Loading ...- Category:
- News
- Author:
- Ani Lamont
- Posted:
- Wednesday, 22 October 2008
One of the Mardi Gras parade’s best-known features, the BGF Glamstand, is under review.
New Mardi Gras chair David Imrie confirmed yesterday the widely circulating rumour that the organisation is considering taking back control of the raised seating area at the end of the parade, currently operated by the Bobby Goldsmith Foundation.
New Mardi Gras is exploring the various possibilities for a change in the commercial operation of the reserved seating area on Flinders St for next year’s parade, Imrie told Sydney Star Observer.
It’s not commercially viable for NMG to continue to license the raised seating to any external organisations and we’re looking at other potential fundraising partnerships between NMG and BGF.
BGF CEO Bev Lange, herself a former Mardi Gras chair, declined to comment on the possible change.
Glamstand is BGF’s single biggest fundraiser which, according to its 2006-07 annual report, raised almost $90,000 for the organisation last year. The same report shows BGF to have more than $5.5 million in assets. It has been operating the stand for 14 years.
Positive Life president Jason Appleby said he was concerned about the wider implications of taking $90,000 out of the HIV sector.
Withdrawing support for the BGF Glamstand, one of the most successful fundraising ventures available to BGF, will no doubt have negative implications for some of the most vulnerable people in our community, Appleby said.
The unfortunate reality for people living on pensions and low incomes, particularly given the economic crisis, is that many people with HIV are struggling to make ends meet. Mardi Gras has a long history of supporting people with HIV, one which we hope continues into the future.
Imrie reiterated that New Mardi Gras was not withdrawing its support for BGF and was keen to look for other mutual fundraising options with the organisation.
He said New Mardi Gras was repositioning itself to ensure its long-term viability so it could continue to support BGF and other community organisations in the future.
This is part of a broad business plan to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the organisation, Imrie said.
We would like to think the public won’t react badly to the change in our business relationship with BGF. We hope they can see that the best thing we can do for ourselves, our members, and the broader GLBTQ community is refine our business model so we are there forever more to support BGF and all the other organisations we support financially.
NMG has put in place a community organisations funding scheme system this year. Rather than Mardi Gras giving away its income, we’re refining the business model so we are donating profit rather than income.
SSO understands NMG and BGF will meet next week to discuss further fundraising ventures between the two operations.
Tags: Bev Lange, BGF, David Imrie, Jason Appleby, New Mardi Gras, Positive Life
October 22nd, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
This sounds suss to me!
NMG sees how successful the event is in raising money for BGF and now it wants to take it for themselves!
They talk of long-term viability like it is under a cloud, despite the NSW Government decision to fund the event!
Leave Glamstand to BGF and concentrate on improving the quality of the parade and festival!
October 22nd, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
It’s not suss at all John. Why shouldn’t NMG run the event and make the money from it? It’s their parade, not BGF’s. Maybe the extra money from Glamstand will help NMG “improve the quality of the parade and festival” as you say. And besides, NMG gives plenty of money to all the charities and it looks like their going to give to BGF too. Not that they need it, with their “$5.5 Million in assets”
October 22nd, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
Hang on, BGF have $5.5 MILLION in the bank, with a limited number of clients AND THEY WANT MORE MONEY!!
By my calculations, at 7% interest (and with canny invetsing even in todays market you can get better that that with safety), without them dipping into the principal equals $385,000 A YEAR TO HELP PEOPLE WITH HIV. Given their significantly reduced client list, this should be MORE than enough to help clients AND run themselves, seems like BGF are being greedy and NOT NMG.
October 22nd, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
Well let’s face it, NMG has very limited funding opportunities, and has struggled to pay its own way for a while.
I think it entirely reaosnable the organisations looks to secure its own financial future by taking ownership of every fundraising opportunity it has.
October 22nd, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
Looks like the bubble has burst ….. it will be interesting to see what comes from this and what kind of agreement can be reached between the two organisations. Both have important roles to play in our community,but I can understand why NMG feels it needs to take care of itself first … after all, BGF has never been on the brink of collapse.
October 22nd, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that BGF refused to help bail Mardi Gras out in 2002?
When ACON, Queer Screen, Pride, the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby and the Sydney Star Observer all lined up to chip in in cash and kind, BGF was a glaring omission fromm the line-up.
Hmmmmm …..
October 22nd, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
At least New Mardi Gras is finally starting to think of other ways to raise moeny, rather than relying on the same old tired dance party syndrome. It’s what we’ve always talked about and asked for …
October 22nd, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
Imrie’s a brave man to pull out the rug from under BGF like this.
Would have loved to be a fly on the wall when he told Big Bev the news.
Good on him for doing something that should have been done years ago. Can’t wait for the Mardi Gras Bake-Off :p
October 22nd, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
There seems to be a lot of BGF bashing, i’m not sure why?
As far as I know, Glamstand was the brainchild of BGF, not NMG. It is great that NMG supports numerous charities, but that doesnt explain why they feel the need to betray BGF?
If BGF has a good bank balance, thats because it is obviously well managed and supported. Some of these posts sound like bitter lemons and tall poppy syndrome to me!
