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

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

$39k in office supplies? Wow. How many employees work for Flames Foundation?

Anyway, $800k in “other“?? What?

It's "office supplies and expenses". Believe me, those can run up. That's equipment leases, phone/internet, and whatever isn't also covered in occupancy costs.

I agree "other" needs explanation but it's pretty clear to me that, since it doesn't fall into any of the other line items, I still suspect it's probably part of the reserve (since it's not a gift to an actual recipient yet).

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Maybe they just really wanted this pen:

-----------------------------
The fact that John Bean's mentioning the Fernie Rink at all seems to be an issue actually. If he's talking about the Flames decision to build the rink that occurred in November 2017, and the fiscal year that Charity Intelligence is looking at is up to June 2017...He might simply be confused because he's looking at the wrong year lol? If that's the case...

I mean you're a charity, if a charity watchdog has concerns the least you can do is look into it. Not get defensive and accuse them of making up numbers. At least make sure you're looking at the same year ha.

I heard that part of the interview. He didn't mention the rink as something that explained the difference in numbers for that year. He explained it was an example of why they carry a reserve at all - for unexpected situations like that (in part).

Frankly, he didn't come across as defensive at all.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's "office supplies and expenses". Believe me, those can run up. That's equipment leases, phone/internet, and whatever isn't also covered in occupancy costs.

Call me crazy, but NHL teams run charitable foundations out of 3-4 desks within the same office space they use for all other front office departments....are the Flames charging their own foundation rent to operate in the front office space? Forcing them to lease a separate printer only they can use or find their own internet service? That would be quite weird and does not make any sense whatsoever.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Call me crazy, but NHL teams run charitable foundations out of 3-4 desks within the same office space they use for all other front office departments....are the Flames charging their own foundation rent to operate in the front office space? Forcing them to lease a separate printer only they can use or find their own internet service? That would be quite weird and does not make any sense whatsoever.

They are in the Dome but that item plus the "occupancy costs" line item seems like the Flames are at least trying to recover costs of having them there. Does that make them cheap? Maybe.

I don't know, but if you have a few full time employees, like they seem to do, you'd need their own printers, phones, etc. In my office 3-4 desks needs their own printers (though to be fair we are tree wasters). For privacy's sake I think they'd need their own servers or outside secured internet account.

[GioforPM]

https://calgaryflamesfoundation.com/...s/FDN_2018.pdf

FWIW the numbers the Foundation publishes itself are on this report.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Ok...so if I want to give money to some poor child, I can support via the united way.

If i want to play golf with Johnny and give no ####s about charity, I can buy a ticket to the flames golf tournament. Instead of the profit from that event going to a promoter, it goes to charity.

If I want to buy a lottery at the dome and give no ####s about charity, I can buy a 50/50 ticket. Instead of the profit going to shareholders of a private company, it goes to charity.

I fail to see the issue. The flames foundation isn't designed to be efficient. Thats not the point. Who here has directly donated to the flames foundation (excluding 50/50 tickets and special events)? Anyone? Anyone?

Literally no ####ing one.

Agreed, so can we drop the "Flames do so much charity work for the city, we should give them want they want on the Arena" argument?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

He’s clearly using the data from the annual report listed at $538k in expenses. He didn’t just make up a random number, it’s the number shared in their public financial report.

Difference probably truly come between what the Flames are stating as expenses in that “Other Expenses” line item in the CRA report but are choosing to remove from the Annual report.

Yes of course. EXCEPT THERE IS NO PUBLIC FINANCIAL REPORT. The annual report is non-audited info-graphic with an intended aim of saying how great the foundation is. It doesn't scratch the surface of an actual financial report and could be much more bias with the numbers used. I'm not saying the annual report is necessarily incorrect in its reporting of the expenses, but let's not confuse the two.

Still, the difference is he actually would know what those other expenses are and could have taken all of 20 seconds to give us an explanation. If he actually wanted to be transparent. And I don't know why a Charity, who truly believes they are run well, would not want to explain as much as possible whenever they get a chance. I mean charities love going off on their numbers when they know they are killing it, try and find someone high up in the United Way and get them to shut up about their expenses and costs vs dollars sent to charities.

It's very possible that of the 1.2M in expenses, as reported to the CRA, that 700K of it was to provide puppies to orphans with terminal illnesses. The point was, for the sake of transparency, he could have discussed it. He could explain why the annual report is stating 538,000 (2017-2018) while the expenses to the CRA is saying 1.2M (2017).

