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

[Oling_Roachinen]

I said it before, so I won't dig deep but the reserve itself is a separate issue completely apart from the cents/dollar going to charity. Doesn't have any barring on the calculation used for cents per dollars. It's just revenue (without 50/50 revenue) and operating costs.

(Revenue in - operating costs) / revenue in = cents per dollar

Not commenting on whether it's a fair calculation to remove the 50/50 revenue, but that's the very simple calculation they used.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

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.

Expenses are the amounts spent on overhead. Expenditures are all amounts paid. So saying that the amount you are quoting is "expenses" is inaccurate. It might not be that the $825 K is expenses. It could have been put into reserve. It could have been used otherwise. I agree it could be broken down better. But what I do know is that it didn't go to salaries, office expenses, marketing, etc. (traditional "expenses).

Thanks for the condescension, though, bro.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

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.

You realized he promised to release the financials, right?

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

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.

I agree 100% but it seems that minds have been made up based on some CBC article that leaves more questions than answers.

If they are proven to be donating 30% then a complete investigation needs to be done and major consequences as other very similar organizations are able to run much leaner with the exact same model. If it is proven that the FF is in line with other teams foundations once the reserve is factored in as donated then CBC owes the FF an apology for not digging deeper before putting out such a controversial topic.

Is it uncommon to build large reserves for other projects as Bean says? Just because other organizations donate as it comes in doesn't make it the right way. What if the flames were to offer a large number of less fortunate kids the opportunity to play minor hockey and have all expenses paid for or give out scholarships like halloween candy.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

I agree 100% but it seems that minds have been made up based on some CBC article that leaves more questions than answers.

If they are proven to be donating 30% then a complete investigation needs to be done and major consequences as other very similar organizations are able to run much leaner with the exact same model. If it is proven that the FF is in line with other teams foundations once the reserve is factored in as donated then CBC owes the FF an apology for not digging deeper before putting out such a controversial topic.

Is it uncommon to build large reserves for other projects as Bean says? Just because other organizations donate as it comes in doesn't make it the right way. What if the flames were to offer a large number of less fortunate kids the opportunity to play minor hockey and have all expenses paid for or give out scholarships like halloween candy.

I actually hope we find out. I've never been involved in higher levels of a charity so I have no idea how it works or what's good practice.
just at the moment all things being equal, it looks bad on the ff.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Expenses are the amounts spent on overhead. Expenditures are all amounts paid. So saying that the amount you are quoting is "expenses" is inaccurate. It might not be that the $825 K is expenses. It could have been put into reserve. It could have been used otherwise. I agree it could be broken down better. But what I do know is that it didn't go to salaries, office expenses, marketing, etc. (traditional "expenses).

Thanks for the condescension, though, bro.

No GioforPM. First take it up with the Canadian Revenue Agency, they are the ones calling it expenses. So we can drop that.

Second, it could not have gone into reserve.

The foundation brought in:
$4,108,721

The foundation expensed:
$2,895,548

The reserve would have received the difference, $1,213,173. This is coincidentally close to the 1.2M, but a separate number obviously.

The foundation expenses, $2,895,548, were formed from:
-$1,685,349 gifts to qualified donors (the donations)
-$1,211,199 of other expenses


The $1,211,199 of other expenses can be broken down separately into two distinct ways:

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


Or:

Charitable programs (i.e. salaries, rent, etc.) -$351,076
Management and administration -$199,796
Fundraising-$659,327


I'm not sure where the confusion lies. But this is the numbers we have. Yes, we do not know others. We do know it was not sent to reserve, we do know it was not sent to qualified donees. But again, it could be made up of donations to other non-qualified donees. It could be made up of a lot of things, some that people may consider expenses, some that may not be. What we do know, is that we don't know.

If only there was someway to get an audited financial statement like every other major charity in Calgary....

[GioforPM]

They are not calling it "expenses". They say "expenditures". You think that's not a distinction but it it is, since they also say charitable gifts are expenditures. The $850K falls under a line item called "other expenditures", as you have it.

It's an important distinction. What I know about the $850K is what it's not. That's charitable gifts to qualified recipients, and the other line items, which to me are pretty much the entire field of normal expenses.

I fully agree that there could be a better breakdown or description of that number, which, of course is just an entry on CRA's own form. Since Bean said the financials would be uploaded within days I expect you'll have your answer.

[GioforPM]

I do note that even with the issues, Charity Intelligence gives the Foundation a grade of B. They suggest that with a better explanation of the distribution it would be higher.

