CSA Audited Financial Statements 2006

[Vancouversoccerman]

Considering the interest out there in this subject, I was surprised this flew under the radar. BC Soccer Web has come into possession of the CSA's audited 2006 financial statement.

http://www.bcsoccerweb.com/articles-august/csa-financials-2006.pdf

I think it's interesting that the CSA had only $3.8 million to devote to all of our national teams. What do you think?

[Daniel]

And that half of all its revenue comes from player registration! Twice as much as in sponsorships (5.3m v 2.7m).

[Richard]

quote:Originally posted by Vancouversoccerman

Considering the interest out there in this subject, I was surprised this flew under the radar. BC Soccer Web has come into possession of the CSA's audited 2006 financial statement.

http://www.bcsoccerweb.com/articles-august/csa-financials-2006.pdf

I think it's interesting that the CSA had only $3.8 million to devote to all of our national teams. What do you think?

Fred Nykamp has some work to do.

[CoachRich]

I'm sure this coming week is going to be a total baptism by fire

[Trillium]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

Fred Nykamp has some work to do.

I think one of the first things Nykamp will need to do it convince the CSA treasurer to adopt and present the budgets and audit documents on the basis of cost centres.. showing budget amount, then the revenue generated on event showing the net... gain or deficit in an area... the lump sum for National teams ..hides a lot of sins and information.

Its a work in progress lets hope the actually 2007 budget can be presented ...sometime soon, they must have a budget dont they ?

[Bill Spiers]

quote:Originally posted by Vancouversoccerman

Considering the interest out there in this subject, I was surprised this flew under the radar. BC Soccer Web has come into possession of the CSA's audited 2006 financial statement.

For the record, the Financial Statements were posted on the CSA web site.

[ag futbol]

I have a background in analyzing financial statements (although not with NFPO's). Here are a few brief observations from what i can see.

-Clearly we ramped up a lot of investment in the U-20 world cup. We should show what basically amounts to an operating profit (or surplus) next year. There should be a good amount. If it’s not large it would be kind of scary considering the event was a huge success. If it had flopped we'd be in financial crisis.

-There's absolutely zero extra information in the report. None of the expenses or revenues are fleshed out in any sort of meaningful way. 3.8 M was spent on the national team and that could pretty much mean anything. There is no indication of how much we spent on one group compared to another. This may be "disclosure" but it's only minimum.

Stuff I’d like to see separated in the financials or in the form of an additional disclosure:

-Donations from sponsorships

-U-20 sponsorships from regular sponsorships

-What sources the merchandising revue is coming from (apparel or other)

-More detail on merchandising contract

-What is included in human resources expense

-Revenues show good news and bad news. It may be pre U-20 WC but sponsorship receipts nearly doubled. Great news if your the CSA. If Nykamp is up to his billing as a fundraiser (no pun inteneded) then this should be increasing every year outside of the irregular revenue we're probably seeing relating to the U-20 WC.

-Going forward you're probably not going to see something like Membership fees increase a whole lot. There isn't very much we can do to raise this revenue source other than increase the cost (which might reduce registrants) or hope for increase registration numbers (which are already quite high as it is). In order to grow revenue CSA needs to look at merchandising, sponsorships and gate receipts.

If you want to model success just look at where Hockey Canada is spending it’s money:

http://www.hockeycanada.ca/6/8/2/7/index1.shtml

-We’ve all complained about in unavailability of Canada gear and the results of this are on the financial statements in the form of a paltry 360,000 in merchandising revue. It’s hard to derive where we get our revenue from because it’s not disclosed. I’m assuming we get a flat fee from Adidas (which is included in sponsorships) and then we get a cut of every team Canada jersey that is sold in the stores. Without getting into detail in this area, we could be getting much more money than we are by marketing our product better. Little success from our national teams wouldn’t hurt either.

[CoachRich]

I"v already asked CSA Finance for breakdowns & it's not going to happen. Specifically NT monies. IMO members should be asking their PSO President for breakdowns as they get all the financial sheets prior to the audits. That's what I'm doing.

U20 was successful & I hope some of the money is shared equally across all programs. One thing to note about the U20 is that the CSA borrow lots of money to pull it off from FIFA. Also, they got $400K+ from ASA (bailout or loan), $4.2M from the Canadian Government & much more from Sports Canada. It's sad that we have a NSO that is living off it's members & the taxpayers.

Youth which pays 85% of the member fees have got to start asking questions about where the money is going. Girl's soccer clubs want to see how much is being spent on female programs as it is part of the CSA Constitution under the Female Committee which has been shelved for years.

