BIB is a very interesting point. Plenty of people out in the real world are questioning TT and their operations/finances. I wonder if they'll throw Jack under the bus to protect themselves......
Trouble is they've become a victim of their own success. Their model should have minimal central costs, but the way it's set up is that people donate to TT rather than their local food bank so they've been earning more and more.
And to some degree to spend that money costs money in administration, or employing people for campaigns/projects, policy work or data collection etc which then costs more in HR and admin and the larger a central team, the more you have to feed the beast.
They could've just split the money equally between each of their foodbanks, but that may have mucked with their local funding/grant arrangements or be more money than they were willing/able to handle.
They are trying to pivot to the " world without foodbanks" message, but that changes the nature of what they do and means less money to actually feed people.
Their leadership has some tricky decisions to make over the next few months/years...
Sorry off topic!