PDA

View Full Version : MLSE Team Up Foundation



DOMIN8R
04-05-2010, 08:29 PM
2010 KICKOFF DINNER at Real Sports Apparel (cross promotion - how intimate....!)

I was more than a little disapointed to find out the MLSE has rolled all charitable activities into one leviatan (economies of scale) philanthropic entity. I'm sure it makes good corporate sense to have this centralized but I think it comes at the expense of soccer specific charities.

I'm sure the Team Up Foundation will do some good work. But I'm sorry that the football interests will not be specifically supported.

For this reason, I can no longer justify attending the (insert beer name here) KickOff Dinner or the 50/50 draw, etc.. I had an attachment to previous TFC charities. Now? Not so much.

Red Rat
04-05-2010, 08:34 PM
I never attended them anyway.
MLSE + Charity = oxymoron

rr

drewski
04-05-2010, 08:47 PM
I can tell you MLSE Team Up supports KidSport Ontario who provide money for underpriviledged kids to play the sport of their choice (reg fee's * equipment), including soccer.

Shakes McQueen
04-05-2010, 08:50 PM
I can tell you MLSE Team Up supports KidSport Ontario who provide money for underpriviledged kids to play the sport of their choice (reg fee's * equipment), including soccer.

This is true. I know many people around here think MLSE are the Antichrist, but the "Team Up" charity is a good thing, no matter how you slice or dice it.

- Scott

Roogsy
04-05-2010, 08:53 PM
While I am not the biggest MLSE fan, I can't see how objection to HOW they structure their charitable efforts makes any difference? Isn't it the point that they are giving in the first place? Better than not giving at all? Who are we to dictate to them how they do their charitable giving?

Either you support MLSE giving to charity or you do not. What they give or how they give should be none of our concern.

Super Cereal
04-05-2010, 08:54 PM
Maybe I'm an ass, but that seems like an incredibly selfish and stupid thing to complain about.

DOMIN8R
04-05-2010, 08:54 PM
There is no shortage of charities that support disadvantaged youth in Canada, Ontario and Toronto. I support several of them. But there are very few that support/promote football as well. In previous years, TFC charitable efforts helped the underpriveldeged kids and promoted football interests.

If we wish to contribute to a TFC charitable cause - it will more likely promote hockey or basketball interests. That's all I'm saying.

DichioTFC
04-05-2010, 08:58 PM
While I am not the biggest MLSE fan, I can't see how objection to HOW they structure their charitable efforts makes any difference? Isn't it the point that they are giving in the first place? Better than not giving at all? Who are we to dictate to them how they do their charitable giving?

Either you support MLSE giving to charity or you do not. What they give or how they give should be none of our concern.

Case. Point.

Boris
04-05-2010, 08:59 PM
this foundation has projects that are football specific.

For example, they have chosen parks in areas to give a make over.
There will be many soccer related projects coming from this foundation.

Damien
04-05-2010, 09:00 PM
They say 60% of the time it'll work every time!

DOMIN8R
04-05-2010, 09:03 PM
Have a closer look at what this foundation has spent money on, Boris.

I don't disagree with the good work that will/has be done.
I wish that I could have a one-to-one realtionship with my contributions going to support football specifc charities. That's all.

Roogsy
04-05-2010, 09:05 PM
To me the decision is this:

Is the money going to the MLSE bottom line?

No.

Is the money going to be used to fund charitable projects?

Yes.

That's all I need to know.

And that is all I will say on this.

Super Cereal
04-05-2010, 09:06 PM
To me the decision is this:

Is the money going to the MLSE bottom line?

No.

Is the money going to be used to fund charitable projects?

Yes.

That's all I need to know.

And that is all I will say on this.
Agreed. This thread is very aggravating.

drewski
04-05-2010, 09:31 PM
some of the soccer specific places the funds go.


Toronto FC Coach ing Ac ademy
This fall, Toronto FC will launch its first ever one-day
Coaching Academy. Coaches will have the opportunity
to take part in an interactive Toronto FC practice at BMO
Field, along with seminars from Toronto FC coaches and
special guests.

