|
Please
bookmark this page and visit for regular updates. Latest update
21.7.09
21.7.09 Claiming agents
Commission as an expense: Recently our
Association was sent this following article by
James Johnson, a lawyer who asked if we would be interested in
publishing the article on our website.
The article
discusses the possibility that some agent commissions paid by
entertainers are not tax deductible. This certainly raised some
interest and the article is worth reading for entertainers and
agents.
Spriggs v Riddell
(AEAA).doc
Spriggs v Riddell – The
Application to the Entertainment Inudustry
A landmark case has provided
that professional athletes who pay fees to agents for negotiating
their contracts
can claim these fees as tax
deductions. Given that the entertainment and sports are so closely
related, it is
without doubt that the
principles provided in this case extend and are applicable to the
entertainment industry.
Spriggs is a former
professional Australia Football League (“AFL”) player. Riddell is a
former professional
National Rugby League
(“NRL”) player. Both players had similar contracts with their
respective agents.
Importantly, the contracts
provided that a percentage of both their payment received from
playing and sponsors
was to be paid to their
respective agents. Spriggs in 2004, and Riddell in 2005, received
invoices from their
respective agents for
negotiating their contracts. Upon receiving these invoices, both
players claimed these
expenses as tax
deductible.
The Commissioner of Taxation
(“FCT”) prohibited the players from claiming fees paid to agents in
respect of
negotiating contracts. The
players appealed this decision to the High Court of Australia (“the
Court”), claiming
that the fees were tax
deductible.
The Court considered the
following sections of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (“ITAA”):
Section 8-1
(1) You can deduct from your
assessable income any loss or outgoing to the extent
that:
(a) it is incurred in
gaining or producing your assessable income; or
(b) it is necessarily
incurred in carrying on a business for the purpose of gaining or
producing your
assessable
income.
(2) However, you cannot
deduct a loss or outgoing under this section to the extent
that:
(a) it is a loss or outgoing
of capital, or of a capital nature.
The issue before the Court
was whether the fees paid to agents in respect of negotiating
contracts were
incurred in the course of earning income. In other words, were the fees
paid for ‘getting work’ or were they
paid for ‘doing
work’?
The FCT argued that the
players’ expenses were not incurred in the course of earning their
income, because
they were incurred in
getting new playing contracts. The FCT raised a case of similar
facts, Federal
Commissioner of Taxation v
Maddalena (“Maddalena”).
Maddalena was a
semi-professional rugby league player who attempted to claim travel
and legal expenses
associated with obtaining a
new playing contract. The FCT claimed that these expenses were not
deductible.
In this case, the court held
that Maddalena was not able to deduct these expenses, because they
were not
incurred in producing income
or conducting a business, therefore, they were of capital nature
which is not
deductible under the
s.8-1(2)(a) of the ITAA.
Spriggs and Riddell argued
that Maddalena
should be distinguished from
their case in that Maddalena’s fees
were not incurred in the
course of earning income, because Maddalena was a semi-professional
athlete and
therefore, was not
conducting himself in a business-like manner. Spriggs and Riddell
further argued that they
were professional athletes
competing in professional leagues.
The HCA agreed with Spriggs
and Riddell’s arguments that Maddalena should not be used as a precedent due
to the fact that they were
engaged in modern day professional sport, which is a business, as
opposed to 1970
semi-professional sport,
which was not a business for the purposes of the ITAA. The HCA then
proceeded to
assess whether the fees paid
to agents in respect of negotiating contracts were incurred in the
course of
earning income. The HCA
unanimously held that the fees were incurred in the course of
earning income,
because each of the players
had been engaged in a business for several years, by playing
professional sport,
before the fees were
incurred.
This means that fees paid to
agents by professional athletes for negotiating contracts are tax
deductible if the
expense is incurred in the
course of earning income. In this case, Spriggs and Riddell
incurred fees in the
course of earning income,
because they had already played for several years in a professional
sport league.
