Do the League's Figures Add Up?

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 10:46am

"Producers sued members of Local and its president James Claffey Jr. in Manhattan federal court seeking to recover damages for lost revenues… The League of American Theaters and Producers has said the strike that has darkened some 25 productions since November 10 is costing a total of about $17 million for every day it lasts." The law-suit was filed late Tuesday November 20."

25 shows closed with a loss of $17 million a day, would mean that each show would have to bring in approximately $680,000 a day or $4,080,000 a week, based on a 6 day week. Either the League has grossly under-reported their revenue in the weekly grosses, or someone at the League needs to get their adding machine fixed.

During the strike, the League does not have to pay salaries or benefits to any of the production's employees, so you can't count those as a loss. Their only expenses would be theatre rental, equipment rental, and utilities, and maybe some advertising.

I'd love to see how they are actually calculating their losses, maybe this lawsuit will open the books.

[bugmenot]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 11:07am

No. They don't add up. Of course they don't. They've even admitted it themselves now. This is from Bloomberg on the 21st:

" Charlotte St. Martin, executive director of the producers' league, issued a statement on Nov. 10 that the strike ``will have an economic impact of $17 million per day in direct and indirect costs.'

True Impact

That figure, widely reported, is overstated, according to the league's own research director, Karen Hauser. The true economic impact is closer to $8 million, she said.

Broadway's contribution to New York is $5.3 billion, she explained, citing a league study. Divide that by 313 days -- most shows are dark one day a week -- and you get about $17 million for Broadway's economic contribution.

``If the strike went on long enough and Broadway moved to New Jersey,' then $17 million per day would apply.

Eight Broadway shows remain running and ``Wicked' hasn't yet moved to Newark. Hauser said her $8 million estimate of losses is based on weekly production expenses for canceled performances and income that hotels, taxis and restaurants lose after theater-loving tourists abort or shorten trips. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aZ4vsF85GB88&refer=home

The NYC comptroller has estimated the daily cost as being somewhere around $2 million, if the strike lasts less than 6 weeks. Updated On: 11/23/07 at 11:07 AM

[DoranC]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 1:19pm

"Their only expenses would be theatre rental, equipment rental, and utilities, and maybe some advertising."

How much would that be?

[BrianS]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 1:55pm

JustAGuy, nobodies figures add up. You guys aren't making the $160k they're claiming you are or you'd be taking town cars home after work and you aren't making the $65k minimums listed on this board or they wouldn't have asked for concessions.

While I admire your taking the time on this board to get the Local One viewpoint out there, rhetoric and cherry-picking of facts from both sides is what got all of us into this mess. I wonder if more gasoline on the fire is what is called for at this time.

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 2:10pm

So they give up $8million a day to save what? Half a million in wages? I am throwing out a figure that may be too high. I still think $8 million is a rough estimate.

Where is all of this money? Even running so many shows at a loss they still make and mind you this is just Nederlanders, $8 million a day! They do have the best track record right now but again, is this just what Nederlanders makes or is this the whole League. The statements say Nederlanders are going to Court not as the League but a member of one. No other Theatre so far has been brought up. This stuff really gets Judges mad too. They hate the Propaganda stuff because it means their staff have to work harder on the books and then complain to the Judge. Who wants more work when you are backlogged for years?

More proof too why I really don't like St. Martin in this job. She keeps putting out information some old guy in a crumpled suit must be handing over to her to release. She doesn't even understand the Industry enough to know when she shouldn't be leaking information. I fear she will learn like so many before what price the mouthpiece pays on their resume.

Brian S.-

What are you going to do when it fails? Are you not an Actor? Why do you think Actors are immune to concessions?


Updated On: 11/23/07 at 02:10 PM

[BrianS]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 3:32pm

I don't think actors are immune to concessions and for the record, I am in full support of stagehands getting raises to their minimums. You guys keep everyone safe and you should be compensated for doing a great job. I am also in support of the notion that work calls are for the run of the show and not until 11pm.