Toronto FC Youth Program presented by Danone
This summer, Toronto FC debuted the Toronto FC Youth
Program. This program gave kids aged 6 to 12 the chance to
develop fundamental soccer skills from Toronto FC Academy
coaches, as well as Toronto FC players, at BMO Field.

Toronto FC Academy
Toronto FC launched the Toronto FC Academy in 2008
with the goal of providing dedicated and talented soccer
players with an opportunity to receive advanced coaching
instruction. These players are given the chance to grow
their technical, tactical and physical potential within the
game of soccer.

Toronto FC partnered with two charitable organizations,
KidSport Ontario and Right to Play, and raised $100,000
for these two organizations last season.



KidSport can be soccer specific if the tell them where they want the money to go.

DichioTFC
04-05-2010, 09:35 PM
some of the soccer specific places the funds go.




KidSport can be soccer specific if the tell them where they want the money to go.

Exactly, but like if people are so passionate about going to soccer-related to charities, then give the money yourself directly.

MLSE is a heartless corporation to most people, but when they do positive things like this, its really difficult to fault them. After all, I don't see anyone proposing the creation of their own soccer-specific charities.

Some companies tie their charities to corporate performance, lets just be happy that MLSE isn't doing the same thing, then nobody would get anything.

:D

JonO
04-05-2010, 09:36 PM
So... anyone going to this thing? I'm thinking about it :hide:

DOMIN8R
04-05-2010, 09:46 PM
Perhaps it comes down to foundations versus charities. I would rather make a contribution to Athletes for Africa and kids soccer teams like I did through 50/50, etc. in the past.

Nice find Drewski but this is trivial compared to the profile hockey and basketball get on the foundations site. And the football specific grants are peanuts compared to the other grants.

I don't buy Roogsy's argument that any charity is good enough. I guess I'm a little more selective.

Roogsy
04-05-2010, 09:52 PM
I am selective enough.

I don't consider what I pay at this event to be the charity that I do for the year.

The charities that I really care about get the money directly from me. I don't need MLSE to do that job for me and I am not going to make that the decisive factor in whether I support an endeavour like this.

You make me sound like I am not selective at all. I just choose not to make these events the forum where I make that selection.

DOMIN8R
04-05-2010, 10:11 PM
The charities that I really care about get the money directly from me. I don't need MLSE to do that job for me and I am not going to make that the decisive factor in whether I support an endeavour like this.
.

That's exactly my point. Let's forget the events and fundraising activites for a minute.

Last year I was willing to put up with an intermediary to further football in Canada. I paid into TFC charities to a hefty sum. They contributed directly to football centric charities. Now I have to go through a foundation that has multiple sporting interests. I have no idea if my cash will futher Canadian football charities. Money is pooled in a foundation and, as a result, I have lost my relationship to the cause.

Like you, I won't have MLSE do that job for me anymore. I too will contribute directly. I just caught on later than you.

And you forgot to type "And that is all I will say on this.":D

Roogsy
04-05-2010, 10:13 PM
Refer to me...get an answer from me. :D

Nuvinho
04-05-2010, 10:26 PM
what is up with the 2 drink tickets? I remember at Maro it was open bar.

tfc2007
04-05-2010, 10:49 PM
Any charity is a good charity.

nascarguy
04-06-2010, 05:46 AM
here is the link for the dinner http://www.torontofc.ca/news/2010/04/kick-dinner-may-4th

here is the link for the foundation http://teamupfoundation.org/ this dinner will have players from all mlse team
Tickets cost $150 and you will get a partial tax receipt (maximum allowable by law).

