Out Athlete Fund Organizational Review

Pride House lessons and next-phase priorities

Prepared for Les Johnson • Proposed consolidated revision • 15 October 2026

Executive summary

Out Athlete Fund has meaningful assets: a distinctive LGBTQ+ sports mission, community and partner relationships, capable contributors, and an increasingly coherent public presence. The reviewed meetings contain repeated praise for creative execution, practical improvements to registration and event coordination, and substantial investment in shared tools and training. Those strengths deserve to be retained. [R1–R5, R7–R8]

The central weakness is the gap between organizational ambition and dependable execution. Financial assumptions, sponsorship activity, program decisions, scope and delivery responsibilities did not consistently become a shared, funded operating plan. This left a small group carrying too many functions, with recurring uncertainty about priorities, approvals, inputs and follow-through.

Financial visibility and revenue execution require the earliest leadership attention. Board-member feedback identifies insufficiently early warning of the cash shortfall, weak budget transparency and missed sponsorship expectations as serious governance concerns. The operating record shows cash pressure and different understandings of whether incoming funds were available for additional work. Timely cash-shortfall escalation is a leadership responsibility. These concerns require a documented response, while the precise warning chronology and event results must be verified against original board and financial records. [R8, R13]

Sponsorship needs an active operating discipline, beyond a target or an update at a board meeting. SYNHERGY delivered recorded Apollo training, follow-up resources and sponsorship-workflow development. Apollo served sponsorship prospecting and pipeline management; donor stewardship, acknowledgments, gift accounting and historical giving were separate workflow needs. The historical record shows uneven adoption, fragmented relationship information and setup work in progress at the July review. Leadership must ensure that qualified opportunities, including warm inbound leads, receive timely approval and follow-up toward signed commitments, fulfilled benefits and cash received. Current use and setup status require an activity and configuration check; illustrative email-volume assumptions do not establish a reliable revenue forecast. [R7-R11]

The review also identifies shared responsibilities. Leadership owns funding, priorities, organizational decisions and day-to-day adoption. Outside providers remain accountable for agreed delivery, clear dependencies, appropriate escalation and usable handoff. The agency's account describes urgent additions, late inputs, fragmented request authority and invoice-process problems that consumed planned capacity; it also acknowledges that change controls were not enforced consistently. Early donor-management requirements and agency undertakings must be evaluated separately from Apollo sponsorship setup. If OutAF requests a formal closeout, it should be separately scoped and funded, with an inventory of completed work, approved substitutions, added requests, client dependencies and any specific unresolved SOW items against the agreement and acceptance record. It should not presume an undefined balance of unpaid work. [R1, R4-R8, R10-R11]

Three decisions to make first

1. Establish the financial position and response rules. Confirm usable cash, restrictions, committed costs and uncertain receipts. Give the board a rolling forecast, variance explanations and clear escalation triggers.
2. Put accountable revenue execution in motion. Confirm a development lead, protect time for sponsorship work, validate the pipeline and require visible follow-up, conversion and cash reporting. Confirm what is operational today and classify remaining gaps as internal adoption, client dependency or separately funded provider work.
3. Document the prior scope; fund the next phase. Identify any specifically unresolved SOW items with their change history and dependencies. Select two or three achievable new priorities, assign decision and delivery owners, explicitly defer the rest, and authorize new provider work through a written, funded scope.

Current-state baseline

The core meeting evidence runs from February 23 through August 26, 2026. Later correspondence records review of the Champions Circle plan, proposed support, a separate website-quotation request and continuing funding constraints. The August 16 written agency account adds Dimple's perspective on scope, dependencies and board/vendor boundaries; its examples are historical reports, not independently verified scope or hours. Historical blockers should therefore be checked against present conditions rather than automatically carried forward as open work. [R12, R15]

SWOT

Strengths

• A clear mission and useful relationships. Athlete, community, venue and partner connections create routes to participation, advocacy and support.
• Capable, committed contributors. Meetings show practical event knowledge, constructive challenge, creative skill and people willing to assume responsibility.
• Stronger public presentation and usable event infrastructure. Leadership praised the creative work and a tested registration experience; these are valuable output signals, although they do not establish financial return.
• Tools and instruction already provided. Shared planning materials, request controls, registration workflows, CRM training and follow-up resources provide a base for more consistent operations. [R1–R8]

