival. Long-term survival is predicated on investments, endowments, and contracts...which Invictus doesn't have, which means their patron isn't doing his share.
Third let's look at the actual Games themselves. The Hague/Dutch IG was given a budget of €15 million (~$16 million). According to this leaked letter from the Dusseldorf IG Committee, the Hague IG Games actually ended up costing €25 million (~$27 million). That's a 60% increase, and it's impossible for all of that to be due to COVID-related inflation.
Going backed to the leaked Dusseldorf IG letter, their budget was about €27 million (~$29 million). It's being reported that the Dusseldorf IG actually ended up costing closer to €37 million (~$40 million). This is a 37% increase; they were also very over budget.
And in March 2023, Invictus Games 2025 signed and published, to their website, a Contribution Agreement outlining that Canada's budget for the Vancouver IG is $30 million CAD (~$22 million USD); $15 million CAD (~$11 million USD) from the province of British Columbia and $15 million CAD from the government of Canada.
So if I split the baby for budget overrun [(60% + 37%)/2=48.5%], we're looking at Vancouver IG to probably end up costing around $44.5 million CAD.
In other words...they're in trouble. Meaning that Invictus and its board should be working together with the local corporation(s) to cut costs and increase savings/get new sponsors and partners. Meaning that the patron should be out there campaigning and fundraising for money or figuring out how and where to cut costs...but he isn't.
Or those efforts aren't visible. Not when the competing PR is about Harry's attacks on the BRF, Spare, Meghan's merching, and stories like this one of key leaders being abruptly fired and whistleblowers leaking to the press.
Now why would someone be abruptly fired without notice? It's not for shock and awe. It's either for incredible malfeasance (like fraud and embezzlement) or because someone much higher up wanted it. Since there's no paper trail or proof of wrongdoing - which Vancouver IG would have leaked in some way, shape or form - all the evidence strongly suggests the two men were fired because someone else demanded it. Maybe, say, someone who costs so much more than he's actually worth, who causes more problems than solves, who has alienated a lot of public goodwill. Of course, that's just pure speculation. But it is strange. One person getting fired without notice, sure, not really worth paying attention. But two people? And two people who purportedly know a whole lot about what's happening behind closed doors? That's hinky.
Have I forgotten anything?
Oh, right. This: growing criticism and dissatisfaction from local host-nation communities, Invictus's competitors and their families, and social media over the Sussexes' inability (and disinterest) to promote anyone but themselves whilst attending events.
The last thing any brand wants (or needs) is an ambassador that alienates their core customer base and prospective supporters and dominates the news with controversy. Brands, including nonprofit organizations, rely pretty heavily on:
The goodwill and positive attention their ambassadors generate
The users, fans, supporters, customers, and consumers that follow their ambassadors and
The networks their ambassadors move in.
Harry doesn't do any of that either:
He loses public goodwill every time he opens his mouth and invites only criticism.
The customers (the veterans and their families) aren't happy that their efforts are overshadowed. The consumers (people at home following along) are unhappy and dissatisfied that they can't find information about the competitors or the Games themselves because the only press coverage is about Harry and Meghan.
Harry is completely excluded from the royal, military, international, and aristo networks that propped him up 10 years ago to launch this thing. Invictus can't tap into that anymore, so why should they keep him around?
Let's review.
Invictus's expenses and income barely break even. Further, their reserves allow them to operate for less than one whole year. That's a really uncomfortable place to be in. Where is their patron to help seek out income streams that would build up their reserves?
Based on donation data, they're wheezing along on spit and prayer. They rely almost exclusively on corporate sponsors/partners. There's no investments, no endowments, no contracts. Actual "from the people" donations is just paltry. Where is their patron to lead fundraising campaigns, recruit new sponsors, develop investment opportunities?
The costs to host the Games keeps ballooning. Some cost overrun is normal, expected, and even budgeted for, but not the amounts that Invictus keeps turning out. Where is their patron to help look for new partners or charm everyone over with budget cuts?
There was a personnel shakeup in the Vancouver 2025 leadership that caused a lot of questions and concerns about their readiness to host their events and revealed a lot of morale issues. Where was their patron to calm the chaos?
There's growing criticism over the patron's behavior that is reflecting badly on Invictus Games and their brand. Where is the patron changing his behavior, changing his attitude, changing his priority?
I'll tell you where the patron is. He and his wife are flying around the world to party at Soho Houses, whine about being cut off from his family after he spent 3 years attacking them, spending other people's money in ridiculous ways, and getting wastedly high after his wife and kids go to bed.
The longer Invictus Games is associated with that, the more it reflects on them and their brand. They can't afford that. Not when they're promoting themselves as "family friendly" or "family supporting" (which is how they've justified Meghan's involvement).
It doesn't make any sense for them to keep Harry on. He's not fundraising for them. He's not schmoozing. He costs more money than he brings in. The people they serve don't like him. He isn't bringing big donors in. He isn't speaking to or supporting his family.
And allllllllll this together is why I say "I wouldn't be surprised if Invictus is trying to phase Harry out." It's why I say "depending on how well Germany Invictys 2024 goes, that may be the proof they can survive without him."
It's data-driven speculation. Not something I've made up. The only thing that's made up is the speculation about why two senior leaders were so abruptly fired. But that isn't even part of the analysis or the calculation.
Next time, anon, you're doing your own fucking research.
134 notes
·
View notes