Ticket includes:
• Mingle and take photos with the players
• Food
• (2) drink tickets
• Opportunity to bid on unique items in a charity auction

Tickets go on public sale on Tuesday, April 6th.

drewski
04-06-2010, 07:23 AM
if I'm going to an event like this, the money going to a good cause is just a bonus. but that's just my personal belief.

drewski
04-06-2010, 07:28 AM
Nice find Drewski but this is trivial compared to the profile hockey and basketball get on the foundations site. And the football specific grants are peanuts compared to the other grants.

and I imagine the money soccer related events bring to the charity are peanuts compared the money hockey and basketball bring in, and in the grand scheme of things, the sport related source of the money is probably pretty balanced with the sport related grants.

FluSH
04-06-2010, 07:33 AM
While I am not the biggest MLSE fan, I can't see how objection to HOW they structure their charitable efforts makes any difference? Isn't it the point that they are giving in the first place? Better than not giving at all? Who are we to dictate to them how they do their charitable giving?

Either you support MLSE giving to charity or you do not. What they give or how they give should be none of our concern.


All I want to know is how much goes towards administrative fees? Wouldn't they inherently increase?

Donating to Charity is a hot topic for me... I do it every month to World Vision.... mainly because of the low admin costs:

http://www.moneysense.ca/2009/12/21/canadas-40-biggest-charities/ (http://www.moneysense.ca/2009/12/21/canadas-40-biggest-charities/)

Steve
04-06-2010, 07:35 AM
and I imagine the money soccer related events bring to the charity are peanuts compared the money hockey and basketball bring in, and in the grand scheme of things, the sport related source of the money is probably pretty balanced with the sport related grants.

Exactly what I was going to say. By being rolled up in this charity, it isn't a one directional thing. It's not like now most of your money goes to hockey, and what's left is the only thing soccer gets. Instead, when the Leafs have charity events, that money will also be pooled and some will be used for soccer specific charities (and they bring in a lot more money than TFC does). In the end, it's probably a wash.

FluSH
04-06-2010, 07:38 AM
That's exactly my point. Let's forget the events and fundraising activites for a minute.

Last year I was willing to put up with an intermediary to further football in Canada. I paid into TFC charities to a hefty sum. They contributed directly to football centric charities. Now I have to go through a foundation that has multiple sporting interests. I have no idea if my cash will futher Canadian football charities. Money is pooled in a foundation and, as a result, I have lost my relationship to the cause.

Like you, I won't have MLSE do that job for me anymore. I too will contribute directly. I just caught on later than you.

And you forgot to type "And that is all I will say on this.":D

Yup, this is a problem for me... not knowing where my money goes... Part of the reason why I only chose specific charities for the Haiti Relief....

drewski
04-06-2010, 07:39 AM
Flush brings up a good point about admin fee's. I wonder if by putting all the charities together they've basically cut down the admin fee's/overhead because its now shared between all the sports.

mlsintoronto
04-06-2010, 07:39 AM
Just a couple of comments to provide some context for this discussion:
- the Leafs and Raptors have a full year head start on TFC within the foundation since TFC had made obligations to our other partners (Kidsport and Right to Play)
- The new Foundation will continue to distribute funds to other charities, and will spend directly on sport related items like field and rink re-builds.
- The fund raising and allocation of funds I think will be of similar ratio (ie if 40% of funds raised are via Leafs, then shouldn't 40% of the funds go toward hockey?) This would make sense to me.
- I know there has been discussion on mechanisms to ensure that someone who is giving can ensure that their donation goes directly toward an item that is important to them. This sort of answers Domin8r's desire for feeling a connection to the cause. For example we might say something like "the silent auction proceeds will go directly to funding a field refurbishment and equipment purchase at XXX field in whitby..."

The overarching reason for the single charity is to provide a focus for all the good work we have been doing for years - the Raptors Foundation and Leafs fund have been working separately since the Leafs bought the Raptors (for reasons tracing back to the Raptors expansion into Toronto and provisions related to pro-line betting or something like that!). Only recently have we been able to bring everything under one umbrella.

Hope this helps.

nascarguy
04-06-2010, 07:43 AM
if I had the money to spend I would go

drewski
04-06-2010, 07:48 AM
All I want to know is how much goes towards administrative fees? Wouldn't they inherently increase?

