News Article: Pro sports charities hoarding cash, overspending on fundraising, watchdog says

[FlyingJ]

Link

Man, Sens Foundation

Click to read more...

 

[OmniSens]

Makes me wonder how much money was given to DIFD (Do It For Daron) when we raised some at a booth at the arena for a couple season. I believe our funds were given to them through the Sens.
Best if I don't know.

That's really sad.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Charities should spend about 23% on overhead on average so......yeah those are not great numbers. Some can even go as low as 10%. I believe anything over 30% and that's when you might want to investigate further where your money is going.

Also, to be fair, you can't rank a charity and how effective they are by just an overhead data point. I mean its a good start to maybe look into it, but there are many charities that probably actually needs to spend more in overhead and it would yield better fundraising results.

 

[Stylizer1]

 

[Sun God Nika]

Damn eugene

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

Yikes. There's always just a little lower to go for this team, it seems.

 

[Sun God Nika]

46 cents on my actual f***ing dollar is going to the cause wtf

 

[Upgrayedd]

Wheres that photo of the owner with 50/50 tickets at a game a few years back...

 

[Senscore]

Flames ownership is pretty greasy too.

Not surprising.

 

[Six Assets]

Not surprised

 

[TheNewEra]

f***ing pathetic

 

[TheNewEra]

Remember guys we are supposed to ignore all this, give this asshole money otherwise we aren't real fans

It was one thing being a cheap ass owner but this is crossing the moral line that shouldn't be crossed

 

[Joeyjoejoe]

Not surprised that the numbers correlates with the stability of the ownership.

 

[TheNewEra]

Not surprised that the numbers correlates with the stability of the ownership.

The two teams with the worst numbers are the two teams with the worst owners in Canada

There may not be a100% correlation but logic points to a link existing

I just want the Sens franchise to not be in the news negatively for at least a month... Is that too much to ask

 

[Xspyrit]

The more the amount collected is small, the lower the percentage of efficiency should be. Areas with a bigger pool of potential donors should naturally have a bigger ratio than smaller crowds. I'm pretty sure the amount of $ raised by the Sens is pretty negligible compared to Toronto or even Vancouver. Surprised that the Montreal ratio is not higher though but it could be due to several reasons. Another important factor would be the management cost efficiency... Sens are based in a government city... are they efficient? This ratio tells you no, unless it's corrupted? Which is worse.

Interesting article on the subject :

Look Before You Give

 

[foggyvisor]

So this is how EM is meeting payroll

 

[FlyingJ]

From the article. Holy hell, Flames. I mean, I still don't like the Sens Foundation keeping the majority of what they raise in reserve, but Calgary is freakin' disgusting. Sitting on nearly $8 million while giving under $2 million?

 

[BankStreetParade]

From the article. Holy hell, Flames. I mean, I still don't like the Sens Foundation keeping the majority of what they raise in reserve, but Calgary is freakin' disgusting. Sitting on nearly $8 million while giving under $2 million?

It doesn't look like Montreal are saints either...

 

[OmniSens]

I wonder how Subban's charity to Montreal's hospital is looking like. Probably a complete different thing, but it's just the first thing that popped into mind.

 

[FlyingJ]

It doesn't look like Montreal are saints either...

Yeah. Go figure, it's MLSE and Vancouver that are the most admirable. The rest? Yeeeesh.

 

[solidprospect]

That's not good, what about the other stuff like Rogers House.

 

[saskriders]

Charities should spend about 23% on overhead on average so......yeah those are not great numbers. Some can even go as low as 10%. I believe anything over 30% and that's when you might want to investigate further where your money is going.

Also, to be fair, you can't rank a charity and how effective they are by just an overhead data point. I mean its a good start to maybe look into it, but there are many charities that probably actually needs to spend more in overhead and it would yield better fundraising results.

How much should an average charity have in reserves? To me it makes sense to have some as a "rainy day fund" if the need for donations increases or the amount collected decreases. I would imagine that reserves should be much less than what is spent, but having them doesn't necessarily upset me.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

How much should an average charity have in reserves? To me it makes sense to have some as a "rainy day fund" if the need for donations increases or the amount collected decreases. I would imagine that reserves should be much less than what is spent, but having them doesn't necessarily upset me.

I would say reserves are anywhere from 6 months to 2 years of operating expenses. Assuming the definition of that chart reserves meaning unrestricted funds for the charity. I would say 6 months is most common? There is no set pre-determiniation because it kinda depends on the size and scope of the charity.

There also should be policies in place on how to authorize their use, who can authorize, what can they be used for, etc. And assuming their definition of reserve is correct, this would basically be a savings account for the charity, not an endowment fund or anything like that.

It's very interesting stuff, I am kinda surprised at MLSE. Also surprised at the Flames for obvious reasons.

 

[The Lewler]

How much should an average charity have in reserves? To me it makes sense to have some as a "rainy day fund" if the need for donations increases or the amount collected decreases. I would imagine that reserves should be much less than what is spent, but having them doesn't necessarily upset me.

A charity is not supposed to be looking out for it's own long term existence. It's supposed to be a vehicle for efficient delivery of funding or aid to its cause of choice.

A small reserve fund would be defensible, but usually what happens is you end up with overpaid and unnecessary administration and staff, and their costs start eating up more and more of the donations before its distributed.

Where it gets really greasy is when that number gets really low , and there is clear conflict happening. Like a major donor to charity (tax incentives) has a brother or wife or child working at the charity drawing a salary.

At any rate, unless there is a major project being saved for in Calgary (like they are going to be building a new ward at a hospital, buying MRI machines etc) that reserve seems pretty bad.

 

[saskriders]

A charity is not supposed to be looking out for it's own long term existence. It's supposed to be a vehicle for efficient delivery of funding or aid to its cause of choice.

A small reserve fund would be defensible, but usually what happens is you end up with overpaid and unnecessary administration and staff, and their costs start eating up more and more of the donations before its distributed.

Where it gets really greasy is when that number gets really low , and there is clear conflict happening. Like a major donor to charity (tax incentives) has a brother or wife or child working at the charity drawing a salary.

At any rate, unless there is a major project being saved for in Calgary (like they are going to be building a new ward at a hospital, buying MRI machines etc) that reserve seems pretty bad.

Why shouldn't a charity look out for its existence? If a charity is able to give a majority of it's income on a yearly basis it is a good thing that it keeps operating. When something like the 2008 recession happens and donations will inevitably drop the need that that charity fills will still exist. It is better that the charity still exists throughout that period, and still has the same ability to accept and distribute donations on a large scale when donations increase again. If an individual doesn't have a savings account even though they are able to cover their expenses we would rightly say that they are managing their finances unwisely, why should it be different for charities? Obviously there is such a thing as going over the line, and with my admittedly limited knowledge of how charities operate it appears that maybe all (maybe not MLSE and the Canucks ) went over that line.