Theatre’s £500,000 help from taxpayer
Sunday 30th May 2010, 7:00AM BST.
Taxpayers across Shropshire forked out more than a £500,000 to subsidise Theatre Severn in its first year, new figures show.
The statistics released by Shropshire Council show that the authority subsidised the £28 million venue in Frankwell Quay, Shrewsbury, to the tune of £551,890 last year. But officials said its total ticket sales were more than £2 million as audiences flocked to see top acts such as singer James Morrison.
Today the Taxpayers’ Alliance criticised the subsidy.
Matthew Elliott, chief executive, said: “This is a large sum for a small local theatre to receive in subsidy in just one year, it needs to be reduced by next year.
“Those in charge need to examine how they are spending taxpayers’ cash and whether it is really providing value for money.
“Big cuts in public spending are on the way and pet projects in the arts are likely to come under fire unless they can prove their worth.”
Lezley Picton, head of arts and heritage at Shropshire Council, said total ticket sales for the period April 2009 to March 2010 was £2,088,230. She defended the subsidy and claimed it was less than that given to the town’s previous theatre, The Music Hall.
She said: “It’s about £150,000 less than what the Music Hall used to be. There’s no doubt the theatre has done extremely well in its first financial year.
“I am really pleased with the way the theatre has turned out financially, it’s way better than what we expected it to be. We were expecting the subsidy to be £750,000 to £1 million and it’s come in under that. Hopefully we can do better than that this year.
“The subsidy is certainly comparable with other regional theatres.”
Miss Picton said the subsidy helped with maintenance as well as ensuring a wide and varied programme.
Councillor Stephen Charmley, cabinet member for leisure, said the theatre had been a massive success, adding: “It’s the shining star of Shropshire culture.”
By Russell Roberts
UK News
Most Commented
- Shropshire Council will face £8m redundancy bill
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
Could the Taxpayers Alliance before they make a comment put it into context. What we, the taxpayers, would like to know is how does this compare with other new theatre projects across the UK and theatres in general.
Of course projects have to prove their worth but lets have a standard by which we ‘the taxpayers’ can judge it.
Otherwise the comments look ill judged and a little silly.
Lezley Picton had envisaged an even greater subsidy – was this declared before the financial year and was the ‘Taxpayers Alliance’ aware of it. If so can we see the comments from the ‘Taxpayers Alliance’ at the start of the financial year?
All seems very ‘lets jump on the bandwagon’ to me – very easy glib statements from people in a position that should know better.
Report abuse
Cllr Stephen Charmley please take note: there is very little that would not be a success if it had £500,000 in taxpayers money subsidising it.
If it’s such a success, then it’s time to cut it loose and allow it to survive on its own abilities and merit.
Lezley Picton please take note: just because less money has been showered over something than it was over something else, does not mean that it’s value for taxpayers’ money and if it’s done extremely well in its first year, then it can be cut loose to prove itself without any subsidy at all. That would allow taxpayers to see whether “extremely well” means the same in the publicly-funded “arts and heritage sector” as it does in struggling private sector companies who, if they are successful, don’t expect taxpayers’ largesse to be thrown over them.
I’m not knocking the theatre, merely saying that if it’s as successful as you say, then it doesn’t need taxpayers’ money. And if it’s not as successful as you’re making out, then you’re throwing good money after bad.
Report abuse
So let me get this right. The theatre cost £28,000,000 the monstrous concrete climbing frame that can only be appreciated from said theatre cost in excess of £500,000 and to add insult to injury our council tax is supporting your financial incompetence to the tune of £500,000 pa. I am no Albert Einstein but judging by these figures this leviathan is never going to break even.
Report abuse
[It’s the shining star of Shropshire culture]
What, this building in a town that
is supposed to be selling itself on quality architecture and forward looking arts and culture?
It cost an astounding 32 million.
It is half the size originally proposed.
It managed to be voted into a list of the top ten worst new buildings in the country and was close to the top of that list.
It already looks shabby.
This first year was claimed would be a honeymoon period where the novelty of the new venue would initially put more ‘bums’ on seats.
[Matthew Elliott, said: “This is a large sum for a small local theatre to receive in subsidy in just one year, it needs to be reduced by next year.]