Donating to Charity is a hot topic for me... I do it every month to World Vision.... mainly because of the low admin costs:

http://www.moneysense.ca/2009/12/21/canadas-40-biggest-charities/ (http://www.moneysense.ca/2009/12/21/canadas-40-biggest-charities/)


in general I agree its important to look at admin costs of a charity, but that chart is a bit misleading IMO.

For instance, Heart and Stroke looks bad cause 5%0 of their money goes to admin & fundraising. Looking at their return, $63M went out for fundraising but $64M came in so it more than balances out, and their admin costs, $3.5M, are only 2.5% of total revenue, which is good relatively for a charity.

drewski
04-06-2010, 07:49 AM
Just a couple of comments to provide some context for this discussion:
- the Leafs and Raptors have a full year head start on TFC within the foundation since TFC had made obligations to our other partners (Kidsport and Right to Play)
- The new Foundation will continue to distribute funds to other charities, and will spend directly on sport related items like field and rink re-builds.
- The fund raising and allocation of funds I think will be of similar ratio (ie if 40% of funds raised are via Leafs, then shouldn't 40% of the funds go toward hockey?) This would make sense to me.
- I know there has been discussion on mechanisms to ensure that someone who is giving can ensure that their donation goes directly toward an item that is important to them. This sort of answers Domin8r's desire for feeling a connection to the cause. For example we might say something like "the silent auction proceeds will go directly to funding a field refurbishment and equipment purchase at XXX field in whitby..."

The overarching reason for the single charity is to provide a focus for all the good work we have been doing for years - the Raptors Foundation and Leafs fund have been working separately since the Leafs bought the Raptors (for reasons tracing back to the Raptors expansion into Toronto and provisions related to pro-line betting or something like that!). Only recently have we been able to bring everything under one umbrella.

Hope this helps.


great info from somebody in the know. thanks paul!

Oldtimer
04-06-2010, 07:49 AM
You can fault MLSE for many things, but they have always been giving back to the community -- regardless of the sport. That's part of being a "good corporate citizen."

Oldtimer
04-06-2010, 07:56 AM
All I want to know is how much goes towards administrative fees? Wouldn't they inherently increase?

Donating to Charity is a hot topic for me... I do it every month to World Vision.... mainly because of the low admin costs:

http://www.moneysense.ca/2009/12/21/canadas-40-biggest-charities/ (http://www.moneysense.ca/2009/12/21/canadas-40-biggest-charities/)

I know someone who works for World Vision - they certainly are frugal when it comes to Admin costs, and they do a lot of excellent development projects.

canadian_bhoy
04-06-2010, 08:08 AM
What's the deal with this new Real Sports thing? They have Real Sports Apparel and Real Sports Bar and Grill down at the ACC.

The name "Real Sports" blows really hard.

Compare that name for a bar to "Lord Stanley's Mug". So much better and actually has an ounce of thought to it.

Roogsy
04-06-2010, 08:15 AM
What's the deal with this new Real Sports thing? They have Real Sports Apparel and Real Sports Bar and Grill down at the ACC.

The name "Real Sports" blows really hard.

Compare that name for a bar to "Lord Stanley's Mug". So much better and actually has an ounce of thought to it.

Wrong thread my man! LOL!

canadian_bhoy
04-06-2010, 08:20 AM
Wrong thread my man! LOL!

What do you mean? The original post said the event would be at(or by) Real Sports. I'm just bringing up the stupid name. I know they want to make it team neutral (uh...then why call it Maple Leaf Square), but you'd think that they could have come up with a better name than that.

gawd. I'm surprised it wasn't called Live Sports B&G. Live would be too obvious. Real is much better. :facepalm:

It's like Police Cops name on the Simpsons.