I mean, he's a COO and President of the Flames, treasurer of the Foundation He knows where Charity Intelligence was getting their numbers from, CRA reports and past financial statements. I don't know why he was pretty much feigning ignorance of it. And 100% this could all be avoided if they were just transparent. It's a charity foundation for Gosh sake, post your financial statements on your website so everyone knows. It shouldn't be a secret. And to clarify, the annual report is not the same as a financial statement that the Foundation should be posting.

Poor financial transparency is particularly curious at Edmonton Oilers Foundation and Calgary Flames Foundation. Financial transparency is a best practice, widespread among many other Western Canadian charities, particularly in Alberta.
Financial transparency is a core value in Charity Intelligence’s objective rating. If these team foundations simply posted audited financial statements for the two most recent years, overall star ratings would likely increase 1 star.

Also I would be hesitant in claiming that Charity Intelligence's assertion about the 960,000 spent on the special events is a lie or wrong. They received the financial information from the Flames Foundation and have no reason to be dishonest about it. Again, if a independent, non-profit, charity watchdog is calling you out, especially when your peers in the exact same situation are performing so much better than you, you should sit down and try to figure out why exactly (unless of course you already know why...).

Here's the financial statement of the MLSE Foundation. It took me literally 3 seconds to find:
http://www.mlsefoundation.org/getatt...31910.pdf.aspx

Here's the financial statement of the United Way Calgary and Area. It took me all of two seconds to get:
https://www.calgaryunitedway.org/ima...2018-03-24.pdf

Good charities have no problem showing them, it's very much encouraged.

[GioforPM]

You keep saying expenses in the CRA form when it's "expenditures". There's a difference.

[Oling_Roachinen]

What a useless irrelevant post. What were you trying to get at? What do you think is the difference in this case?

Especially because the CRA considers expenditures as expenses in its quick view:

https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip...18823525RR0001

But way to try to sound smart. Lol. Has to be the most useless argument of semantics I've seen. It's not like it changes anything, let us know what that $825,000 is. That's all.

There's literally pushbacks about charities and foundations being transparent now? Simply because that foundation has Flames in the title?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

What a useless irrelevant post. What were you trying to get at? What do you think is the difference?

Especially because the CRA considers expenditures as expenses in it's quick view:

https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip...18823525RR0001

But way to try to sound smart. Lol. Has to be the most useless argument of semantics I've seen.

Because they also include gifts as expenditures. On a different line.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Agreed, so can we drop the "Flames do so much charity work for the city, we should give them want they want on the Arena" argument?

Regardless of this report and anyone's thoughts on it, agreed, the argument to "give" the Flames what they want on the arena because of charity deal should be completely dropped.

They should be dropped because they are irrelevant. Any funding the city gives to the arena deal shouldn't be based around some sort of "charitable" donation big business, the Flames, as many like to pretend it is. The funding should be based on the city paying their share of something they want and will build some version of if the Flames didn't exist and or left town. The City would build and will build a new rink at some point, the Flames want and need a new rink. The city itself doesn't need more than one rink of this caliber. Meaning two parties with interest and stake and willingness to create a new rink just need to get together and figure out what is fair and makes sense for both of them.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Because they also include gifts as expenditures. On a different line.

What are you trying to get at? What's your argument?

Yes, there's two components to "expenses" listed by the CRA

The 1.2M we're discussing, of which 825,000 is not transparent as it's listed as others in the form.
The 1.7M that went to charities. Which of course no one takes issue with.

Cool conversation though bro.

[Robbob]

I have a crap ton of snickers bars leftover from Halloween for those that are hangry.

[joejoe3]

Originally Posted by Robbob

I have a crap ton of snickers bars leftover from Halloween for those that are hangry.

Popcorn is what you need for this thread.

[Bingo]

This has gotten pretty pissy ....

I guess there are two camps one that really doesn't like the ownership and one that wants to defend them to ends of the Earth.

Neither are going to budge in how they want to look at this story.

[Travis Munroe]

Sorry if this was already discussed as per the flames response to the article but...

It is amazing how many of you will buy 50/50 tickets without problem knowing very well that less than 50% goes to charity yet you will criticize a charity that has less than 50% from other fundraisers going to charity.

We will line up to participate in Charity golf tournaments or pokers tournaments yet less than 10% of the money raised reaches the charity.

This is not the actual Charities problem.... they are doing what they can and if you scale back what these events offer then you scale back attendance and money spent.

Bean breaks down last years numbers which resulted in 88% going to charity or sitting in reserves and mentions he has no idea how the figures were reached by the "Watchdogs".

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by joejoe3

Popcorn is what you need for this thread.