Similar to athletes,
entertainers who conduct themselves in a business-like manner will
benefit from this case as
they will be able to claim
as tax deductible fees paid to agents for negotiating
contracts.
There are several issues
that this case leaves open, including:
- 2 -
Spriggs v Riddell
(AEAA).doc
1. It seems that a
first-year professional athlete, or an entertainer not already
engaged in the
entertainment industry
professionally, could not claim as tax deductible fees incurred for
agents
negotiating their playing
contracts. This is because neither the athlete nor the entertainer
would have
been previously engaged in
their respective industry professionally, therefore, the expense
would not
be considered to have been
incurred in the course of earning income.
2. Agents are generally
limited in the amount that they can charge for their services.
Generally, the
amount chargeable must be
‘reasonable’. A reasonable amount in pro-soccer, for example, is no
more
than 10%. Since the scope of
what agent fees are claimable has been extended in this case, will
this
increase what quantifies a
reasonable amount? In other words, can agents now charge
more?
Authored by James Johnson,
Lawyer
 February 09: As you may well be aware, various
Aid and Emergency authorities are being overwhelmed with pledges of
support and in-kind donations. However, resources are thin on the
ground to manage the deluge of support.
Additionally the
economic downturn means many who cant donate cash are left out of
the support loop.
To assist this, we
have sponsored an online goods and services registry established by
Fitzroy Oxfam Group. Any performer, agency, venue or anyone at
all wishing to donate goods, services or labour can register
their donation themselves for victims to respond to. Click
on above logo to go register your offer of assistance
You may offer your
services for a benefit free or at a reduced rate or your agency may
offer their service less their normal commission.
There are a range of
things you can do to help:
1 - LIST
YOUR IN-KIND DONATION
Go to the registry at www.fitzroyoxfam.org.au and
donate any in-kind donation you can.
2 - FORWARD
THIS EMAIL
Please forward this email to as many people as
possible.
3 - ADD THIS
FOOTER TO YOUR EMAIL SIGNATURES
SUPPORT THOSE AFFECTED BY VICTORIA'S BUSHFIRE
EMERGENCY
Register your donation of goods, services and labour at www.fitzroyoxfam.org.au
4 - ADD THE
LOGO (top right) TO YOUR WEBSITE and link to
www.fitzroyoxfam.org.au
Thank you for your
support.
This
Important Benefit Concertwas
Proudly sponsored by the Australian Entertainment
Agents Association in
the support of live Australian talent:
Over $8000 was raised for the
cause. Thanks to all involved.
|
Archie Roach
|
Kavisha
Mazzella
|
Kathryn
Clements
|
MEDIA RELEASE: “BLESSINGS FOR BURMA” CONCERT on
20.11.08
Featuring: ARCHIE ROACH, RUBY HUNTER, KAVISHA MAZZELLA &
KATHRYN CLEMENTS
On Friday 2nd May Cyclone Nargis struck Burma leaving
at least 134,000 dead or missing and approximately 2.4million
clinging to survival.
Even though the crisis in Burma has all but disappeared from the
front pages of our daily newspapers, now is a crucial time to open
our hearts and lend a hand. Whilst our own home values are
currently declining before our eyes, at least they are still
standing and we are fed and sheltered.
To this end, three of Australia’s finest artists are presenting
a night to remember in one of Melbourne’s most exclusive music
venues. Seat sales in the plush setting of the Blue Diamond Lounge
Bar, will be limited to 200. Imagine sitting in a club lounge,
overlooking the city skyline, whilst being entertained by our own
Archie Roach and Ruby Hunter, Kavisha Mazzella and Kathryn Clements
and support artists on grand piano, violin and other acoustic
accompaniment.
Better still; due to the generously donated venue and services
of all the performers, and sponsorship by the Australian Entertainment Agents Association
Inc., who are covering any promotional costs, 100% of ticket
sale receipts will reach the cause, 100% of ticket sale receipts
will reach the cause. 70% will help the people of Burma through
World Vision whilst 30% will help Indigenous Australians through
Oxfam Australia. This division of funds acknowledges Archie and
Ruby’s generous contribution and the ongoing support needed within
our own community.
