[Oling_Roachinen]

The issue with counting the 50/50 though and comparing it to other charities is that outside of other sporting foundations (to which the Flames were compared to under the same criteria) is that no other charity exist where 65% of their revenue is passive. 99% of people "donating" to the 50/50 aren't doing it for the donation privilege, they are doing it to win the 50/50. Sure, as a 50/50 buyer, knowing it goes to charity leads me to talk myself into buying a couple tickets (and note the word buy). But really if the 50/50 had no chance of winning, no one's supporting it. It's a nice perk for a foundation to be able to cover most of their revenue stream passively off the back of drinking sports fans.

While it was a fallacy to omit it without explicitly stating so, I mean it's a pretty fair argument. Enough so that they should compare the results to charities in similar situations...like other sporting foundations. Oh wait, that's what it did.

The issue is they made 2.4M passively, another 1.7M through "charity events" and yet 1.7M made it out as gifts to qualified donees that year. That's a pretty poor stat line, even if they were able to bank 1.3M for the bloated reserve.

And again, even without the reserve, even with the 50/50, the total gifts to qualified donees in 2017 was 58%. That needs an explanation (which there may well could be in part due to line 4920, but the Flames should really be more transparent), otherwise it's pretty despicable.