Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canary Fund

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Canary Fund

    Don Listwin, founder of the Canary Fund, which sponsors the race and picks up construction costs, said charity events tied to the 2005 race raised $750,000 for research into early cancer detection.

    ``We hope to raise $1 million next year,'' Listwin said, noting that a golf tournament and drivers' party have been added to the 2006 schedule.
    link

    If I'm not mistaken, Canary spent close to $2 million to put this race on so it would appear this was a net loss.

  • #2
    Huh? Usually when you say you raised $X that's after you've covered your costs...

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, lets not go back to the countless other threads on this topic, and the countless quotes from Canary that make it clear that Listwin covered all of Canary's losses for the event, putting up some 10 million himself for the event.

      Clearly what really happened is not the goal here. Search feature works well, you know.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cygni
        Yes, lets not go back to the countless other threads on this topic, and the countless quotes from Canary that make it clear that Listwin covered all of Canary's losses for the event, putting up some 10 million himself for the event.

        Clearly what really happened is not the goal here. Search feature works well, you know.
        Maybe he should have just wrtten a check for the estimated expenses and they would have been $1.25 million ahead of the 'fundraising' results. Just a thought. On second thought, why not just write the $10 million over instead if that is the amount put up.
        “Jealousy is the tribute mediocrity pays to genius.” -- Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

        Comment


        • #5
          When I owned my own business, I learned to count the profit AFTER you counted your cost. I would think they counted their cost before they counted their profit.
          Last edited by ChampCarFan; 11-11-2005, 09:09 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by WheelerDealer
            Maybe he should have just wrtten a check for the estimated expenses and they would have been $1.25 million ahead of the 'fundraising' results. Just a thought. On second thought, why not just write the $10 million over instead if that is the amount put up.
            Would 10 million be better than the possibility of creating a lasting event which may bring in money every year and potentially much more than 10 million in the long run?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Legaleez
              Would 10 million be better than the possibility of creating a lasting event which may bring in money every year and potentially much more than 10 million in the long run?
              Can you share with us the venues (street circuits) that have been racing for many years that could cover the $10 million investment? Do some DD on the success of street courses and how many did not make it or when bankrupt?

              IMO, $10 million to a charity will provide more benefit than a "potentially" profitable motor sports events went the odds are against the potential.
              Being sued for $2.1 BILLION is a serious problem!!

              Comment


              • #8
                Would 10 million be better than the possibility of creating a lasting event which may bring in money every year and potentially much more than 10 million in the long run?
                Sure. If there were any confidence that such a thing would happen. When was the last time CART/OWRS created a successful street event? Miami? Not so much? St. Pete? Nope, they couldn't keep the promoter happy. Detroit? Dead. Houston? Came, left and is coming back again. Maybe. Philly? Dreams. Ansan? Maybe not. Denver and Edmonton? Jury is still out there.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Legaleez
                  Would 10 million be better than the possibility of creating a lasting event which may bring in money every year and potentially much more than 10 million in the long run?
                  from a financial standpoint yes it would

                  had Listwin paid the money into a trust benefitting the charity, and had they invested the money in moderate investments, over the next 10 years it would have nearly doubled in value

                  or they could generate more annual income than they received this year for every one of those 10 years and STILL had $10,000,000 in bank - actually they could generate more money every year than they raised this year pretty much forever and still have the $10 million

                  there is a long history of street circuits in the US as well - and virtually none of them have either; a.) any longevity, or b.) any history of profitability

                  there is virtually no reasonably likely scenario where spending the $10 million on the race would ever generate more financial gain to the charity than giving them the $10 million in advance

                  sorry - that dog don't hunt - and that is supported by a long history of fact

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by cleanupcrew
                    from a financial standpoint yes it would

                    had Listwin paid the money into a trust benefitting the charity, and had they invested the money in moderate investments, over the next 10 years it would have nearly doubled in value

                    or they could generate more annual income than they received this year for every one of those 10 years and STILL had $10,000,000 in bank - actually they could generate more money every year than they raised this year pretty much forever and still have the $10 million

                    there is a long history of street circuits in the US as well - and virtually none of them have either; a.) any longevity, or b.) any history of profitability

                    there is virtually no reasonably likely scenario where spending the $10 million on the race would ever generate more financial gain to the charity than giving them the $10 million in advance

                    sorry - that dog don't hunt - and that is supported by a long history of fact
                    If you look at it that narrowly, then yes. But there are intangible factors which may have a significant impact on fundraising ability. You'll also notice that I didn't take any position on the "question" I asked. Perhaps the benefactor in this case was mis or under informed about the possibilities of the race bringing in money.