Details: Date: Thursday 20th November,
7.30pm
Venue: Blue Diamond Lounge, Level 15, 123 Queen St.
Melbourne
Tickets:$49.00 or $39.00 concession at www.fitzroyoxfam.org.au
(click Blessings for Burma)
Phone for further information re ticket sales, radio or
television interviews or newspaper features please contact: 03
94973227 or 0403 204320
Web sites:
Blessings for Burma (including ticket sales):www.fitzroyoxfam.org.au/Text/1224398500718-6253/
Archie Roach: www.archieroach.com.au
Kavisha Mazzella: www.kavisha.com
Kathryn Clements: www.myspace.com/kathrynclements
Proudly sponsored by
theAustralian
Entertainment Agents Association in the support of live Australian
talent:
Update of
question asked by performer on 14.10.08
Hi , My name is Stuart. I am trying to find out if there are
any guidelines about payment times from Booking agents as I am
currently waiting up to 2 months for payment of gig money and
having
to ring and chase it up all the time, there has also been at
least
one case and I suspect more of the agent taking more than their
share
of the money. The agent is not a member of your association so
you
may not be able to help me but any info would be appreciated.
Kind Regards
Stuart
Hi Stuart
Thank you for your enquiry.
An agent's role is often to collect your money from the client.
If the client has not paid the agent it is hardly the agents fault,
unless they have not done a professional job on your behalf in
trying to collect your money.
Members on our association are bound by our Code of Ethics and
Guidelines to forward on any money they collect on your behalf,
immediately to you. They are also bound to disclose to you, prior
to you performing the gig, what the break-up of commissions/fees
payable are. Could I suggest you encourage this agent to apply to
be a member of our association or only deal with agents who
are.
My guess is that your "Agent " isn't really an agent but a
"promoter" who phones you up and offers you a fee for a gig. He or
she then on sells your services to a client for what every he can
get in the same way a retailer sells a lounge suite. This is still
a valid model to run an entertainment business but the entity is
not acting as a agency. An agent must by acting primarily on your
behalf and by law you need to know what the fee the client is
paying for your services.
Re an agent possibly taking "more than their share of the
money". An agent needs to be honest and up from about their
percentage commission prior to you accepting the gig. Our
association has a recommended guideline of 15% commission. When an
agent offers you a future gig you may in like to ask what
percentage of your fee goes to him, then decide if you want the gig
or not. He or she maybe well prepared to negotiate their cut to
secure your services. Don't under estimate a performers power. If
an agency has no performers they have no agency.
I hope this is of help.
________________________
Brian Moran
Secretary
Australian Entertainment Agents Association Inc.
Ph 61 3 9441 0661
Update
12.8.08
The following discussion paper relates to Acts and agents,'
forgetting' to say "plus gst" when they quote on an act they
represent. We welcome your comments.
Dear Member Agents
Below I have outlined a scenario
which began in my office and I felt needed some input from other
seasoned agents and possibly a clarification or
ruling by our AEAA.
.
I welcome your comments and input
but please don't be offended if I don't reply personally in the
same detail that I have with Cathy Dean as outlined below. You
would most likely say I have said enough anyway. The meeting on
this Tuesday night would also be a great forum for us to discuss
this issue.
First of 3
examples in 2 days:
1. I recently offered an act a gig
as another act had pulled out due to illness. This new band told me
the best they could do the job for was $1500, very close to the
other fee, so I proceeded to lock it in by dropping my
commission a little so the original fee to the client did not
change. The client then wanted some extras and
wanted to know the costs of these. All was going well with emails
back and fourth with this great act, until I received this email
from the band.
