Farooq Chaudry Wrote
Editors Letters || Tuesday, 10 May, 2005
Yesterday one of my colleagues alerted me to comments that you made on your website implying that the project grant we received from ACE last year was the catalyst for international income generation for our company. Clearly from what you have said you are unfamiliar with the workings of the UK funding system. Grants for the Arts awards are not solely for the making of a production but also take into account touring costs in the UK.
For the creation of our most recent production "ma" we were fortunate enough to have the backing of eight international co-producers whose cash contributions amounted to a total of £140,000. This does not include their performance fees.
Last week our General Manager conducted a product analysis of our touring costs for "ma" in 04/05. The findings are very revealing. When touring to two UK venues within one week the Akram Khan Company loses £12,860 in that same week. In contrast when touring internationally we make £4,435 in one week.
If you were to factor in the opportunity costs (monies lost from not touring abroad) into the UK figure, in effect we lose a staggering £17,115 per week. For the five weeks touring in the Uk this amounts to £85,575. This would have left us less than £10,000 towards the production costs. Hardly enough to create a production that costs £150,000 and to generate any subsequent income.
In short, what ACE subsidy actually does is underwrite the loss of touring within the UK!!!
There is much demand for our work in the UK and we are all too happy to meet that demand if we have the financial capacity to support the huge losses it incurs. UK grants allow us to do this. Given that currently demand outstrips supply for our work we could quite easily ignore the UK market and make and tour our work with international monies. But that is not part of our vision.
We are proud that our work reflects some of the most exciting and
interesting innovations in British dance today and we are committed to audiences here engaging in this process . Last year alone our work was seen by 13,097 in the UK.
For your information what our international income allows us to do is to give talented young artists sustained project contracts (over the past five years these have been on average about 43 weeks a year) and some of the best terms and working conditions for dancers in the UK.
I'm not quite entirely sure what your agenda is and quite frankly I don't care. In our email exchanges last week you were clear that it was not your business to either "think" or "suggest.' From what you have written this is clearly not the case. I have no problem with people having the freedom to air their views and opinions but I do have a problem when they are a misrepresentation of the truth. In some circles this could be considered libel. I therefore request that you remove your comments about our project grant from your website immediately.
In the future I suggest that the same rigour and effort that you applied in researching the costs from travelling from Newcastle to London/Brussels is applied to seeking accurate information about the funding system and the workings of companies like ourselves. Case closed.
Farooq Chaudhry
Producer
Arts Council funding underwrites all loss making activity for all art forms and companies that it funds. If there was no ACE subsidy then artistic activity in the UK (international touring or otherwise) would simply not exist. Even with ACE subsidy a large number of companies operate with deficits, etc, etc.
The final paragraph of the story states;
"Indeed for the year 2003/2004 the company did apply for £98,235 from ACE and production and touring costs far exceeded this amount. However the funding from ACE is used to actually create the work for touring that generates that income stream. What this means is, no funding from ACE no work to tour with. Currently Akram Khan Dance Company receives £180,000 under ACE's 3 year funding agreement for Regularly Funded Organisations."
All of which is factually correct. If you are stating that you could continue to make work without the ACE subsidy then that would be fantastic. That is a story we would love to report. A high profile contemporary dance company that can exist without subsidy would be a wonderful achievement and the story will be altered. We also don't doubt the difficulties and achievements of the company in arriving at its current position with regards to contracts, pay scales and so on but with regard to this story that information is irrelevant. Larger companies have greater responsibility to the community they purport to serve or represent and as such are subject to greater scrutiny.
A London based company holding an audition in Brussels is news for the reasons stated. There is no agenda and there is certainly no libel.
Michelle's comments about not forming opinions with regard to a news story is just that. News is not about opinion it is about the facts as we see them and presenting that information to our readers.
We are very well aware that the dance community is not used to this type of reporting and there is very little we can do about that. We also find it slightly silly that you are suggesting that the company tours the UK on the grounds of some kind of charitable endeavour to the UK dance audience.
A quick browse of Article19 will alert you to what we do and why we do it. The case Mr Chaudhry is never closed, not ever! We would also like to suggest that your company analyses the costs involved for a UK dancer traveling overseas before you formulate your response to questions from our communications manager
Stumble It!
