>

Big Green Gathering are about to be saved by a payment of £50,000 from their new partners, Kilimanjaro Live Ltd. which will go to pay some of the event's creditors. BGG are expecting a second payment of £100k from Kilimanjaro which together with what's left of the £50k raised from the Rescue Fund appeal and from new BGG shareholders, will enable BGG to pay off the rest of their outstanding debts. And so a small BGG event is being planned for this summer, with a return to a full-scale Big Green Gathering in 2009.

So who is the white knight who saved the Big Green Gathering? Well, it is former Live Nation U.K. managing director Stuart Galbraith and his new venture Kilimanjaro Live Ltd who are a live promotions company. Kilimanjaro is a joint venture with AEG, that acts independently of the big investor. Galbraith says of Kilimanjaro and its backers AEG, "We are a boutique promoter, we can be nimble and flexible. But the main investor is AEG and we can call on a global resource if we need to."

Roger Smith, one of the Big Green Gathering directors, who spoke to eFestivals in a personal capacity, says "Stuart Galbraith's involvement is strictly a business proposition, and the involvement of big business is necessary to turn the loss of 200K last year into a going concern." Galbraith's business proposition doesn't involve him getting shares in the business, so Smith says, "There is no corporate take over involved. But BGG the company does get to stay solvent, so the company continues and the debts are paid off."

Instead of shares, the investment means that Kilmanajaro will get half of any potential profit as a means of paying off the debt. Smith added, "He's coming in as an adviser to help BGG make this profit and considering BGG's financial position it was accept the money or fold." Galbraith's main concern for now is to push the event marketing-wise and to ensure the festival gets a full house, as the numbers have not been at capacity.

But Smith believes that BGG will still have a non-profit ethos - everything they do will not make a 'profit' - but they will make money or a 'surplus' and re-invest that surplus back into the festival; the idea of a non-profit company just didn't work and left the BGG heavily in debt. Smith believes Galbraith could well be involved for 10 years, and is prepared to be fairly flexible on repayments. But, Smith says, "BGG is not in a position to question AEG's involvement as they need the money or they will go under."

BGG don't know to what extent he will get involved just yet. Galbraith is one of the most successful festival promoters in the industry and has many years of high level experience, and the BGG organisers are hoping some of his ideas could help their own organisation. The expectation is that he gives the BGG a chance to earn a surplus while the event does not compromise the basic elements of the Big Green's content. Smith sees this altering the way BGG runs, "Making a surplus may involve making the company tough, it might be more about how we write our contracts or do our business." Smith feels the hippie ethos just wasn't working in the BGG business.

In regard to ethos of the Big Green Gathering, the message to rail against capitalism will continue, however BGG the company needed to revise its view of money, it wasn't a question of capitalism, it was, according to Roger, "Necessary good business to make a profit. The company needed to be run more ruthlessly and the festival ethos had to separate from that."

Despite BGG changing it's company structure and policy so that it makes a 'surplus', the festival doesn't want to compromise its message or its core values to its festival goers (well it can't or there won't be any punters). Profit will mean that BGG could become a much better event, doing much more to promote Green issues and push the Green content much more effectively (and of course make the payments back to Kilimanjaro at 50% of this surplus).

Having cleared the debts, Gilbraith will help BGG to develop its 'brand' and Smith believes the directors will be keeping an eye on the ethical side of it, "They are concerned that the event isn't changed too much in content and that BGG don't go down the road of corporate sponsorship and companies they don't agree with."

But, says Smith, "This is a minefield with many small ethical companies being owned by un-green holding companies." He feels personally the future of BGG is to support these small companies as they encourage the big businesses to go more green, but whether he can get BGG supporters on board with this view remains to be seen. Clearly the directors have already accepted this in that Kilimanjaro is owned by AEG; it's an acceptance they have all had to make.

The money from these 'green fronted' companies would go into producing a better show and Smith believes that this means, "The consumer would be trying to encourage the big companies to go green.", a different viewpoint from Green traditionalists who in the past have shied away from these green companies on ethical grounds. Smith explained, "Those that have approached the BGG who want to go green will be investigated as to suitability, with their ethics foremost in mind. Some parent companies are not ethical enough for the directors... some sponsors might be suggested by Kilimanjaro, and the future might see BGG having more sponsors on board."

Roger cites the example of BP who might supply a lot of solar panels for the festival, and who had, he believed, been rejected in the past just because they were BP. But this sort of sponsorship might be considered in the future he feels, and he doesn't think BGG's organisers have really tackled what the criteria for sponsorship would be. He thinks there needs to be a clear line on sponsors, but it is he concedes, more than possible Kilimanjaro will set a new line.

The directors have a strong mandate about keeping the festival as ethically green as possible and there's a very great reluctance to sell out to corporate capitalism, borrowing this money from a bank would be just as unethical green-wise Smith feels.

The corporate capitalists might not be that far away however, as Kilimanjaro was launched through a partnership with AEG Live, who are the world's second largest promoter, after Live Nation. Although they're fairly new to the UK and have a fairly low profile they run the O2 Dome, and also own David Beckham's team LA Galaxy. The main man behind AEG is Philip F. Anschutz - the man who gave Prescott that infamous pair of cowboy boots and a holiday at his ranch not long before the government said AEG could have the Dome. His Anschutz Foundation is well-known for funding right-wing, conservative Christian causes.

One of the biggest investors that puts money in with AEG projects is an ex-Australian called Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch's News Corp holds a 10% interest in AEG's main UK interest - the 02 Dome development subsidiary - according to the Guardian newspaper (here). Links might be hard to find these days but back in 2004 Timothy J. Leiweke, President and CEO, AEG went on record (here) saying, "Rupert Murdoch, Peter Chernin, David Hill, Tony Vinciquerra, Gary Ehrlich and their entire organization have and will continue to be great partners with AEG." So does it all look like a corporate take over at BGG?

The directors feel that Galbraith has a knowledge of the industry and is the right man to help turn the BGG around. Smith says that their options were to go under or take the hand offered by Kilimanjaro, and BGG have retained their shares. The BGG hope they will give feedback for both Kilimanjaro and AEG who will be able to make their operations more green than currently, and the hope of BGG's organisers is that BGG will be able to influence the bigger companies to go more green. Galbraith is keen to see the event continue as the Green flagship that it is but it is rather ominous that the new financiers have links to some of the world's biggest corporations.

 http://www.efestivals.co.uk/news/080219c.shtml