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

[Fan in Exile]

Funny how people are usually up in arms about taxes but a report comes about a lack of accountability in how their favourite sports team uses funds collected on behalf of their charitable foundation, and they are shooting the messenger. If I had donated funds to the Flames charitable foundation, I would be demanding some accountability right now. These organizations had a chance to respond, and a chance before that to table their reports and returns and declined to do so.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

Funny how people are usually up in arms about taxes but a report comes about a lack of accountability in how their favourite sports team uses funds collected on behalf of their charitable foundation, and they are shooting the messenger. If I had donated funds to the Flames charitable foundation, I would be demanding some accountability right now. These organizations had a chance to respond, and a chance before that to table their reports and returns and declined to do so.

There are five pages crunching numbers looking to see where the dollars are going but your summary is shoot the messenger?

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Blarg

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



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.

I have to say that this article you link to specifically about the Flames - is much better than the initial article that was linked https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...rity-1.4884705

So thanks for sharing that one.

Charity Intelligence doesn't include these proceeds because it said most people don't consider buying a 50/50 ticket as a donation, and they realize only half of it will end up going to a cause.

And there is the problem with that whole analysis.

They are removing the 50/50 proceeds from the donation equation which is unfair - especially for the Flames since it makes up 65% of their revenue as the report stated. You can't remove the way that they generate money easily with little cost, then only look at the one event they hosted that was expensive, and then say "Look at how inefficient they are".

The argument they used stated that they didn't include 50/50 because most people don't associate that with being a donation - which is kind of B/S the Flames are very open and transparent about their 50/50 draws and who exactly is supporting and getting the donation from that game.

Also you could make the same argument for the golf event and poker tournament. Nobody goes to that event expecting that their entry fee is 100% for charity. It is being spent because that person wants a day of golf, to go be able to chat with Flames and Alumni, and then get a dinner out of it.

Props to Colleen Underwood though - her article had way more context and detail included than the initial piece written by the CBC Manitoba contributors.

[Hey Connor, It's Mess]

I thought the Flames foundation charity was to raise money for Johnny's skittles expenses. That's why I had been donating the last 3 years.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by Bingo

There are five pages crunching numbers looking to see where the dollars are going but your summary is shoot the messenger?

We're working from a summary of a summary report by a charities watchdog. We don't actually have the numbers to crunch. There is a trend of lack of accountability by professional sports teams with charitable foundations. The Flames Foundation, to their credit, at least provided some financial information unlike most other Canadian sports team foundations. But the summary of the efficiency of funds collected is dire. You would have to go beyond the summary report to try to find the hard numbers to assess whether the watchdog is just making things up or the information they collected supports with what they present in their summary.

I suppose there's room for scepticism about Charity Intelligence Canada but I think it's the Flames that owe the greater explanation. I find the response of a lot of posters to be defensive rather than analytical.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

We're working from a summary of a summary report by a charities watchdog. We don't actually have the numbers to crunch. There is a trend of lack of accountability by professional sports teams with charitable foundations. The Flames Foundation, to their credit, at least provided some financial information unlike most other Canadian sports team foundations. But the summary of the efficiency of funds collected is dire. You would have to go beyond the summary report to try to find the hard numbers to assess whether the watchdog is just making things up or the information they collected supports with what they present in their summary.

I suppose there's room for scepticism about Charity Intelligence Canada but I think it's the Flames that owe the greater explanation. I find the response of a lot of posters to be defensive rather than analytical.

I think there are a lot of good points in the five pages.

Matt did a lot of number crunching at the expense side which alleviated my initial fears that the foundation has gotten bloated

Seems to point to unallocated funds.

If that's the case and it goes to the charity delayed that's not terrible

If that's the case and it never goes anywhere that's bad

Either way they need to be more clear on where dollars go and they need to have an answer to these questions.

The CBC could have closed the loop and talked to the teams to form a more complete news piece

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think there are a lot of good points in the five pages.

Matt did a lot of number crunching at the expense side which alleviated my initial fears that the foundation has gotten bloated

Seems to point to unallocated funds.

If that's the case and it goes to the charity delayed that's not terrible

If that's the case and it never goes anywhere that's bad

Either way they need to be more clear on where dollars go and they need to have an answer to these questions.