As someone who does donate a significant amount of time to charitable causes and a little bit less in cash to charities, I think it's extremely important to hold charities accountable. The least a charity should do is be transparent. Provide financial statements, respond to accusations from independent charity watchdogs, provide reasonable responses when their own numbers don't match up with their CRA reports. So I will get passionate when a charity refuses to do so. I would disappointed if everyone didn't.

I'm happy with discussing with anyone, especially would be thrilled to have John Bean release the audited financial statements and/or show what the 825,000 listed on 4920 was indeed reasonably not an "expense" used for their own calculations. Honestly, and I pointed it out, it could be because they donated 500,000 to an organization or charity that is not listed as a qualified donee. It's possible (not probable given Charity Intelligence's assertion that the special events cost 960,000), but you know who could solve all this? The Foundation itself. Easily.

Asking for transparency from a charity shouldn't be a controversial discussion requiring people defending the charity.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Bingo

This has gotten pretty pissy ....

I guess there are two camps one that really doesn't like the ownership and one that wants to defend them to ends of the Earth.

This isn't fair. The Foundation itself is separate from the Flames organization and certainly the owners. Many realize that, including myself.

I have an issue with the Foundation. I have an issue that it isn't releasing it's financial statements like most other charities in Alberta do.

I have an issue the spokesmen is going on 960, saying they are spending 500k on expenses when he knows that they listed 1.2M on their CRA report without trying to give an explanation.

Originally Posted by Bingo

Neither are going to budge in how they want to look at this story.

I would easily if John Bean released the financial statements today with a clear showing that 500k was used on expenses. I would be thrilled to change my tune.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This isn't fair. The Foundation itself is separate from the Flames organization and certainly the owners. Many realize that, including myself.

I have an issue with the Foundation. I have an issue that it isn't releasing it's financial statements like most other charities in Alberta do.

I have an issue the spokesmen is going on 960, saying they are spending 500k on expenses when he knows that they listed 1.2M on their CRA report without trying to give an explanation.


I would easily if John Bean released the financial statements today with a clear showing that 500k was used on expenses. I would be thrilled to change my tune.

ok ...

wasn't talking to specifically.

But you do seem like a dog on a bone on this topic, seems to have you pretty upset. When you start calling posts useless and irrelevant it starts getting pretty personal

[morgin]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

Sorry if this was already discussed as per the flames responde to the article but...

It is amazing how many of you will buy 50/50 tickets without problem knowing very well that less than 50% goes to charity yet you will criticize a charity that has less than 50% from other fundraisers going to charity.

We will line up to participate in Charity golf tournaments or pokers tournaments yet less than 10% of the money raised reaches charity.

This is not the actual Charities problem.... they are doing what they can and if you scale back what these events offer then you scale back attendance and money spent.

Bean breaks down last years numbers which resulted in 88% going to charity or sitting in reserves and mentions he has no idea how the figures were reached by the "Watchdogs".

For me its an easy thing - if I get a CRA tax receipt back, I expect the funds are going mostly to charitable purposes. I don't buy 50/50 with any expectation on how the 50% the FF gets to keep is used, aside from having some belief its used to help local underprivileged youth or kids or some other group in need. I trust the organization to figure that out, and in return I expect the organization to be fairly transparent about how they spend donated money regardless of source. Less weight on funds from stuff like 50/50, poker, etc because in my mind that's not really a direct charitable contribution from me.

Ultimately sounds like people with inflated expectations of how all of money is used and the extent the FF should be using certain things as PR, and FF having a poor understanding of the levels of transparency people require these days.

End of the day, it's kind of a non story though. FF is a great organization, and western canadians are #1 at 50/50.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

Sorry if this was already discussed as per the flames responde to the article but...

It is amazing how many of you will buy 50/50 tickets without problem knowing very well that less than 50% goes to charity yet you will criticize a charity that has less than 50% from other fundraisers going to charity.

We will line up to participate in Charity golf tournaments or pokers tournaments yet less than 10% of the money raised reaches charity.

This is not the actual Charities problem.... they are doing what they can and if you scale back what these events offer then you scale back attendance and money spent.

Bean breaks down last years numbers which resulted in 88% going to charity or sitting in reserves and mentions he has no idea how the figures were reached by the "Watchdogs".

the group that did the report I'm sure analyzed all the teams the same way.
Isn't it concerning that the flames were so much worse than every other sports team? why are the flames at .30 while the oilers are .69 and the canucks at .73? there are legitimate questions that should be answered.

if the only difference is the huge reserve of cash, why don't they explain why they have it?

you can't compare the flames charity to the united way, but you can compare them to the oilers who more than double the flames contributions.