Brighton's hotels...
Tell us when you're coming and REALBrighton will tell you the best deals available!Brighton's best...
|
community newsBrighton Pride 2010… a straw pollThursday, 31 December 2009 Before we begin: Pride in Brighton & Hove is run by a board of volunteer trustees, all of which are giving up their time for nothing alongside full time jobs and none of which are allowed to benefit from their role as a trustee. The charity also employs a part time Chief Executive and part time paid worker for sponsorship and fundraising. Wilde Ones, the company behind the production of the event for the last ten years, has not tendered for the 2010 event, giving two main reasons for not feeling able to submit a tender for the job this year: Pride's tender document had expanded from 12 pages to 70 pages and in their eyes contained a number of points which made it unworkable. Additionally, the tender deadline was at a time when Pride were publicly stating that they had a shortfall in funds and would possibly need to scale back and rethink the event to meet a new tighter budget. Instead Wilde Ones put together a proposal to produce the festival in its current format (ie - similar to the 2009 event) - but putting funds raised over and above the cost of running the event back into the community sector. This was, in effect, a no risk proposal for Pride, though any additional funds raised would not go directly to Pride but would go to the Rainbow Fund administered by the Sussex Community Foundation (www.sussexgiving.org.uk) and would be ringfenced for local LGBT groups. As we understand it, a trustee of pride has been invited to form part of the distribution committee for the Rainbow Fund. Following the tender process, Pride in Brighton & Hove informed Fisher Productions that they had won the 4 year tender to produce the Preston Park event starting in 2010 - though they have not yet said what format this will take and what tents/areas this will include. Gscene magazine subsequently paid for an Experian credit assessment to be carried out on Fisher which reported that it is a "maximum risk company" with "very heavy trading losses". The unfavourable credit report makes it unclear as to whether businesses will still be willing to risk putting thousands of pounds up front to sponsor key areas of the park such as the dance tent and cabaret tent. Conversely, comments from Pride Trustees at the last open meeting indicated that they feel that the Wilde Ones 'rescue package' would mean relinquishing control of the event to a single private company which they felt was very much the wrong direction to take, pointing out that this is exactly how London Pride failed. Both the Wilde Ones and Fisher proposals for the park now include a perimeter fence to help curb some of the problems experienced over the last couple of years and to safeguard takings over the bars which are an important part of ensuring that the event can remain free. Regardless of who runs the park event in 2010 - if it is to take place at all then a reasonable degree of sponsorship needs to be raised. The arguments each way here go something like this: Pride may find it hard to raise sponsorship from businesses if they do not have the full support of the community which - on the surface of it - they do not currently appear to have, given the reaction on Facebook and the reaction reported in Gscene of the majority of gay businesses in Brighton. Pride argues that it is only a small but vocal minority of people that have concerns with the direction that plans for the 2010 event are taking - and that those people have financial reasons for voicing support for the Wilde Ones proposal. Wilde Ones may also meet problems raising sponsorship given that they are a private company (businesses may find it difficult or impossible to justify donating to anything other than a not-for-profit or charitable organisation). Wilde Ones argue that their proposal will work with a minimum level of sponsorship which they have already secured in principle, and that either way - this is a risk that they themselves will take rather than the charity. There are undoubtedly a multitude of other issues surrounding the 2010 event but we believe we have at least touched upon the key points here. Whichever way the event goes in 2010 - if it is to go ahead at all then it is vital that it receives full public and business support. Whatever the outcome of this poll, we hope that it will at least provide a focus for urgent discussion over the coming weeks. Declaring our interests: REALBrighton has been a strong supporter of Pride in Brighton and Hove over the last seven years, supplying and maintaining the charity's website, supplying photography services and offering advertising and other services in support of the event. REALBrighton does not benefit from Pride financially. REALBrighton has no connection with Wilde Ones. REALBrighton supplies photography to Gscene magazine. Aeon Events is a REALBrighton Business Member, as are most other gay businesses in the city. This poll has now closed. The results can be found at: www.realbrighton.com/news-story/678 your commentspage 1 | page 2  said by fafi2 Your article is very misleading. Is your journalist connected with WIlde Ones in any way personally? Is RealBrighton connected to Wilde Ones? Do Wilde Ones consitute a significant advertiser or funder? This seems like the only explanation for such a biased piece eg. statements like "Wilde Ones, the company behind the production of the event " - this is a mischevous claim, and seems intended to give the company a status it doesnt have. "This was in fact a no risk proposal for Pride" - how do you know this? Has it been fully assessed by insurers and accountants? Unfortunately RealBrighton seems to be dishonest about its biased position. Posing as neutral, but presenting a highly favourable position on WIlde Ones is hardly a neutral 'community' comment. BTW on registration for RealBrighton, - not all of us our gay - quite a lot of us are lesbians, but this publication only seems to be for gays/guys - is there a connection here?  said by Brighton2010 Are you willing to say who wrote this statement for the Real Brighton website?  said by Samwell Responding to the comments above:  said by Hodgie Brighton2010 - you commented:  said by misshap I believe the article you have written is clear and has tried to be fair to both parties. Thank you!  said by mikeymoo It's kind of like voting for "giant douche" or "turd sandwich".  said by Bristol_Crystal Well looking at the poll results it seems that brighton wants a cut down Pride with no money going to LGBT causes. What is the matter with people?  said by gingapete For any charity to use a company that is a High Risk Credit is just ridiculous and irresponsible, and show's no regard to LGBT events.  said by thesussexsquare I agree with other commentators that your summary of events is extremely misleading - even if it is well meaning. page 1 | page 2
|
 |
Prowler
please login to add to this item
said by aloha
on Sunday, 3 January 2010, 5:41pm
Maybe a third option would be to withdraw from using Fisher and to use Wilde Ones on an extended year's contract on simillar terms as before - with extra revenue to be raised by fencing and minimum entry charge as is necessary. This will give everyone time to reorganise properly for 2011.
Alan Vavoom