Blossom Festival Proposal 1966 – Treasurer’s Report

REPORT FROM TREASURER ON THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY H.L. ROBERTSON.

Having been asked by Harold to have submissions concerning Blossom Festival typed for circulation at the special Executive meeting I have had the opportunity to briefly think about the proposals and bring to your notice any financial ramifications that may be involved and which would be of assistance to members in their discussion. Firstly I must say that I share the view held by Harold and seemingly by a wide section of the public that the format and timing of Blossom Festival is due for revisions and amendment. The poor returns (wheel excepted) from this years Festival must give rise to concern for our future financial stability. Last year the Blossom Festival showed a profit overall of £772, and the organisation made a nett profit for the year of £259. Of course certain sources of income were sacrificed for the benefit of Fantasyland on that occasion. This year the gate takings have decreased by a further £200. And the concerts which were our main source of profit in the past have diminished in popularity also. With mounting costs I anticipate that this years Festival profit will be very unsubstantial. It is interesting to note that this years gate takings were only approximately one third what they were in 1959 or a half of 1961. This deterioration is taking place in spite of the fact that we are expending more monies than ever to provide attractions at the park. We thus have the two edged sword of increased costs and diminishing returns. Whether we like it or not our basic revenue from membership and the council grant meets only a half of our administrative and overhead expenses and the gap together with any reserves which we must maintain must be financed out of profits from our promotions.

Commenting specifcly [specifically] upon the proposals:

1)   The contract with the Showman’s Association must be preserved as it is now come to the stage where this represents the main of the profit we make from Blossom Festival. I feel their reactions should be sought as the servicing of two major carnivals in one week may place considerable strain upon their personell [personnel] and equipment. There would also certainly be a division of the Showmans takings between the Spring Show and our carnival but whether the takings from the two festivities in the one week would exceed the aggregate takings under the present conditions could provide considerable argument. For the information of new members the contract is a three year one involving a payment of £1100. Per annum for Blossom Festival and Highland Games rights. All dealings are with the Association’s head and in the past this has always proved to be most satisfactory and businesslike, and has caused no problems.

2)   It is proposed to hold only two concerts in the Municipal Theatre. We would therefore lose the revenue from two concerts, including the final one when we are assured of a full house and our nett takings are in excess of £200, including the raffle which brought in £65. this year.

3)   The type of ball envisaged in the proposals may be difficult to run economically, as these days people do not support this type of function unless in cabaret style with liquor available.

4)   The planning and putting into effect of these proposals would involve hundreds of details which have to be worked out later. However points which come to mind if the crowd is confined to the grandstand are the possible loss of wheel takings and stall rentals.

5)   We would suffer the loss of our parking and grandstand revenue.

6)   This would be offset by the savings in gate personell.

7)   We would also have to gate receipts from two functions instead of one.

8)   On the other side, however, I feel that to ensure success our expenditure on providing the attractions and spectacles would be far in excess of anything we have been used to in the past.

REX B. INGRAM.