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

[Badgers Nose]

I think this is all positive.

Media did its job and raised some good questions (nothing irresponsible about how they did it IMO).

Flames Foundation will have answers and will be more transparent in the future. They probably should have just talked to the press when they had the chance, but maybe they needed the time.

[transplant99]

Here is the podcast of John Bean with Steinberg and Pinder.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/960/pinder-...es-foundation/

[Oling_Roachinen]

All I can say is wow. I know a lot of people won't look at what he said and take it as face value, but anyone who listened to that should be concerned.

"Our expenses when we look at it on our statements, that we submit to the CRA, is about 500,000"

It's public data John. It's the data you provided. https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip...fpe=2017-06-30

Total expenditures before gifts to qualified donees - $1,210,199

Umm. Yeah, no John needs to expand on why he's saying $500,000 when they are submitting $1.2M in expenses to CRA. Again, maybe there's a perfectly reasonable explanation. Maybe part of those expenses are completely reasonable, maybe they do include the 30,000 spent on the health fair and a couple grand on the Fernie arena rebuild.

Of course he's not going to "spend a lot of time figuring out their math" when you can pull random #### out of your ass though and know that the fans will eat it up.

[GioforPM]

The difference between your two figures is the "all other expenditures " line.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Well, first off, no it's not. That difference is $385,745. That's not $500,000.

It's also a big enough deal to know what $825,000 of other expenditures entails. Which would have been a reasonable explanation for John Bean to provide.

"As you can see our total expenditure was 1.2M, 385 is accounted for in the CRA document that is easily enough to read. The other 825,000 went towards 30,000 to health fair, 100,000 to the Fernie rink, 200,000 here, another 300,000 there and 200,000 here".

Instead he basically accused the Charity Watchdog of making up numbers, while he pulled a number more or less out of thin air that is not at all listed on the CRA document. The numbers used by the watchdog would have been taken from the Foundations own financial statements and either he pretended not to know where they got it from or was actually oblivious, which does seem to be pretty incompetent. The least a COO should have in front of him when going into an interview regarding numbers for the Foundations is an understanding of where the numbers were from.

He had the perfect opportunity to be transparent, provide us with what line 4920 was made up of in the CRA. Instead he went on the defense, and that should be concerning.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[GullFoss]

Anyways, I looked at the numbers, and its all about semantics.

Example: Say you pay $500 for a golf tournament. And the tournament costs $330. That leaves $170 of profit, that then goes to the foundation. The foundation then spends $15 on G&A and distributes $155 on charities.

So...what's the efficiency number?

1) CBC says its $155/$500 = ~30%

2) Flames Foundation would say its $155/$170 = ~90%


What definition is right? It depends:

If people go to the flames golf tournament to donate to charity, then CBC's definition is right and people who go to golf tournaments are very very stupid.

If people go to the flames golf tournament for the networking, hobnobbing, golfing, status, experience and celebrity...then definition two is correct. And thats the definition that in my head, makes a lot more sense.

[Hockey Fan #751]

I wonder if the Flames or other teams are hiding any money from HRR in their foundations. I don't believe that foundation money is included in the CBA.

[GioforPM]

Well, it's pretty obvious from the form that other expenditures isn't M and A, salaries, ads, and the other line items. Is it possible it's the expenditure into reserves?

[Oling_Roachinen]

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 ......

Well yeah. I think me, you, and Charity Intelligence are all on the same page here. It's pretty much what the whole point of this thread was about, and what the watchdog emphasized:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4616762/c...rity-watchdog/

Bahen said people need to be wary when considering whether participating in an event like a charity golf game will benefit their community.

“That’s wonderful for the people who pay to play with their favourite player, but it isn’t like a charity fundraiser, it’s more about a donor experience and they’re very expensive,” she said.

Don't get fooled into thinking you're actually helping the community more than you are by playing golf. Pretty much nothing from that event goes back to the community. Which is probably fine for most people participating, but the watchdog just wanted to emphasis that.

Also wished that someone would link John Bean his own foundation's CRA report:
https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip...fpe=2017-06-30

Give him the quick view.

Good to see that the Flames Foundation COO is taking the Trump approach. Doesn't like the numbers, his own numbers, so he makes up his own and refuses to talk about it because "fake news."

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, it's pretty obvious from the form that other expenditures isn't M and A, salaries, ads, and the other line items. Is it possible it's the expenditure into reserves?

Nope. 4.1M in revenue. 2.9M in "expenses" (1.2M for expenditures and 1.7M to charities).

The difference, (4.1-2.9) 1.2M goes to reserve. Still 'unaccounted for' 825,000 in expenditures. Again, could be completely reasonable costs - stuff like the Fernie arena if it wasn't a qualfied donee could be in there. But John Bean is pretending they don't exist or didn't see his own CRA information. This could easily be solved with him just taking the time to read the watchdog report and then looking at the foundations own CRA reporting. There's 1.2M in expenses according to the foundation itself as reported to CRA. He needs to stop talking about 500k expenses without providing why.

Of course none of the journalist will delve further, and most Flames fans will take the word of their president instead of some shadowy agency out to get the poor charity.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Also wished that someone would link John Bean his own foundation's CRA report:
https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip...fpe=2017-06-30

Give him the quick view.

Good to see that the Flames Foundation COO is taking the Trump approach. Doesn't like the numbers, his own numbers, so he makes up his own and refuses to talk about it because "fake news."