Why did a small local theatre cost such an extraordinary amount of money?
Report abuse
So The Taxpayers Alliance are unhappy, ok drop the subsidy, increase ticket prices out of proportion, have lesser quality shows and drive away the thousands of happy theatre goers who have supported T7 since day one.
The next headline will be, Theatre Severn losing money, Big White Elephant etc. etc.
Trust me there are a lot more supporters of our theatre than those of you who have critisised it from the moment it was being built.
Report abuse
this is a disgrace, i like most people dont go to the theatre, its rich toffs who do so let them pay full price for tickets, subsidies should be reserved for the poor not opera and theatre and rich farming land owners etc our whole system stinks, rich get richer etc
Report abuse
What a mind numbingly stupid comment from someone who probably only leaves the house during daytime television advert breaks to buy a red top newspaper, or at night when he sits in his local pub, quaffing ale and smoking cigarettes, moaning about how unfair it is that other people have more money than he does. Sweeping generalisations are fun aren’t they.
Report abuse
Outstanding.
Report abuse
a bit of culture is a good legacy or you will end up like sparta with nothing
Report abuse
I think the theatre ought to pay its way, but what I’m concerned about here is the way the Star resorts to the ‘Taxpayers Alliance’ for a quote.
The TA sounds like a representative organisation but it isn’t. It’s a PR outfit, funded largely by wealthy businessmen to try to put pressure on the government in their own interest. But it’s quite successful at getting newspapers to make it look like some kind of grassroots organisation.
Report abuse
Maybe the Star should have reported the story in a more positive light? Move to New Theater sees subside drop by £150,000, might have been a better angle, or is the negative one better for stiring things up.
Report abuse
I’m glad we have a new theatre even though my family, like many I should imagine, cannot afford to go. I am just furious that poor decision making, starting right from the decision to site the theatre where it now stands has resulted in a very, very expensive, poor quality, ugly building and a lost opportunity to attract better gigs due to the inadequate number of seats.
Report abuse
i dont beleive there is a single theatre in the land which is profitable ie exists without some kind of public subsidy, normally from the local authority or lottery or arts council, its always a loss making activity put on for the public good
anyone know of an exclusively private sector profiteering theatre out there?
Report abuse
i agree the theatre is mainly only for the rich and middle classes yet it was built with money made by selling council houses designed for the poor, but thats conservative councils for you, redistribution in reverse, now theres an affordable housing shortage in shrewbury, its a scandal
Report abuse
In the accounts is any mention made of paying back the 28M build costs? This would be an absolute must for any commercial venture, the costs associated with the initial 28M outlay would be at least 10%, ie 2.8M per year… And that is just the opportunity costs of the loan of 28M and allowing nothing for paying it back…
So, in order to break even using standard cost analysis after the 500k subsidy then the theatre is making 2.3M per year, oh no that cant be right given only 2M headline ticket sales so really it is losing MILLIONS a year.
Good one council! Now can you tell us what services you are going to shut down that could have been saved with this money?
Report abuse
discgraceful waste of money
art is not a priority
get on with collecting bins and fixing pot holes first please
Report abuse
i resent this, i think if ticket sales are so strong, surely just add £1 per ticket to all tickets and you will still sell as many but that should easily cover the subsidy, also if shows are unpopular axe them, it should be more commercial if people want minority specialist shows ,let them pay for it themselves not tax the majority for it
Report abuse
What public service do you know of that DOES stand on its own?
Do you think the library is making enough money to cover maintenance costs/sourcing new books, computers etc?
Name one enterprise that covers it’s costs in the first year.
People seem to forget that in order to gain something in our capitalist society you have to SPEND MONEY! And through all the complaints, the fact that per year it is costing £150,000 less than its predecessor is being ignored is simply laughable. You dont think that in the long run (which is what the plan is for this kind of project) it will make the building cost up with that kind of saving every year? It was never going to achieve that in even the first decade, be realistic for goodness sake.
How much junk is there on Sky which costs £40 a month? Can anyone seriously say they truly get their money’s worth for that. All of these poor people who cant afford to go to a £15 show…how many of THEM have Sky, or smoke, or drink copious amounts of alcohol? I seem to be getting into “Sweeping generalisations” now.
