Charity in the NHL

[Cowtownguy]

Yesterday, the CBC published an essay about the charity initiatives of professional ice hockey teams. In a nutshell, they stated that NHL teams spend too much of the money raised for charity on the actual charitable events. While the Leafs donate around 79% of all the money raised to charity, the Flames only send 30 cents per dollar to charity. The rest goes to cover the costs of hosting events such as golf tournaments, 50/50 draws etc.

 

I thought that this was a non-issue. When entertainment companies raise money for charity, there is going to be a significant cost attached to the event which is offset by accumulating a larger absolute dollar value. The 50/50 draw is an excellent example. While under half of the money raised will actually go to the charity because automatically 50% goes to the winner and overhead, the overall amount raised in a short time is impressive. I assume that raising 50k in two hours is pretty good. That could have been the end of it had they handled it properly.

 

The Flames handled it as well as they have the new arena deal. In other words, they messed it up and invited criticism. The reaction was too angry and defensive and begs a negative reaction. The reality is that there are a lot of “charities” that spend so little on the actual charities, that they are better described as self-employment schemes. For example, when a charity spends 10% on the charity and the directors are making a lot of money on bloated salaries, is it really a charity? Overhead and administrative costs are important to consider when trying to help others. I have been approached by scumbags claiming to be charities when they are not. The Flames should have:

 

1) Provided the CBC with their administrative costs when asked, just as the Leafs did, because they knew that the CBC would find out anyways. That made them look opaque and unable to think long-term.

 

2) Explain the situation in a non-emotional fashion rather than blaming those who attempt to provide transparency to charitable Canadians. The Flames do not own the revenue raised by their charity. They handle it for a short time. When you are attacking those who seek charitable transparency, look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are doing the right thing.

 

3) Had a plan to deal with this years ago when the Senators were caught funding pro-life organizations. They must have known media were going to look at all of them more closely.

 

I don’t understand why the Flames keep screwing up issues that are easily handled. I am not saying that they need to hire an expensive suit to explain things to people. They just need competent people who are reasonably articulate and sincere. Maybe they should have kept GG because the dude could talk, he just couldn’t coach worth Satoshi. 

 

[cccsberg]

1 hour ago, Cowtownguy said:

Yesterday, the CBC published an essay about the charity initiatives of professional ice hockey teams. In a nutshell, they stated that NHL teams spend too much of the money raised for charity on the actual charitable events. While the Leafs donate around 79% of all the money raised to charity, the Flames only send 30 cents per dollar to charity. The rest goes to cover the costs of hosting events such as golf tournaments, 50/50 draws etc.

 

I thought that this was a non-issue. When entertainment companies raise money for charity, there is going to be a significant cost attached to the event which is offset by accumulating a larger absolute dollar value. The 50/50 draw is an excellent example. While under half of the money raised will actually go to the charity because automatically 50% goes to the winner and overhead, the overall amount raised in a short time is impressive. I assume that raising 50k in two hours is pretty good. That could have been the end of it had they handled it properly.

 

The Flames handled it as well as they have the new arena deal. In other words, they messed it up and invited criticism. The reaction was too angry and defensive and begs a negative reaction. The reality is that there are a lot of “charities” that spend so little on the actual charities, that they are better described as self-employment schemes. For example, when a charity spends 10% on the charity and the directors are making a lot of money on bloated salaries, is it really a charity? Overhead and administrative costs are important to consider when trying to help others. I have been approached by scumbags claiming to be charities when they are not. The Flames should have:

 

1) Provided the CBC with their administrative costs when asked, just as the Leafs did, because they knew that the CBC would find out anyways. That made them look opaque and unable to think long-term.

 

2) Explain the situation in a non-emotional fashion rather than blaming those who attempt to provide transparency to charitable Canadians. The Flames do not own the revenue raised by their charity. They handle it for a short time. When you are attacking those who seek charitable transparency, look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are doing the right thing.

 

3) Had a plan to deal with this years ago when the Senators were caught funding pro-life organizations. They must have known media were going to look at all of them more closely.

 

I don’t understand why the Flames keep screwing up issues that are easily handled. I am not saying that they need to hire an expensive suit to explain things to people. They just need competent people who are reasonably articulate and sincere. Maybe they should have kept GG because the dude could talk, he just couldn’t coach worth Satoshi. 