The CBC could have closed the loop and talked to the teams to form a more complete news piece

I don't think the reserve is the issue. The table showed many teams' foundations have a sizeable reserve. That strikes me as an odd practice but I do not conclude that is the basis for the conclusion that only 30 cents of every dollar goes to charitable donations. To be fair, I think you're both right that both the watchdog and the CBC could and should have explained better how they drew those conclusions. However, it is not to the Flames' credit that they have made no comment or effort to explain. I would not be making any contributions until I was provided a satisfactory explanation.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

I don't think the reserve is the issue. The table showed many teams' foundations have a sizeable reserve. That strikes me as an odd practice but I do not conclude that is the basis for the conclusion that only 30 cents of every dollar goes to charitable donations. To be fair, I think you're both right that both the watchdog and the CBC could and should have explained better how they drew those conclusions. However, it is not to the Flames' credit that they have made no comment or effort to explain. I would not be making any contributions until I was provided a satisfactory explanation.

Maybe I read it wrong, but I think the reserve is the issue, as those funds haven’t been allocated yet, so make up part of the 70 cents unallocated, thus only 30 cents per dollar show as allocated.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Maybe I read it wrong, but I think the reserve is the issue, as those funds haven’t been allocated yet, so make up part of the 70 cents unallocated, thus only 30 cents per dollar show as allocated.

The problem shows up in that latest article.

They completely removed any of the Flames Revenue from 50/50 or donations to charities from 50/50 from the equation.

So that is 65% of the money raised by the Flames.

All that is really left is the Poker Tournament, and the Golf Tournament. Which of course have really high overhead, are used more as PR events than true donation events, and are high cost expenditures.

So the summary of the article should have been "If you remove 2/3 of the money the Flames Foundation raises/manages for charity then you can see that the Golf Tournament and Poker Tournament that they host are very inefficient at raising funds for charities".

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Gifts and Charitable Program: $2.0M ($0.3 Charitable Program, $1.68M Gifts)

Do not lump in charitable activities with the gift. Charitable activities include:
■ running the charity’s day-to-day programs;
■ occupancy costs (such as rent, mortgage payments,
hydro, repairs, and insurance) for buildings used to carry
out charitable activities;
■ most salaries; and
■ education and training for staff and volunteers.

Pretty much the exact stuff, within reason, you want to limit.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Do not lump in charitable activities with the gift. Charitable activities include:
■ running the charity’s day-to-day programs;
■ occupancy costs (such as rent, mortgage payments,
hydro, repairs, and insurance) for buildings used to carry
out charitable activities;
■ most salaries; and
■ education and training for staff and volunteers.

Pretty much the exact stuff, within reason, you want to limit.

Thanks.

Where did you find that definition. CRA Glossary didn't have it. And seemed weird that 2017 was the only year the Flames listed anything under that item line.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

The problem shows up in that latest article.

They completely removed any of the Flames Revenue from 50/50 or donations to charities from 50/50 from the equation.

So that is 65% of the money raised by the Flames.

All that is really left is the Poker Tournament, and the Golf Tournament. Which of course have really high overhead, are used more as PR events than true donation events, and are high cost expenditures.

So the summary of the article should have been "If you remove 2/3 of the money the Flames Foundation raises/manages for charity then you can see that the Golf Tournament and Poker Tournament that they host are very inefficient at raising funds for charities".

I think that is a more likely explanation. Not sure what other charity events the Flames put out beside the golf and poker tournament but those PR events return little on the dollar. I guess we don't know about the 50/50 draw but hopefully it's much better since there's very little overhead involved.

In any event, do you think this conclusion reflects much better on the Flames? PK Subban put up 10 million of his own money for the Children's Hospital in Montreal and does fundraising on top of that. The Flames contribute 30% of what they collect in PR events, put up none of their own money and have an $8m reserve. Colour me unimpressed.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Thanks.

Where did you find that definition. CRA Glossary didn't have it. And seemed weird that 2017 was the only year the Flames listed anything under that item line.

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/cr.../t4033-14e.pdf

Line 5000.

[Leo]

This explains all our bad luck

[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.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

I think that is a more likely explanation. Not sure what other charity events the Flames put out beside the golf and poker tournament but those PR events return little on the dollar. I guess we don't know about the 50/50 draw but hopefully it's much better since there's very little overhead involved.

In any event, do you think this conclusion reflects much better on the Flames? PK Subban put up 10 million of his own money for the Children's Hospital in Montreal and does fundraising on top of that. The Flames contribute 30% of what they collect in PR events, put up none of their own money and have an $8m reserve. Colour me unimpressed.

I think people need to draw a line between the Flames organization and it's ownership, and the Flames Foundation and it's role.

Flames Foundation is a pretty small group of workers that likely has 3 main objectives: Manage 50/50 and coordinate donations for that, Run the two main events the foundation hosts each year (Poker Tournament & Golf Tournament), and manage the relationship with the partners/charities.

