Team ownership and registered status question

Hi Folks,

I was wondering which CFL teams are registered as non-profit organizations? I understand the Saskatchewan Roughriders are one. Are there any others? Thanks!

…no teams are considered ‘non-profit’ organizations…all of the teams are businesses where the intention is to make money to reinvest in the team or it’s facilities…that being said there are two approaches to this: Private Ownership and Community Ownership…

…The Riders, Eskimos and Blue Bombers are run under the Community Ownership style…all other teams have a singular or multi-person private ownership status…

…hope that answers your question…

Thanks redandwhite…

I ask because the Regina Leader Post reported in an article yesterday that the Roughriders were classified as a non-profit corporation… this is according to a Sask Justice employee.

The Saskatchewan Roughriders are in fact a registered non-profit organization.
That description has nothing to do with whether or not the team tries to make a profit, but rather it affects what they do with a profit when or if there is one.

From a government website:

What is a not-for-profit corporation? Not-for-profit corporations (also called "non-share capital corporations") are different from for-profit corporations (also called "business corporations") in three fundamental ways:
* The not-for-profit corporation is composed of members, whereas the for-profit corporation is owned by shareholders.1
   
* The members of a not-for-profit corporation cannot receive any financial (or pecuniary) gain2 during the life of the corporation,3 whereas a for-profit corporation may distribute profits to its shareholders in the form of dividends.
   
* The powers of a not-for-profit corporation are limited to what is written into its objects (purposes), whereas, typically, the for-profit corporation has no such limits</blockquote>
http://bsa.cbsc.org/gol/bsa/site.nsf/en/su06823.html

And I guess to answer your basic question, I am certain as to the status of the Riders, but I assume that both the Bombers and Eskimos are non-profit as well.

All the other teams are private, “for profit” entities.
The Stamps were non-profit until the 90s, and I believe Ottawa attempted it at one point in the 80s.

...I stand corrected then, sort of....I cannot disagree with the wording of the legal writ Arius pulled up it, however I don't put the riders (or the esks or the BBs) on the same plateau as say the Salvation Army or the Red Cross, pure non-profit organizations...

.....o.k., the community owned franchises are obliged to turn their profits back towards the betterment of the team...a privately owned team is not obliged to do the same....but a privately owned team would be foolish not to do so....

.....take for example the Owner of the Ti-Cats, Bob Young....he doesn't see himself as a benefactor of the Hamilton club, in fact he calls himself simply the Caretaker of the franchise....and sinks every cent the team turns a profit on back into the team...he is doing the same as the rider mgmt, I guess the only difference is he chooses to do so, whereas the rider mgmt is mandated to...

Red, I think you are still thinking charitable = non-profit, which is not the distinction that is being made.
In fact the biggest difference bewtween a "not for profit" organization and a "charitable" organization is that a simple non-profit org, is NOT a charity:

Charitable and non-profit organizations share many characteristics. They are non-profit and direct their resources to furthering their objects. There are however critical differences between a non-profit organization (NPO) and a charitable organization. [b]NPOs do not have the right to be registered under the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the ITA) with the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) as registered charities.[/b] The ITA recognizes two categories of charities eligible for exemption from income taxation and issuance of charitable receipts, a charitable organization and a charitable foundation.
op cit.

So, no, the Riders are not the CFL equivalent to the Salvation Army. As much as we may seem to play like it at times.....

And as most people are confused by these distinctions, don't sweat it....

I think it's more a case of this: Since it is a group of shareholders that own the Riders (and Eskimos and Bombers), they (basically) can't cash in their shares for a quick buck, ie, selling it for more than they bought it. That's what they mean by "dividends" ...

What the Riders do with the money that they make, I'm not entirely sure, but I'm assuming it does just go back into the team, as much as possible. And I have no idea how a shareholder would go about selling their shares. Or if it's even an option ...

I like Bob Young's approach, not making any money for himself off the franchise. But he doesn't have to do it that way ... it's just a commendable way of going about it

I have provided a website that is chalk full of more info regarding not for profit organizations…

What the Riders do with the money that they make, I'm not entirely sure, but I'm assuming it does just go back into the team, as much as possible. And I have no idea how a shareholder would go about selling their shares. Or if it's even an option .
One member, one vote. A "membership" is similar to a "share" but it has no value as it cannot be transferred. And you can only own one membership/share. Profits must be used to further the proscribed goals of the organization as laid out in their charter. That means that yes, the money must go to pay bills, advance the goals of the Riders, etc. Apparently, they can even use those funds to become concert promoters, though I suspect that required some tight rope walking to keep the Stones within the defined parameters.

Thats see divide $455 with what 25,000 share holders. Better get some pennies boys.

....Thanks for the clarification, but re-read my post Arius, I didn't say the riders held the same status as the sally ann, only that the semantics of 'non-profit' make it sound so....tell me, is the beer sound at TF sold at cost?....is the parking at cost?....is a ticket price sold at cost?....no, there is built in profit at all levels, so calling an organization 'non-profit' when everyhting about it's very existence is designed to actually generate a profit seems challenging...but I understand the difference....