 

Not sure what you are trying to say, it’s a bit scattered.  This came up on another thread and if you read the comments on the original CBC article a couple things came up:

 

1.  Significant funds were apparently spent on upgrading community rinks that are not themselves registered charities so the expenditures are itemized for the Flames as expenses versus spending on charities.  That would be an accounting classification issue, not a “charitable spending” issue which would distort the article’s numbers.

 

2.  The Flames have apparently set aside funds for at least 1 long-term charitable commitment they have made which makes it seem they are hoarding funds but it may just be timing.

 

Before people go off the deep end and accuse the Flames, as the article does, perhaps a much deeper understanding of the facts would be beneficial.

[Heartbreaker]

49 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

Before people go off the deep end and accuse the Flames, as the article does, perhaps a much deeper understanding of the facts would be beneficial.

 

Perhaps better transparency from the Flames foundation would be beneficial, and also, maybe if the owner didn't skip town (province, and country) when the taxes went up would lead to better public perception, and perhaps, better optics with the handling of the arena would be beneficial also... I can see why people are skeptical. 

 

Love. 

[cccsberg]

52 minutes ago, Heartbreaker said:

 

Perhaps better transparency from the Flames foundation would be beneficial, and also, maybe if the owner didn't skip town (province, and country) when the taxes went up would lead to better public perception, and perhaps, better optics with the handling of the arena would be beneficial also... I can see why people are skeptical. 

 

Love. 

Agree with the absent owner.  It’s just not the same as community owned.  As far as transparency, since the Flames did provide info, doubtful that was the issue.  Seems more like simplistic number crunching, without understanding.  Kind of like stats geeks often appear on a site like this.

[The_Tribal Chief]

Personally i dont Care how it is Handled by the Flames Personally it is Nobodies Business How the Donate to Charites That Is there Business and Everyone else should stay out of it.it is Like a Opinion Everyone has one

[Cowtownguy]

2 hours ago, cccsberg said:

Not sure what you are trying to say, it’s a bit scattered.  This came up on another thread and if you read the comments on the original CBC article a couple things came up:

 

1.  Significant funds were apparently spent on upgrading community rinks that are not themselves registered charities so the expenditures are itemized for the Flames as expenses versus spending on charities.  That would be an accounting classification issue, not a “charitable spending” issue which would distort the article’s numbers.

 

2.  The Flames have apparently set aside funds for at least 1 long-term charitable commitment they have made which makes it seem they are hoarding funds but it may just be timing.

 

Before people go off the deep end and accuse the Flames, as the article does, perhaps a much deeper understanding of the facts would be beneficial.

This is not a left-wing, commie pinko CBC report done by a journalist. It is a CBC story about the CIC's report on charities. They are a credible organization of paid and volunteer accountants and lawyers doing important work because there are so many scams out there. Without trust in charities, fewer people will contribute. The CIC evaluates charities based on transparency, fundraising costs, cash build up, and social outcomes. The Flames organization did particularly poorly earning 1/4 stars on these criteria. After considering the Flames response, the CIC stated that they stand by their evaluation which is the Flames' charity needs more efficiencies introduced and there are better alternatives. Given that professional hockey teams have free, high exposure talent at their disposal, one would assume that they could have a higher percentage of revenue going directly to charity.

 

This is important, but not really my point though. My point is that the Flames do a poor job of dealing with the optics of issues. They messed up the arena deal and ended along the lines of "talk to the hand". They misread public and political opinion then, and they did it again. This could be more serious. Only the Flames could give away money and have it turn into a mess.

 

This is a serious cluster at a time when they are requesting a lot of money from people at a time when many are low on cash. Here are some responses to the CBC story. Do you think this hurts the arena initiative?

Quote

So are these "events" really meant to raise funds for charity or provide tax free publicity for the industry?

 

Quote

My thoughts exactly - seems like an ideal way for these organizations to get free advertising and dodge the taxman!

Quote

As a Calgary Flames fan, this report is disgusting. And the city is thinking about re-opening talks to build these skinflints a new arena?