"Hi Brian, I’ve contacted the keyboardist and for an
extra set the cost will be $70. (On top of our performance fee of
$1500 which is not including the
GST)"
Fine, I took it on
the chin, the client had a tight budget and I knew would not
come at the extra 10%, I had to find another band. And as some of
you would say, I should have said to them in the first place "the
$1500 has to include 'any chargable' GST". Well,
this got me thinking. Was this really my
responsibility?
Then the following
email arrived after I informed them that I could not just go back
to the client with the 10% increase as their budget was too
tight
"Hi Brian, Firstly I was wrong to assume that
the GST wasn’t included. In my experience, given it
is a corporate function and that it is invoiced through an agency,
GST has always been added on top of the quoted
figure...................."
I've heard this
before and quickly realized the confusion and
misunderstanding I feel exists in our industry in this pricing
area.
Example No. 2 Then that evening I needed a price on a well known artist
for a country gig. "$5000" I was confidently told by the manager
"and that includes travel." I waited, nothing else was forthcoming.
Should I just add on my $500-600 on the top and quote this too
my client, no, I knew better, so I asked if this included the GST.
"Oh no" he said," that's extra." He's just broken the law but I'm
the one feeling a bit silly for expecting it to be any other
way!
Example No. 3 I wont go into it here but almost the same as the above
example happened as I went to book a well know vocal
harmony group the next day.
So I felt I needed to raise the issue
and suggest the AEAA may be in a perfect position to suggest
a constructive guideline to help clarify that appears to me to be
a confusing area when viewedclosely.
I feel our
industry is out of step with generally accepted community standards
and the law in this area. I'm interested to know if others share my
concern.
My fist step was
to use my trusted colleagues, AEAA president Kevin Kosky and
Treasurer Cathy Dean as my sounding board and sent off the
following email to both for their valued opinions.
_______________________
Brian Moran
Secretary
Australian Entertainment Agents Association Inc.
Ph 61 3 9441 0661
contact@aeaa.com.au
Hi Cathy and
Kevin
As I was in the
middle of responding to an email from an act that quoted me a
figure and did not mention the GST was not included, it dawned on
me that this issue is worth discussing and maybe
taking further with our members.
I think the practice
reflects badly on our industry and our code of ethics should
address this.
You will get an idea of the
situation from the emails below. What annoys me most is her line,
which I have heard many times. "In my experience, given it is a corporate
function and that it is invoiced through an agency, GST has always
been added on top of the quoted figure." The inference here is
almost " your industry expects us to quote
without GST as they add the 10% onto our quote." When it
has gone this far I think we need to look at educating the acts, or
it maybe another agent quoting us a price, and raise it with
members.
Why does our
industry flout the law when quoting when few others do.
You see if you can find a car advertised without the GST included,
or a new house, a Coke or a new laptop.
To save the
confusion our government enacted very clear legislation to
cover this but in our industry nobody seems to follow
it.
I put this down or
a couple of possible reasons:
1. Almost all our
quotes are phone based and whoever is quoting feels $5000
might get us a over the line a little easier than $5500. If we had
to put it in writing we would have to be a little more careful and
the client could quite legally enforce the $5000 figure if we had
not added "+GST"
2. Gst registered
acts have a few more non gst registered competitors than most other
industries, this drives them up the wall when they may be quoting
against such acts, so they conveniently don't mention it
when trying to get the job, and hope the client will not mind
finding out later and hope that the line "you can claim the GST
back anyway" will save their skin. A bit of a rough way to run a
business, be it an agency or a band.
I think the
practice reflects badly on our industry and our code of ethics
should address it.
Am I expecting too much
to try to bring about a change in this area?
Cheers
Brian
Kevin responds with:
Hi Brian
I agree with you completely on this
issue and from my understanding of the gst in general, the complete
figure needs to be quoted including gst. Otherwise how would the
client know what they are paying.
Then the fun starts
Cathy responds in black below, I respond to her in blue, she responds
to this in green and then I to her in red.