I also don’t understand the “us and them” mentality either. BGF has done an amazing job at creating Glamstand and managing it for so many years, and if it is that successful in raising funds for those living with HIV, then it is because of their efforts with the support of NMG.
Ian, I was just saying that I could understand NMG’s reasoning if they were struggling with funds, but the NSW governments support, along with the great work NMG has done at revitalising itself should mean they leave Glamstand alone.
October 22nd, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
I read this story with some interest. I’m not an idealist – and I completely understand that Mardi Gras must remain financially viable. I also generally embrace innovation, change and courage.
However, I also understand that Mardi Gras is a not-for-profit organisation. I get concerned when the public commentary from a spokesperson of this community organisation uses words like “the commercial operation”, “our business relationship with BGF” and “our business model”. To be frank with David Imrie, that is language for the boardroom not for the press. Unless you want to Mardi Gras to continue attracting flack for its increasingly commercial outlook, Mardi Gras should have more sensitivity in how it presents its financial decisions in the press.
The decision seems sensible to me – but perhaps your spokesperson needs to present it with a bit more heart, and a little less high-flying, commercial crass.
October 22nd, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
It will be interesting to see if NMG are as successful as BGF in packing the seats out.
I also recall seeing the 06-07 BGF ‘profit’ at a considerably less figure ($23,000) than the $90,000 claimed as profit for the stands. This will have an impact either on how BGF is managed or on services provided.
I can remember Dot Dingle (those saying who should look up some G&L ancient history) announcing some 12 years ago if not longer, the amount raised from the stands for BGF being somewhat higher than the figure mentioned in the story ($140,000), then it was a long time ago and it was the night John Howard came to power (Madam gleefully flattened the crowd dead with that announcement, I understand it had something to do with aircraft noise).
I digress – I am sure and I am willing to be corrected that the expense for client services was around $365,000. Losing the reported $90,000 represents 25% approx of that amount.
Let us hope that the discussions that take place are fruitful and services are maintained.
Maybe Ms Lange can represent the organisation for which many people give money (if I don’t do stands anymore I would at least throw something the way of BGF within every twelve month period)and discuss the situation with the community’s press. Or is that the job of one of the minions?
October 22nd, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
In the previous post it may appear when I put brackets around the $23,000 and $140,000 figures that these are negative. OOps I forgot about (nnn) representing a negative figure. The figures are profit or claimed profit respectively.
October 23rd, 2008 @ 2:08 am
I think the point is NMG needs to make money so the Glamstand is still there for the $90k profits to be made. No parade no Glamstand.
Don’t get me wrong the concerns are valid, that’s $90k we’re talking about. Maybe it’s time BGF took an active hand in helping increase the profits for NMG to continue benefiting and perhaps discover better ways to generate revenue.
October 23rd, 2008 @ 6:17 am
A very tough decision to make. I checked the BGF website to see if this year’s annual report is up – it’s not. Strange that Bev isn’t making any ‘official comment’. But then again the ‘rumours’ must have come from somewhere?
BGF was not one of the organisations that ‘came to the rescue’ when SGLMG went into administration. If BGF had been committed to the future of the Glamstand at that time, you would have thought they would have been right up there with the Lobby, QS, Pride & ACON creating NMG!
In fact, BGF have done very little to support Mardi Gras over the years. They dropped Shop Yourself Stupid from the festival and have been happy to simply trade off Mardi Gras’ prime intellectual property – the Parade – as their major fund raising opportunity.
Not that there is anything wrong with acting out of self-interest – which is what both BGF and NMG have and are doing now!
Each organisation is answerable to its own members. If Mardi Gras need to start talking a firmer and more direct control over their properties to cement it’s future – good on them.
BGF has many other avenues to revenue raise – there’s nothing wrong with making them think outside the box.
And with so much stashed away in it coffers there can be no excuse for allowing any of its services to the HIV community to drop. At the very least, any person or organisation that seeks to ‘blame’ NMG for lack of support will be exceptionally misguided. Everyone should check the constitutions of each organisations which dictates how the directors of each organisation should act. NMG is not there to directly support BGF or – as David says – to give away income / revenue.
The biggest concern is the pressure to deliver. If NMG are doing the stands themselves, they better do it right and raise the bar! The proof of the pudding will be in the eating both in terms of the quality of this year’s parade adn stands and afterwards how much they give back to the various community organisations!
it’s a big gamble. Let’s hope it pays off!
October 23rd, 2008 @ 10:24 am
My understanding is that BGF have always paid NMG for the privilege of running the stand, so to say BGF does not support NMG is a tad disingenuous.
A properly run organisation must have a good amount in reserve – especially a group like BGF. Fundraising is getting harder and harder for HIV charities – they will in the future have to dig into reserves I imagine. The large reserve appears to be the result of an incredibly generous bequest some years ago.
And the interest/dividends earned from reserves is a crucial contributor to an organisation’s bottom line.