                    But I won't bother going into further detail. What I will say is that the guy with the bucks thought it was a good idea for some reason, and I'm not qualified to question what he wants to spend money on or what he believes to be the best way to go about achieving the goals he wants to.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by cleanupcrew
                      from a financial standpoint yes it would

                      had Listwin paid the money into a trust benefitting the charity, and had they invested the money in moderate investments, over the next 10 years it would have nearly doubled in value

                      or they could generate more annual income than they received this year for every one of those 10 years and STILL had $10,000,000 in bank - actually they could generate more money every year than they raised this year pretty much forever and still have the $10 million

                      there is a long history of street circuits in the US as well - and virtually none of them have either; a.) any longevity, or b.) any history of profitability

                      there is virtually no reasonably likely scenario where spending the $10 million on the race would ever generate more financial gain to the charity than giving them the $10 million in advance

                      sorry - that dog don't hunt - and that is supported by a long history of fact
                      Rich people do different things with their money, most of which are investments and tax shelters (most of the time one in the same). Just ask John Menard.

                      That Champcar found someone willing to back their race, promote it, and pay them a sanction fee is a good thing. That this backer was able to generate money on the first go is also a good thing. I'm betting years 2 through 5 will be even better.
                      "Don't believe the hype!"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        But I won't bother going into further detail. What I will say is that the guy with the bucks thought it was a good idea for some reason, and I'm not qualified to question what he wants to spend money on or what he believes to be the best way to go about achieving the goals he wants to.
                        Sure you are. He's asking you for money to support his cause. He's asking your government - or at least mine - for consideration in tax matters. He's asking the public for their help. You're entitled to consider this and choose to become involved or not.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mesquite
                          Rich people do different things with their money, most of which are investments and tax shelters (most of the time one in the same). Just ask John Menard.

                          That Champcar found someone willing to back their race, promote it, and pay them a sanction fee is a good thing. That this backer was able to generate money on the first go is also a good thing. I'm betting years 2 through 5 will be even better.
                          Again, according to most accounts, 'this backer' wasn't able to 'generate money.' He was able to generate a huge net loss. KK kicked in a million, Listwin kicked in a lot more, the race lost millions and, on the other hand, Canary raised $750K - a third of which was from KK. Net loss. Big.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jim Wilke
                            Again, according to most accounts, 'this backer' wasn't able to 'generate money.' He was able to generate a huge net loss. KK kicked in a million, Listwin kicked in a lot more, the race lost millions and, on the other hand, Canary raised $750K - a third of which was from KK. Net loss. Big.
                            Really. According to who ?? Almost every post in this thread indicates the $750k was above and beyond the $10million.
                            "Don't believe the hype!"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Legaleez
                              If you look at it that narrowly, then yes. But there are intangible factors which may have a significant impact on fundraising ability. You'll also notice that I didn't take any position on the "question" I asked. Perhaps the benefactor in this case was mis or under informed about the possibilities of the race bringing in money.

                              But I won't bother going into further detail. What I will say is that the guy with the bucks thought it was a good idea for some reason, and I'm not qualified to question what he wants to spend money on or what he believes to be the best way to go about achieving the goals he wants to.

                              are your legs tired after that masterful dance around the issue?



                              the intent of your quote was clear to all:

                              Would 10 million be better than the possibility of creating a lasting event which may bring in money every year and potentially much more than 10 million in the long run?
                              your comment was clear - and there is a clear simple answer to it - the answer is yes the $10 million would plain and simple be far, far better donated directly to the charity - by any stretch of the imagination

                              of course the "benefactor" wouldn't have been able to write off a huge party for his pals, and CC wouldn't have been able to hold an event - but it is very, very safe to say that the charity would most definately gain far more benefit than the event ever will generate .....

                              Comment

                              Unconfigured Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X