Roogsy
04-06-2010, 08:23 AM
I just meant that this thread is for complaining about the MLSE foundation, there are other threads that bitch about MLSE's horrendous winning record. I am sure we can talk about the new bar's silly name elsewhere. Let's stick to the foundation here.

canadian_bhoy
04-06-2010, 08:26 AM
I just meant that this thread is for complaining about the MLSE foundation, there are other threads that bitch about MLSE's horrendous winning record. I am sure we can talk about the new bar's silly name elsewhere. Let's stick to the foundation here.

Ok. I haven't seen the new Real Sports Apparel, but it's too bad that they're moving the location to the mother ship.

The first year at the Capitol Theatre and subsequent years in Liberty Village were great venues and they reflected the neighbourhood/funky vibe that TFC has done well to grasp.

At this point I'm just nit picking and bitching though. Plus, there is a 99.9% chance that I won't have the money to attend this thing anyway.

But at least I get to post this youtube clip again!

SWM-fNJ1dO8

FluSH
04-06-2010, 09:05 PM
in general I agree its important to look at admin costs of a charity, but that chart is a bit misleading IMO.

For instance, Heart and Stroke looks bad cause 5%0 of their money goes to admin & fundraising. Looking at their return, $63M went out for fundraising but $64M came in so it more than balances out, and their admin costs, $3.5M, are only 2.5% of total revenue, which is good relatively for a charity.

Yes I'll have to admint it's not the best chart.. but 50% is still 50% when you compare it to other charities...

also, Where did you get the breakdown between admin & fundraising... at the end of the day what is the ROI on Heart n Stroke vs others... if you consider the fundraising the "investment" part...

drewski
04-06-2010, 09:30 PM
Yes I'll have to admint it's not the best chart.. but 50% is still 50% when you compare it to other charities...

50% isn't always 50%...

a lot of the fundraising expenditures (cars, houses, etc) are given as in-kind donations specifically for the lotteries because they make great "free" ads. While they technically count as "fundraising expenditures", they didn't really cost the H&S foundation a thing, and they wouldn't have got them otherwise. Also the ROI is a lot higher than the $1M the math might show.




also, Where did you get the breakdown between admin & fundraising... at the end of the day what is the ROI on Heart n Stroke vs others... if you consider the fundraising the "investment" part...


from their tax return. its available for all registered charities on the CRA website


http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t3010form21-eng.action?b=107472839RR0001&e=2009-08-31&n=HEART+AND+STROKE+FOUNDATION+OF+ONTARIO&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cra-arc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Fbasicsearchr esult-eng.action%3Fs%3D%2B%26amp%3Bk%3Dheart%2Band%2Bstr oke%26amp%3Bp%3D1%26amp%3Bb%3Dtrue


here is World Vision, who you mentioned

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t3010form19-eng.action?b=119304855RR0001&e=2008-09-30&n=WORLD+VISION+CANADA-VISION+MONDIALE+CANADA&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cra-arc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Fbasicsearchr esult-eng.action%3Fs%3D%2B%26amp%3Bk%3Dworld%2Bvision%26 amp%3Bp%3D1%26amp%3Bb%3Dtrue#section_g

FluSH
04-06-2010, 09:36 PM
50% isn't always 50%...

a lot of the fundraising expenditures (cars, houses, etc) are given as in-kind donations specifically for the lotteries because they make great "free" ads. While they technically count as "fundraising expenditures", they didn't really cost the H&S foundation a thing, and they wouldn't have got them otherwise. Also the ROI is a lot higher than the $1M the math might show.


I knew the assets donated by the dealers etc were free... as a form of goodwill, publicity, etc... What I didn't know is that they count as fundraising expenditures to the charity... if they do... does this mean the dealer gets a tax receipt for donations in kind? I just don't see why this would count as a fundraising expendinture

anyhow thanks for the info and those links... I spend enough time on the CRA website... I can't believe I didn;t see this earlier

drewski
04-07-2010, 07:29 AM
I knew the assets donated by the dealers etc were free... as a form of goodwill, publicity, etc... What I didn't know is that they count as fundraising expenditures to the charity... if they do... does this mean the dealer gets a tax receipt for donations in kind? I just don't see why this would count as a fundraising expendinture

anyhow thanks for the info and those links... I spend enough time on the CRA website... I can't believe I didn;t see this earlier