Finally – just to ignore all of the ‘commercial’ realities – there is to me an element of ‘feel good’ about attending the Glamstand knowing that it makes a real contribution to those who rely on support from BGF. Each year I am amazed at all the volunteers who troop in to help make sure the place runs smoothly. To change this in the very year that NMG have finally secured government funding (rightly so) seems – well – wrong.
I’m normally very supportive of NMG but I am not comfortable with this ‘decision’.
October 23rd, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Suddenly taking a source of revenue away from a community organisation that helps hundreds of people in need doesn’t really fit with the spirit of Mardi Gras.
I can understand why this decision would be made, but wouldn’t it be more diplomatic and community-minded to at least give BGF a few years warning?
Those that have pointed the finger at BGF for not contributing to the bail out of Mardi Gras should remember that BGF’s remit is to look after people with HIV/AIDS, and not to bail out community organisations. They are accountable to their donors to do what they were set up to do and they’d be irresponsible if they did otherwise.
October 23rd, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
I think this is a very greedy decision by NMG. I have to agree with other posts supporting BGF.
1. They have a healthy bank balance because of generous community support for those living with HIV and because Bev and those before her have run the organisation tremendously!
2. It is not appropriate for BGF to bail out a poorly run MG. How could they justify taking money away from those in need and give to a poorly run and supported MG??
3. PAYING NMG for Glamstand every year should be “support” enough. They could have asked for more for the right to run the Glamstand, but they are chosing to strip it from them entirely with virtually no notice!
4. NMG should NOT be run like a CORPORATION! They have received considerable funding for the first time and can bank on continued support through Events NSW and yet they STILL felt the need to deny a charity their primary fundraising event.
Writing this has made me even angrier than I already was. I am a NMG member who was considering re-newing, but i now will definitely NOT!
October 23rd, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
I can understand NMG’s position, especially after such a disastrous Sleaze Ball (the last?). For many years, MG and NMG have heavily relied upon the post Mardi Gras Parade Party and Sleaze Ball to fund their operations and the costs of all their other events, especially the parade.
Unfortunately for NMG, the time of the big and profitable dance party is fast coming to an end. People who attend dance parties are increasingly selecting smaller parties that cater to their individual tastes in music and/or their specific sub-culture. Competition is fierce, you only have to look at how many parties ran Sleaze weekend. This leaves NMG in a difficult position when trying to secure their long term viability.
Of course, BGF is not the first casualty in the struggle for NMG’s survival. The Iris Foundation, who ran Azure (harbour party) and gave large donations to gay and lesbian charities and causes outside of the HIV sector, was also devastated when NMG appropriated their party.
The unfortunate harsh reality for NMG is that to continue to exist, they need access to more diverse sources of income. The alternative will be dwindling funds leading to cut backs on everything that makes Mardi Gras what it is. So from their perspective, I imagine it’s a case of -˜sorry BGF, but NMG need that money thanks’.
BGF was founded in a time when being HIV-positive was a death sentence and the support they gave was usually time limited. HIV is now substantially a chronic manageable disease where people on treatment should, in most cases, be able to look forward to long, reasonably healthy and productive lives.
I can see a time, very soon in the future, where specialist support services and organisations for people who are HIV-positive will no longer exist. They will be mainstreamed into other generalist services or cease to exist. After all, raising money or getting funding for people who were likely to die very soon was a much easier sell than supporting people who are predominantly well and living long, mostly healthy lives. Looked at like this, a loss of funding or donations to BGF (and other HIV charities) is not only understandable, but inevitable.
According to the most recent National Centre for HIV Epidemiology annual report, in NSW in 2007, 22 people died from AIDS while 409 people tested HIV-positive. Now people move around Australia and don’t necessarily live or die where they test positive, but using these statistics as a rough guide, last year there were 387 additional potential clients for BGF (and other charities) to support over their lifetimes and this is projected to continue to increase until a perfect prevention method (vaccine) or cure is found.
As there become more and more people wanting to access BGF (and other HIV services), BGF realistically has only a few rational choices to make. One is to limit access to support and services, so that those who are -˜well off’, or able to work are denied access. The other is to give less support per client, so that all clients can be serviced. A combination of these methods may be more desirable. BGF has already had to face this and the harsh reality is that the loss of income from Glamstand can only make this situation worse. The alternative is to use up funds faster than funds can be raised and then close the doors when its all gone.
Both NMG and BGF are valued organisations for our communities, but when adapt or collapse time approaches, its often everyone for themselves. I hope they can both adapt and work together for an outcome that ensures the survival of both.
October 23rd, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Poor effort from NMG… obvs this is fund raiser or even that they want for themselves (interesting what happened to Harbour party!)
I am from the UK, and every year I take my visiting friends to the BGF stands… I certainly wont be standing on the street with rough-necks from the outer suburbs…
Anyway, It was heaps better when it was in Hyde Park! Why dont they just move it there… surely, the NMG dont have a claim on all the land in and around Oxford Street!
October 23rd, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
Also, on a side-line… Re: Tim’s comment…
Yes, people ARE selecting smaller dance parties… so why doesn’t NMG be more open and work with other promoters…. what would be better than 5 different spaces/events all in the one complex… it would certainly be better than the uninteresting, no-variation, no-where else to go but the Horden… Sleeze party we just had…
The big parties ARE dying out but with NMG’s insular focus… surely, it a self fulfilling prophesy!
