Gay Manchester: Operation Fundraiser's deceptive Annual Report

I misquoted the figures from the report...

Income
-----------
Pride 2004 net proceeds: £165,596

Other fundraising & donations: £43,812

TOTAL: £209,408


Expenditure
-----------
Box Office, Entertainment & Marketing: £32,356

Fundraising costs: £47,626

Grants: £129,426

TOTAL: £209,408


Assuming they handed over £200,000 to Manchester Pride in 2004 (could be more, I am trying to find out), that means out of income of £409,408 only £129,426 went to good causes.

"Boycott this cynical event and campaign so we able to celebrate being lesbian, gay, bi or TG for free."

Just as a matter of interest, how do you plan to do this?

Who is going to pay the costs to the council to cover, insurance, overtime for the extra policing and other services that need to be on standby, the cost of cleaning up afterwards, and then the cost of publicity, administration, etc, etc, etc.

I fully support free, community run events, but before criticising those who do manage to pull events together, I'd like to see more evidence and analysis and a feasibility study to show that it is actually possible without significant expenditure.

The main point of the article was that the true cost of this event, and where two thirds of the ticket and bucket collection money goes, is being deliberately hidden from the public, time after time.

As for the costs... It is the businesses and the Council who want this massive event. Most of the costs have come because the event is so huge:

£10,000 on hire of car-parks in 2003!
£32,380 on fencing
£43,600 on Staging, lighting etc
£40,000 on International marketing

and many more.

The charity income does not scale up with the event.

In 94/95 The Village Charity gave out grants of £60,000 with the August Bank Holiday event as it's biggest fundraiser. In 2000, £105,000 was raised for good causes from a FREE event.

In 2003 and 2004 only about £130,000 was raised with a £10 entry fee from an event which now has a turnover of some £550,000.

With it bringing more than £20 Million of business into Manchester (according to Council figures for 1999), does the public really need to fund it to the tune of £200,000? No, I don't think so. The businesses that benefit should pay if they want it.

I think there is now a 'glass ceiling' on the money for good causes. They are being allowed to raise about £130,000 currently. Let's see how much they get this year.

Did you know there were no separate accounts for 2003 and it was all part of 'Marketing Manchester'?

Somehow in July of this year Manchester's black community managed to put on a parade through the city centre and an event for tens of thousands of people in Alexandra Park and it was all free.

There was very little sponsorship and it was in the face of 'sneaky' opposition from Manchester City Council which is backing a rival more-commercial Caribbean Carnival in August and trying to destroy the one that has run for more than 30 years.

The July Carnival got no publicity from the City Council. So ask the organisers how they did it.

Again, many of the problems of Pride are made by the businesses, who insist that the whole event must take place in Canal Street in the vicinity of their pubs and clubs. That location, together with the huge crowds they seek, creates many of the problems.

"As for the costs... It is the businesses and the Council who want this massive event. Most of the costs have come because the event is so huge...The charity income does not scale up with the event. "

Does it not stand to reason that if the event were scaled back, so would the potential fund raising ability?

In fact, I think you'll find that an event that covers its costs and still raises 165 000 pounds over that for charity is pretty good value.

I'm not sure what you're complaining about because if the event were scaled back to cut out all the logistical costs, it is doubtful that it would be able to raise money on that scale either. Is it just the principle that the costs are higher than the charitable contribution? Would it be better if the event cost only 500 quid, but raised 2000 ? - In other owrds, are you looking at percentages or the actual amount contributed?

In short, if you think that the costs of the event can be cut to a minimum _and_ that a higher amount that 165 000 pounds can be raised at the same time, and can demonstrate how this can be achieved, you'd get my vote to take over the running of the event in an instant.

In 1994/95 the Village Charity gave out grants totalling more than £60,000, with the free to enter August Bank Holiday event as its biggest fundraiser.

Ten years later, Operation Fundraiser is giving out grants of only £129,426. Taking inflation into account, how much more is that in real terms?

The small free-to-enter GayFest in 2000 raised £105,000 for good causes.

2002 - the one that was sabotaged probably so that Council cronies could take control again after the 1999 disaster, still managed to raise £65,000 for charity. Total costs that year were £106,000.