Quote

With many charities, the #1 unstated goal is to pay fundraising salaries. That's why some maintain a hefty reserve, to make sure salaries can be paid for a significant amount of time regardless of the amounts eventually provided to "the cause".  

The idea of holding gala events for charitable donators is bordering on tax evasion in principle, but tolerated. Throw a big party and everyone can write off the costs, and toss a few % to some cause after paying themselves a big fee.

To be clear, I do not believe that the Flames are running a scam at all. I believe that they are trying to do the right thing, but it is being done inefficiently.

 

1 hour ago, cccsberg said:

Agree with the absent owner.  It’s just not the same as community owned.  As far as transparency, since the Flames did provide info, doubtful that was the issue.  Seems more like simplistic number crunching, without understanding.  Kind of like stats geeks often appear on a site like this.

The CIC got the information from the federal government (CRA). This is required to maintain their charitable tax free status. Only the Leafs offered information to the CBC freely. The other organizations refused to do so. Did the Flames just think that the CBC would forget about this?

[Cowtownguy]

58 minutes ago, The_Snowbear said:

Personally i dont Care how it is Handled by the Flames Personally it is Nobodies Business How the Donate to Charites That Is there Business and Everyone else should stay out of it.it is Like a Opinion Everyone has one

No, it is most definitely not their money. That is like saying all of our deposits to banks belongs to banks. They are merely holding onto other people's money to go to important charitable causes. They operate tax free and get pretty good advertising out of it in the process. Given they are asking for taxpayers' money for a new arena, the optics of operating an inefficient charity look really bad. To be clear, the NHL charities are some of the bigger ones out there.

[stubblejumper1]

The Flames PR department is incompetent.  The other fiasco that comes to mind was the tweets they issued during the civic election. They can't seem to get anything right. 

[Cowtownguy]

47 minutes ago, stubblejumper1 said:

The Flames PR department is incompetent.  The other fiasco that comes to mind was the tweets they issued during the civic election. They can't seem to get anything right. 

I would not be surprised if ownership is angry about this. They put all of that effort into turning the actual team around, work on getting a new arena, and then out of left field, this happens. My guess is that someone is in the dog house.

[cccsberg]

It would be great to get a response from the Flames, because there seems to be a lot of questions and misinformation out there.  Personally it appears to me that we don’t have all the info and that the article is misstating/misinterpreting the reality.  It is very difficult to be as bad as the article states unless you are trying to be dishonest, which I do not believe for a moment.

[Cowtownguy]

18 minutes ago, cccsberg said:

It would be great to get a response from the Flames, because there seems to be a lot of questions and misinformation out there.  Personally it appears to me that we don’t have all the info and that the article is misstating/misinterpreting the reality.  It is very difficult to be as bad as the article states unless you are trying to be dishonest, which I do not believe for a moment.

The charity has responded, which is owned by the Flames, but ownership has not. I doubt that they will respond. They might be able to alter that data after spending that large chunk of money they are sitting on (at least I assume so). In the end, it just looks bad right at a time when you need things to look really great. 

[MAC331]

18 hours ago, Cowtownguy said:

Yesterday, the CBC published an essay about the charity initiatives of professional ice hockey teams. In a nutshell, they stated that NHL teams spend too much of the money raised for charity on the actual charitable events. While the Leafs donate around 79% of all the money raised to charity, the Flames only send 30 cents per dollar to charity. The rest goes to cover the costs of hosting events such as golf tournaments, 50/50 draws etc.

 

I thought that this was a non-issue. When entertainment companies raise money for charity, there is going to be a significant cost attached to the event which is offset by accumulating a larger absolute dollar value. The 50/50 draw is an excellent example. While under half of the money raised will actually go to the charity because automatically 50% goes to the winner and overhead, the overall amount raised in a short time is impressive. I assume that raising 50k in two hours is pretty good. That could have been the end of it had they handled it properly.

 

The Flames handled it as well as they have the new arena deal. In other words, they messed it up and invited criticism. The reaction was too angry and defensive and begs a negative reaction. The reality is that there are a lot of “charities” that spend so little on the actual charities, that they are better described as self-employment schemes. For example, when a charity spends 10% on the charity and the directors are making a lot of money on bloated salaries, is it really a charity? Overhead and administrative costs are important to consider when trying to help others. I have been approached by scumbags claiming to be charities when they are not. The Flames should have:

 

1) Provided the CBC with their administrative costs when asked, just as the Leafs did, because they knew that the CBC would find out anyways. That made them look opaque and unable to think long-term.