Staff Directory is at http://www.canadasoccer.com/eng/directory/index.asp?sub2=10

This is a great article on the challenges for Nykamp, the state of the game & numbers which I got from BCSoccerWeb.com -

http://www.thespec.com/article/229695

[ag futbol]

quote:Originally posted by Sigma

There was a website from a few years ago which had the exact number of CSA staff across the country. I seem to remember it being more than 20, but I can't find the link.

I'm not as concerned about that as i am about it increasing 37% y/y. For an organization that was extremely concerned about spending a certain amount of money on the NT coach, for expenses to varry that much deserves some justification.

If it's office or events staff, fine. But lets get some detail on what they do and why the extra money was needed.

[Rujulus]

Good to see the numbers, thanks for posting. Was a little surprised to see the CSA underwater, with liabilities exceeding assets, as well as running a deficit, but as ag_futbol points out, spending increased for the big tourney this year, and against $12M of revenue maybe it's no big deal.

Also agree with his points about the paucity of notes and opportunities for revenue growth. Tough to draw conclusions about how well the money is spent. The CSA itself doesn't accumulate a lot of assets, there's just a lot of money coming in and a lot going out, to various programs and interests who do whatever they do with it. In particular, $2.75M for "Human Resources" seems a sizable figure, maybe worth taking a look at?

On the revenue side I would add that $1.4M in government funding is tiny. What's the annual budget of the Department of Canadian Heritage that owns Sport Canada? The CSA can and should ask for a bigger slice of the pie on the basis of growing interest in soccer, increased ratings etc. The DCH splashes out a ton on Canadian movies, TV, festivals, etc. so they should understand the ratings argument.

[CoachRich]

Sports Canada gives out money based on performance & events in the year. This is why the WNT gets more performance money from Sport Canada as in the formula Sports Canada uses to determine monies the WNT ranks higher.

Another arm of Sports Canada is where they give grants to hosting/special events that promote world level events in Canada for the sport & sport tourism. The U20 got a ton of money from the Feds & Sports Canada. Feds coughed up $4.2 & you can see Sports Canada grants at

$2.4M

http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/sc/contributions/2006-2007-2/index_e.cfm

$4.2M

http://www.pch.gc.ca/newsroom/index_e.cfm?fuseaction=displayDocument&DocIDCd=CHG061141

$69M for BMO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMO_Field

FIFA gave loans for the U20

ASA gave $400K for the U20 as well. That would be an interesting question in itself for the members of the ASA.

Mostly taxpayers money.

Seems the CSA is good at getting taxpayer & member monies but nothing else.

[squid2]

How convenient that they pulled the 03 financials and replaced with 06.

Clarity on the association’s policies for accounting would be a start.

Without the financials from 05 and 04, some of the macros that could be used can’t be used.

An “in-depth” analysis isn’t really feasible here as too many ?s

exist about interpretation and application. Cost centers and lines items would really help. But then having seen how the CSL and the OSA presented their numbers while under Ursini’s watch pretty much leads me to conclude that a basic and generic set of FS is what the association wants to present = fewer questions, especially the

more challenging accounting type questions. so spin baby spin…..

Well, at least they’re consistent in breaking the links in continuity in matters of finance.

There was a comment earlier on Pipe's wage....

Nykamp was paid $150,000 as Basketball Canada's top man. So stands to reason he didn't jump to the CSA for less $$$.

And as to the comment as Nykamp as a fundraiser, well that's a myth he floated himself through a newspaper interview but wheres the proof, as Canada Basketball is just as skint and the CSA. Their financials are nowhere to be found either.

[SF]

The Hockey Canada comparision is instructive. Over 50% of its budget is allocated to high performance/development programs.

The CSA budget seems way to heavy on administration and almost non-existant on the development front (best I can tell).

Explains a lot.

[Richard]

As far as I am aware the CSA delegates the bulk of player development to the provincial associations, that's where the bulk of the cost is born.

[ag futbol]

quote:Originally posted by Richard

As far as I am aware the CSA delegates the bulk of player development to the provincial associations, that's where the bulk of the cost is born.

That's a fair reason for the difference. I guess the question we have to ask after that is how does delegating this responsibility the provincial assocaitions affect talent development?

I'd assume we'd be better off with a more centralized development effort with a focus on elite club teams as opposed to various provincial sides putting emphasis on their teams. I think this might work better because:

1) consolidating efforts should reduce admin costs

2) Having one system of talent evaluation should make things more standard as opposed to worrying about the varrying levels of commitment and knowledge of each different association.

3) relying on club teams should lead to something along the lines of market forces driving up the level of competitiveness. People who do the best job would be rewarded. We could also consider providing some sort (no matter how small) financial incentives for clubs who are successful.

Other than that I think we need a more complete and competent job done of assessing our players talent. It's crimial that we still have to hear about provincial assoication X not identifying a player who ends up in a club system in Europe. These cases should be few and far between.