October 23rd, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
I think it would be a real shame if this singularly important fund-raising opportunity were taken away from BGF. It wasn’t said that BGF have $m5.5 sitting in the bank – but in assets. I don’t think this means they are “rich” and have no need to struggle for funds to provide the truly beneficial services they provide to genuinely needy members of our community. BGF have made such a successful ‘happening’ out of the Glamstand and deserve to keep their licence to run it [and I have heard they don't get 'given' it, but pay for the privilege - is this so?].
I would be loathe to pay for seats in Glamstand if it weren’t for a transparently charitable purpose. BGF needs the revenue – please don’t take it away from them, NMG: find new and original ways of getting more income for yourselves – we certainly need some new and revivifying initiatives.
October 23rd, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
This is the harsh reality that NMG and our community needs to face if MG is to survive. It’s simple – No parade = No stand. Then everyone loses out. At least this way the parade and festival will be able to continue and new events and fundraisers can be created so that organisations like BGF can continue to raise money.
October 23rd, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
to say that BGF did not support MG when in need is a joke. BGF is not able to donate ‘cash’ to other organisations under its constitution but it did invest and risk substantial losses by planning and promoting Glamstand, within weeks of any guarantee there would even be a parade.
If BGF pulled out at that time, the recovery would have been immeasurably harder.
NMG should think very carefully about this – the financial risks, reputational risks, community divisions, operational risks (distractions) make all of this a very brave call.
How many of us would break a picket line of people with HIV/AIDS to get to a seat?
BGF have built the event, taken the risks, know how to do it and should be left alone. NMG should concentrate on the main event and ensure all are as successful as possible.
If BGF is financially stable, one needs to look no further than NMG to see why this is vital for the work that it does.
October 23rd, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
According to their financial statement, last year, BGF spent $368,002 on ‘client support and care.’ Their total assets were $5,241,284. While NMG is reportedly receiving $400,000 from Events NSW to help with the parade costs, including ‘in-kind’ assistance. Now while I’m not a financial genius, I think the pleas for the poor charity seem a bit misplaced. I also wonder if expanding NMG’s income from other sources isn’t part of the conditions the govt. places on the sponsorship.
October 24th, 2008 @ 6:32 am
Phillip – it intrigues me when people say that NMG should not be run as a corporation. it’s a public company limited by guarantee. it has a constitution which should guide the directors decision making. like all other directors, the directors are subject to the fiduciary duties of the Corporations Act. I’d be interested in understanding what you mean when you say this?
October 24th, 2008 @ 8:27 am
Why is it that NMG is criticised for making money. Perhaps if the directors in the late 1990s and early 2000s had the foresight of the current directors, then it wouldn’d have gone broke. Congratulations to the current board for being brave and savvy enough to finally run it as a business.
Everyone who above who is criticising NMG also appears to have ignored that NMG gives cash donations to community groups including BGF and is working out new fundraising ventures with BGF.
October 24th, 2008 @ 11:06 am
I have to say that I agree with the disciusion taken by New Mardio Gras.
Mardi Gras put the parade on and other organisations (BGF, the pubs and shops along the street etc) gain all of the finaicial benefit from the parade. The parade is the most expensive part of the entire Mardi Gras Festival season and BGF get one of the largest chunks of revenue that the parade generates.
BGF will still be able to apply for funds from NMG through the ‘community partnerships’ (sic) program that NMG run. There will also be significantly more money to distribute to BGF and OTHER community organisations who don’t have in excess of $5 million dollars in assets to generate other income (that’s what you do with assests like that folks).
We aren’t talking about the Luncheon Club here folks (who always struggled financially until taken under ACON’s wing), we are talking about a charity with a sizeable amount of cash and a sizeable regular income from that cash.
Mardi Gras could have just shut the stands down by saying “No” to anyone, but by taking them over they can ensure that the funds can (in the words of Barak Obama & Dolly Levi) be “…spread around.”
Maybe BGF can get back to raising cash the way they used to; by getting their volunteers to get out there and shake their money makers.
October 24th, 2008 @ 11:06 am
I apologise for the scary number of typos in my post.
October 24th, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
Marcus,
What I meant by corporation was that NMG should not be run like a greedy corporation. Of course it is a company and bound by relevant legislation. Dont shy away from the issue.
BGF came up with the idea of Glamstand and have been successfully running it since the beginning – all the while PAYING NMG for the “privilege”.
YES, NMG must come up with ways to diversify their events and fund raising activities. Why that means stealing Glamstand, and Azure for that matter, is beyond me!
Surely there are intelligent and innovative people at NMG who can come up with other events to raise money!
Sure, it is important for NMG to be successful and continue to be in a position to support the community and continue to run MG. It is the WAY they are going about it that is plain wrong.
Yes there are other charities that are out there in need of support, but they didnt come up with Glamstand and they werent the ones running it! Again, I have to stress that BGF’s assets are completely justified and necessary in order to continue the good work they are doing! BGF seems to be copping a lot of flack for doing their job of supporting those with HIV WELL.
