Jump to content

      













Photo

McPherson Playhouse


  • Please log in to reply
203 replies to this topic

#21 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 10,362 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 02:09 PM

http://www.tristinhopper.com/arena.htm

 

This claims the arena (in 2010) costs the city a million a year.

This is a different discussion. My understanding is that the McPherson shortfall is an operational deficit. That means that every year taxpayers fund the theatre just to keep the doors open. You can't compare that to SOFMC which has an operational surplus (ie revenue to the City).



#22 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 02:24 PM

What does that $750,000 go to for the Mac?  How much is wages, how much is maintenance and operations, like heating fuel etc.

 

HERE is one reason it's not used enough dates.  And why Blue Bridge bought their own building.

 

 
Rental Information LABOUR RATES

The Licensee will pay all labour charges. Staff requirements will be determined and scheduled by the Royal & McPherson Theatres Society. Labour will be charged as per the rates identified in the licensee agreement. Minimum four hour call.

STAGE CREW

Crew Chief/Department Head: $48.45 per hour 
Assistant Sound and Wardrobe: $36.05 per hour 
Operator: $35.05 per hour 
Loader: $32.00 per hour 
Grip: $30.65 per hour

FRONT OF HOUSE STAFF

Manager/Supervisor: $45.90 per hour 
Usher: $20.85 per hour 
Merchandiser: $20.85 per hour

 


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#23 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 45,322 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 02:32 PM

Yup. If you want to use their space they force you to use their unionized labour.

 

It's the same song at some tradeshow venues where they remind everyone renting space that every request will be addressed using union labour -- and to be mindful of the associated costs.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#24 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 8,626 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 03:31 PM

This is a different discussion. My understanding is that the McPherson shortfall is an operational deficit. That means that every year taxpayers fund the theatre just to keep the doors open. You can't compare that to SOFMC which has an operational surplus (ie revenue to the City).

 

You sure can. The fact of the matter is that from an accounting perspective SOFMC cost $30M to build. That asset is expensed every year in the form of amortization which is a very real expenditure when you're looking at the city's financial statements. On top of that, the city had to borrow significant funds to finance its construction. The cost of this capital (interest expense) will be another significant annual expense.



#25 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 03:37 PM

^ Agreed.  The arena is certainly heavily subsidized.  If it was going to make so much money RGC would have built their own arena.  

 

However, I also agree that doesn't mean the subsidy for the Mac is reasonable, or that they couldn't do substantially better at managing the place. Reading the article (finally ;-) ) certainly makes it clear that the Mac is being subsidized in such a way that it stays empty much of the time. A better model would be to keep it as full as possible and at least get extensive community use of the space.   



#26 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 03:54 PM

However, I also agree that doesn't mean the subsidy for the Mac is reasonable, or that they couldn't do substantially better at managing the place. Reading the article (finally ;-) ) certainly makes it clear that the Mac is being subsidized in such a way that it stays empty much of the time. A better model would be to keep it as full as possible and at least get extensive community use of the space.  

 

This.   It would be fun for students of high schools to be able to put on their productions there etc.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#27 29er Radio

29er Radio
  • Member
  • 552 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 03:59 PM

I know tristin hopper and have asked him to back up those numbers from the article on the arena.


Eric Bramble - http://www.29erradio.com
The Growler Hour
Lisa, Gene & Eric Show

#28 phx

phx
  • Member
  • 1,413 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 07:05 PM

It's tough to evaluate the economics of sports facilities.  There are indirect revenues from out-of-town visitors that are not easy to quantify.



#29 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 02 December 2013 - 07:09 PM

^ as there are for arts facilities.

#30 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 8,626 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 08:54 AM

The subsidies for McPherson and the arena certainly could be reasonable. I agree that many of the benefits of such facilities are intangible and/or difficult to quantify (civic pride, community building, "something to do", etc.). Personally, I'd be interested in seeing the financials though.



#31 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 09:09 AM

The subsidies for McPherson and the arena certainly could be reasonable. I agree that many of the benefits of such facilities are intangible and/or difficult to quantify (civic pride, community building, "something to do", etc.). Personally, I'd be interested in seeing the financials though.

 

But subsidizing to the tune of $30 per ticket?  I don't see how you could ever find side benefits to justify that.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#32 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 8,626 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 09:19 AM

But subsidizing to the tune of $30 per ticket?  I don't see how you could ever find side benefits to justify that.

 

At face value that seems high, but that's less than $10/year per Victoria resident, and a $750k/year budget sounds like a pretty lean operation to me. I'd like to see the actual budget for McPherson rather than just taking a councilor's word, to be totally honest. If they're really only managing to get 25,000 guests per year than the whole operation is likely unsustainable.



#33 Greg

Greg
  • Member
  • 1,504 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 11:46 AM

At face value that seems high, but that's less than $10/year per Victoria resident, and a $750k/year budget sounds like a pretty lean operation to me. I'd like to see the actual budget for McPherson rather than just taking a councilor's word, to be totally honest. If they're really only managing to get 25,000 guests per year than the whole operation is likely unsustainable.

