67 posts
|
Post by orchestrator on Mar 22, 2016 21:19:07 GMT
|
|
67 posts
|
Post by orchestrator on Mar 22, 2016 21:55:02 GMT
Turns out this is from last December. Sorry if it was covered in depth before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 13:32:12 GMT
Don't remember any discussion over it. That is an outrageous amount. Pretty sure those running comparable theatres are on around 100k?
For scale of another kind of 'charity' Vice Chancellors of small-medium Universities are on around 200k and that's running a much larger staff/customer base.
|
|
19,856 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 23, 2016 14:28:08 GMT
The way it reads us that his salary is bolstered in some years by productions transferring to the West End. The question is, should he benefit from that success or should it be the only the charity who benefits? If he is responsible for the commercial successes shouldn't he share *some of* the reward?
Discuss!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 15:08:12 GMT
If they are calling themselves a charity then the profits should be ploughed back into the theatre surely? any charity/public sector organisation shouldn't have 'bonus' for doing well. Or in terms of reward perhaps it should be in the form of a more substantial annual payrise ie 'we've made x % more profit than projected over the last 2 years therefore you get x % payrise as a result'
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 15:32:13 GMT
The substantial additional payments are almost certainly linked to the financial performance of Theatre Royal Bath Productions Ltd shows on their tours or transfers, and not to the home activities at Theatre Royal Bath.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 15:33:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 15:45:41 GMT
And Theatre Royal Bath receives almost no public subsidy for its general activities, unlike the NT.
|
|
5,120 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 23, 2016 16:48:19 GMT
So therefore it does get public subsidy and bet it gets a lot more through gift aid donations, when people buy their thickets.
With inflated salaries such as this in the performing arts can be used as a beating stick by the government of the day to cut public funding. So not good for the theatrical industry as a whole and the Theatre Royal isn't anything more significant than other theatre companies.
|
|
19,856 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 23, 2016 17:08:01 GMT
If they are calling themselves a charity then the profits should be ploughed back into the theatre surely? any charity/public sector organisation shouldn't have 'bonus' for doing well. Or in terms of reward perhaps it should be in the form of a more substantial annual payrise ie 'we've made x % more profit than projected over the last 2 years therefore you get x % payrise as a result' But what if the following year he makes a load of bad decisions, the productions bomb, yet they've committed to the salary increase? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 17:08:43 GMT
So therefore it does get public subsidy and bet it gets a lot more through gift aid donations, when people buy their thickets. With inflated salaries such as this in the performing arts can be used as a beating stick by the government of the day to cut public funding. So not good for the theatrical industry as a whole and the Theatre Royal isn't anything more significant than other theatre companies. The salary is less than £140,000 which seems comparable with the sector. The bonus payments from the transfers sound very generous but they are paid from commercial activities and not from either public subsidy or from charitable income. I think that TRB only receives grants earmarked for specific purposes, and has no core funding. So, there's little cause to beat sticks or buy thickets! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 18:48:48 GMT
If they are calling themselves a charity then the profits should be ploughed back into the theatre surely? any charity/public sector organisation shouldn't have 'bonus' for doing well. Or in terms of reward perhaps it should be in the form of a more substantial annual payrise ie 'we've made x % more profit than projected over the last 2 years therefore you get x % payrise as a result' But what if the following year he makes a load of bad decisions, the productions bomb, yet they've committed to the salary increase? Well that's a risk any commercial organisation takes with bonuses/salary increases (as this part of the salary seems linked to) not saying it's right/perfect but that seems to be how it's done. (having only ever worked in public sector organisations I could be very wrong, if so stand corrected) |
|
19,856 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 23, 2016 19:12:46 GMT
But what if the following year he makes a load of bad decisions, the productions bomb, yet they've committed to the salary increase? Well that's a risk any commercial organisation takes with bonuses/salary increases (as this part of the salary seems linked to) not saying it's right/perfect but that seems to be how it's done. (having only ever worked in public sector organisations I could be very wrong, if so stand corrected) I work in the private sector. My annual salary increase is based on my personal performance and the performance of the company, the latter determines how much money is in the bonus "pot" for sharing out. If I don't perform well I don't get an salary increase at all. Bonus is only paid if targets have been met or exceeded. There is no reward for average performance, let alone below average. I dont think think this is unusual. |
|
|
|
Post by Coated on Mar 24, 2016 0:09:06 GMT
I'm quite enjoying the fact that he's caller Danny MOAR
I realise people like to think that they are worth 100k+, but I truly doubt it. Particularly when it comes to vice chancellors, but the same goes for pretty much any job. Is that person ten times more capable than someone on 34k? Really? And whilst I'm at it, top pay in an organisation ought to be linked to the lowest wages by a factor of no more than 10. I suspect that would lead to some interesting wage redistribution. But sadly this would require a reorganisation of society that ain't forthcoming any time soon so I go back and quietly mumble in my corner about the ridiculousness of below minimum wage for some and giant piles of money to burn for others.
|
|
7,251 posts
|
Post by Jon on Mar 24, 2016 0:35:24 GMT
Artistic directors for New York's top three not for profit theatres, Roundabout Theatre Company, Lincoln Centre Theatre and Manhattan Theatre Company have yearly salaries of between $300,000-500,000 per annum.
There was an article a few years back saying that the CEO of ROH at the time was getting £390,000 a year while Antonio Papano was getting £630,000 a year from being director of music and conductor. Clearly there's big money to be made to work in opera.
|
|
5,120 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Mar 24, 2016 1:47:13 GMT
No doubt and very common in the theatre industry, you have the core workers, bar staff, concession vendors and ushers and the like on minimum wage, zero hour contracts.
|
|
5,997 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Mar 24, 2016 5:41:03 GMT
What's ironic is that their productions have notoriously cheap budgets. Like insultingly cheap. No one is paid above the very bare minimum (if that) on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 5:58:55 GMT
And whilst I'm at it, top pay in an organisation ought to be linked to the lowest wages by a factor of no more than 10. When you get to the point that someone at the top of a company can totally screw it up and get paid more as a "get out of here" settlement than some of their staff will earn in their entire lives it's really not difficult to see why so many companies run into problems. Failure often pays more richly than success. |
|
4,369 posts
|
Post by Michael on Mar 24, 2016 6:09:55 GMT
And whilst I'm at it, top pay in an organisation ought to be linked to the lowest wages by a factor of no more than 10. I suspect that would lead to some interesting wage redistribution. Switzerland had a referendum about a 1:12 factor in 2013, but it failed, i.e. the Swiss public rejected this proposal with a 65:35% vote. That said: Even if such a rule were in place, it would be completely pointless, as companies would simply outsource their (top-)management to separate companies and then buy back management services from said company. The 1:x law would then have to be applied separately to the old company (without management) and the new management company, and in the latter company, it'd only mean that the most senior management isn't paid more than x times that of the most junior management person. And just for the record: I, too, oppose to such a law. Yes, my salary is way below 100k (Euro, let alone Pound), and I highly doubt I'll ever get close, but I have absolutely no problem with senior management and CxOs (CEO, CTO et al.) earning that much money. I wouldn't want to have their responsibilities nor working times. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 10:57:50 GMT
What's ironic is that their productions have notoriously cheap budgets. Like insultingly cheap. No one is paid above the very bare minimum (if that) on them. Then those are two of the reasons why the tours and transfers are sufficiently profitable to fund his bonuses, and presumably also to retain some profits to back future tours and transfers. It seems to be a successful working model! Best not to change it, maybe? |
|