Weaknesses

• Financial visibility did not consistently support timely decisions. Cash, restrictions, expected receipts and spending authority were not understood in the same way; the board-warning concern requires a clear response.
• Revenue execution was insufficiently systematic. Sponsorship knowledge was concentrated, records fragmented, outreach adoption uneven and next-action visibility incomplete.
• Urgent work displaced planned capacity. Multiple initiatives, requesters, late inputs and rush additions competed for a small team. The agency reports absorbing additional support without consistent change orders; its own change-control enforcement was also uneven. The scope and cost of individual items require reconciliation.
• Scope and priorities were not continuously translated into an operating plan. An existing SOW did not prevent uncertainty about current work, substitutions, client inputs, acceptance and what remained after the engagement.
• Payment and role boundaries needed clearer controls. Invoice-process concerns and overlapping board, volunteer and vendor expectations complicated predictable delivery and fair review.
• End-to-end supporter workflows were not consistently accepted and owned. Contact records, donor history, acknowledgments, financial reconciliation and benefits fulfillment required distinct responsibilities and tests.
• Events and campaigns became execution-ready late. Early planning did not always resolve approvals, assets, registration rules and partner commitments in time.
• Performance and mission measures were incomplete. Activity, registrations, publicity and audience growth were not consistently connected to the intended organizational outcome. [R1–R14]

Opportunities

• Convert warm relationships and partner access into a managed development program. Coordinate introductions, tailored outreach and regular follow-up using existing tools and agreed responsibilities.
• Build a continuing supporter journey around events. Connect participation to the wider mission, appropriate follow-up, donor stewardship and membership benefits.
• Develop mission-aligned partnerships. Recorded prospect interest provides a basis for tailored corporate and in-kind proposals, subject to due diligence and confirmed agreements.
• Use the 2028 sports-event horizon for disciplined preparation. Develop partnerships and inclusive programming with staged commitments, realistic budgets and delivery milestones.
• Make existing infrastructure more productive. A focused acceptance and adoption effort may produce more value than another platform change. [R2–R5, R7–R9, R14]

Threats

• Funding timing, restrictions and uncertain sponsorship conversion can reduce flexibility before fixed obligations fall due.
• External changes to talent, venues and partners can disrupt plans close to an event.
• Fixed dates and commercial promises leave limited recovery time when decisions or inputs arrive late.
• A challenging sponsorship and public-policy environment can affect partner decisions and mission delivery; plans need alternatives rather than reliance on a single funding or distribution route. [R2–R5, R8, R14]

The SWOT describes the reviewed period. Current conditions and material financial assumptions must be confirmed before new commitments are approved.

What the findings require

1. Give the board a usable financial picture and early warning

Board-member feedback identifies late warning and poor budget transparency as major concerns. August discussions show limited cash, unpaid commitments and differing interpretations of incoming funds. Previously supplied July board-minute excerpts describe adverse World Cup results and a reduced year-end cash projection. The precise timing of earlier warnings and the underlying financial amounts remain verification priorities. [R8, R13]

Business impact: Delayed or incomplete visibility reduces the time available to cut commitments, secure replacement funding or change plans. Teams may continue work against income that is uncertain or already allocated.

Action: Make the CEO accountable for escalation, supported by finance and the Treasurer. Maintain a weekly rolling 13-week cash forecast while liquidity is constrained, separating usable cash, restricted allocations, expected receipts and committed payments. Pair it with budget-versus-actual explanations and a downside case. Agree warning thresholds, the notification route, the required decision and who follows through.

2. Treat sponsorship as sustained execution, with a named owner

The record identifies concentrated sponsorship knowledge and outdated records in May. The June 18 session provided substantial Apollo training; the next-day email supplied the recording, tutorial and import instructions. Michael identified fundraising as a top priority and acknowledged responsibility until additional capacity was hired. In July he described difficulty establishing regular Apollo use, while also reporting some use and work on warm and hot leads. Configuration and import work remained in progress at that July review; later completion and current activity need dated evidence. August discussions continued to call for shared use and missing opportunity information. Apollo sponsorship work should not be conflated with the separate donor, accounting and acknowledgment workflow. [R2, R5, R7-R11]

Business impact: Opportunities can stall, introductions can be duplicated, and optimistic forecasts can support spending before income is sufficiently certain. A software subscription or a board presentation does not establish that the underlying follow-up is happening.