Cmon NMG – you are smart enough to come up with other ways of securing your long term viability without putting BGF’s in jeopardy!
October 24th, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
While I strongly disagree with the decision, I find it revealing that the people with the most harsh criticism can;t distinguish between cash and profit.
I am a strong support of BGF who provide important services to those with HIV/AIDS in the state of NSW. Services that no other service provider affords.
I dare say that this decision may make NMG even more unpopular, and irrelevant to the community.
October 24th, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
I disagree that taking the Glamstand away from BGF will make Mardi Gras “irrelevant”. If NMG collapses and is no more, there’ll be no parade, no Glamstand, and no chance for BGF or any other organisation to do any future deals with them. Big dance parties can no longer be relied on to fund NMG, as someone pointed out, and the government donation- while it’s very good news- isn’t enough to keep them viable.
It’s not up to NMG to find alternative ways to fund BGF, it’s up to BGF surely?
October 25th, 2008 @ 7:21 am
Phil S no one is saying NMG has to come up with other ways of fundraising for BGF. I think they are saying that NMG should be able to find other ways of funding itself, instead of stripping BGF of Glamstand.
Lets face it, the government funding is substantial, and to be honest, if NMG did a better job in years gone by by focusing on other ways to raise money instead of just dance parties, the government might have chipped in earlier too.
Im surprised by this NMG decision. Seems very innapropriate in s many way. lets hope they come to their senses and leave Glamstand to Bobby.
October 25th, 2008 @ 9:39 am
A lot of assumptions are being made here. For a start, how do you know, Doug, that NMG is not looking at other ways of increasing it’s income, like new media broadcasting opportunities, more international and national float participation, etc? I’m sure they are. And the figure of $400,000 sponsorship to NMG is based on a letter published in the SMH by one Danny Corvino. So far as I know the exact amount is confidential but includes in-kind help like policing and garbage services etc. I’d also suspect that a part of the conditions for that sponsorship would involve responsible financial management, not giving away an opportunity to raise revenue by giving it to a group that aready has $5.5 million in assets invested to make more money. Unless BGF invested in Iceland, of course.
October 25th, 2008 @ 9:56 am
What is wrong with having two ‘glamstands’? One run by New Mardi Gras and one run by BGF ..surely with hundreds of thousands of people as their target audience ( those who line the streets to view the parade ) there is room for two. One in Flinders Street and one in that great location in liverpool st in Hyde Park. I am sure Clover would be very sympathetic to using the Hyde Park option again .
October 25th, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
Interesting, chris. Could result in a discount ticket war.
Whatever, this is certainly an opportunity to rethink the nature of the Glamstand. I don’t like to see people put out of work and I suppose I’m in the minority here BUT… I think it’s time they canned the pre-parade entertainment. It intrudes on what is basically a communal social outing, and spoils your anticipation of the parade itself.
It can be a long wait but when you stand on a milk crate with ‘the public’ you sense that anticipation building, and the parade is more of an event as a result. Do we HAVE to be amused and occupied every second like ADD kids?
October 25th, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
if new mardi gras markets/advertises the glamstands like they do the parties, then its doomed. at least bgf in the past has used outlets that work and sell out the venue… good on bgf for using non tradiotional appraoches that work, and lets see if mardi gras can pick up its heels as far as proactive marketing and promotion o the festival and now potentially the reserved seating is concerned!
remember – glamstand was initially designed for hiv positive folk to have a guaranteed place to watch the parade and be comfortable!
October 26th, 2008 @ 7:55 am
I hope NMG find new and innovative forms of fundraising, something they haven’t explored in years, and frankly leaves them light years behind other N.G.O.s and charities that have robust fundraising programs.
The bigger issue is that NMG is out of touch and irrelevant. The GLBTQI community now supports the GL Rights Lobby or Get Up! to provide our political voice because NMG simply does not.
Perhaps NMG should consider becoming a political organisation, and appoint a fundraising manager who understands the industry, otherwise it is indeed doomed.
October 26th, 2008 @ 11:12 am
chris, having two glamstands is a god idea, and the sort of thing that NMG should be considering instead of just appropriating the one BGF have so successfully been hosting.
Sean, as far as my assumptions go, if NMG are doing such a great job at coming up with other avenues for revenue, they wouldnt need to nick Glamstand. And to be honest, whatever the type of support it gets from Events NSW, NMG are in a better position than they have been in a while.
As for your childish “Iceland” comment goes, surely it is NMG who could have been exposed the way the are acting over Glamstand. (By the way, Iceland have just received a $2.1 billion IMF rescue package)
October 26th, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Great work David and Board of NMG for making what I’m sure was a very tough decision.
With the massive cost associated in running the parade, you would be crazy, let alone financially irresponsible to not look at ways of trying to cover those costs as any good and successful business would.
I’m sure NMG are happy to discuss, after festival once any profits are released ways of assisting BGF and any other organisations that may be in need, this is smart financial management and I for one feel more and more confident in maintaining my MG membership with an organisation that is ultimately a members organisation taking decision that will hopefully alow MG to be around for another 30 years.