 

2) Explain the situation in a non-emotional fashion rather than blaming those who attempt to provide transparency to charitable Canadians. The Flames do not own the revenue raised by their charity. They handle it for a short time. When you are attacking those who seek charitable transparency, look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are doing the right thing.

 

3) Had a plan to deal with this years ago when the Senators were caught funding pro-life organizations. They must have known media were going to look at all of them more closely.

 

I don’t understand why the Flames keep screwing up issues that are easily handled. I am not saying that they need to hire an expensive suit to explain things to people. They just need competent people who are reasonably articulate and sincere. Maybe they should have kept GG because the dude could talk, he just couldn’t coach worth Satoshi. 

 

Yeah they should just not even have a Foundation if all they provide is 30 cents on the dollar. I find it hard to believe this is what people want to write about and focus on these days. Be thankful the Flames do a lot of good for our Community rather than create dirt.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

Yeah they should just not even have a Foundation if all they provide is 30 cents on the dollar. I find it hard to believe this is what people want to write about and focus on these days. Be thankful the Flames do a lot of good for our Community rather than create dirt.

 

Being transparent to the public is a way of keeping every business honest. 

[MAC331]

11 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

Being transparent to the public is a way of keeping every business honest. 

I have no problem with transparency just complainers. I support a number of Charities and work within others, most all do good with what they receive. 

[cccsberg]

1 hour ago, MAC331 said:

Yeah they should just not even have a Foundation if all they provide is 30 cents on the dollar. I find it hard to believe this is what people want to write about and focus on these days. Be thankful the Flames do a lot of good for our Community rather than create dirt.

The Flames have come forward with specific details, both on a FlamesTV interview and a specific article on the Flames NHL site.  The REAL 2017 numbers are 88% charitable usage with only 12% expenses, and recent allocations of $3mm and more under evaluation.  In addition, of the 7 Canadian NHL team charities, the Flames Foundation was ranked a B by the CIA, second only to Ottawa’s B+.

 

Basically, bottom line is the CBC put out a misleading BS hit job which may be “true” in the limited/misleading terms they presented but is far, far from actual reality.  Anyone damning the Flames Foundation based on that CBC article isn’t being honest and stoking negativities that not only smear the long-term good work of the Flames Foundation but also appeal to the lies and half-truths so prevalent in today’s society.

[Cowtownguy]

6 hours ago, MAC331 said:

Yeah they should just not even have a Foundation if all they provide is 30 cents on the dollar. I find it hard to believe this is what people want to write about and focus on these days. Be thankful the Flames do a lot of good for our Community rather than create dirt.

That is illogical. You claim that it should not be considered a charity at 30% contributions, but people shouldn't discuss how other people's money is spent?

[The_People1]

I don't think the Calgary Flames need to be transparent with the public but I sure hope they are transparent with the tax man. At some point, these charitable events become promotional/advertising or corporate party events more than anything.

[Cowtownguy]

5 hours ago, cccsberg said:

The Flames have come forward with specific details, both on a FlamesTV interview and a specific article on the Flames NHL site.  The REAL 2017 numbers are 88% charitable usage with only 12% expenses, and recent allocations of $3mm and more under evaluation.  In addition, of the 7 Canadian NHL team charities, the Flames Foundation was ranked a B by the CIA, second only to Ottawa’s B+.

 

Basically, bottom line is the CBC put out a misleading BS hit job which may be “true” in the limited/misleading terms they presented but is far, far from actual reality.  Anyone damning the Flames Foundation based on that CBC article isn’t being honest and stoking negativities that not only smear the long-term good work of the Flames Foundation but also appeal to the lies and half-truths so prevalent in today’s society.

