Very irresponsible reporting from CBC IMO. Loved that Ted video Thor, that was a great voice to something that I've wondered for a while.
To think of a charity as a product, 'good' is what's bought. As an outside observer, I always thought the CFF was fairly involved in that 'good' and it seemed like I would see their involvement quite a bit in broadcasts. I have definitely seen them out there more than I've seen MLSE around here TBH. A part of that good is transparency, and with the CBC skipping over any reason those numbers are they way they are is irresponsible.
I think the CFF needs to act quickly here, and start to show people the good they've done. That's a big part of marketing, and where some of this money should go. IMO, the CFF has an opportunity to demonstrate how much good they've been doing and change the colour of the spotlight that's going to be on them.
But to immediately assume this 30% is a black mark on CFF, and just leave the article with that is very damaging. Unless they had done research they didn't want to share with us, I don't know who taking shots was supposed to help. I don't know that this 30% is necessarily bad. I don't know if it's good either, as answering that wasn't important to this article. Is there something CFF is doing that we should be concerned about? Let us know! Leaving charities to defend themselves is an odd way to encourage more good to come from them. I think watchdogs are important with charities, as not everyone is as ethical as we'd like them to be - but we need to know the full-story if you're going to report on it.
A perusal though what they're up to here still leaves me with the impression that CFF is doing a lot of good for their community:
https://calgaryflamesfoundation.com/foundation-report/
...I just wish that we knew more about this 30% before this demonizing article was put out. What percentage of Flames fans will look to CFF as a bad organization now once they see this headline? Who does that hurt?