It gets a bit drawn
out and you don't have to read it all. However it highlights
many of the situation and issues involved and maybe helpful for
some who want to have a say on the issue. The highlighted bit are
worth noting I feel. (there again I've only highlighted my bits,
sorry Cathy)
Hi Brian,
I don't really have this
problem as when quoting I always, always say the figure and then
say if there is gst included or not ... i.e. $500 no gst or $500
plus gst. This is because I
work with as many people who are gst registered as are not. No
problems or confusions encountered because it's so clear as to
what's involved. (It's
not you I'm worried about Cathy, its the clowns that quote you and
me sometimes. You say here "no problems", but as I
read on I did notice a few problems !- yes but altogether different to the problem
you're having and could occur under either system. No, I think it is exactly the problem I'm concerned about,
) Because I work this way when a performer gives me a
quote I will assume that there needs to be gst added .... I never,
ever assume gst to be included no matter what goes on in other
industries because it can't be assumed in this
industry (this is exactly
what I want to address) because of
the two different groups of performers clearly working the industry
...those that are gst registered and those that are not. So
assuming gst is included or not an option in this office. We take
the base figure and then add the gst if needs be
What you are really saying
here is "I know the performers will quote me without the GST, I
make allowance for there naivety and ignorance, and I work around
it." I'm suggesting the AEAA has a ruling that brings anybody
quoting into line with the law, and the industry will quickly
change, especially if the ruling confirms that their fee should be
literally what they quote and not the 10% extra they 'forgot'
or neglected to tell you about. I would even argue
if acts quoted their prices to you in the way the law
states, you don't even need to know if they are GST registered or
not at the quotation stage. You add on your commission to the
figure they give you and quote the client. You could add "inclusive
of any chargeable GST" but even that is not necessary, as the law
clearly states that any figures quoted without the words "+GST"
must include any gst in the figure.
And
that responsibility lies with agents too as they quote to clients
so if the agents want to cover their butts then make sure they
know and declare the gst status of the performer ... yell at the
performer all you like for not doing so but they will have declared
to the agent at least once upon the start of any work with
that agent and that should be recorded and be known by the agent
and if not ... then the aforementioned ... cover your butt
and double check with the performer.
No, If an agent or act tells me their
fee is $5000, I should be able to just add my $600
commission on and quote the client $5600, that is all I need to
say. (None of this '+gst' or 'Gst is not included', keep it simple
like the Check out Chick in Coles. Do you ask the Check out
Chick if the $87.49 includes the GST before you pay?If my
client asks I say, "of course, that fee is inclusive of any GST, I
always quote my figures inclusive of any gst that is
chargeable" Why would you even suggest the possibility
of splitting the fee into two parts . If there is gst chargeable,
there is no way they can engage the act without paying the Gst so
why separate it. Almost nobody else does it so why should
we. Only when I go to write up the paperwork/invoicing
do I need to document it and what the GST actually is for
there BAS statement.
Working like this would mean
that if a new the act was gst registered and
they gave me a quote then I would add the gst automatically, not
assume the gst was included. I have received quotes from acts that
have included the gst but not many. Most say the figure plus gst
... if they don't stipulate and I know they're gst registered
then I'd add it ... if I wasn't sure of their status then I'd find
out and then add the gst or not.
I'm complaining about all this
extra checking we should not be responsible for. The whole reason
for the legislation is to save this confusion and the re
checking we have to do. If we all took the acts on their
word and by the letter of the law, they ended up with 10% less on
the first one or two jobs, they would very quickly fall into
line with the rest of the community on this one. If we treat
our acts like they don't have to really understand their
responsibilities and just continue to make allowances for
their ignorance of the law, I feel it is demeaning of them and we
are not acting in their best interest.
Yes, yes, yes ... but you
SHOULD KNOW without checking from your first encounter with them.
