Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Jerdough and other stuff

The Alabaster Yak said:
Click to expand...

Waiting GIF
 
Hank said:
I didn't notice this before, but these two consecutive tweets are freaking hilarious. Dorrell was fired on October 2nd.

View attachment 56354
Click to expand...
dude supported keeping KD but once a change was made he didn't resist and put his guns behind the new coach. I don't find that inconsistent.

when my brother was dating Erika, I warned him a few times about her. the term 'Karen' didn't have the same meaning then, but Erika was a real Karen.

a while later:
Bart: "I just asked Erika to marry me and she said yes",
hokiehead: "awesome!! I'm really happy for you and look forward to celebrating together that she'll be part of the family"
B: "that's not the song you were singing a few months ago"
h: "you two weren't engaged then. everything is different now and I want nothing but happiness for both of you"
B: "but you still think it's a mistake"
h: "doesn't matter what I think. she's your fiancé and I love you and I'll love her. let's get drunk and celebrate"
 
The Alabaster Yak said:




Click to expand...

When I was on the board of a 501 c(3), years ago, the benchmark for revenue devoted to delivery of services was 85%, or said another way, no more than 15% to salaries, rent, admin. etc. We could not get a meeting with the Bronco Foundation, The Denver Foundation, Buell Foundation etc. without documenting that number. Maybe some of you muckety mucks have more current experience, but I am always skeptical of start up 501 (c) (3)'s until I see an audited breakdown of the above.

Many "charities" are just, well, scams. United Way had a lot to answer for years ago because their delivery of service numbers were way out of whack, Just sayin'.
 
hokiehead said:
dude supported keeping KD but once a change was made he didn't resist and put his guns behind the new coach. I don't find that inconsistent.

when my brother was dating Erika, I warned him a few times about her. the term 'Karen' didn't have the same meaning then, but Erika was a real Karen.

a while later:
Bart: "I just asked Erika to marry me and she said yes",
hokiehead: "awesome!! I'm really happy for you and look forward to celebrating together that she'll be part of the family"
B: "that's not the song you were singing a few months ago"
h: "you two weren't engaged then. everything is different now and I want nothing but happiness for both of you"
B: "but you still think it's a mistake"
h: "doesn't matter what I think. she's your fiancé and I love you and I'll love her. let's get drunk and celebrate"
Click to expand...
How long did the marriage last?
 
leftybuff said:
When I was on the board of a 501 c(3), years ago, the benchmark for revenue devoted to delivery of services was 85%, or said another way, no more than 15% to salaries, rent, admin. etc. We could not get a meeting with the Bronco Foundation, The Denver Foundation, Buell Foundation etc. without documenting that number. Maybe some of you muckety mucks have more current experience, but I am always skeptical of start up 501 (c) (3)'s until I see an audited breakdown of the above.

Many "charities" are just, well, scams. United Way had a lot to answer for years ago because their delivery of service numbers were way out of whack, Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 85%+ gong to programs is the gold standard, for sure.
 
leftybuff said:
When I was on the board of a 501 c(3), years ago, the benchmark for revenue devoted to delivery of services was 85%, or said another way, no more than 15% to salaries, rent, admin. etc. We could not get a meeting with the Bronco Foundation, The Denver Foundation, Buell Foundation etc. without documenting that number. Maybe some of you muckety mucks have more current experience, but I am always skeptical of start up 501 (c) (3)'s until I see an audited breakdown of the above.

Many "charities" are just, well, scams. United Way had a lot to answer for years ago because their delivery of service numbers were way out of whack, Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
The 15% number is pretty common, but also pretty useless because there’s no agreement on what that actually means and even a single audit isn’t necessarily going to pick up on anything ‘sketchy’ going on with admin costs. For example, salaries and rent can easily be attributed to program costs and there’s nothing inherently wrong or illegal about that. To make matters even more complicated, funders also have different definitions of direct/indirect costs. As a result, you’ll see a bunch of large, prominent nonprofits that report $0 in overhead on their 990s. All of that underscores your point that many nonprofits are just huge scams and the bigger they are, the more likely they are to have the funding and expertise to make themselves look as good as possible.
 