Report abuse
Yes, but the point with Sky is that you pay to take it or you don’t pay and leave it. The choice is up to the subscriber
No such choice for the taxpayer: the theatre costs ALL taxpayers money, even if they don’t use it.
Those who use should pay, those who don’t shouldn’t have to stump up. Ticket prices with subsidy removed would soon allow us to see what value people attach to the theatre and whether they’d suddenly decide that Sky was better value after all.
If you don’t agree with this concept of users pay, then please consider paying part of my next Sky bill, (but you still can’t come round and watch – fair enough?).
Report abuse
Last time I checked, Rodney, we live in a democracy.
You don’t like what is going on, get involved in the process rather than sitting outside it throwing stones. Mobilise your chums and get people in power that share your views.
And, your argument of users paying doesn’t hold much water. If I don’t have a car do I pay for road maintenance, if I don’t break the law do I pay for the police, am healthy, do I pay for healthcare, ….
I am sure you get my drift.
Report abuse
some public services do cover their costs, toll roads for example, the post office made a profit last year, many other examples, so its not impossible and in my mind should be the aim for more and more services let the users pay, not me, i dont drive or have kids or really use hardly any public services at all yet i pay for the rest
Report abuse
£150,000 saving per year compared to the old one. That will pay back the £28million outlay in 187 years then! Wow. They will thank us in 2197 when this investment has matured
Report abuse
I THINK THE THEATRE IS WONDERFUL – I RECOMMEND THE BAR AND THE VIEW OF ST CHADS CHURCH FROM THE BALCONY AT NIGHT, LOOKING OUT OVER THE RIVER AT SHREWSBURYS FINE ARCHITECTURE WITH A NICE GLASS OF RED – BEAUTIFUL
Report abuse
the cafe/cinema in the square in shrewsbury formerly run by SABC made a profit!! well a surplus i guess it was never cashed in and given away to share holders as it was council owned, but if you check the facts on the record they cover all their costs and thats a cultural venue
Report abuse
What everyone is forgetting is that the cost of the is £28million PLUS the £5million that was placed in a fund to generate interest to help pay for the running of the theatre so the total investment is £33million.
I have gone on about the waste of moeny for smetime, the actual build cost came in over budget also.
With regards to Bill Fowlers comments about the long run, he forgets that in the long run the costs for maintenace etc will increase, since in the first ew years there should eb very little money spent on maintenance. Oh what a folly !!!!!!!!!!
Report abuse
well the mistake could be repeating again as the council proposes a £100 million road which will only add to maintenence costs and council tax and worse still an incinerator which they are buying on a PFI credit card which could cost half a billion over its life time – these people are in sane or incompetent or both
NO MORE WHITE ELEPHANTS
Report abuse
Maybe the theatre should allot a dozen seats to each show for the use of the poor, unemployed, or culturally challenged for a quid a pop so this sense of elitism goes away?
But that would probably only make things worse. They would be forced to see the rich and landowning upper class at play which would add to their sense of deprivation.
Anyway, people, get a clue. If every bit of public expenditure was approved based upon its financial return, nothing would get done.
Report abuse
to be fair what i would like to see is something like: –
a) number of visitors per annum to this place
b) how this contrasts to the swimming baths, the cinema, allotments, libraries, community centres, the footie pitches in sundorne and other council services
also how does this compare to the thetre hafren in powys, oakengates in telford, the grand theatre in wolverhampton and the RSC in Stratford Upon Avon, that would result in a sensible balance article / debate.
i dont expect any public service to be run for profit and i would expect a ‘loss’ / subsidy of some sort, but keep it to a minimum and run activities for all which benefit the majority not a small elite / niche group
Report abuse
the post office made a profit last year, theres your example
it can be done if you charge fair sensible amounts to the service users
Report abuse
also dont quangos like the met office and the ordnace survey make big surpluses by charging hefty sums for their technical services…
Report abuse
the taxpayers alliance are just a tory funded pressure group
they are slagging off a tory council and now there is a tory government why do they still exist, they have got what they want, now public services like culture will be axed
they might as well pack up now
Report abuse
thats too much
Report abuse