And what was with the post about MG stealing AZURE, i was under the impression that anyone is able to put in the tender to run the party through the botanic trust and MG just happened to be the winning bid.
Once again great work guys, I’m looking forward to what you come up with for Mardi Gras 09 – Nations United
October 27th, 2008 @ 7:16 am
I totally agree with Mike Smith! Mardi Gras used to be about GLBTI rights. It was a broad social movement putting pressure on government to erase discrimination and to show the country that we are people too.
Now, all NMG seem to care about is what theme they should give to the next Sleaze and which second rate celeb or DJ should be there.
And the way some of these posts sound, it seems the charities and rights lobbies that are actually DOING what Mardi Gras was originally set up to do, should be satisfied with the scraps left over from any profits NMG make from meaningless parties that do NOTHING for the GLBTI community except fuel perceptions we are irresponsible, drug-fuelled party animals.
The GLBTI community deserve more from NMG. They should leave Glamstand to BGF and come up with their OWN ideas of diversifying their fundraising activities by being more RELEVANT to our community!
October 27th, 2008 @ 9:54 am
Crikey, what a lot of old whingers. Last year’s parade had 10,000 participants and about 180 floats, everything from commercial venues, community groups, to political orgs, religious groups, all the GLBQTI orgs., various different professions, and representations from all around the world… and so on. How much more POLITICAL would you like it to be?
And who said the NMG won’t be securing an allocation of the grandstand seating for the HIV disadvantaged anyway?
And I think it’s quite clear that BGF is not a charity in dire straits, while NMG always seems to be teetering on the precipice.
Doug Levin, I prefer “childlike”, my name is Shayne and stop taking so many of the blue pills.
October 27th, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
Someone had to make the bad pun but.. heck of a lot of grandstanding going on ;)
A primary obligation of the NMG Board is to act in the lawful interests of the company as a whole consistent with its Objects/Constitution/Article of Association. If that means insourcing services and revenue streams strongly associated with its branding and events (that were previously operated by third parties) then so be it.
Glamstands… why not have more of ‘em (as others suggested)? Reducing the number of dodgy risky milk crate towers, giving more options for mobility-compromised people, and making the Parade a more accessible & comfortable experience for more people overall would surely be improvements?
October 27th, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
After reading all that I have to say, “Who Cares” Fighting for some “AGE OLD” Parade which barely holds any relevance today!
October 27th, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
Oh, Oliver; LOL. You’re always such a grumpy old man.
Are you not aware that all around the world, there are glbqti that are less fortunate than us who are persecuted daily. Don’t you think it’s worth marching/dancing for them? Isn’t that a show of solidarity we should be making? The theme for 2009 is United Nations.
Perhaps you don’t think so, but I’m sure you’ve heard of the huge and ferocious backlash to the suggestion that NSW govt. was going to sponsor NMG. I think that will get worse, as we all move toward a recession and people lose their jobs or their homes, they’ll be looking for scapegoats, just as they German people did of the Jews, gays, gypsies etc., in those times of economic hardship late thirties. Wouldn’t you like to stand shoulder to shoulder with your fellow glbqti this year to declare that we do, indeed have the right to what we are?
Perhaps not. But maybe you can understand the importance for the AIDS message that is carried along with the parade; not just that we need to practice safe sex, but that HIV/AIDS has associations with many other very deadly pathologies. I think that’s worth knowing, don’t you?
Maybe you might like to consider the $30 million that NMG brings to town. I would imagine that the tourist industry would say that it’s still very relevant, since events NSW are prepared to sponsor it. That’s not a charity, it’s an investment.
Or maybe you can just key in to the parade as a unique forum for major businesses to declare their acceptance and the rights they grant their workers, for the various church groups to show their support, for schoolkids to march in proud support, and parents too, and for queer youth struggling with coming out, for the world to see that we are more than the clowns and victims portrayed in the media; we are lifesavers and footballers, firemen and police, Olympic champions and recovering addicts, parents and politicians and…well, anything we want to be. Mardi Gras gives an opportunity for us all to get out and openly present our points of view to the public and creates the opportunity for some very positive things to occur.
Or finally, maybe you could just appreciate the pure theatre; the piss takes and the glorification of popular culture amid the spectacle of the subcultural lifestyle. Whatever, it beats sitting at home alone with a bottle of brown muscat.
You always talk as if we’ve reached the end of gay history, Oliver. It’s just beginning.
October 27th, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
thats the sound of all of us clapping Shayne!!!!!(except for poor old Oliver over in dreary ole Kirribilli rearranging the lavender bags in his undies draw )
October 27th, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
and the lies and half-truths are flying thick and fast on this wall aren’t they! so here’s some truths:
1. nmg didn’t steal harbour party, the previous operator ran it so badly and had such a bad relationship with the police that they shut it down. the city then called for tenders and nmg won.
2. bgf has paid nmg a minimal fee each year to had the rights to run glamstand and make a fortune doing it.