However, £13,000 of those costs went to Manchester City Council for cleaning the streets during the three-day event! That £13,000 could have gone to charity. Doesn't the Council clean the gay village every weekend anyway?

Costs in 2003 were £550,000, with only £127,690 raised for good causes.

So, no, the charity money does not scale up with the costs and size of the event.

Money to run the event used to be raised/collected separately from the charity money. We now have a 'smoke and mirrors' arrangement where at least £200,000 of money that the public has paid for a ticket, or put into a supposed 'charity collection bucket' is actually handed over to the Manchester Pride organisation to cover costs.

Back in 2002, Operation Fundraiser was telling the public that ALL money from tickets/wristbands and collections went to good causes. You can still see this in press releases from 2002 on the web:

 http://www.ght.org.uk/news_and_views_press_article/213

Many people still think that when they drop money into an Operation Fundraiser bucket, all that money goes to HIV/AIDs and other charities. In face, less than one third of it does now. The rest goes to be the inflated costs of Manchester Pride. Which, incidentally, are as clear as mud.

In 2003 there weren't even separate accounts for Europride 2003. It was all part of 'Marketing Manchester'. A public-private sector partnership 'charged with promoting Greater Manchester on a national and international stage'.

So, £200,000 that has been collected by charities is being handed over every year to an organisation (now called Manchester Pride) which is not a registered charity and which did not have its own separate accounts in 2003.

Why isn't this £200,000 mentioned anywhere in Operation Fundraiser's 'Annual Report' leaflet that is being distributed to the public?

Also, to finish, let's just consider one of the huge costs from 2003 for a moment. The year when there were no separate accounts and they were apparently lumped in with those of 'Marketing Manchester':

'£40,000 on International Marketing'

Firstly, look back at my figures and see that the total cost of the entire Mardi Gras in 2002 was apparently only £106,000!

Pride sells about 36,000 tickets. How many of those people are from abroad and how many only came because they saw the 'international marketing'? I suggest very few. Many would have known about the event anyway (gay men in particular are high users of the internet).

At £10 a ticket/wristband, £40,000 is the total income from 4,000 of 36,000 ticket/wristbands.

If 11% of all Pride visitors had come to the event entirely due to the money spent on International Marketing, Pride would be subsidising the entire cost of the ticket for each of them.

No, this really is all about marketing Manchester and getting the gulliable gay community to pay the cost of doing that, rather than Manchester's businesses. And the names of the charities and the current devious arrangement and publicity are being used to lever as much money as possible from them.

So, according to your figures, the amount of money collected for charity is going up every year.

So the problem seems to be that the costs have increased at a greater rate proportionate to the increase in charitible contributions.

Would you be happier if it went back to the situation 3 or 4 years ago where the costs were much lower and the amount given to charity was lower too, but the two figures related better in terms of percentage?

Are you complaining about the cost of entry, or because the total amount given to charity is higher than in previous years?

I'm still not sure what the problem is. The event covers its own costs and still has a significant amount of money left over for charity.

I have no doubt that the figures you quote are correct, but all I can't see a practical proposal from you that would reduce costs and increase charitable contributions, other than guesswork and wishful thinking (like the bit about the council cleanup "shouldn't" cost money - well, I guess it does.)

Your grievances against the current organisers would be more powerful if you could show how costs can be minimised and fund-raising maximised - with concrete, workable proposals.

I don't think you have grasped what I am saying at all. It seems as if you have not read what I have written.

Operation Fundraiser is a group of charities who sell the tickets and collect in buckets at Pride. They then hand over £200,000 of that money each year to Europride 2003/Manchester Pride 2004 as a 'contribution to cover costs'. Europride 2003/Manchester Pride 2004 are registered companies which are not charities.

I am saying that it is inappropriate that £200,000 of money that has been collected from the public by registered charities is then simply handed over as a lump sum to an organisation which is not accountable to the public in the same way that charities have to be. As a result, it is almost impossible to find out exactly what that £200,000 was spent on.