I dont think either set of numbers are wrong. They're just different.

The charitable watchdog came up with 30% because they think the full $500 you spend for entry into the flames poker tournament should be considered a charitable donation and the flames are inefficient because they're not converting much of that money into charitable dollars.

The flames view is that when you're paying $500 for the entry, you're paying $350-$450 for the tournament and only $50-$150 for charity. And the flames are saying, most entrants would understand this because they're not getting a charitable receipt (thus the charitable aspect isn't the major component). And from the $50-150 the flames actually take in for charity...they're super efficient with this money.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I dont think either set of numbers are wrong. They're just different.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip...fpe=2017-06-30

In the CRA report there is 1.2M listed as expenditures. This has nothing to do with the watchdog. This is the foundations own report to Canada Revenue Agency saying they had 1.2M in expenses for the year. John Bean said they had 500k in expenses. This goes against his own CRA report. Maybe for reasonable explanation, but he's the one causing the confusion.

So the 500k that John Bean discussed needs to be addressed. Somethings missing there.

[Strange Brew]

If the sole goal of the Flames foundation was to raise money for charity they would find better uses of their time than planning golf and poker tournaments. But let’s be honest. That’s not their sole goal.

I feel like everyone understands that, including the watchdog group who are simply pointing it out. I listened to some of the interview with the Foundation COO and he came across as a little defensive. Precisely for this reason I suspect.

I have zero suspicions they are up to anything nefarious. But in many ways they are a subset of the Flames with little desire for financial or operational transparency. Now it is damage control mode.

[Oling_Roachinen]

So this is what the Foundation submitted to CRA:

Advertising and promotion-$ 154,929
Travel and vehicle expenses-$ 1,237
Interest and bank charges-$ 29,952
Licenses, memberships, and dues-$ 3,179
Office supplies and expenses-$ 39,765
Occupancy costs-$ 2,339
Professional and consulting fees-$ 34,908
Education and training for staff and volunteers-$ 7,424
Purchased supplies and assets-$ 98,065
Amortization of capitalized assets-$ 13,947
All other expenditures not included in the amounts above (excluding gifts to qualified donees)-$ 824,454
Total expenditures before gifts to qualified donees-$ 1,210,199


Charity Intelligence is looking at it and saying okay, $1,210,199 in total expenditures outside of gifts. Seems pretty reasonable for them to do so..

John Bean is looking at it and saying it rounds up to about $500,000. Who's the party that needs to explain their reason? Why is John Bean having an issue in understanding why Charity Intelligence came up with $1,210,199? It was what they submitted.

Now of course the majority of it is listed as "others" but John Bean really didn't take the time to explain what that was. Instead he went on the defense and pretended like he didn't understand where they got that 1,210,199 came from. Like I said, should be concerning.

[Mr.Coffee]

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

Anyway, $800k in “other“?? What?

[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.

[curves2000]

The most disappointing thing for me is that it's MY team, in MY city that is the bottom feeder in this report. I suspect the numbers for all the teams are accurate but in this case the the 2nd worst team in this report, Ottawa, is 50+% more efficient at distributing funds to their charitable causes.

If we look at an organization like the Edmonton Oilers, an organization that gets roasted, laughed at and endlessly mocked on CP for their on ice performance, they appear to be kicking our butts in this department by more than DOUBLE! This is a city and market that is of similar size, wealth, location and probably has similar expenses.

I hope we can all agree that improvement is needed and I hope that if this report is released again next year, that the Flames aren't the worst performer. We have to deal with enough crappy and disappointing one ice performance for 30+ years, we don't need to deal with the least efficient charity arm, the oldest building and a team that hasn't done a WHOLE lot in my life as a Flames fan (33 years old).

Let's make sure we strive for being a top tier organization in a top tier city, league wide in every facet of the game and hockey business. We deserve it!

[para transit fellow]

I suggest folks visit charitydata.ca where you can see what various foundations and charities reported to CRA. The site does not have 2017 data yet but does have 2009 to 2016 info

https://www.charitydata.ca/charity/c...8823525RR0001/

(Hit the expenses tab)

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

So this is what the Foundation submitted to CRA:

Advertising and promotion-$ 154,929
Travel and vehicle expenses-$ 1,237
Interest and bank charges-$ 29,952
Licenses, memberships, and dues-$ 3,179
Office supplies and expenses-$ 39,765
Occupancy costs-$ 2,339
Professional and consulting fees-$ 34,908
Education and training for staff and volunteers-$ 7,424
Purchased supplies and assets-$ 98,065
Amortization of capitalized assets-$ 13,947
All other expenditures not included in the amounts above (excluding gifts to qualified donees)-$ 824,454
Total expenditures before gifts to qualified donees-$ 1,210,199


Charity Intelligence is looking at it and saying okay, $1,210,199 in total expenditures outside of gifts. Seems pretty reasonable for them to do so..

John Bean is looking at it and saying it rounds up to about $500,000. Who's the party that needs to explain their reason? Why is John Bean having an issue in understanding why Charity Intelligence came up with $1,210,199? It was what they submitted.

Now of course the majority of it is listed as "others" but John Bean really didn't take the time to explain what that was. Instead he went on the defense and pretended like he didn't understand where they got that 1,210,199 came from. Like I said, should be concerning.

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.