To completely remove 65% of the revenue that team gets, and then call that group inefficient is likely unfair. Sure the two big events are probably inefficient but that ignores the fact that those are more PR events than anything, and also ignores the good that comes out of 50/50.

Based on the salary numbers in those tax returns their are likely 2-3 people on that staff who likely feel like #### today as they see the organization they manage got dragged through the mud because the article decided to only tell half the story.

I have actually never met Candice Goudie or any employees from the Flames foundation but others in my company have dealt with them and have said nothing but great things about them. Sure it's easy to rake the Flames owners through the coals but I can guarantee you that the people actually impacted by this fire today have nothing to do with that and feel like crap from this whole thing.

Originally Posted by 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, otherwise it's pretty despicable.

At the same time I think you could argue that the Flames Foundation doesn't actually do any active fundraising through Charity Events.

50/50 not an active fundraiser through charity events.

The golf tournament / poker tournaments may be seen as a charity event - but your same point on 50/50 applies - those tickets are "bought" to attend that event, people are not donating money to charity and then thinking they get to go to an event.

So really maybe they shouldn't be compared to other charitable organizations. I've never seen the Flames Foundation going door to door to ask for donations, or having little toonie/loonie drop boxes at various places like other charities.

Really their role is as a passive foundation that distributes the funds from 50/50 and holds a couple of events. Probably not fair to compare them to other massive organizations that do a lot of active fundraising - even though the total revenue is similar (although it's not similar if you remove 50/50.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I think people need to draw a line between the Flames organization and it's ownership, and the Flames Foundation and it's role.

Flames Foundation is a pretty small group of workers that likely has 3 main objectives: Manage 50/50 and coordinate donations for that, Run the two main events the foundation hosts each year (Poker Tournament & Golf Tournament), and manage the relationship with the partners/charities.

To completely remove 65% of the revenue that team gets, and then call that group inefficient is likely unfair. Sure the two big events are probably inefficient but that ignores the fact that those are more PR events than anything, and also ignores the good that comes out of 50/50.

Based on the salary numbers in those tax returns their are likely 2-3 people on that staff who likely feel like #### today as they see the organization they manage got dragged through the mud because the article decided to only tell half the story.

I have actually never met Candice Goudie or any employees from the Flame foundation but others in my company have dealt with them and have said nothing but great things about them. Sure it's easy to rake the Flames owners through the coals but I can guarantee you that the people actually impacted by this fire today have nothing to do with that and feel like crap from this whole thing.

That's fair enough. I don't think the people who are employed by the Flames Charitable Foundation have an ulterior motive or are necessarily doing their work poorly, and obviously the 50/50 draw funds are not a matter of criticism because those funds are outside the scope of the report.

I do think that the motivation for the Flames organization and the corresponding benefit to the community should come under closer scrutiny.

I think the people who work for the charitable foundation hope to be doing good work as do the people who donate to it. This report shows that the way they're going about it is not working as well as it should. People should know that before they donate their money to this charity rather than others, and the Flames charitable foundation should probably come up with ideas on how to ensure more of the money they raises actually goes to worthwhile causes.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

At the same time I think you could argue that the Flames Foundation doesn't actually do any active fundraising through Charity Events.

50/50 not an active fundraiser through charity events.

The golf tournament / poker tournaments may be seen as a charity event - but your same point on 50/50 applies - those tickets are "bought" to attend that event, people are not donating money to charity and then thinking they get to go to an event.

But the problem is that those events are still listed as charities. It's the Flames Charity Golf Classic. They bring in good will, people eat it up, some people do spend their 'charitable' money on those events.

If you told people the truth. "Hey guys, this event doesn't really bring in much, maybe a couple cents on the dollar after everything is accounted for. Mostly this is a circlejerk that doesn't really help the community, maybe even detrimental considering the people donating may or may not have donated elsewhere with better efficiencies. But hey you still get to rub elbows with Curtis Glencross" Maybe some people still chose to go, maybe some find other ways to donate.

That's sort of what the article is getting about the inefficiency and lack of transparency. People assume that the Flames Foundation is responsible with their money and a decent chunk of it actually gets back into the community if they do go to the charity events. But that may not be the case.

[afc wimbledon]

Good to see the Nuck's doing well as they bug me enough

[Oling_Roachinen]

And it's not just donating money to the poker and golf event. A lot of people put in a lot of volunteer hours for those events. If they knew it was not really contributing at all efficiently to the community, would they still be so keen to volunteer their time?

I mean, sure a couple do it maybe for the chance to see Jarome Iginla, but who knows.