I'm not an accountant, its just an assumption on my part. I'd think they count it as a receipted in-kind donation (to make it more attractive to the donors), so it would then have to be accounted for when given away, and I'd think would fall under a fundraising expenditure because its goes out because of the fundraising activity (and I can't see any other category it would logical fall under). Thats my reasoning anyway

DOMIN8R
04-24-2010, 10:15 AM
Dr. Bruce Kidd, who was announced as chair of MLSE’s Team Up foundation in December, said his board of directors is “very concerned about the costs.”
......

Fundraising and administration consumed 55 per cent of the $1.5 million raised last year by Team Up, according to the foundation’s self-reported figures to the Canada Revenue Agency.

.....

More than half the money raised in the name of charity by Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment was spent on fundraising and administration last year.

Experts say well-run charitable operations should be directing less than 20 per cent of their charitable income on fundraising and administration.
“Canadians love their hockey teams, but it appears the charitable spending among these teams don’t return that affection as expected,” says Toronto forensic accountant Charles Smedmor.

“As community investments go, there are much better places to put your charitable dollars.”




http://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/article/800061--star-investigation-the-high-cost-of-sports-charities?bn=1

CretanBull
04-24-2010, 10:18 AM
^What's our administrative over-head on all of our fundraising, a fraction of a percent?

DOMIN8R
04-24-2010, 10:19 AM
As per my original post....



“The smart money isn’t giving through sports foundations (like Team Up) to achieve impact,” says Kate Bahen, managing director of Charity Intelligence Canada, a non-profit organization that analyzes charity finances. “(MLSE) is a massive hockey machine. But to present Team Up as experts in community development is a stretch.”


No more 50/50 draws, First Kick or other for me. Until I see evidence that my $$$ is going to have dirrect impact, why pay a middle man?

canadian_bhoy
04-24-2010, 10:27 AM
Bruce Kidd? I really hope it isn't the same Bruce Kidd who ran the sports programs at UofT (except track) into the ground.

Keyman
04-24-2010, 11:04 AM
Yeah I've not heard great things about MLSE's charitable programs, and that article just substantiated the rumours I've been hearing for some time.

ensco
04-24-2010, 11:13 AM
As far as I know, the people involved in the MLSE charities are all honourable. But there are serious issues around corporate backed charities.

One is the issue of reciprocal or collateral benefits. The corporate backer can direct donations to charities as part of their overall relationships with decision makers at customers (or suppliers). It's often part of how business deals get deal. This goes on all the time. But the question is, do funds "redistributed" this way really go to their highest and best use, from the POV of the original donor?

The second problem, which occurs less often, and is certainly harder to prove, is that employees of the charitable foundation can spend time effectively working for the corporate backer. This is where the question of administrative expense gets really squishy. Donors who think their money is going to cause X, can really just be subsidizing the operating business of the corporate backer.

To repeat, I'm not saying that these occur in the MLSE foundation.

But I do think it's bad public policy to allow entities such as these to operate as they currently do within the existing rules.

Roogsy
04-24-2010, 04:05 PM
As far as I know, the people involved in the MLSE charities are all honourable. But there are serious issues around corporate backed charities.

This is key.

Excellent post Ensco.

The problem here isn't MLSE and the Team Up Foundation. MLSE is not alone in creating these foundations that have high administrative costs relative to the funds generated.

My problem with this whole thing is this: Were not all of us really not aware that if we REALLY wanted our dollars to have an impact, was this EVER the route to go? If we did think so, I think we were fooling ourselves. If the percentage that goes to costs and adminsitration is 30,40 or 50 percent, I could have always pointed you in the direction of a foundation that did better. In my opinion, having a problem with the Team Up Foundation because of their administrative costs really is a strawman argument. Most corporate backed foundations suffer the same problem, are we going to look at all foundations like these the same way and choose not to support them? Or is it simply MLSE that we will hold to a higher standard?