Orchestra’s £37,000 deficit for the year
THE future of Scarborough’s century-old Spa Orchestra is under the spotlight after it emerged that it is costing the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds.
The 2011 run of the Scarborough institution – which is the only remaining seaside summer orchestra in the UK – brought in £110,000 in revenue, but cost nearly £150,000 in orchestra fees and other expenses.
The ensemble is preparing to celebrate its 100th anniversary this summer and a programme of shows has already been announced, but the figures cast doubt over the long-term future of the orchestra with a private operator likely to take over at the Spa.
Last year only 14 morning season tickets, costing £142, were sold, while less than 100 full season tickets, which were priced at £265, were purchased.
The Spa is currently being market tested to see if an outside company could step in to run the venue, but Brian Bennett, the council’s head of tourism and culture, said all potential operators had been made aware of the importance of the orchestra.
He added: “Detailed proposals from bidders, including their ideas for the Spa Orchestra, will be shortly submitted to the council for consideration.”
Cllr David Jeffels, Scarborough Council’s portfolio holder for tourism, insisted the orchestra was good value for money, and said the £37,804 deficit should be seen as an “investment” in the town’s tourism industry.
He added: “There is considerable secondary spending by patrons of the orchestra in the Spa restaurant and its other facilities, and in the town in general.
“Many people traditionally book their holidays to coincide with the concerts and, like such things as the parks and gardens, the orchestra is a valuable part of our holiday product as a tourist town.
“The orchestra is good value for money, both in terms of spending by patrons and the publicity it generates as the last surviving seaside orchestra in the country.
“Certainly this year I am sure it is going to achieve considerable recognition nationally because this is its centenary.
“The orchestra is a valuable part of Scarborough’s cultural life and I hope it will remain so for a long time.”
Figures revealed under the Freedom of Information Act show that ticket sales for morning concerts brought in £34,700, the evening shows made £60,500 while Peasholm concerts generated £8,800 in 2011.
A further £1,800 was made through programme sales, £1,450 came into the coffers in the form of sponsorship and donations and a £1,700 fee was charged for performing in Middlesbrough.
But orchestra costs alone came to £112,700, almost £7,000 was paid to guest artistes, more than £4,500 went on advertising and printing while more than £10,500 went on staffing, not including salaried staff and managers.
Equipment for the Peasholm concerts, including fireworks, cost £7,250, £5,200 was paid to the Performing Rights Society, while £400 went on gala concert preparation and £160 was spent on equipment.
Shirley Barry, 75, of Castle Road, has been a regular at the Spa Orchestra’s performances for 20 years.
She said: “I go every morning and evening when it’s on. I’ve made lots of friends there and I look forward to it every summer. A lot of them come from other areas and they would stop coming if there were no more shows.
“It’s a fantastic orchestra. They’re wonderful musicians and are very friendly. If it went it would leave such a hole in my life, I know so many people who would be devastated.”
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Scarborough
Friday 25 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 11 C to 18 C
Wind Speed: 24 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 17 C
Wind Speed: 21 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 31 comments to this article
Page 1 of 3
I read the news today, oh boy
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 06:54 PM23 "I don't get how someone who lives in a town heavily reliant on the 'Tourist Industry" can claim to have no connection?" And that is exactly the problem. I think it is people like you who want to "retreat to a bygone era". The town needs, desperately, to move away from this culture of relying of the "tourist industry". It's a bankrupt trade, only kept going by subsidies from people like Horace and myself, who have no connection with the "tourist industry" but are expected to subsidise it so that the ice-cream vendors and caravan site operators (nice one Horace!), not to mention the ubiquitous hotel owners, can continue to rake in their profits. If all the tourists went home tomorrow I for one would not care one jot.
Drogo
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 06:19 PMAll tourism brings Scarborough these days is a lot of seasonal minimum age jobs and a selection of dodgy hoteliers who usually disappear owing millions and leaving the town's shops broke and closing down. There is some industry in Scarborough that pays decent wages but the town is ruled by the petty interests of a tourist industry that has few full time year-round jobs and does nothing for the people of the town but demand ever increasing subsidies for its ageing and slightly comical attempts to entertain the middle aged visitors who grab their free or subsidised entertainment with both hands who give little or nothing back but car park fees. Plus they all seem to arrive with a bag full of sandwiches and a thermos full of coffee.
horace jonhson
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 05:24 PM#27, “You really should start thinking things through properly. Whether you like it or not Scarborough is reliant on tourism.”…..And you really should start reading things through properly, if you did you would see that I have not denied that fact…..I have however tried to answer the questions posed by Max, who though happy to comment on post #21, fails to answer the questions in that post, which were, “Why should the people of Scarborough pay for a tourist attraction? The tourist industry should pay. Why should I, a tax payer with no connection to the tourist industry, subsidise highly profitable ice-cream vendors and caravan site operators?”