[Macindoc]

The major difference I see between the Flames and other teams' foundations is the portion of revenues that comes from non 50/50 and non-event sources. All of the other organizations listed had a substantially higher proportion of (non-50/50) revenue that came from donations and "other" sources. Special events are the least efficient means of fundraising in terms of revenue compared to expenses (whereas accepting donations carries almost no overhead), and since the Flames Foundation had by far the largest proportional contribution of special events to its revenues, it could only be expected that it would rank the lowest on this list of fundraising "efficiency". MLSE, with the lowest proportion of its (non-50/50) revenue coming from special events, had the highest "efficiency", as expected, with 82% of their revenue coming from donations and corporate sponsorships, which have minimal overhead costs.

Having said this, it does raise the question of whether the Flames Foundation should continue to organize special events to fundraise, or whether more net funds could be raised by focusing on other potential revenue sources.

[GioforPM]

On CI's site they posted these financials (not sure if they were previously posted):

https://www.charityintelligence.ca/m...20-%20Copy.pdf

The $560K in expenses includes a couple "direct event" fundings which were a health camp and rink refurbishment. I guess they can't include those as charitable disbursements because there was no registered charity.

The expenses do not include the $850K. There is, however, $650K in honorariums. Are some of their celebrity participants actually getting paid? That makes me unhappy.

ETA: It looks on some sites that they call some donations "honorariums", such as the moneys to 50/50 selling teams.

[Oling_Roachinen]

CRA's definition is:

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...-glossary.html

Honorarium
An honorarium is a voluntary payment made to a person for services for which fees are not legally or traditionally required. An honorarium is typically used to help cover costs for volunteers or guest speakers.

If that's indeed the case, then not counting honorarium's as part of the expense would be quite the oversight. If it does just go to the teams selling 50/50, much more reasonable.

Seems to be about $2,000 per Flames game going to the teams as honoriaum. Hitmen and Stamps as well, not sure if they bring in the same. Let's call it an even $200,000. Pretty fair not to include that as an expense, might be true for the other $450k.

And the 824,454 is likely just the event support fee+honorariums ($824,453)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by 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.

lol

also... JC

[The Boy Wonder]

Aren't the 50/50 sellers just people doing it to raise money for their youth hockey team, or something? is that the money that these honorariums cover?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

CRA's definition is:

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...-glossary.html


If that's indeed the case, then not counting honorarium's as part of the expense would be quite the oversight. If it does just go to the teams selling 50/50, much more reasonable.

Seems to be about $2,000 per Flames game going to the teams as honoriaum. Hitmen and Stamps as well, not sure if they bring in the same. Let's call it an even $200,000. Pretty fair not to include that as an expense, might be true for the other $450k.

And the 824,454 is likely just the event support fee+honorariums ($824,453)

The CRA definition is what I always have thought of as an honorarium.

That said, it's not a line item on the CRA form. It's on FF's balance sheet (on the CI site), so it's their own definition, or their accountants, so they aren't exactly hiding it.

However, I've now seen a bunch of charities describing certain gifts as honorariums. These were often grants to individuals like artists, musicians, etc. And like I said, the FF describes the minimum payment to 50/50 sellers as an honorarium (which I guess it is under CRA rules).

If the FF pays $2K to every seller for Flames, Hitmen, Roughneck and Stamps games, that could account for a fair chunk. Note - they also seem to pay a percentage above the minimum for high sales (and the honorarium is not paid if not enough volunteers show up).

[GioforPM]

What I really hope is that honoraria are not being paid to board members, or athletes etc. who just show up to events, etc. If a person is well known and can command a speaking fee, maybe there's a cost-benefit to be argued, but otherwise, no.

[Oling_Roachinen]

EDIT: Nevermind, the 126k is for the health training camp and rink refurbishment.

2018 had $213,000 as an honoraria for the 50/50 teams. Assuming similar for 2017. I'm not sure if it's split between the winner and the foundation though.

So somewhere between 420,000-530,000 in honorariums not "accounted for."

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Aren't the 50/50 sellers just people doing it to raise money for their youth hockey team, or something? is that the money that these honorariums cover?

That's the money the teams get, all right. The team's volunteers do the selling and get the honorarium (whether its from that night's 50/50 money isn't stated but it doesn't really matter).

$2K is a pretty sufficient haul for a team.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The expenses do not include the $850K. There is, however, $650K in honorariums. Are some of their celebrity participants actually getting paid? That makes me unhappy.

Maybe they hired Trudeau to speak?