 

I'm still disputing (well, with no actual evidence to be fair) the 25,000 number. I mean they sold out how many shows (772 seats each) for John Cleese? I find it hard to believe that 30-35% of the tickets sold for the entire year were for a week of John Cleese. The numbers don't pass the reasonableness test.



#34 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 45,322 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 03:05 PM

Quite often the upper balcony is not available for booking so that reduces the number of available seats for many performances by a substantial number.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#35 Benezet

Benezet
  • Member
  • 983 posts

Posted 03 December 2013 - 05:54 PM

I'm still disputing (well, with no actual evidence to be fair) the 25,000 number. I mean they sold out how many shows (772 seats each) for John Cleese? I find it hard to believe that 30-35% of the tickets sold for the entire year were for a week of John Cleese. The numbers don't pass the reasonableness test.

 

The figure is very suspect. There were well over 100 events there this year, and there were other sell-outs besides Cleese. That would leave the supposed average attendance for the rest at an unbelievably low number.

 

Maybe someone from the theatre itself can set this straight....



#36 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 8,626 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 09:38 AM

According to the recent letter to the editor from the Royal and McPherson Theatres Society,  http://www.timescolo...ctoria-1.719269

 

- The playhouse has more than 50,000 patrons per year

- The city provides $400,000 annually for ongoing maintenance and infrastructure improvements

- The city provides $350,000 annually as an operating subsidy

 

So, the $30/ticket subsidy is more like $15. Obviously it'd be great if this place could support itself, but I wonder how this compares to other city owned facilities?



#37 Greg

Greg
  • Member
  • 1,504 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 09:53 AM

According to the recent letter to the editor from the Royal and McPherson Theatres Society,  http://www.timescolo...ctoria-1.719269

 

- The playhouse has more than 50,000 patrons per year

- The city provides $400,000 annually for ongoing maintenance and infrastructure improvements

- The city provides $350,000 annually as an operating subsidy

 

So, the $30/ticket subsidy is more like $15. Obviously it'd be great if this place could support itself, but I wonder how this compares to other city owned facilities?

Those numbers seem more reasonable. That suggests two things to me for looking at the value of the McPherson. One is that (IMHO) the maintenance and infrastructure improvements are a very different thing than the operating subsidy. Money out of the taxpayers pocket to be sure, but maintaining an asset is different than making up for an operational loss. And the operating subsidy works out to more like $7 a ticket.

 

The other point is that I question whether we should view the McPherson in isolation, or as part of the McPherson/Royal package. The latter is how it is managed and how it is used. And maybe the Royal would not be in the position it is in (I'm not sure if it is subsidized to some extent, but I think it is clearly seen as a good value to the community and economy) without the McPherson. It is a lot easier to bring acts to town, and to provide for the needs of the local arts organizations if you have two theatres to avoid major scheduling conflicts. John Cleese doesn't make it to Victoria without the McPherson, as the Opera had the Royal booked. The Blue Bridge Theatre company would not exist without the availability of the McPherson. Both Dance Victoria and Pacific Opera Victoria have staged secondary, more experimental works at the McPherson that would not have filled the Royal. Ballet Victoria depends on the McPherson for some of its performances that would not be possible at the Royal for various reasons. The ability for groups to use the McPherson as a secondary or alternative venue keeps the groups healthy, and I suspect it is the regular dependable use of the Royal by these core organizations (Victoria Symphony, Pacific Opera Victoria, Dance Victoria, Ballet Victoria) that keep the Royal healthy.



#38 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 45,322 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 10:01 AM

The idea to replace the Royal with a modern and architecturally striking opera house/performing arts centre was floated in the early 2000's and it garnered quite a bit of support from the community.

 

Meanwhile we're paying $400,000 per year for the McPherson and who knows how much to maintain the Royal. Certainly the restoration of the Royal that was underway several years ago did not come cheap.

 

We've got a perfect harbourfront location at the foot of Fort Street and the City of Victoria wants to build a bloody market there? For crying out loud, sell the Royal/McPherson properties and raise many millions in capital to then offset the cost of a striking waterfront and architecturally significant performing arts centre that we can be proud of. Why we have two mediocre theaters in this city each sucking up operating and maintenance costs is beyond me.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#39 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 10:04 AM

We've got a perfect harbourfront location at the foot of Fort Street and the City of Victoria wants to build a bloody market there? For crying out loud, sell the Royal/McPherson properties and raise many millions in capital to then offset the cost of a striking waterfront and architecturally significant performing arts centre that we can be proud of. Why we have two mediocre theaters in this city each sucking up operating and maintenance costs is beyond me.

 

Ya, this is a better idea.  A harbour location surely would mean the thing is used near every night May-Oct.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#40 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 04 December 2013 - 10:10 AM

Hmmm, I think a harbour location is a pretty bad idea actually.  The harbour should be used for things that involve enjoying the harbour, not sitting inside and watching a play or concert.  I agree a market is also a bad idea, but I'd rather see more dining and shopping down there.  



You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


To advertise on VibrantVictoria, call us at 250-884-0589.