Indeed, as I have mentioned, Europride 2003 did not even have separate accounts! This arrangement is wide open to the kind of abuses and waste that took place back in 1999 -- because no one is being held accountable to the public. We all know what can happen in that situation.

For those charities (Operation Fundraiser) to then produce a public document entitled 'annual report' which *does not even mention* that £200,000 is deceptive to say the very least. We are going to find out what the Charities Commission makes of this.

I suggest you write to Manchester Pride asking about costs and see if they even reply. If they do they will probably tell you how the £130,000 was distributed to good causes by Operation Fundraiser and give no info about the massive costs.

No I am not saying that the amount to charities is 'going up each year'. I am saying the amount is much the same as it has been for the last fifteen years when you allow for inflation. The amount was not lower five years ago. In 2000, £105,000 was raised for good causes from the free and much smaller GayFest.

What is increasing hugely is the cost of the event: £550,000 in 2003 and just £106,000 the year before. The public is paying much more.

Prior to 2003, the money to run the event was raised before it. There is no way that £200,000 was raised to fund the event back then. That £200,000 is disappearing into the Manchester Pride organisation and who knows what it is being spent on.

What do you think of £40,000 spent on international marketing in 2003? An incredible figure. Who actually benefits from that? The Manchester-based charities? I don't think so. This is the kind of thing that £200,000 of charity money is being wasted on -- subsidising advertising that does not nothing except increase takings for Manchester's businesses.

If 10% of all Pride wristbands were sold to people who had come to the event due to that £40,000 of international marketing (10% is an absurdly high percentage that would never happen in fact) Manchester Pride would actually make a loss on those wristbands as the income from them would be just around £36,000!

Thank you for making your position clearer. What you seem to be saying is that the amount spent on producing the event (the amount left for charity is just a distraction) is too high and how it is spent is not open to public scrutiny.

Depending on what sort of entity the company running pride is, there may be legal ways to get them to disclose their books, but then there may not be - that's worth exploring. Certain types of companies have to make their books public, and there might be 'freedom of information act' posibilities in some areas, particularly with regards to the council.

The question I would have is how, if a community run event was so successful, did business interests manage to grab the event away from community control?

I'm really only concerned about the £200,000 that is raised in the name of charities but then disappears into the unaccountable blackhole which is Manchester Pride.

Manchester Pride is a 'not-for-profit company' but obviously is spending hundreds of thousands of Pounds with profiting making companies.

If you watch the BBC documentary series Made in Manchester, two of the episodes went behind the scenes at Manchester Mardi Gras 1997 and you will see the backstabbing that was going on then, with people trying to take over the event.

A common reason given for having to fence off the gay village and charge for entry is because it makes it safer and less crowded. However all the trouble started in the first place around 1997-98 because the local radio station was promoting the event but not actually mentioning that it was gay. The idea being to get as many people along there as possible, spending money. Greed raises its head once again...

The Village wasn't fenced off in 2000 and 2001 and there were no crowd or violence problems because the event was more-gay and smaller (yet made about £110,000 for charity in 2000).

It 2002 there was a mysterious row between the City Council, the Police and the organisers and Mardi Gras was actually cancelled and then back on again. Of course the organisers that year were discredited by this. Was it sabotage? Look at what is happening to the Caribbean Carnival now... The City Council is giving financial backing to a new Carnival and ignoring the more community-based one that has run for more than 30 years. The Council only publicises the new Carnival on its website. A complete abuse of its position.

The business were always involved in the gay Bank Holiday weekend event, right from the beginning. In fact it was started by a couple of the businesses to raise money for HIV and AIDS. But it was a jumble sale then and the businesses that control Canal Street these days are very different to those back in 1991. So is Manchester City Council.

In the 1980's the enemies of the gay community were the Tory party and newspapers such as The Sun and the Daily Mail. 50,000 people would march through London at Pride and the BBC wouldn't mention it.

Now we have a different problem... Politicians and the mainstream media are falling over themselves to appear gay-friendly. To the extent that they will not take a critical look at anything. The gay press is completely in the pockets of the same gay businesses who do very nicely from Manchester Pride. So they also go along with the 'isn't everything rosy' line.