Contributor Leaderboard

Stephen, Not trying to be too pedantic but the figure you mentioned of 78K is supposed to represent the SUBSIDY cost not running costs. I presume that is what must be put into the pot once any contributions from the centre itself are eaten up? I would therefore assume we are being told even your figures are not the true running costs? Without an independent audit or the figures released to the public at large I don't see why we should just accept what looks like arbitrary calculations?