If they ever tried to break IATSE, 801, or AEA, all of us would refuse to work so that their only choice was to back down or put up a Troika version of Wicked on Broadway starring a girl fresh out of Sommerset Community College (who would no doubt be out of the show in a week when an inexperienced non-union stagehand dropped a house set piece on her head bringing the irony full circle).

The only thing that has kept me from being 100% behind the stagehands is notion of getting paid for work not done. I don't want to reopen a can of worms because it's been discusses to death from both sides on multiple threads with very few actual numbers, but both sides do have valid points.

As for AEA negotiations, the AEA production contract leaves very little room for overtime so the costs are pretty clear cut to producers, actors, and the general public. It would be a very different battle in the press as producers would basically be saying "we feel actors are overpaid and should take a pay cut." I don't think it would go over very well in the public eye. With the stagehand negotiation, there are so many rules that affect how much you guys actually make and all they've had to do was to point out (even if it was just ONE guy) someone who is getting paid when there is very little for him to do and it paints a picture in the public of unions abusing their power. I'm not saying that is right, I'm just saying that this negotiation is much more complicated than Equity's negotiation.

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 5:42pm

I too support normal raises and raises for those whose work load will be increased due to eliminating positions that are more of a back-up or as needed. My only thing is that anyone working a sound/light board needs two hands on a regular basis. Even if one is only part-time.

The difficulty I see for them is that job come and go. I see too many examples already that they will compromise safety to save money and that money isn't enough to account for over spending on sets or a bad advertising campaign.

I am in agreement that the things the Union is willing to give up seem fair and to me that was quite a sacrifice because it will leave more people unemployed.

Thank you for that explanation Brian. I really do think everyone has a reason for how they feel. I am just curious as to why and what makes them feel that way. As an Actor, I know it must be very tough. Now is the time I wish those Actors who have a lot of money donate to a fund that will help assist those young or supporting players who really are still living from job to job. Please pass this thought along to the Union. I actually looked at the Stagehands Website but they had no fund the general public to make contributions to.

I don't believe it is fair to ask people to stand up for what will benefit us all who enjoy Broadway shows without our doing our share to support it. I can't buy tickets right now but I can at least send in a donation. I just want it to be a legitimate place that I know will help save someone's Home or help them pay their bills during the Holiday for basics.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 8:05pm

"JustAGuy, nobodies figures add up. You guys aren't making the $160k they're claiming you are or you'd be taking town cars home after work and you aren't making the $65k minimums listed on this board or they wouldn't have asked for concessions."

Brian, FYI I'm not a member of Local One. But, I do have strong feelings about supporting the Union since I am a member of a theatrical union, and my contract comes up next.

As to the figures I posted, I was just curious if anyone knew how they actually broke down, since I thought it was a bit misleading for the League to say the strike was costing $17 million a day, without actually stating what the cost were and who was accruing them. That's why it was posed as a question so as not to fan the flames. Bugmenot's post clarified some, but not all.

*********

"How much would that be?"

DoranC, I don't have exact figures but here's a link to a break down of Running Cost from 2002. Which might be helpful to you. Courtesy of the NYTIMES.





NY TIMES

[bugmenot]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 9:21pm

> Please pass this thought along to the Union. I actually looked
> at the Stagehands Website but they had no fund the general
> public to make contributions to.

Thank you for the thought, it's really appreciated, but I'm guessing our defense fund is fine (as I understand it, it is automatically replenished by dues payments paid by the people still working in other parts of the union's jurisdictional area -- probably about 2000 people still working out of the roughly 2500 active members). If you want to make a contribution, might I suggest BC/EFA, The Actors Fund, or, since Gerry Schoenfeld has threatened to pull $35,000 of their funding, The Actor's Chapel at St Malachy's RC Church

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 11/24/07 at 1:30am

Where did the Gerry Schoenfeld info come from? Is that factual??

[bugmenot]

Posted: 11/24/07 at 9:55am

I heard it from a priest.