Action: Confirm a development lead, named relationship owners and protected weekly capacity. Maintain one agreed record of each material opportunity, including its source, owner, stage, amount, next action, next-action date and evidence supporting the forecast. A spreadsheet can serve a useful reporting or import role; the control is that the underlying records are current, shared and reconciled.

Review warm inbound and existing relationships alongside targeted new outreach weekly. Track approval turnaround, qualified prospects contacted, replies, meetings held, proposals, signed commitments, cash received and overdue next actions. Separate relationship management from automated prospecting. Approve outreach targets after checking audience quality, capacity, deliverability and observed conversion; do not treat email volume as guaranteed revenue. Define the agency's lead-generation role separately from leadership's responsibility for sponsor relationships, negotiation and follow-through.

3. Make scope, priorities and changes explicit

Routing rules and shared task controls were introduced early, but later meetings still described fragmented requests and uneven use. In July Michael acknowledged that a prior SOW had been provided but that he lacked a clear current list of the work; this is not a claim that he never read the agreement. In August Les acknowledged inadequate planning and multiple requesters; Dimple described frequently accommodating urgent changes. Her written account gives rush ticketing, third-party graphics and PR coordination as examples of support she considers additional to the original plan. It also describes a proposed reporting dashboard that was deprioritized and a separate later request for monthly narrative reports. These are reported examples, not findings that any particular item was outside the contract or remains owed. The executed SOW, changes and acceptance record must determine that. [R1-R2, R4-R8, R15]

Business impact: Urgent additions and late inputs consume capacity without a clear decision about what moves, costs more or stops. Providers and volunteers can be left resolving priority conflicts that require leadership authority. Unclear invoice timing further weakens planning for a small delivery team.

Action: Use one prioritized work register identifying agreed deliverables, accountable approvers, provider responsibilities, client inputs, due dates, dependencies and acceptance criteria. Record whether a new request is included, an approved substitution or additional work. Require an explicit cost/timing decision when priorities change. Providers should identify the tradeoff and escalate constraints before proceeding; leadership should supply timely decisions. For invoices, identify an owner and backup, make due dates and disputes visible, and escalate delays before a deadline passes. Reconcile the May invoice-process correspondence and later payment claims against actual terms, due dates and payment records. [R6, R7, R15]

Distinguish strategic board discussion from an authorized delivery assignment. If a formal closeout review is requested, agree its scope and fee before preparing a finite inventory of completed work, substitutions, additional requests, client dependencies and specifically identified unresolved SOW items. Confirm the engagement end date and any payment balance from the agreement and records; do not presume an open-ended bank of unpaid labor. All new provider work should have an agreed written scope and fee.

4. Accept complete supporter workflows, not only tools

Donor visibility, mailed checks, giving history, acknowledgments and reporting were raised in February and March and developed further in May. Later discussions distinguished Apollo sponsorship prospecting from donor stewardship and accounting. Michael said the planned membership program would shape donor segmentation, while importing existing donor information remained a separate priority. The agency participated in product selection and made certain Apollo configuration, contact-import and training commitments; any broader donor-system migration obligation requires review of the SOW and changes. Organizational owners needed to supply requirements, records, decisions and ongoing use. The gap was an accepted, end-to-end donor workflow with clear responsibilities, separate from whether Apollo could support sponsorship outreach. [R1, R4, R7, R9-R11]

Business impact: A contact database may exist while a responsible person still cannot identify a recurring donor, reconcile a gift or fulfill a promise reliably.

Action: Confirm the current system map and assign a business owner to each function. Test an online gift, mailed check, recurring gift, linked household, acknowledgment, sponsor opportunity and promised benefit. Document data entry, reconciliation, access, exception handling and backup arrangements. Identify any specifically unfinished agreed deliverable against the SOW, approved changes, dependencies and acceptance record; do not treat the entire donor workflow as an unqualified Apollo obligation or a purely new client request. Preserve records and continuity before retiring a system; purchase another platform only for a demonstrated unmet need with a funded adoption plan.

