Concerts in the Park

Arkady

I know that a lot people here were rather upset about the impact of this summer’s concerts in the park. There were various complaints about the poor organisation, especially of toilet facilities. Others were concerned about how large sections of the park were cordoned off for weeks on end, others about how the park was left in a terrible state.<br><br>You might be interested to hear, then, that Haringey’s Labour council have determined that the number of concert days in the park should be increased, from the current maximum of five per year, to <b>EIGHTEEN </b>per year.<br><br>Haringey Liberal Democrats are going to oppose this change. If the council want to raise additional money they might consider instead charging more from the promoters instead– they only charged £1 per head for the Stone Roses gigs!<br><br>A formal consultation will open soon, and I will post the link so that people can comment formally. Until then... what do you think?<br>

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

NorthNineteen

I think eighteen events the scale of Stone Roses would be too much! I personally feel the park is big enough to handle more events, it's more the impact on the local area that conerns me particularly managing exit/entry between the park and the station.  It didn't sound great for the Stone Roses which is weird as I think it works well on Arsenal match-days.<br>

yagamuffin

I would be happy to see smaller events more frequently, not sure I want 18 big gigs a year though, unless it was all German power metal <div><br></div>

vetski

£1/head? Extraordinary. I'm all for more community events - though I don't believe those should be charged for by & large, except to cover e.g. extra clean-up - but if they mean large-scale stuff e.g. Stone Roses, I wouldn't be happy with that even if I loved every band proposed. The period of time that area of the park was out of bounds for set-up & tear down and the concert itself x 18 = about half the year! And if they have all 18 on the same bit of the park, the ground will never have time to recover. I trust Claire Kober will personally fund earplugs for local residents who'd like some peace & quiet?<div><br></div><div><br></div>

miss annie

You should talk to the Friends of Finsbury Park. The council are legally obliged to talk to them before making decisions about the Park.

ChangN4N6

They should tender for contract and get best price from reputable promoter who will be incentivised to make the exits and wcs work . One night wonders won't . That way you get max money per shot, fewer naff gigs and everybody wins. I thought this was a legal requirement if exploiting a public space? And 20pc money should go into planting not just the basics like opening gates. Any Cllrs on here gonna take this up? Chang

DillysDad

A few important things should be mentioned here. From last nights meeting, they're actually increasing it from 5 events to 6, which is the same number of applications they've received from SJM and Live Nation.<br><br>The Stone Roses gig netted the council £130,000 (not including licensing). This money doesn't directly go into the park. <br><br>Obviously, in real terms, 6 events is a lot of days' worth of disruption to our park and it's wildlife.<br><br>Personally, I didn't mind the Stone Roses and wouldn't object to one event like it per year, providing that the promoters are forced to provide more toilets, have security that are more respectful of park users and are generally more respectful of the park.<br>

vetski

@Dillysdad, am confused - do you understand/can you explain the (welcome!) discrepancy between the 18 @Arkady mentions and the 6 you have? Thx.

DillysDad

I'm not sure. Perhaps there's a confusion with events and events days? There's also the possibility that the 18 figure includes circus and fair ground days?<br><br>I'll do a bit more digging and try and get back to you.<br><br>I have a feeling the council are seeing the park as a bit of a money maker but by all accounts the objections were numerous.<br><br><br>

harpistic

That'd make sense - with local council funding cuts, a lot of departments would be under pressure to generate income however they can. That would also apply to any council-funded organisations, I'm assuming, as an aside.

Arkady

The information I have been given states that a maximum of five concert <i>days </i>are currently allowed, and this will be expanded to eighteen ("up to six concerts lasting three days each").<br><br>The £130,000 figure fromthe Stone Roses works out at £1 per head as noted above.  Given the overall cost of tickets, would it not be better for the council to double or even triple this figure while maintaining the current number of days?<br>

miss annie

@Arkady DillysDad is one of the Friends, you two should definitely meet. 