PS, appreciated the comment about playing like the SA, made me laugh, and laughing is good....

redandwhite now you will get a three page reply why the riders are not sally ann :smiley: :lol: :roll:

Redwhite, you don't know what the Community owned teams are like do you?

the Bombers are not like Green Bay or Regina, there is no Shareholders thing.
The Riders Began Selling shares not long ago, I'm not sure of what year I beleive in the 90's but might not be.
-The Packers are currently the only non-profit, community owned major league professional sports team in the United States. Currently, a total of 4,750,925 shares are owned by 111,967 stockholders — none of whom receive any dividend.
(share sales have been held in I beleive the 20's, 50's and 90's)

However the Bombers and Eskimos are Community owned, they have no Share-holder aspect to date, it is however very much an idea for the Bombers to implement a Share-holder type ownership similar to Green bay.

How can Tickets be Sold at Price?
Technically wouldn't all teams be selling tickets are Price IF the team only sells X amount of Tickets?

Something like if the team has 25K Season ticket holders they break even(top 25K seats), but if they get 1 extra They make a profit?

Unless you are garanteed to fill the Stadium every night there are no garantees of how many Tickets will be sold, thus at Price is hard.

Also for that At cost thing, how does that allow for Stadium improvements?
How does that allow for money to be set aside in Savings for improvements?

For Profit means the Team owner can take the money and do as he wishes, that can be Re-invest but can me Run away.

Now in the CFL that does not make much sense, but in say the NFL that makes alot of Sense.
You can put a fairly good team on the field and Still be able to take Profits in Run thanks to the TV deal they have, perhaps if in 5 years if the TSN deal gets to 3M per team CFL owners can do similar actually gains finacially(although it means player costs will rise)
Try to get League Sponsorship Cover player costs in 5 years.(a 25-30M TV deal would do most of it)

Key example is The Edmonton Eskimos, what happens to their War chest, it gets saved in case of Eskimo needs, it doesn't get taken away by the owners it stays with the team until it is needed perhaps for Stadium improvements, to compensate for bad years w/e.

The Roughies released a financial statement recently which showed them having revenues of over $15 million last year. If they didn't spend all $15 million and turned a million or two profit, they would be obliged to reduce ticket prices, returning those profits to the community (a private owner might just put it in his pocket). Considering they can only spend $4 million on player's salaries, that's a lot of money to spend on other things. The Esks also spend money like druken-sailors, (like nearlly $1 million on "media relations"), yet have socked away $15 million into their contingency fund. Even Wpg has a couple of million in the bank...so community-ownership can work.

All CFL franchises make money these days, although much of the "profits" of private owners is being reinvested into the team and facilities.

I'll try and keep this brief...for 2005's sake....

R&W, I clarify things, not just for you, but other potential readers.

As the not for profit legislation is federal in nature, I have no reason to think that this,

the Bombers are not like Green Bay or Regina, there is no Shareholders thing.
is altogether accurate. I think the basic structure of the Eskimos, Bombers, and Riders is the same. The Rider "shares" are just a gimmicky way to sell memberships, and one should not confuse them with owning shares in General Motors. For 250 dollars, you get a lovely certificate....

And I think the best way to sum it up is, the fundamental difference between a "for profit" and a "not for profit", is not whether they turn a profit, but what is the purpose.
For example, General Motors sole reason/purpose for existance is profit, while with the Riders, in theory, we profit by their existance.

Glad I made you laugh earlier, Red.
I do try...I often have my tongue firmly placed in my cheek with many things I say, but people can be very serious on these forums.....right 2005?

Well it wasn't 3 pages.....

Sorry Arius my attempt to be funny failed. Continue your posts are an education and sometimes amusing. Keep ti up. :lol:

The Shares are Memberships but those membership bonuses are rather nice:
-discounts on season tickets (Christmas pricing all year, one season ticket per share)
-the option to buy preferred parking
-access to exclusive Shareholder events
-15% off all Rider merchandise at the Rider Store
-access to Rider Share Wear clothing line, exclusive to Shareholders
-priority to upgrade season tickets
-automatic entry into Shareholder contests

Would the Riders need to lower Season ticket prices are could they:
Set the money aside for a rainy day fund
OR:
Spend it all on Stadium upgrades.

Or is there anyway they could divide League Money into a seperate pile for a rainy day fund?

Because Long-term that could be a better plan, if the Riders made 15M last year in Revenues, if they could keep that up(atleast 14.5M)
But lower their expenses to say 13M(still alot more then the Bombers)
*also that would be about right considering their 4.75M on players last year(possibly more due to last minute bonueses)
That is 600-700K right there in expenses that should be cut.
the other expenses should be Stadium ones, so somehow get 1M in the bank, try to consistently do it(easier in 2008 due to 750K league money increase) and hope to be at the eskimos level of 10M.
Then in a Conservative savings plan they get a 500K boost to Revenues yearly.
How Sask(or any CFL team) could get a bank account large enough for a new stadium however is a good question.
Without big League sponsorship deals like the NFL, it is really hard to build stadium.
Come on TSN, Send the CFL 50M yearly.. you know ya wanna.

I believe the rules for Non profit status vary from province to province. I also believe that despite the teams status, most if not all teams will have a non-profit entity. It is my understanding that the Eskimos and the Stampeders both have a "foundation" to which charitable donations can be chanelled through and from. They can thereby support things like minor football and so on through their foundations.

I don't mind a little teasing about the length of my posts.
Most of the time it appalls me how long they get...
A little good natured sparring is a good thing...