5. Require readiness and fulfillment before public commitments

World Cup strategy was discussed in March, with planning and early promotion continuing in April and May. The later report of roughly three weeks describes a compressed effective marketing window, not the first awareness of the event. Critical rules, assets, approvals, sponsor details and attendee information continued to affect execution. The agency also reports that the existing website became live ticketing infrastructure for Broken Hearts Club and World Cup activity, making a structural rebuild during active sales risky; the transaction history and partner-ticketing expectations need independent confirmation. Shared documents, consolidated changes and named event roles were helpful controls worth retaining. [R2-R6, R14-R15]

Business impact: Late decisions trigger revisions across ticketing, graphics, email, press and partner communications. Promised sponsor or member benefits can become unfunded obligations or disappoint supporters.

Action: Approve each event for a defined purpose: awareness, participation, supporter acquisition or net fundraising contribution. Set an authorized budget or subsidy and minimum production lead time. Assign a producer to critical dependencies, confirm partner commitments, permissions and inputs, and use a go, simplify, defer or stop decision at an agreed readiness date. Review the cost and feasibility of benefits before sale; assign a fulfillment owner and track completion. Marketing coordination, onsite production, live coverage and changes to an active ticketing site should each have an explicit owner.

6. Measure mission contribution and material spending

The team recognized that event promotion could overshadow the wider mission. Participants also discussed representation within programming and the need for clearer selection and decision processes. Board-member feedback questions the value of sustained PR expenditure. Positive creative feedback, press attention and registrations are useful signals, but different objectives require different success measures. [R2, R7–R8, R13–R14]

Business impact: Activity can continue while its organizational contribution remains unclear, and cost-cutting decisions become subjective when funding tightens.

Action: Give each campaign and material engagement a written purpose, scope, authorized cost and review date. For PR, require a reporting period, agreed deliverables, attributable placements and relevant audience reach, and distinguish those from introductions, sponsor stages, commitments and cash outcomes where fundraising is an intended goal. The board-member concern and the narrative described in supplied feedback call for verification, not a conclusion about provider performance. Reconcile any proposed allocation with the agreement, invoices, payments and outputs before stating actual cost or return. Apply the same proportionate review standard to all material providers. [R13, R15]

Make the mission visible before, during and after events. Set measures for the intended audience and program purpose, distinguish registrations from checked-in attendance, and connect participation to an appropriate next step. Review inclusive representation and publish clear criteria for consequential program selections.

7. Make governance and conduct standards operational

Recorded discussions called for written processes, realistic committee roles, clearer spending authority and consistent application of the organization's code of conduct. Dimple's account raises a more specific boundary: board participation should not convert professional marketing and technology work into unpaid service. She also reports late, indirectly relayed criticism after earlier positive feedback. The appointment and feedback circumstances require their own records; this review does not infer motive or make a finding about individual performance. The useful lesson is a reliable decision and review process, with fair treatment across roles. [R2, R8, R15]

Business impact: Unclear authority and inconsistent follow-through weaken trust, consume scarce capacity and make difficult decisions harder to resolve.

Action: Confirm committee authority, capacity, leads and backups. Record decisions, owners, deadlines and escalation routes. Apply conduct expectations consistently to leaders, staff, volunteers and partners through a defined reporting and review process. Give providers timely, direct, documented feedback tied to an approved brief and scope. Handle concerns through specific evidence and proportionate response. Keep voluntary board duties distinct from contracted professional services; document disclosures, consent and independent review where roles overlap. The review does not make a finding of individual misconduct or intent.

Recommended 90-day plan

Start the plan when leadership approves it. Confirm current conditions and proposed role owners first; pilot the controls on one live program rather than rebuilding every historic process at once.

A small leadership scorecard

• Usable cash, forecast low point, uncertain receipts and committed payments
• Material revenue/expense variances, corrective decision and owner
• Qualified sponsorship activity, meetings, proposals, commitments, receipts and overdue next actions
• Priority work with approved resources, client dependencies and acceptance status
• Event net contribution or authorized subsidy against its stated purpose
• Supporter acknowledgments and promised benefits completed on time
• Critical exceptions escalated and decisions closed by their due dates

Establish baselines before selecting targets. A concise exception review should lead to decisions, not simply a catalogue of activity.