3. bgf turned its back on mardi gras in 2002 and didn’t lift a finger to help nmg get started and re-start mardi gras. so it’s a bit rich that bgf should have any expectation for any support at all from nmg.
4. nmg has offered to work out new ways to support bgf.
5. glamstand is not bgf’s major fundraiser – last year they made over $100,000 at a fundraiser at malcolm turnbull’s house.
6. bgf receives donations of hundreds of thousands of dollars every year, as well as government funds.
7. i called bgf today and asked for a copy of this year’s annual report. they said “it’s not ready yet”. so i asked what their current assets value is and they refused to answer. a reasonable assumption is that it is more than the $5.5 million declared in their annual report from a year ago.
8. any individual who talks of boycotting mardi gras or cancelling their nmg membership is turning their back on the institution that has done more for the gay & lesbian population of australia than any other in the last 30 years.
9. nmg’s constitution is published on their web site. it makes interesting reading – no where does it suggest it should be providing business opportunities to charities.
i’ve been volunteering for nmg for three years. i’m so sick of hearing so many people whinge and bitch about everything they do. funny thing is, those that complain never roll their own sleaves up and get in and help. so get your facts right, and start showing some respect.
October 27th, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
Unfortunately, this has the appearance of being a cash grab on the part of New Mardi Gras. Whether it actually is or not, remains to be seen.
When you look at the financial contributions that Mardi Gras has made to community organisations, it is a small sliver of their overall operating budget. With the windfall of last year, they were able to give more money back but this has not always been the case.
Strong financial management has never been Mardi Gras or New Mardi Gras strong suit. To run a business, you need the ability to look at cash flows, forecasts, profit and loss, income and plan effectively for current and future financial needs. As a community organisation, New Mardi Gras does not have the depth of experience in financial management, especially within the framework of a community organisation.
I give credit to BGF for building a strong financial base for their work, both now and in the future. I give money to them because they are a good steward of the donations they receive.
As for NMG itself, the organisation seems to be confused as to the focus and purpose of Mardi Gras.
Is Mardi Gras going to be a fund-raising organisation, able to give a substantial amount of money back to community organisations? Probably not– their structure, their budgeting processes, their overall attitude towards money means they are going to pour it back into a bigger, better parade, a fabulous party and first-class entertainment.
Is that what the original protest march has morphed into over the years? The relevance of Mardi Gras is constantly in question, and unlike Madonna, it has been unable to reinvent itself for a new day and age.
If Mardi Gras wants to make a serious commitment to the community, make a political statement and stay relevant, they need to take a look at organisations in other communities.
Organisations like Barnardos, Diabetes Australia and the countless other community groups that raise money for worthy causes and ACTIVELY PROMOTE a political and social agenda on a national scale.
There is nobody saying they can’t put on a parade, party, or festival. But make it about SAYING SOMETHING, and focus on making a profit, to support the community and advance our own agenda for equal rights, marriage rights and the rest.
October 27th, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
Hi all, Joseph Herschel from BGF here.
Matt, I’m sorry that your call to BGF was not answered to your satisfaction. Matt, if you (or anyone else for that matter) would like a copy of the 2006/07 BGF Annual Report, please give me call, or drop in to see us. We don’t bite! I can be contacted on 9287 1121.
Like most community organisations, we’re constrained by resources, and our 2006/07 Annual Report is not downloadable on our website. Our website was redesigned a few years ago – and the Annual Reports have, unfortunately, not been uploaded. It’s on the list of ‘to do’ things.
I really hope that you’ll understand that our clients’ needs come first.
The 2007/08 Report cannot be posted on our website until our Members approve the Report, to be tabled at our AGM later in the year. Again, it’s on the ‘to do’ list.
Matt, I believe your post above on Points 2 & 3 are quite erroneous. And I feel the need to comment on Point 6.
Looking at Point 2:
NMG & BGF negotiate an agreed licencing fee for reserved seating along the parade route. Please note that it is an agreed fee.
NMG gain a benefit from BGF running Glamstand. And BGF takes a commercial risk in running the reserved seating area. Through prudent management, BGF makes a profit on Glamstand. That profit enables us to support our clients.
Looking at Point 3:
Others have said it above, but I will also state it, BGF did not turn its back on NMG. The Constitution of BGF did not and does not permit BGF to help other organisations where their main activity does not relate to helping people living with HIV in NSW.
Furthermore, BGF is a registered charity. The legislation governing charities is, understandably, quite rigid. In short, if you make a donation to a charity, you can rightfully expect that the donation is used for the purpose for which it was given – not some other purpose.
Matt, I’m sure that you’ll understand that the Directors of BGF have a legal and moral responsibility for ensuring that they operate witihn the regulations that govern us – and create an environment where BGF’s very kind and generous supporters are able to make tax-deductible gifts in confidence that we will act in accordance with their wishes.
An example of where BGF helped a faltering community organisation is The Luncheon Club. Together, BGF and ACON continue to support clients attending TLC, many of whom are living with HIV.
Looking at Point 6:
BGF started nearly 25 years ago with no money, when a group of friends came together to support people dying of AIDS. At that time, public hospitals turned away people who had AIDS. Thank heavens times have changed – most public hospitals now provide sexual health centres.
