garfield Posted November 26, 2012 Author Share Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) The "Tour Revenue" numbers contain both appearance fees paid during the season, and revenue sharing paid after the season. You can determine the revenue sharing amounts by subtracting the appearance fees from these totals. Cavaliers competed 26 times in 2009, 32 times in 2010 and 34 times in 2011. Appearance fee is about $2500. Total appearance fees would be: 2009: $65,000 2010: $80,000 2011: $85,000 Subtracting these appearance fees, the revenue sharing payments to the Cavaliers were roughly: 2009: $102,266 2010: $84,284 2011: $74,125 In other words, in the years leading up to the G7 proposal, a top corps was getting more money from post season revenue sharing than from appearance fees. I see a couple of questionable things about your post even though I think your rationale is sound. First, there's no way to know for certain what, exactly, is included in Tour Revenue, and there's no way to be certain where both appearance fees and revenue sharing are shown in the 990s, because the labels you use are not used in the 990s. Further, suggesting that Cavaliers got just $75,000 from DCI "revenue sharing" is, well, it just seems very low considering where Cavies placed in the rankings. The issue is not whether I'm right or wrong, it's that we don't know. While there is no other category where, logically, this revenue would be shown, we simply haven't verified that your claims are true. Second is performance revenue. Are you sure that performance payouts "averaged" $2,500 each? Even from three years ago? If, for instance, the average revenue was only $2,000 then you're looking at a difference of $6,000 or so; that's a significant variance percentage from your presumptive numbers. Finally, it's the conviction of your post that bugs me. One of the dangers of crunching numbers to find stories or trends is "conviction bias", that is, the more you tell yourself a story to rationalize the numbers you see, the more you begin to believe the story is true even though the data doesn't support it. I've had a lot of chances to form "hard and firm" opinions of the numbers posted so far - and I'm glad you are, obviously, doing the same thing - but it's really important to remember that they are, in the end, your opinions. They aren't fact. Even though I happen to agree with your opinion, I wouldn't state it with the same level of "defacto proof" that you do. (But I'm glad you're following along! Really I am!) Edited November 26, 2012 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 26, 2012 Author Share Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) Alright, let's take a look at Cavaliers' expenses. There are a couple of interesting things in here... There are a no Fundraising Expenses (FRE) in any of the 2009 to 2011 990s. Either Cavies don't do fundraising or they categorize their fundraising as part of their program expenses. They do show "Management and General Expenses" (MGE) so we'll be able to calculate their efficiency compared to other corps (if not the non-profit world at-large). Their use of categories is consistent across all three years. But I'm going to throw you a curve or two... Edited November 26, 2012 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 26, 2012 Author Share Posted November 26, 2012 First comes salaries and wages. (I hope you're paying attention here.) Cavaliers Expenses Other salaries and wages 2009: $186,467 2010: $39,600 2011: $39,600 Huh? What the heck happened here? Did they slash staff in 2010? They listed only 1 full-time employee in each year - did that one employee take a huge pay cut? (BTW, all of this expense is listed as Program Service Expense.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyRyder_FMM Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I see a couple of questionable things about your post even though I think your rationale is sound. First, there's no way to know for certain what, exactly, is included in Tour Revenue, and there's no way to be certain where both appearance fees and revenue sharing are shown in the 990s, because the labels you use are not used in the 990s. Further, suggesting that Cavaliers got just $75,000 from DCI "revenue sharing" is, well, it just seems very low considering where Cavies placed in the rankings. The issue is not whether I'm right or wrong, it's that we don't know. While there is no other category where, logically, this revenue would be shown, we simply haven't verified that your claims are true. Second is performance revenue. Are you sure that performance payouts "averaged" $2,500 each? Even from three years ago? If, for instance, the average revenue was only $2,000 then you're looking at a difference of $6,000 or so; that's a significant variance percentage from your presumptive numbers. Finally, it's the conviction of your post that bugs me. One of the dangers of crunching numbers to find stories or trends is "conviction bias", that is, the more you tell yourself a story to rationalize the numbers you see, the more you begin to believe the story is true even though the data doesn't support it. I've had a lot of chances to form "hard and firm" opinions of the numbers posted so far - and I'm glad you are, obviously, doing the same thing - but it's really important to remember that they are, in the end, your opinions. They aren't fact. Even though I happen to agree with your opinion, I wouldn't state it with the same level of "defacto proof" that you do. (But I'm glad you're following along! Really I am!) Performance fees were $2,600 each of those years (except for Murfreesboro and TOC shows). The rest being the payout based on their shares seems reasonable. There may be some other noise there, but it passes the sniff test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 26, 2012 Author Share Posted November 26, 2012 Performance fees were $2,600 each of those years (except for Murfreesboro and TOC shows). The rest being the payout based on their shares seems reasonable. There may be some other noise there, but it passes the sniff test. I agree that it passes the smell test, but you make my point. There were 7 shows (Murf and TOC) that can't be accounted for. That's an $18,000 difference... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyRyder_FMM Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I agree that it passes the smell test, but you make my point. There were 7 shows (Murf and TOC) that can't be accounted for. That's an $18,000 difference... TOC shows paid $5,000. Murfreesboro has evolved over the years, but in the past few years, it has been a $5,000 payday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyRyder_FMM Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 First comes salaries and wages. (I hope you're paying attention here.) Cavaliers Expenses Other salaries and wages 2009: $186,467 2010: $39,600 2011: $39,600 Huh? What the heck happened here? Did they slash staff in 2010? They listed only 1 full-time employee in each year - did that one employee take a huge pay cut? (BTW, all of this expense is listed as Program Service Expense.) This may be a classification issue between years. There is a significant increase in Other Expense in 2010 and 2011, all of which is program related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 26, 2012 Author Share Posted November 26, 2012 Cavaliers Expenses Fees for services (non-employees) 2009: $12,112 2010: $151,310 2011: $160,424 Hmmm...who would be defined as a "non-employee" that might have been listed under "Other Salaries and Wages" in 2009? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 26, 2012 Author Share Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) And, is it safe to assume that the one employee listed is Adolph? AND, does this mean that Adolph runs this corps for $39,600/year? Really? The Cavaliers? If these assumptions are true, well, God Bless him is all I can think of. Edited November 26, 2012 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyRyder_FMM Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Cavaliers Expenses Fees for services (non-employees) 2009: $12,112 2010: $151,310 2011: $160,424 Hmmm...who would be defined as a "non-employee" that might have been listed under "Other Salaries and Wages" in 2009? Independent contractors, perhaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.