Board decision agenda

1. What is the current cash runway and what requires immediate action?
2. Which outcomes can be funded and staffed, and what will be deferred?
3. Who is accountable for sponsorship execution, and what evidence will show weekly progress?
4. Which forecasts, donor workflows and supporter promises need validation or correction?
5. Which material engagements should continue, change or end based on scope, cost, results and commitments?
6. Who approves priorities and changes, and who owns each handoff and acceptance decision?
7. What readiness conditions, conduct processes and independent reviews must be applied consistently?

Conclude with named owners, written decisions and a review date.

Evidence and limitations

This consolidated review draws on a full read of 22 retained core Pride House/OutAF transcripts: 21 substantive discussions and one five-utterance waiting-room record, totaling 6,961 utterances. The core period is February 23-August 26, 2026. The broader 66-record archive was screened for additional relevant context; 12 supplemental records were read in full. Supplemental portfolio discussions were used cautiously and do not substitute for client acceptance, activity logs or financial records. Selected written correspondence runs through October 12; October 13 board-member feedback and previously supplied board-minute excerpts are separately identified. An August 16 written agency account was considered for fidelity to Dimple's concerns; it is not included in those transcript counts.

The retained coverage index contains 114 entries: 66 archived transcripts, 46 intentionally excluded records and two entries with no transcript. No additional retained Michael/Pride House group meeting was identified outside the core set. Two Pride-titled one-to-one records were excluded under the archive's existing scope. There is no retained core transcript before February 23 or a later core operating call after August 26. This is a review of the available corpus, not a claim that every organizational conversation was recorded.

Automatic transcription can misstate names, amounts and speakers. A recorded statement or agency account demonstrates a reported concern; it does not independently verify a balance, deployment, attendance figure, work scope, payment or completed action. The signed SOW, complete change/acceptance record, original financial schedules, invoice/payment chronology, PR agreement, full board-warning chronology and current Apollo activity logs were not reconciled in this review. Historical concerns should be retired when current evidence shows resolution.

The June training's illustrative funnel is not an approved daily quota or guaranteed conversion model. Current non-use concerns supplied in October require an activity/configuration check. Conduct discussion supports consistent process; unverified personal allegations are excluded. The recommendations address organizational practice and do not determine individual motives, misconduct or legal liability.

Appendix: How to use the source references

The bracketed labels, such as [R7], point to the source groups below. They are reference identifiers, not ratings, recommendations or a count of meetings. One group can contain several records. Follow the linked meeting, then use the listed date and local clock time to find the supporting discussion. Times are Pacific wall-clock times, not playback offsets: PST before March 8, 2026, and PDT thereafter. Written records are identified by date and subject. The references show where a finding comes from and what still requires independent verification.

