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

[Ice_Weasel]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I don't disagree with this, but if your cost is a million dollars, with unpaid volunteers, and you're bringing in 1.1 million. I think at the very least there should be an asterisk next to your name when you call it a charity event. If it's really only paying for itself, people should know. I know 100,000 isn't insignificant, but I can almost guarantee that people think these charity events are bringing in more than that when they are donating 25,000 for a banner with their company names on it.

But then they lump it altogether with the 50/50 and say that the foundation donated millions because of these events. Cool, but that's not exactly transparent.

I still don't understand your agenda here. Every dollar raised for charity is a good thing, and if you want to shame those that work hard to raise those dollars they may just stop altogether. Would 100% "efficiency" on $0 raised make you happy?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

I still don't understand your agenda here. Every dollar raised for charity is a good thing, and if you want to shame those that work hard to raise those dollars they may just stop altogether. Would 100% "efficiency" on $0 raised make you happy?

I think it's pretty clear that the issue is the efficiency level being as low as it is, not that there's any inefficiency at all or not appreciating charitable efforts and contributions.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

https://www.effectivealtruism.org/

There you go. Problem solved.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

With some rounding errors, here's how I believe they are getting the per cent of every dollar going to charity, it has nothing to do with the reserve fund so the Flames having a higher reserve fund does not hurt them in this calculation. With some rounding errors:

Flames:
4.1M total revenue
-2.7M from the 50/50
-1.4M other
--0.3M from direct donations
--1.1M from the special events


1M for operating costs


So 1.4M (total, non 50/50) - 1M (operating cost)/ (1.4M) = 30%

MLSE
10.6 total revenue
-1.8 from the 50/50
-8.8M from other
--6.1M from donations and goods
--2.7 from special events

1.7M for operating costs

8.8M (total non 50/50) - 1.7M (operating costs)/ (8.8M) = 81%

Edmonton
7M total revenue
-3.5M from the 50/50
-3.5M from other
--1.7M from donations
--1.7M from special events

1.2M for operating costs

3.5M-1.2M/3.5M=65%

Winnipeg
6.9M total revenue
-1.5M from the 50/50
5.4M from other
--2.4M from donations and others
--3.0M from special events

1.7M for operating costs

5.4M-1.7M/5.4M= 69%

Senators
4.4M total revenue
1.1M from the 50/50
3.3M from others

1.8M for operating costs

3.3-1.8/3.3=46%

Similar calculations for Montreal and the Jays to get the 0.62 and 0.65 numbers. Canucks one was weird but I think it's because of the cash flow being negative.

So why are the Flames so ####ty? How come it costs them 1M to bring in 1.4M when everyone else spends between 1M-1.8M and brings in much more?

Depends on the overall goal of the foundation.

For the most part I’ve never seen the Flames pandering for donations or asking for donations directly to the Flames foundation - that would likely be how those other organizations get so much revenue from “donations”.

I have however seen the Flames promote their partners websites directly and different groups directly. Give a quick read through the Flames Foundation Twitter and you’ll see a lot of retweets of their partners donation asks and initiative but I don’t see a single tweet saying or asking to donate to the Flames Foundation directly.

So maybe the Flames Foundation don’t want to just be asking people to donate directly and would rather people donate directly to the individual causes instead of being the middle man.

Maybe The Flames Foundation only wants to be the middle man for 50/50 and for the big events they spend money on to call attention to their partners and their causes.

Look at their mission statement:

The Calgary Flames Foundation mission is to support initiatives that bring positive change to the lives of Southern Albertans. The Flames Foundation is committed to supporting education, health and wellness, and amateur and grassroots sports.

No mention of raising money - they just want to support other initiatives.

So it’s really tough to say if this is a big event issue - or just that the Flames don’t really ask for direct donations that frequently. Like I’ve been to a lot of Flames games and events over the years and I can’t recall them ever asking for a donation directly to the Flames Foundation.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

I still don't understand your agenda here. Every dollar raised for charity is a good thing, and if you want to shame those that work hard to raise those dollars they may just stop altogether. Would 100% "efficiency" on $0 raised make you happy?

No it's not.

If I had a foundation that brought in a billion dollars but I only sent 300 dollars to charities, that would not be good and I should probably be executed despite bringing in money for charity.

Now 30% isn't quite there, but it's getting there. It's not a good percentage, and even compared to its peers it sucks. That's the whole reason for the charity watchdog. Some people may not like to find out that for every dollar they spend towards the Flames Foundation, that 30 cents goes to a charity and 70 cents goes to throwing a party. Exaggeration of course, but you get the point.

Others may be fine spending a ticket on a poker game knowing that pretty much nothing goes to a charity. And that's fine, but it's nice to have transparency. So I'm not really sure why you are mad that I'm pointing out that's a charity spending 30 cents for every dollar it receives (outside of the 50/50) to actual charity causes. If it wasn't for it being the "Flames Foundation" many people would take issue with that fact.

Inversely, the United Way is getting about 75 cents or more for every dollar it receive to actual programs. That's pretty much the point of the article and report, be careful with your donation. Know where it's going. Some people may be fine with what the Flames are doing, others may not be. I'm not sure the harm in informing them though.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Depends on the overall goal of the foundation.


For the most part I’ve never seen the Flames pandering for donations or asking for donations directly to the Flames foundation - that would likely be how those other organizations get so much revenue from “donations”.

