Today's FT ran a piece about some theatres and concert halls reopening from today. It offers the snap above of what this might mean in the Wigmore Hall. There is a caption - 'Indoor venues such as Wigmore Hall in London will be able to reopen provided they follow strict social distancing guidelines © Matt Crossick/PA' - but I am not clear whether this snap has been faked up on a computer or whether the Wigmore Hall has been trying things out - at what looks like a lot less than 15%-30% talked of in the FT.
There is also talk of two thirds being the break even point for most such places. So hard to see why a place like the Wigmore Hall would reopen on this basis. Even if the musicians take a cut in their fees, the place still has to be staffed up and serviced - and with all the extra cleaning needed, this might well end up costing more than normal operation. On a fraction of the take. You keep the place open after a fashion, but perhaps at the cost of increasing your losses.
I am not much the wiser after peering at their accounts at reference 1 for the year ending with the 2018-2019 season. There seems to be an annual income of around £7m, of which around half is fees to musicians and around a quarter is staff costs - and I dare say a management accountant could work out roughly how much the place costs to run when it is shut down. That is to say, not me. Maybe some rich philanthropist will just step in with the modest number of millions needed to keep the place afloat for however long it takes for restrictions to be lifted? Could one afford to be fussy about the philanthropist? What if Mr. Zuckerberg of Facebook turned out to be a closet art song fan? I think that is the jargon over the pond. Or Mr. Miller of Haliburton?
PS: the snap above is a view of the auditorium from the stage, or just below the stage.
Reference 1: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02754525/filing-history.
No comments:
Post a Comment