BGF, along with other community organisations, applies for Government Grants to help positive people lead more fulfilling lives. This is a competitive process. Many of our clients have complex needs and our specialist staff provide practical emotional & financial support to our clients when they need it most. But Govemrnemt funding does not cover the costs of all that we do to help our clients. That’s why we fundraise.
Many of our supporters have stood by BGF and helped us out, in good times and in bad, that’s what friends do. BGF also strives to build long-term relations with it’s supporters – be they government, trusts & foundations, corporations, or people that care about the people we help and how we go about it.
It is through these long-term respectful relationships that we can achieve so much more for our clients.
Matt, if you do have any more questions, please feel free to call me.
October 28th, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
To quote Joseph:
“NMG gain a benefit from BGF running Glamstand. And BGF takes a commercial risk in running the reserved seating area. Through prudent management, BGF makes a profit on Glamstand. That profit enables us to support our clients.’
Other than a fee which is far removed from commercial reality, what else does NMG gain by BGF being on the parade route, delaying the start of the parade (as the stages on the road havwe for the last two years), and leaving NMG open to prosecution and additional charges every year from the governement, when you’re not packed up and off the road by the required 2.30am as set down by the RTA, City of Sydney, Police and Premiers Department. If NMG can comply with their requiremenst why can’t BGF?
And is non compliance with the reuqirements of authorities really “prudent management” ??
October 28th, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
Glamstand wouldn’t happen without the NMG parade and the parade belongs to NMG. It seems like standard commercial reality to me that NMG should have the right to assert an interest in all profit-making activities generated by the parade.
It’s over to BGF and NMG to work out a solution based on that understanding and I’m sure that, with goodwill on both sides, they will. Lots of community-based organisations use the Mardi Gras season for fundraising purposes and they need to move and adapt with the times as much as NMG has done – and is doing. Nothing is fixed in stone.
Two Glamstands? Would it work? The inescapable fact is that viewing the Parade is free to anyone who wants to view it. Glamstand is a premium seating arrangement. It means that Glamstand punters pay when the vast majority of parade spectators don’t.
Ensuring that the Glamstand punters get consequent value for money is (as BGF knows) an incredibly time and cost-intensive activity and I doubt that there’s a premium market out there capable of filling multiple stands. When it pisses down with rain,all the bedraggled drag queens in the world won’t make you feel any better about being out of pocket compared to the vast majority of viewers who didn’t pay a cent for the privilege of getting wet.
BGF is far from being on the bones of its bum and that’s a good thing. BGF doesn’t need Glamstand to ensure continued viability because – sensibly – BGF long ago recognised that reliance on events-based fund-raising will never provide the sort of sustained financial viability that organisations like BGF require and it has adjusted accordingly. Good on BGF.
As an historical digression, I think Joseph is wrong when he – referring to BGF’s decision not to financially support the birth of NMG – says that, “the legislation governing charities is, understandably, quite rigid. In short, if you make a donation to a charity, you can rightfully expect that the donation is used for the purpose for which it was given.”
ACON provided a 50K loan from reserves (not a donation) to NMG – which was subsequently repaid. It would have been well within the fiduciary ambit of the directors of BGF to have done the same. But the fact that they chose not to (for whatever reason) is ancient history and we should all move on.
Bev Lange, as the CEO of BGF, has presided over a remarkable revitalisation of the organisation. As President of Mardi Gras she presided over 1998’s “20 Years of Mardi Gras” – my personal highpoint of Mardi Gras’ post 78 history. I have enormous respect for her and for Marcus Bourget who has lead an equally remarkable turnaround of NMG. I don’t know David Imrie but I wish him well.
Ultimately, it seems to me that the things that unite BGF and NMG weigh much more heavily than those that don’t. so…use that energy and come up with a solution that doesn’t involve endless comments thread recrimination. It will be a refreshing change :)
October 29th, 2008 @ 11:00 am
Finally some sensible and balanced commentary, thanks GDH.
It is a shame that there is so much finger-pointing in so many of the other comments. It is almost as if BGF and NMG are at war. I spoke to David Imrie on Monday and he certainly did not feel that there is a war going on but rather just a series of meetings to create an outcome that works well for both BGF and NMG. He seemed very supportive of BGF. And he also mentioned that he would be failing in his duties if he didn’t continually assess the commercial relationships with all stakeholders.
BGF and NMG have a long history of working together to benefit the GLBTI community and it looks like they will have a long future too thanks to the sensible approach of both Bev Lange and David Imrie.
October 29th, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
Total male population Surry Hills – 8,942.
Total male population Darlinghurst – 5,932
16,000 attend Mardi Gras party.
16,000 people living with HIV in Australia.
8,000 in NSW.
Could this mean half the people at any Mardi Gras party are HIV positive?
Puts the issue in perspective.
October 29th, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
wtf?
October 29th, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Shayne, Your posts are too long and I cant be bothered reading after the 1st line. They never make any sense.
October 29th, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
Never mind Ollie, at least you tried.