Arkady

Sounds good to me!  DillysDad, do you know Kevin Duffy?<br>

Papa

Is the £1 per head / £130,000 a profit figure after all the council's costs have been taken into account, ie repairing the park and so on, or £130,000 that then covers those costs.<br><br>At £50 a ticket, the council should be taking more than this - that is lousy money even if it is profit.<br><br>I went to the Stone Roses and I think a big flagship gig or two a year is good, but 18 days worth is hugely excessive. Gigs should also not be able to shut any amenity, ie tennis courts, skatepark etc.<br><br>Also promoters should have to provide those portable on-street urinals strategically placed on local roads.<br>

Arkady

Dunno. Wil try to find out.<br>

Sutent

I think more gigs is a fantastic idea. I do think locals should get some sort of priority with tickets though. Does anyone know if the council payment is after cleaning and other local costs to host such an event? £130,000 does not seem very much. <div><br></div><div>The gigs mus tbe limited by Arsenal home games as the police/facilities couldn't manage so many people in the local area all at once</div>

Ali

That is why they are in the Summer!

Sutent

but not with 18 gig days- there may not be enough summer dates to do that especially with the Emirates cup. <div><br></div>

Detritus

I think 18 gigs is a bit much, it's not just the day of the gig but the set up and take down. From what I remember it was about 7 days of the horrible fencing for 2 concerts. And sorry but what ever money is made from the use of the park should be put back into the park, will it just be turned into a cash cow?

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

miss annie

Earlier in the thread there is speculation that this isn't necessarily 18 gig days but includes the fairground weekends etc. that are regular events.

Arkady

I looked at the policy documents - funfairs appear to be separate from these figures (and will remain 3 times per year).<br><br>The increase is from the current 5 events a year (the implication seems to be that these are usually 1 day and occasionally more) to 6 a year where the minimum desirable booking would be two days, but up to three days allowed.  This does not include set-up time.  So a major increase, if not necessarily tripled.<br>

vetski

Yes, I was confusing events and event days, so thanks to various for clarifying. <div><br></div><div>6 events @ 3 days = 18, plus 10-ish days set-up/teardown for each - that's about 11 weeks total, concentrated in May/June-Aug-ish. That seems like quite a loss of utility - almost the entire summer! Do soundcheck days count within the event days? SR soundcheck took 6 hours on the Thu - I know they were adjusting levels and all that, but it did seem interminable.</div>

kreuzkav

I think if it's only a payback of £1 per person for events like Inspiral Carpets it's not worth the disruption.  I don't use the park that much so it's not a big deal to me but I know many people who do and they were really annoyed by the military style lock down of the park over a few days.

dion

So the council charged 2.6% of the c. £5m concert ticket sales as rent, excluding say the £15 per head spent on food/drink in the arena, another £1.5m which would bring it down to 2%. <div><br></div><div>I would love to run a business where my rental cost was only 2% of my sales!  That is to say, all in all it looks a little on the low side in percentage terms.  It also looks low in monetary terms. </div><div><br></div><div>Given that the population of Haringey is 225,000 - it netted us 57p each.  However, this is before the council spent any money on clean up, preparation etc. as discussed above.</div>

graeme

The apparent 'payback' of £1 you mention Kreuzkav doesn't include the intangible value to local residents who <i>do </i>want to attend events at the park, and do consider it worth the disruption to have concerts on their doorstep.   <br><br>I doubt the council get anything like £130k from the funfairs each year (which other residents may find disruptive), but you wouldn't deny all the little local kiddies a ride on the waltzers because it's not profitable, would you? <br>

NorthNineteen

I wonder sometimes about council's business accrument.  For instance, Run to the Beat only paid £10,000 to RB Greenwich for operating the Run to the Beat half marathon through the borough, this cost was pretty much entirely taken up by changes to Traffic Orders and additional resources and the level of disruption was severe.<br>

quince

A welcome bonanza for area drug dealers.  Suspect they did very well out of the Stone Roses gig.

Detritus

I doubt it quince, most are not stupid enough to buy on the street from a dealer they dont know, people would have travelled with their stuff.