Amazing how much of an image one can build with a website, a $150 corporate charter, some you tube videos, and twitter.
 
nolabuff said:
The 15% number is pretty common, but also pretty useless because there’s no agreement on what that actually means and even a single audit isn’t necessarily going to pick up on anything ‘sketchy’ going on with admin costs. For example, salaries and rent can easily be attributed to program costs and there’s nothing inherently wrong or illegal about that. To make matters even more complicated, funders also have different definitions of direct/indirect costs. As a result, you’ll see a bunch of large, prominent nonprofits that report $0 in overhead on their 990s. All of that underscores your point that many nonprofits are just huge scams and the bigger they are, the more likely they are to have the funding and expertise to make themselves look as good as possible.
Click to expand...
This is kind of true, but not really. Salaies for program personnel can definitely be allocated to program costs. Rent for an area specifically used for programs also can be. But office rent cannot just be allocated to program. Salaries for back office people (accounting, business development, etc) cannot just be allocated to program. No audit firm is going to sign off on that.
 
Buffarino said:
This is kind of true, but not really. Salaies for program personnel can definitely be allocated to program costs. Rent for an area specifically used for programs also can be. But office rent cannot just be allocated to program. Salaries for back office people (accounting, business development, etc) cannot just be allocated to program. No audit firm is going to sign off on that.
Click to expand...
I’m thankfully no longer in the nonprofit sector. Without delving into too many details though, I’ve overseen audits with no significant findings from the nonprofit side where a decent amount of the office rent and admin salaries were included as direct program costs. The reason being that a lot of that funding would be at the state or local level (or just non-government) with looser restrictions. If the funder allowed those to be allocated to direct program costs, they were distributed correctly across the different cost centers, and we were reimbursed properly, the accountants didn’t have a problem.

Another big part of this is also defining not just direct program costs but what direct programming actually is. Using the United Way as an example, their direct programming is mainly just raising and distributing money. They don’t employ nurses, teachers, or social workers. They employ fundraisers, program officers, and accountants. Any normal person is going to view their work as ‘overhead.’ Any United Way’s 990 though is going to show indirect costs (including fundraising) around 15% or lower and it’s going to be signed by a Deloitte.

Back to Jerdough, anyone who wants to donate to his fund should probably just donate to the official CU one instead.
 
nolabuff said:
I’m thankfully no longer in the nonprofit sector. Without delving into too many details though, I’ve overseen audits with no significant findings from the nonprofit side where a decent amount of the office rent and admin salaries were included as direct program costs. The reason being that a lot of that funding would be at the state or local level (or just non-government) with looser restrictions. If the funder allowed those to be allocated to direct program costs, they were distributed correctly across the different cost centers, and we were reimbursed properly, the accountants didn’t have a problem.

Another big part of this is also defining not just direct program costs but what direct programming actually is. Using the United Way as an example, their direct programming is mainly just raising and distributing money. They don’t employ nurses, teachers, or social workers. They employ fundraisers, program officers, and accountants. Any normal person is going to view their work as ‘overhead.’ Any United Way’s 990 though is going to show indirect costs (including fundraising) around 15% or lower and it’s going to be signed by a Deloitte.

Back to Jerdough, anyone who wants to donate to his fund should probably just donate to the official CU one instead.
Click to expand...
I've been a nonprofit CFO and I've audited nonprofits, and I'm currently the Treasurer of a nonprofit. I stand by what I said.
 
Buffarino said:
I've been a nonprofit CFO and I've audited nonprofits, and I'm currently the Treasurer of a nonprofit. I stand by what I said.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but again some of the largest, most prominent nonprofits have floors of downtown offices, a dozen c-level executives making half a million a year, and a development team that is their largest. Then they’ll get the largest, most prominent accounting firm in their area to sign off on a 990 that says their overhead is less than 15%.
 
Jerdough was crucified for hopelessly believing the buffs will win another national title, especially so quickly.
Yet the more things are happening in Boulder, he might not be wrong.

One of the all time funniest switch ups, I hope he is one of the big $ backers just for the lolz.
 
FLounder said:
Jerdough was crucified for hopelessly believing the buffs will win another national title, especially so quickly.
Yet the more things are happening in Boulder, he might not be wrong.

One of the all time funniest switch ups, I hope he is one of the big $ backers just for the lolz.
Click to expand...
Yeah Jerdough thought Kardboard was going to be the guy to lead us there. Broken clock, twice a day etc. etc.

He had no input or idea on Prime
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top