Pro sports charities hoarding cash, overspending on fundraising, (Flames worst)

[morgin]

Originally Posted by Split98

If that money was gone, I'd agree completely. But if it's sitting in reserve I wonder if this is more terrible timing for CFF than anything else. A large event (and surprise) in 2-3 years could have been the roadmap, for example. These unplanned surprises always garner more media, thus more attention, thus more donations.

It's just one theory, as they could also be doing some shady stuff and I'll be glad whistleblowers are there to sniff that out. But this article does nothing to answer that, or even look into a 'why'. It would be like someone walking into your backyard as you're having a pool dug and immediately labeling you as the crappy neighbour with a mess of a backyard.

This is where I’m at.

1) it’s unfortunate that the big gala and sporting charity events that raised 1.1 million cost $950k to run or whatever, but if people know the return is limited and realize they are mostly paying to rub shoulders in a fun environment, then so be it.

2) sports foundations are sort of known for the grand gesture giving as much as they are the day to day. The United way isn’t doing giant multi million dollar donations to fund hospital wings etc etc, but they keep the lights on at so many necessary small charities. The Flames Foundation does a lot of those small impact distributions, but they are also known for (and fundraise for) the grand gesture community distributions. I think anyone who donates to a sports charity should recognize it serves a different function from a United Way or a Salvation Army or whatever.

If they did the reporting on 10 year historicals, I wonder how much different it would look.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by morgin

it’s unfortunate that the big gala and sporting charity events that raised 1.1 million cost $950k to run or whatever, but if people know the return is limited and realize they are mostly paying to rub shoulders in a fun environment, then so be it.

Perhaps they need to be renamed the Flames Party Planning Committee.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Bingo to the rescue.

The story isn't whatever cents in the dollar, the story is that the flames with one of the wealthiest ownership groups in the league, certainly in Canada, are operating the least efficient charity of their peer group to the tune of being less than half as efficient dollar for dollar as a team like Montreal.

Looking more like Flash to the quick but maybe not correct assumption?

[Split98]

Originally Posted by morgin

This is where I’m at.

1) it’s unfortunate that the big gala and sporting charity events that raised 1.1 million cost $950k to run or whatever, but if people know the return is limited and realize they are mostly paying to rub shoulders in a fun environment, then so be it.

2) sports foundations are sort of known for the grand gesture giving as much as they are the day to day. The United way isn’t doing giant multi million dollar donations to fund hospital wings etc etc, but they keep the lights on at so many necessary small charities. The Flames Foundation does a lot of those small impact distributions, but they are also known for (and fundraise for) the grand gesture community distributions. I think anyone who donates to a sports charity should recognize it serves a different function from a United Way or a Salvation Army or whatever.

If they did the reporting on 10 year historicals, I wonder how much different it would look.

Or even sat down with the people making decisions with this money. I'm sure the answers are there and I'm sure that CFF could talk to whatever whistleblower under an NDA to chat about it.

If they refused, or if that conversation led to the call for supervision - good. But all this does is rile up an angry mob without knowing the full story.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by morgin

This is where I’m at.

1) it’s unfortunate that the big gala and sporting charity events that raised 1.1 million cost $950k to run or whatever, but if people know the return is limited and realize they are mostly paying to rub shoulders in a fun environment, then so be it.

If they did the reporting on 10 year historicals, I wonder how much different it would look.

Originally Posted by Table 5

Perhaps they need to be renamed the Flames Party Planning Committee.

Except that even though the article says that - it actually has nothing to do with how the Flames Foundation raises money.

They had total expenses of $550k for their fiscal year ending June 2018 - which is about 12% of their total revenue ($4.4M).

The biggest way the Flames Foundation actually raises money is via the 50/50 draws - which is probably the least aggressive form of fundraising they could do.

That CBC article is completely irresponsible IMO. Look at a a tax return for a single year to try and come up with a story - when timing with this sort of thing is always so important.

Also frames having a reserve as being a bad thing - which it could be but it isn't guaranteed to be. What it does mean is that a big project or donation of some sort could be coming soon. As Locke pointed out the $1M donation they just made to the Childrens Hospital for example would likely come out of that reserve - probably not a bad thing.

This whole article puts the Flames Foundation in a really bad spot now though IMO. They are being villanized in the media today for no good reason due to a lack of context and research in that story. They could come out next week with what was a planned donation of $5M or something to help build a hospital wing, or a local rink or something, but then would just get the "Well they are only doing that because they were outed last week" response.