The CBC simply reported on the report by the CIC and offered the Flames the opportunity to respond in advance. They chose not to while the Leafs did. The Leafs knew nothing negative would come out of this and nothing has. The CIC read the Flames response and stand by their claim that this is not a BS hit job. They are claiming that the Flames are defining revenue improperly and that they do not really contribute 88%. The 50/50 draw alone, if considered a charitable donation, provides half of all contributions to one person and then you have overhead to consider. What is considered a charitable contribution, the 50% donated to charity or the 100% paid for by fans?  Should the 50% that goes to one person be considered charitable revenue!? C'mon. Had the CIC included that in their analysis, the contribution would be around 40%. The Flames consider that 100%. I agree with the CIC. Half of it is overhead and inefficient in relative terms. That is, other charities operate more efficiently. 

 

The CIC does not have a particular anger towards the Flames. They gave good scores to the Leafs and Canucks. They just want Canadians to know that there are efficient charities, inefficient charities, and outright scams. They do good work.

[Cowtownguy]

And to be clear, the CIC is also a charity. 

[MAC331]

45 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

That is illogical. You claim that it should not be considered a charity at 30% contributions, but people shouldn't discuss how other people's money is spent?

That isn't what I said at all. Even if it was 30 cents on the dollar it is going to good causes which is better than nothing at all. It is a good thing for them to have a charity, whether this CIC does good work or not I don't really care if some other team does a better job of managing its proceeds.

[Cowtownguy]

13 minutes ago, MAC331 said:

That isn't what I said at all. Even if it was 30 cents on the dollar it is going to good causes which is better than nothing at all. It is a good thing for them to have a charity, whether this CIC does good work or not I don't really care if some other team does a better job of managing its proceeds.

The CIC is a charity. Kate Bahen retired from Bay Street and decided to start Charity Intelligence to assist people trying to help others in need. This is good work because some people might be shocked to realize that most of their donations are not actually going to people in need. Given that charities do not always report how donations are even spent, this is a useful service provided virtually for free.

 

Here is the dirt you claim she is making. This is really controversial, so hold onto your seat for this National Inquirer sensationalism.

 

If you want to buy a lottery ticket, consider buying a charitable lottery ticket because people in need receive about 27 cents on all donations. Be clear it is really a lottery ticket and not really a charitable donation.

 

If you want more of your charitable donations to go to people in need, then there are more efficient ways to deliver more of that money to people in need. That is what the CIC, a charity, has said, and that is what the CBC is reporting. 

 

If the Flames generate 100k from a 50/50 draw, about 40k actually goes to charity. The Flames argue that 40/100=100%.

 

Something is better than nothing, but more revenue to actual people in need is better than less to people in need from a charity point of view. 

 

If you cannot grasp this basic logic, then we may as well stop interacting because I am not bringing out puppets to explain further.

 

 

[tmac70]

51 minutes ago, Cowtownguy said:

The CIC is a charity. Kate Bahen retired from Bay Street and decided to start Charity Intelligence to assist people trying to help others in need. This is good work because some people might be shocked to realize that most of their donations are not actually going to people in need. Given that charities do not always report how donations are even spent, this is a useful service provided virtually for free.

 

Here is the dirt you claim she is making. This is really controversial, so hold onto your seat for this National Inquirer sensationalism.

 

If you want to buy a lottery ticket, consider buying a charitable lottery ticket because people in need receive about 27 cents on all donations. Be clear it is really a lottery ticket and not really a charitable donation.

 

If you want more of your charitable donations to go to people in need, then there are more efficient ways to deliver more of that money to people in need. That is what the CIC, a charity, has said, and that is what the CBC is reporting. 

 

If the Flames generate 100k from a 50/50 draw, about 40k actually goes to charity. The Flames argue that 40/100=100%.

 

Something is better than nothing, but more revenue to actual people in need is better than less to people in need from a charity point of view. 

 

If you cannot grasp this basic logic, then we may as well stop interacting because I am not bringing out puppets to explain further.

 

 

They are right. So using your example $100 k is gathered in prize money from the organizers ( flames),10 % is for expenses + 50% payout with 40% to charity  equalizing 100% payout. Their expenses  are 60% of the overall cash flow to generate 40% margins for the charity, simple.