• R1 — February 23 and March 5 kickoff discussions: February 23, 11:27 approvals; 11:36 request routing; 11:41–11:47 finance visibility and donor records. March 5, 14:04–14:14 CRM and accounting requirements. Sources: February 23; March 5.
• R2 — April 17 planning and May 5 operating discussion: April 17, 15:03–15:09 asset brief and shared program; May 5, 14:38 press feedback; 14:44–14:53 pipeline visibility, outdated records and concentrated sponsorship knowledge; 14:58–15:18 task structure, adoption and resource allocation; 15:19–15:27 registration dependency. Sources: April 17; May 5.
• R3 — May 11 and May 14 weekly planning: May 11, 10:41–10:51 venue, registration and VIP rules; May 14, 11:10–11:15 checkout testing and partner approvals; 11:31–11:34 ownership correction and improved coordination. Sources: May 11; May 14.
• R4 — May 21 weekly planning and May 27 CRM review: May 21, 11:04–11:27 campaign, approvals and budget; 12:03 request route. May 27, 11:18–11:32 donor workflows, migration and access needs. Sources: May 21; May 27.
• R5 — May 28 and June 4 weekly planning: May 28, 11:12–11:28 sponsor, venue, admission and change-control dependencies; June 4, 11:09–11:11 approval delays and batched changes; 11:24–11:26 staffing and fulfillment guardrails. Sources: May 28; June 4.
• R6 — May 26 and June 8–9 written correspondence: “Outstanding invoice + Bill.com payment delays,” discussion of payment workflow and changes; “Changes by 12 PM Tomorrow,” cutoff notice and client reply. Sources: May 26 invoice correspondence; June 8–9 cutoff correspondence.
• R7 — June 18 training and July 27 operating review: June 18, 12:23–12:29 system purpose and adoption; 12:44–12:55 segmentation and ownership. July 27, 15:05–15:11 invoice process; 15:13–15:33 adoption, priorities and donor workflows; 15:49–15:54 creative and capacity feedback. Sources: June 18; July 27.
• R8 — August 17 organization and operating discussions: Organization call, 12:19–12:25 volunteers, documentation and roles; 12:42–12:45 spending authority and sponsor fulfillment. Afternoon review, 13:35 positive feedback; 13:38–14:06 funding and priorities; 14:08–14:09 coordination; 14:11–14:13 funding clarification. Sources: August 17 organization call; August 17 operating review.
• R9 — August 26 financial-systems group discussion, 11:03–11:26: Donor visibility, payment records, system responsibilities, acknowledgment and access. Sources: August 26 group discussion.
• R10 — June 2 CRM Q&A correspondence: Donor tracking, manual records, communication history and volunteer segmentation, with separate compliance and archiving considerations. Sources: June 2 Q&A.
• R11 — May 29 donor-list correspondence: Membership-dependent segmentation and the subsequent priority to import existing donor information. This was a specific dependency rather than a general suspension of donor work. Sources: May 29 donor-list exchange; May 29 follow-up.
• R12 — September and October correspondence: September 18, “Champions Circle and Marketing Proposal”; October 8 follow-up; Les’s October 10 request for website pricing and lessons; October 12 confirmation that the lessons were not urgent. Sources: September 18 proposal; October 8–10 correspondence; October 12 reply.
• R13 — Board-member feedback and supplied board-minute excerpts: October 13 feedback identifies late cash-shortfall warning, budget transparency, missed event sponsorship projections, sponsorship relationship management and PR value as major concerns. Previously supplied July board-minute excerpts describe adverse World Cup results and a reduced year-end cash projection. The original financial schedules, PR agreement and complete board-reporting chronology were not part of this review. Source availability: Feedback and excerpts were supplied for this review; no original board-record link was available. The August 17 operating review corroborates cash pressure and differing funding interpretations, but does not establish the earliest warning date or the board-minute amounts.
• R14 — March 13 World Cup strategy and May 21 campaign planning: March 13, 13:06–13:39, program, registration and planning discussions; May 21, 11:55–12:02, campaign sequencing within an approximately three-week window. Read with the August 17 retrospective account of the compressed marketing lead time. Sources: March 13; May 21.
• R15 - August 16 written agency account: Dimple's historical account of urgent requests, dependencies, payment and board/vendor boundaries. This is a user-provided perspective, not independent verification of SOW exclusions, work hours, motives, payment amounts or current status. The underlying account is held privately by Dimple and is not reproduced here.

Expanded source locators for this consolidated revision

• R2, conduct and agency remit: May 5 operating discussion, 14:34–14:41 and 15:01. The high-level lesson concerns a consistent process. March 30 discussion, 15:19–15:34, covers representation, approvals and the described limits of PR scope.
• R7, training, adoption and scope: June 18 Apollo training, 12:06–12:59; illustrative funnel 12:11:32, reporting/setup 12:23:34, Michael's ownership 12:54:46. June 19 follow-up email, “RE: OutAF - Apollo CRM Training Availability Poll,” supplies recording, tutorial and import instructions. July 27 review, 15:13–15:16, balances acknowledged use with adoption/configuration gaps; 15:53:16 acknowledges a previously supplied SOW.
• R8, governance and operating review: August 17 organization discussion, roles, authority, fulfillment, overlap and selection processes; August 17 SOW discussion, 13:38–14:13, funding, configuration, adoption, priorities and planning.
• R9, group discussion only: August 26 financial-systems discussion, 11:01–11:27. The later private conversation is not needed for the executive findings above.
• R14, early planning and later execution window: March 13 strategy, 13:06–13:39; May 21 planning, 11:42 earlier save-the-dates, 11:55–12:02 compressed remaining window.
• Partnership opportunity: August 5 prospect discussion, 12:01–12:27, records interest and proposed next steps, not a signed or paid sponsorship.

Recipient access to linked source records should be checked before circulation; this document does not change access permissions.