Hate these sort of pitchfork articles that are half baked with sensationalized headlines and don't tell the whole story. CBC is great at putting them together lately too.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

They had total expenses of $550k for their fiscal year ending June 2018 - which is about 12% of their total revenue ($4.4M).

I would be hesitant in believing that number. Seems to be some bookkeeping with it given the actual numbers for the past 5 years:
https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip...18823525RR0001

[Oling_Roachinen]

Also people piling on CBC do realize they linked to the wathdog report right?

https://www.charityintelligence.ca/n...rticles?id=264

That's what the CBC article is about. It literally says so in the headline:
Pro sports charities hoarding cash, overspending on fundraising, watchdog says

The story is about the report.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah agreed ... I think they've likely staffed things up too much and their bleeding G&A which is unfortunate.

If their foundation is getting too big with bureaucracy they need to look at it.

Either way you have to have transparency on things like this, and it's good that they're exposed. Hopefully it triggers an answer.

IIRC from my time with the Flames, they actually only have one person paid from the foundation.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I would be hesitant in believing that number. Seems to be some bookkeeping with it given the actual numbers for the past 5 years:
https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip...18823525RR0001

Yeah the fundraising portion could be a timing thing for sure that makes that report look low for that year. Overall though I still don't think it's bad. Looks like it's about $200k on admin staff and $550k to $1M on fundraising depending on timing for that year.

2013:
Revenue: $2.4M
M&A: $0.2M
Fundraising: $0.37M
Gifts: $2.3M

2014:
Revenue: $4.0M
M&A: $0.15M
Fundraising: $0.78M
Gifts: $2.0M

2015:
Revenue: $4.7M
M&A: $0.23M
Fundraising: $0.7M
Gifts: $2.2M

2016:
Revenue: $3.9M
M&A: $0.3M
Fundraising: $0.9M
Gifts: $2.8M

2017:
Revenue: $4.1M
M&A: $0.2m
Fundraising: $0.65M
Gifts and Charitable Program: $2.0M ($0.3 Charitable Program, $1.68M Gifts)

Looking at that data I still don't see how they got 30 cents on the dollar for the Flames. Seems like they have to have made a calculation error or they are removing the 50/50 proceeds from the equation somehow for the money raised.

I look at the 5 years of data available to them and in that time the Flames raised $19.1M, have donated $11.3M (59%). And still somehow have $8M in the reserves.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Also people piling on CBC do realize they linked to the wathdog report right?

https://www.charityintelligence.ca/n...rticles?id=264

That's what the CBC article is about. It literally says so in the headline:
Pro sports charities hoarding cash, overspending on fundraising, watchdog says

The story is about the report.

CBC's job in this case is to do due diligence on the report. Actually contact the Foundations to get their input and remarks, and then put out an article.

Just stating exactly what the report says and not actually digging any deeper than that is not good journalism.

Plus the report was requested (and likely funded) by the CBC News. So trust me they have an angle here.

[jaydub74]

This may be slightly unrelated but I always wondered what portion of the Flames Foundation proceeds actually come from the Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corp.? Obviously, they deserve credit for organizing and putting on the various events to raise money for the foundation but it would seem the majority of the funds raised come from those who attend these events ie. pay to play in the golf tournaments, attend the casino etc. Do the Flames match
or contribute any money to the actual charity? It just seems a little shallow to raise the money from others, and then donate it and say look at us.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

CBC's job in this case is to do due diligence on the report. Actually contact the Foundations to get their input and remarks, and then put out an article.

Just stating exactly what the report says and not actually digging any deeper than that is not good journalism.

Plus the report was requested (and likely funded) by the CBC News. So trust me they have an angle here.

I'd much rather have the Flames privately funded report on the matter out spinning this with all their own rhetoric.

[Blarg]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

CBC's job in this case is to do due diligence on the report. Actually contact the Foundations to get their input and remarks, and then put out an article.

Just stating exactly what the report says and not actually digging any deeper than that is not good journalism.

Plus the report was requested (and likely funded) by the CBC News. So trust me they have an angle here.