They would complain about having to keep telling
you. No, strongly disagree. Tom the stilt
walker tells me two years ago he was registered to collect GST. I
phone him today and ask if he wants a 1 hour gig for
$270. He says yes. He has to take responsibility for agreeing to a
figure that must include GST because I never said $270 +GST. I'm
not expected to know what may or may not happened to his
registration over the last two years
If our Association sent out
an informative and education bulletin stating the correct
quoting guidelines, and make it one of our our web
site's Performers Guidelines, think of the PR, kudos and
credibility it bestows on the AEAA.
Yes I agree ... but there is not only
one correct way.
I think there is, and our
Association should take leadership in establishing and
recommending the best practice procedure. The association should
investigate by consulting with all members of our industry and
determine the least confusing and most accurate way of quoting
and recommend this to be standard procedure in our
industry.
I don't want to pre-empt such a
finding but my hunch is it will be to stick with the letter of the
law. If some other agent, manager or act is silly enough to quote
me $5000 for an act and I proceed and book it in exactly
for what he/she quoted me then our association's
ruling will have predetermined he/she is unethical or
negligent and needs to take responsible for
his/her negligence, rather than ask me to phone my client and
talk them into paying the extra 10% he forgot or neglected to
include in the first place, on the premise that "the client
will get it he GST back anyway" If the associations ruling backs this up this
person will only make the same mistake once and not come back to me
saying "In my experience,
given it is a corporate function and that it is invoiced through an
agency, GST has always been added on top of the quoted figure."
which is the line that started all this rainbow coloured
emailing. And it is not the first time I have heard this
line.
If there was an error and the
gst was not added and I had to go back to the client and explain
the situation then that's what I'd do. I wont. If I
have quoted the client a fee on behalf of the performer, I need a
better reason than " the performer misquoted me" to even consider
going back to the client with a variation after he/she has accepted
the quote. That's you not
taking responsibility for your part in the quoting
process .... and it's not a big deal anyway .. don't quite
understand your reticence ... it wouldn't be a common
occurrence.
I don't see it as my responsibility
to have to check if the figure the band has given me is correct, it
is their responsibility. And I'm saying it is common. I reckon if
I asked ten GST registered acts tomorrow what their fee was
for NYE, at least 3 would flout the law but saying the
fee they want to clear is $XXX and make no mention
of the GST but expect me to know that I should add it on.
Unless the client is non gst registered
themselves then it doesn't make any difference to them and over the
past 8 years of the gst, when this has occurred, (ah, so you have had the
problem! Never happened ...
just a scenario) (It either
occurred or it didn't!) not one gst registered client has been
bothered (well, they didn't
say they were anyway ... no you are quite correct but all I can say is what I've
perceived from my personal encounters. But they're all grown up and
I'd assume they'd say so) I wish some of
my clients were all grown up! because they do claim
the amount back. And
what about the other 50% of our clients who are private and cannot
claim it back, stiff luck, is that what we tell
them? Because I work the
way I do, I can only say to you that I do not have the
problems you're suffering and can categorically swear to you
that no non-gst registered client has suffered as a result of
my wayward and seemingly crazy way of operating. I think this
speaks for itself. As wayward and as
crazy as your ways may seem I still come to you as my
sounding board due to the high respect you are held with
in our industry. I know you would not sleep at night if some
private client felt aggrieved by having to have the quote
revised upward, nor am I overrun with this issue on a daily basis
but I feel a standard should be set It's just a
bit more paperwork for us to remedy. And we've had to do this
for not only the reason of error but also because there have been
several performers who mid financial year have changed their tax
status. So we've need to reapproach the client with the problem and
it's only ever been a short note of explanation and a reissuing of
the invoice. No tears involved at all.