I disagree with the principle, when you have Charity right in the names of the event, there's some expectations that there would be a significant amount going towards...charity. Change it to the Calgary Flames Not-For-Profit-It's-Actually-Mostly-A-Sweet-Ass-Party-But-Donate-To-Our-Foundation-Partners-Directly-If-You-Actually-Want-To-Donate Golf Classic. Then no one is confused or mislead.

Over 75 charities in need received funding through the Flames Foundation last season because of your support of the Flames Charity Poker Tournament. Last year you helped us raise over $420,000, bringing us over $4.2 million raised in 12 years!

Here they are saying it brought in $420,000. Do you think it would be overall harmful if they were abit more transparent:

"Last year you helped us raise over $420,000, $60,000 of which was directly sent to charities while the other was spent on the overhead for the event."

See, doesn't quite have the same ring.

That's what the article is getting at, and I am. Feel free to go to those events. Just know that the Flames aren't actually donating $420,000 from the event once you account for the overheard. 30 cents from the dollar makes it out to a charity. Some people will have issue with that percentage, others won't. It's their right to, it should be up to the Flames to be either more transparent, or more efficient. Shouldn't take a watchdog calling them out on it.

[bluejays]

I think CBC's argument is very valid. Ultimately, you want a high percentage of your donations going directly to the end individual. Me as a donator want that rather than much of it going to admin costs - whether it's a work donation or a charity golf gala. If the admin costs are high for golfing, hold it at a cheap golf course. Or don't have an event in an expensive venue. From the outside it appears that some of these charities don't care about how much the costs are, and that's exactly the problem. To be a charity there can't be anyone making six figures and there has to be fiscal responsibility to the donor as much as the receiver.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Why is the 50/50 monies excluded from the total raised for purposes of this calculation? It may be fair to say the Flames are doing a poorer job on the "other" fundraising, but I think it disengenous to say only 30% goes to charity when there is more 50/50 money going out.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Why is the 50/50 monies excluded from the total raised for purposes of this calculation? It may be fair to say the Flames are doing a poorer job on the "other" fundraising, but I think it disengenous to say only 30% goes to charity when there is more 50/50 money going out.

It's pretty much passive income that has relatively no overhead cost. And under the same calculations every other team blows the Flames out of the water. Seems like a reasonable approach by the wathdog given the unique circumstance.

Imagine if the 50/50 brought in 2,500,000 with no overhead. Other donations brought in 1,500,000 but the overall cost for everything else was 1,600,000. That means the rest of the foundation was a net-negative, spending more money on itself than charity. Huge issue. Yet the stats would say that it was still making 60% to charities.

But you're right, it's 30 per cent of you donation, if you're not buying a 50/50 ticket, that makes it to charities. I think either way you calculate it, it should be noted.

[rohara66]

Is it 30% goes to charity

or

30% went to charity in 2017, plus the $1m that was just donated to the children’s hospital plus xx% that went into their savings (which is now at several million)?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by rohara66

Is it 30% goes to charity

or

30% went to charity in 2017, plus the $1m that was just donated to the children’s hospital plus xx% that went into their savings (which is now at several million)?

Through their calculation, the former.

It seems to be a simple formula for their calculation:

(revenue in(minus 50/50) - operation cost)/ revenue in (minus 50/50)

Where the money goes to, whether it's reserve, charity, that million dollar donation, wouldn't really matter.
.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Operating cost - 1M

Total revenue - 4.1M.

Revenue from 50/50 - 2.64M

revenue in(minus 50/50) = 1.44M

(1.44-1)/1.44=30%

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

This is worse than the analytics crowd.

Someone made up a number.
Now a good community group has to waste their time defending themselves against a made up number.

We’re all a bunch of morons.

[Oling_Roachinen]

I love that half the crowd defending the foundation are arguing that everyone knows that little money from the event actually makes it to the charities due to the overhead costs while the others are saying it's made up that only a little bit of the donation goes to charity.

Here's the best way to look at it:

If you donate by buying a 50/50 ticket for the Flames Foundation, 50% your money goes to a charity (eventually may get stuck in reserve for a bit), another 50% goes to some lucky drunk (which could be you but hopefully me next time :P).

If you donate by doing anything else for the Flames Foundation, 30% of your money goes to a charity (eventually, may get stuck in reserve for a bit), the other 70% goes to the operating costs of the foundation, including any event costs.

If you donate to the United Way, 89% of your money goes to a charity, the other 11% goes to operating costs.

There now no one can be confused.

[FiveSeven]

They were talking about it on Fan960. It was that 82 or 88 cents on the dollar (I can't remember exactly) went to charity. 30+ million dollars to charity since 88'.

Holding money in reserve shouldn't be an issue at all. It allows flexibility. It allows them to make a massive contribution as they wish, and to be able to contribute on an emergency basis as well. It accrues interest and that interest is put right back into the fund. Sounds smart to me. I could be ignorant though.

[direwolf]

Have the Flames released a statement on this yet? Would like to hear the details from their side of the story.

[Jiggy]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Have the Flames released a statement on this yet? Would like to hear the details from their side of the story.

John Bean from The Flames Foundation was on the Fan960 discussing the issue. It might be up on the website.

[MissTeeks]

Link in Pinder’s tweet:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1057785539296776192

[GioforPM]

I only heard the tail end of Bean's interview. That part was about the reserve, which he says is for emergency need, good new ideas, and to make sure they don't overextend. He also promised the financials would be on their website

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Link in Pinder’s tweet:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1057785539296776192

Did they ask him why he didn’t respond to CBC’s request for information or if that was even in fact true?