guesticulate
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 03:48 PM#27. You really should start thinking things through properly. Whether you like it or not Scarborough is reliant on tourism. If all the tourists went home tomorrow and never came back Scarborough would self destruct. Tumbleweeds would be blowing down the streets within months. Money and jobs would become extremely scarce and crime and drug and alcohol misuse would spiral out of control The town would cease to have a purpose or a future. There would be no town centre. Scarborough would descend into the dark ages.
horace jonhson
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 12:47 PM“Touched a raw nerve then Horrace”… Not really Max, just accepting the invitation that you extended as indicated by the question marks in your post, and offering a different perception to yours.………in answer to your latest question, “I'm afraid the world has moved on, whether you or I or anyone else likes it?” I must, sadly, agree.....Im not sure that your inferrence of "retreating to a bygone era", when tourism was not subsidised by those who do not benefit from it, see post #21, would be a retreat or an advance though.
maxkolb
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 11:57 AMTouched a raw nerve then Horrace; can't agree with your parochial, Miniver Cheevy disposition. I'm afraid the world has moved on, whether you or I or anyone else likes it? If you can get the sea to move back a bit you might get your wish that all Tourism dissapears and you can retreat to a bygone era.
horace jonhson
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 09:54 AM#23,”I don't get how someone who lives in a town heavily reliant on the 'Tourist Industry" can claim to have no connection?”…And I don’t get how you disbelieve that there still are businesses in the town that are not reliant on the tourist industry…………. “Tourist businesses pay council tax do they not?”, Yes, and why not, all other businesses do……”Without a tourist industry the Tax payer would have to shoulder an increasing burden”, Not necessarily, without the tourism we would not be shelling out mllions of pounds subsidising unviable venues like the Spa and OAT, to name just two. Nor would we have to cater for a seasonal influx of tourists with crazy schemes such as the park and ride…. “I don't get Scarborough people who would rather see things go down the pan, and society disintegrate as a consequence?” Scarborough people now represent a minority of the towns population. Is it not possible that the policy of subsidising tourism, which has fuelled the massive over-expansion of the town over the years, could be the cause of the “society disintegration” you speak of, rather than "Scarborough people"?
geoff49
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 09:07 AM£37k - peanuts. OAT? SJT? Mayors car and expenses? iPads? In any event, £10k will be saved if the current elected members use their tax-payer funded IT equipment properly.
maxkolb
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 06:58 PMI don't get how someone who lives in a town heavily reliant on the 'Tourist Industry" can claim to have no connection? Tourist businesses pay council tax do they not? Without a tourist industry the Tax payer would have to shoulder an increasing burden; without it the town centre would have even fewer shops, joblessness would increase, poverty would increase. I don't get Scarborough people who would rather see things go down the pan, shops remain empty and society disintegrate as a consequence?
heavensentmum
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 05:07 PMAll SBC have achieved through their targeting of the affluent older generation at the expense of families with disposable income is another deficit and pounds in the coffers of other councils who have actually enabled the building of good family entertainment.
Drogo
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 04:33 PMWhy should the people of Scarborough pay for a tourist attraction? The tourist industry should pay. Why should I, a tax payer with no connection to the tourist industry, subsidise highly profitable ice-cream vendors and caravan site operators?
Richard Ineson
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 02:31 PMThe orchestra undoubtedly adds a touch of class to Scarborough, I am not a regular attendee of the concerts but I do manage to get there three or four times during the season, The subsidy is not even worth talking about, the orchestra is worth every penny, Oscar wide summed up this attitude of everything having to be cost effective - "the price of everything and the value of nothing".
Fiftyfifty
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 12:31 PMIt is not very often I agree with what some of our Clls or SBC for that matter, but on this occasion I believe Jeffels is correct, it is worth keeping the Orchestra, at least until losses are substantially higher, I could think of worse things to throw money at......... ipads anyone!
maxkolb
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 12:00 AMCulture costs money! Never been to a concert myself but see the benefit of maintaining a quintessential facet of Scarborough. If we get rid of every subsidy for the arts, thus condemning many of the town's venues and acts to oblivion, the Philistines have won. If you just increase the prices this makes culture a province of the rich. Would agree that the council should not run venues though, they should not be allowed to appoint private management companies either, as their track record leaves lots to be desired?
scarborian carl.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 10:24 PMjeffels is a joke !!!!! just like the rest of the council wasters . makes me cringe being a proud scarborian.
Page 1 of 3
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.