I really don't think it's an
ethical issue (I think it is when other agents quote me
$5000 and don't add on the GST. It happens all the time from some
agents and it is unethical and illegal and they should know
better if they are professional and AEAA members, is my
view) So the agents are
the culprits more than the performers?? Definitely, that is what I am saying and we are even training
our performers to go the same incorrect way. ... don't you think that when I've
quoted you that you have always known precisely what the gst story
is? Because of how I
do it?....No, I've go to write down two figures each time then
add them up, bloody annoying, and one of the first times I used
Chris on Nye's I some how didn't note down the GST
component and quoted my client without it (or you or Red did
not tell me) and I've been making about half my normal commission
on this repeat job ever since as the client will not accept an
increase larger than CPI. it's a practical issue which revolves around the
clarity of quoting. I think what Melissa was saying was that she's
come across a lot of people who work like me (I know, that 's my whole point, and
it's this culture, we as an association, have a responsibility
to offer some constructive guidelines to the
industry yep ...
constructive being the operative word ... who is having the least
problems under which system?) You
don't have problems because you are so well organized and take
a personal interest in, and detailed record of, the GST
status of all your acts. Its the other 10,000 agents, managers,
individual artist, some who don't even know what GST
registered is, that concerns me. It's them, and us they quote to,
who would benefit from a definitive guideline from the
AEAA. so that when she gave
you the quote she assumed you would add the gst whereas you assumed
the gst was included. So not an ethical problem I wouldn't think
... more miscommunication. Unless I don't get it. (Ok, so how can we, as a
responsible industry Association help fix this miscommunication
problem then?) Quote
including the gst status of the act like I do already.... eg. $500
no gst or $500 plus gst. It works. But why not
just $500 like most other industries do? Don't complicate the
issue. If the client wants to know the GST situation let them ask
and give them the honest answer.
What I have a problem with is
bloody performers sending me invoices .... I can't tell you how
many times I've delivered the 'agents position on this as ratified
by the ATO speech' ... and to make it worse, some non gst
performers send me tax invoices ... double wrong. Sigh ... after
all this time.
Hope this helps ... sorry if it
doesn't. Thanks heaps,
all part of the process. Do you mind if I send your email (with my
comments) to all other agents to gains a consensus of
views. Nup Thanks
The more I discuss all
this the more I am convinced that it would be so much
simpler if the AEAA recommend all quoting be a set fee and
ignored the "+gst" option. The plus"+gst" option is an
encouragement for the agents and acts to, accidentally or
conveniently, forget to mention it
regards Cathy
Cathys Clowns Entertainment
Consultancy
PO Box 842, Panton Hill, Vic 3759
T: 03 9719 7395
F: 03 9719 7735
www.cathysclowns.com.au
News update
1.5.07
Victoria
Rocks Announcement
As part of the 2007-08 state budget, Victorian Minister for the
Arts Lynne
Kosky today announced Victoria Rocks, a Bracks Government
election
commitment as part of the Creative Capacity + policy, designed to
support
the growth and viability of the state's local music industry.
The commitment will draw together expertise from three areas of
government,
- Arts Victoria, Office for Youth and Tourism Victorian - to
support
pathways for young people and professional musicians at different
stages of
career development. The sector's creativity and potential for
growth will
also be supported by strengthening its position in the local
and
international contexts.
The package builds on the earlier initiative Music for the
Future, which
was managed by Arts Victoria until it's conclusion in 2005, and
enables
continuation of the FreeZACentral
program managed by the Office for Youth. Also, it introduces
several new
elements to strengthen links between music and industry
development
including campaign delivery by Tourism Victoria to promote
Melbourne as the
nation's capital for live contemporary music.
Extensive consultation with musicians and key music industry
representatives has already commenced to ensure the package to
meets the
current and future needs music community.
Further details including the application criteria and closing
dates for
the first round of funding will be announced in early July
2007.
Please see media release attached:
http://www.arts.vic.gov.au/arts/news/news/budget0708.htm
Regards,
Jonathan Williamson
Senior Arts Officer - Victoria Rocks
www.arts.vic.gov.au
Discussion
Paper
25.4.06
The
provision of Alcohol as a contractual requirement in an Artist
Contract
In light of the changing public attitude in the area of alcohol
consumption I wish to raise the issue of an agent stipulating on a
contract that alcohol must be provided for the performers in their
work place.