This is the article I read on this:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...tion-1.4885145

CBC News reached out to each Canadian NHL foundation for comment on the scores they were given by Charity Intelligence in their report. Initially some committed to interviews, but eventually backed out prior to publication. Instead, a written statement was provided on behalf of all the foundations.

"Ensuring that trust between our communities and our foundations remains in place, now and for years ahead, is paramount for our Canadian NHL clubs. Accordingly, our foundations are steadfastly committed to meeting and exceeding standards put forth by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in accordance with our charitable registration numbers," the statement read.

CBC quite literally asked for a comment before printing, and all the teams refused/backed out, instead publishing a joint statement that doesn’t say squat.
I would say that CBC did their due diligence.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by jaydub74

This may be slightly unrelated but I always wondered what portion of the Flames Foundation proceeds actually come from the Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corp.?

A few of us have asked this question before, but I'm not sure if there was ever a clear answer. It's often used as an argument for arena funding to show how great the Flames are, but until shown otherwise, I personally see it more as a fan/citizen contribution than one from the Flames.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

CBC's job in this case is to do due diligence on the report. Actually contact the Foundations to get their input and remarks, and then put out an article.

Just stating exactly what the report says and not actually digging any deeper than that is not good journalism.

Plus the report was requested (and likely funded) by the CBC News. So trust me they have an angle here.

Fake news! GAY FROGS!!

[Strange Brew]

Demonizing the CBC article is a little excessive IMO. At worst it raises some reasonable questions. Nothing to be scared of there.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by jaydub74

This may be slightly unrelated but I always wondered what portion of the Flames Foundation proceeds actually come from the Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corp.? Obviously, they deserve credit for organizing and putting on the various events to raise money for the foundation but it would seem the majority of the funds raised come from those who attend these events ie. pay to play in the golf tournaments, attend the casino etc. Do the Flames match
or contribute any money to the actual charity? It just seems a little shallow to raise the money from others, and then donate it and say look at us.

They provide their brand, product, and coordinate events to act as a catalyst for donations. I don't think many pro team sports foundations do matching or whatever - usually owners will donate their own personal funds for their own charitable efforts (which many of the flames owners have over the years in tons of different areas). I think boosters of CSEC have been guilty of blurring that line and probably overweighing the value of using the Flames brand as a catalyst for charity, but detractors also tend to understate that there is definitely a contribution of value from the organization, albeit the funds themselves come from the consumers of the brand for the most part. The big win of course is PR for the brand with the big donations/distributions of funds, but at the end of the day you also get these big donations/distributions of funds that might otherwise be harder to achieve for a single purpose in the quantity that a brand like a pro sports team can drive, so I dunno if it's really that big a deal.

[pseudoreality]

These stories make me think of two things.

1) I've gone to a few high-end charity events. Most of the time I do not like the shakedown or knowing that a small percentage goes to the charity because they cost too much to put on. I'd rather just donate directly. The other day a lady came to house selling a 50/50 ticket for the SPCA for $50. I bought the ticket, but I'd rather just donate $50 directly to the SPCA.

2) I sit a the board of an educational foundation due to the fact that I am a board member of the affiliated organization. The foundation has received a few large one-off donations from the parent organization due to unexpected surpluses, but they normally don't get much from regular donations. The board is paralyzed with fear. They don't want to invest or give more out because they are afraid they are going to lose all the money. I feel like I am the only one pushing for a long-term financial plan. I've reached out to a few financial advisors and no one can give any good advice on how to run things.

[Jacks]

I've been to a bunch of poker and golf fundraisers over the years and they certainly take money to put on. I've never gotten a charity receipt for a poker tournament yet which makes sense because you can win money at them, the charity pays the overhead and the prize pool. They only time I ever got a receipt was for donating back part of a 3rd place prize that I had won. Really don't see the problem with having a cash reserve either, just because the money is there doesn't mean it has to be allocated immediatley. Heard a report on the radio this morning just bashing the Flames and calling it a terrible charity, seems to be a lot of outrage over things that seem perfectly reasonable.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Really don't see the problem with having a cash reserve either, just because the money is there doesn't mean it has to be allocated immediatley. Heard a report on the radio this morning just bashing the Flames and calling it a terrible charity, seems to be a lot of outrage over things that seem perfectly reasonable.

We've gotten used to seeing all three levels of our government immediately spending all the money it can get it's hands on. And then spending a ####ton more after that.

And something, something millennials not saving, wrecking the world, etc.