The Gathering 2014 – Not repeating the financial failure of the 2009

[sydnie7]

That should have never happened, and certainly should not happen again.

The public entity holding the rights to the event should insist (in a contract with the promoter/organizer) on a surety bond, or performance bond, that will cover at least a portion of subcontractors' costs in the event of financial default.

Such bonds, though they act more like a "loan" in actual practice, provide insurance against bankruptcy. The cost of such "insurance" would likely be an incremental cost of each ticket.

It surprises me that in the country (Great Britain) that invented modern insurance, this kind of protection isn't routine. Does anyone know why?

IIRC this topic/question was pretty well beat to death in thread(s) after the first Gathering. My polite suggestion is to keep this thread looking forward, with discussion of the upcoming event, and use past thread(s) for post-mortem of the previous event.

[mookien]

IIRC this topic/question was pretty well beat to death in thread(s) after the first Gathering. My polite suggestion is to keep this thread looking forward, with discussion of the upcoming event, and use past thread(s) for post-mortem of the previous event.

I don't recall this subject being discussed at all, with the exception of two similar comments, one each in two separate threads, that I made in the past. Please point us to the threads you mentioned.

Also, I cannot think of a more useful/helpful subject for "looking forward" than one that encourages people to insist that provisions are made to insure that the non payment to subcontractors due to organizer default does not happen again.

[Tartan Hiker]

Sempill should be kept well away from this new event - his advice is more than worthless.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who got that impression. Some of the stuff he wrote on the Panalba site is just awful.

[sydnie7]

I don't recall this subject being discussed at all, with the exception of two similar comments, one each in two separate threads, that I made in the past. Please point us to the threads you mentioned.

Also, I cannot think of a more useful/helpful subject for "looking forward" than one that encourages people to insist that provisions are made to insure that the non payment to subcontractors due to organizer default does not happen again.

I'll admit to having a low tolerance when it comes to judging something "beaten to death." The fact that the question has been asked multiple times, with either no response or no response that seems satisfactory to the questioner, would indicate to me that either nobody here has the answer or, if they do, they don't care to share what they might know.

If I were asking such a question, I'd consider that evidence enough that I needed to direct it elsewhere. Perhaps the editors of the newspaper(s) whose stories covering the event are linked here? Perhaps the organizers themselves, who are perhaps the folks best able to "insure that. . .default does not happen again"?

You know what "they" say about doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. I think that concept has multiple applications in this situation.

[mookien]

I'll admit to having a low tolerance when it comes to judging something "beaten to death." The fact that the question has been asked multiple times, with either no response or no response that seems satisfactory to the questioner, would indicate to me that either nobody here has the answer or, if they do, they don't care to share what they might know.

If I were asking such a question, I'd consider that evidence enough that I needed to direct it elsewhere. Perhaps the editors of the newspaper(s) whose stories covering the event are linked here? Perhaps the organizers themselves, who are perhaps the folks best able to "insure that. . .default does not happen again"?

You know what "they" say about doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. I think that concept has multiple applications in this situation.

So, it's now been settled that the question has only been raised twice before (ie multiple times), but hardly "beaten to death". Also, it would seem that I am a bit more persevering about this subject, than you would be. And, that's OK.

There are many folks who read this blog, but rarely or never submit posts. Perhaps, one or more of them can/will take action. A failure to receive a response to a query is little reason to stop asking.

Your suggestion to write letters to editors of relevant (local) newspapers is an excellent one. I would hope that at least some folks reading this will take you up on that. I would, if I lived in Great Britain and it materially affected me.

My interest is more one of curiosity about folks getting hurt financially, when it appears to me that, seemingly, there was/is no need for that to happen. And you are correct in that the organizers, along with those who grant the license, themselves are the folks best able to insure that a irremediable default does not recur.

Finally, you are also spot on about "doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results". It's like the old saw, "Fool me once, your fault; fool me twice, my fault." I just hope the people involved don't get fooled twice. For then, who's fault is it?

Cheers!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Can someone explain why "Stirling 2014" is being given £3 million of tax payer's money? Semple's event in 2009 (including a £300k loss) cost barely a million to produce. Surely the cost of doing business in Scotland can't be projected to increase by 300% between 2009 -2014?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

That should have never happened, and certainly should not happen again.

The public entity holding the rights to the event should insist (in a contract with the promoter/organizer) on a surety bond, or performance bond, that will cover at least a portion of subcontractors' costs in the event of financial default.

In the instance of the 2009 event the rights were held by a private company, in much the same way the rights to a concert in a park are held by the promoter, not the municipality that rents out the park.

In the motion picture and television industry it is possible to get what's called a completion guarantee bond, which assures the completion of the film/show if the producer exceeds the projected budget. When this happens the completion bond company becomes the owner of the film-- and when it is completed they recover their loss from the money generated by the marketing of the picture.

Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to insure an event against loss for two reasons: (1) it can be weeks, or months, after the event before the true financial picture is known; (2) in the event of a loss, there is nothing the bond holder can attach to recoup his loss.

Such bonds, though they act more like a "loan" in actual practice, provide insurance against bankruptcy.

This raises the question of who repays the "loan"? Generally the "repayment" is achieved by the bond issuer selling off the assets of the company that has defaulted. Where there are no tangible assets it is virtually impossible to get a bond.

It surprises me that in the country (Great Britain) that invented modern insurance, this kind of protection isn't routine. Does anyone know why?

Probably because you can't insure against going broke.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I don't recall this subject being discussed at all, with the exception of two similar comments, one each in two separate threads, that I made in the past. Please point us to the threads you mentioned.

This was discussed in some detail ("Collapse of Lord Semples Gathering Company" -- 14 posts) back in 2010 when it was first announced that Semple's company had lost money on the event. The thread is now locked, but can be accessed by clicking on "search" in the tool bar, and entering "Lord Semple" to find the thread. There was further discussion throughout the year, and, again, using the search feature in the tool bar you should be able to find the relevant posts.

[creagdhubh]

Can someone explain why "Stirling 2014" is being given £3 million of tax payer's money? Semple's event in 2009 (including a £300k loss) cost barely a million to produce. Surely the cost of doing business in Scotland can't be projected to increase by 300% between 2009 -2014?

Good point, Scott. I would be interested in knowing the answer to your question as well.

Cheers,

[Jock Scot]

Why be surprised? After all, the record of public servants using public money, when it came to estimating the cost of the New Scots Parliament building and what it actually cost hardly fills one with confidence. Now perhaps we could discuss the projected and actual cost of the new tram system in Edin-----------------------------? OK, perhaps not!