 

Now As Mac was saying any form of charity funding is good regardless of the amount set forth. Every charity organization has expenses of some sort, if one looks further into the certain ones you will be shocked at how little goes forward to the group its being canvassed for. If I am not mistaken I read in the report from the Flames side is final decisions have not been determined on the destination or dollar amount to said parties or community groups. There is no law that  states that all charitable funding must be donated in the same calendar year or that the cannot be profitable. Now if in due time the dollars are not allocated to the community than yes I agree it does not look great from their side. Funny thing with journalism they can create a Satoshi Nakamoto storm if they want to.

 

 

 

[cccsberg]

11 hours ago, tmac70 said:

They are right. So using your example $100 k is gathered in prize money from the organizers ( flames),10 % is for expenses + 50% payout with 40% to charity  equalizing 100% payout. Their expenses  are 60% of the overall cash flow to generate 40% margins for the charity, simple.

 

Now As Mac was saying any form of charity funding is good regardless of the amount set forth. Every charity organization has expenses of some sort, if one looks further into the certain ones you will be shocked at how little goes forward to the group its being canvassed for. If I am not mistaken I read in the report from the Flames side is final decisions have not been determined on the destination or dollar amount to said parties or community groups. There is no law that  states that all charitable funding must be donated in the same calendar year or that the cannot be profitable. Now if in due time the dollars are not allocated to the community than yes I agree it does not look great from their side. Funny thing with journalism they can create a Satoshi Nakamoto storm if they want to.

 

 

 

I do not know a single person that has, or does consider the Flames (and other....) 50/50 draws as a charitable donation.  There is zero charitable donation receipt nor opportunity for one.  It is a lottery, pure and simple.  This is in total contrast to say, the United Way which the CBC article references as a "good/efficient" charity with less than 20/10% expenses.... as they do provide charitable donation receipts and there is zero opportunity to recoup your investment i.e. lottery.  The fact that the Flames utilize their share of the 50/50 funds for charitable purposes is a good thing.  The Flames' expenses in raising these funds is minimal... As I said earlier, this is a case of misrepresentation and accounting classification by the figures in the CBC article.  

 

Hey, let's put it this way, next time any of you naysayers actually win the 50/50, be sure to donate all the winnings back to the Flames Foundation or your favourite charity to remain in keeping with your charitable desires for buying the tickets in the first place...... RIGHT? 

[MAC331]

On ‎2018‎-‎11‎-‎01 at 7:08 PM, Cowtownguy said:

This is not a left-wing, commie pinko CBC report done by a journalist. It is a CBC story about the CIC's report on charities. They are a credible organization of paid and volunteer accountants and lawyers doing important work because there are so many scams out there. Without trust in charities, fewer people will contribute. The CIC evaluates charities based on transparency, fundraising costs, cash build up, and social outcomes. The Flames organization did particularly poorly earning 1/4 stars on these criteria. After considering the Flames response, the CIC stated that they stand by their evaluation which is the Flames' charity needs more efficiencies introduced and there are better alternatives. Given that professional hockey teams have free, high exposure talent at their disposal, one would assume that they could have a higher percentage of revenue going directly to charity.

 

This is important, but not really my point though. My point is that the Flames do a poor job of dealing with the optics of issues. They messed up the arena deal and ended along the lines of "talk to the hand". They misread public and political opinion then, and they did it again. This could be more serious. Only the Flames could give away money and have it turn into a mess.

 

This is a serious cluster at a time when they are requesting a lot of money from people at a time when many are low on cash. Here are some responses to the CBC story. Do you think this hurts the arena initiative?

 

To be clear, I do not believe that the Flames are running a scam at all. I believe that they are trying to do the right thing, but it is being done inefficiently.

 

The CIC got the information from the federal government (CRA). This is required to maintain their charitable tax free status. Only the Leafs offered information to the CBC freely. The other organizations refused to do so. Did the Flames just think that the CBC would forget about this?

Maybe this CIC should worry more about scammers than what the Flames Foundation is doing.

[DirtyDeeds]

On 11/1/2018 at 10:01 PM, cccsberg said:

It would be great to get a response from the Flames, because there seems to be a lot of questions and misinformation out there.  Personally it appears to me that we don’t have all the info and that the article is misstating/misinterpreting the reality.  It is very difficult to be as bad as the article states unless you are trying to be dishonest, which I do not believe for a moment.

It's from CBC... enough said..

 

And the comments below?  worst comments section in any new media site.. ever...