My concerns relate to the following issues:
- I can think of no other profession where this is a norm.
- Given the sometimes precarious stage situations a performer is
asked to work in i.e. dodging electrical cords and equipment,
negotiating steps and other stage obstacles, is an agent not
compounding a potential Health and Safety issue by the stipulation
of the alcohol provision?
- Is an agency leaving itself open to a potential legal claim in
the unfortunate event of damage or a personal injury claim related
to alcohol consumption at an event?
- I understand that currently a part responsibility for
consequences for injury or damages caused by alcohol consumption
can rest with the person who provides the alcohol. If then, the
alcohol provision is stipulated in our contract, are we part
responsible, as the provider had no choice, as it was a condition
of engagement.
- If our association takes a stand on this issue it will be much
easier to explain to our performers who question the exclusion of a
rider “the AEAA, due to Health and Safety reasons, cannot allow its
members to include an alcohol rider.”
- Should the AEAA take a position on this issue and have a
recommended policy for its members discouraging or forbidding the
stipulation of alcohol provision in contracts? Currently the
guidelines state ”A professional, sober and drug free manner is
strictly required at all performances.” Are we as agents
acting professionally and within currently accepted community norms
by then stipulating an alcoholic drinks rider?
- There is a chance too that different insurance policies (i.e.
Public Liability) may be invalid where alcohol is concerned.
- Perhaps one suggestion is that instead of a drink rider as
such, there is a 'refreshment allowance’, which if not used in
drinks can be kept as cash? This of course may lower the
initial fee but may be worthwhile given the complexity of the
issue. It also means that the employer is at arms length from
the alcohol situation - it makes alcohol at the choice of the
performer and not of the employer.
- Is the situation different, say at a wedding, when the father
of the bride comes up to the band table with a jug of beer or
bottle of wine to thank the performers for a great night?
- Should we as agents go so far as to stipulate that a performer
is not to consume alcohol during a performance period?
I acknowledge the historic and traditional provision of alcohol
to performers in our profession and at the risk of being seen as ‘a
bit or a wowser’ (no one enjoys a good glass of red wine more than
me) I wish to bring this topic to the table at the next AEAA
meeting. I invite input and comment from musicians and all those
working in our industry. Please click on "Entertainer Feedback" for
your comments to be added to this page. The Musicians Union have
been contacted by me and asked to have an input into this
discussion. They currently have no official stand on the issue.
Brian Moran
Gum Tree Entertainment Co.
Member of Australian Entertainment Agents Association Inc.
94973229
briangum@tpg.com.au
News Update 22nd June 07
Dear friends in the music
industry
I was saddened to hear of the
passing of Dennis Farrington who was a well know band leader,
identity, and legend in the music industry for so many years.
He was 87 years young and greatly respected by those who dealt with
him, including myself. He was a gentleman in the true sense of the
word and will be greatly missed, especially by the hundreds of
musicians who turned up over the years to play in a 'Dennis
Farrington Band' at some gala event at a town hall in
Victoria.
Thank you Dennis for your
remarkable contribution to the Australian live music
industry.
Fortunately he was interviewed and
recorded by Bill Stephens at the National Library of Australia last
year and an abstract of that recording is listed
below:
- Denis Farrington born 1920 in
Tallangatta, Vic., talks about his family background; his siblings;
growing up on a dairy farm; his schooldays; his swimming career;
training for the Olympics; his career as a barber; Harry Motherson;
his interest in music; playing in a brass band; selling records;
being selected to represent the State of Victoria at the Berlin
Olympics; his swimming skills; how the outbreak of war affected his
swimming career; training in fitting, turning and welding while
continuing work as a barber; football, cycling; moving to Richmond;
commencing his music career; his first band, 'The Blue Moon
Orchestra'; finding engagements for his orchestra during the
depression; a typical routine for the orchestra; the source of his
band arrangement; how the first vocalist sang with a megaphone;
demonstrates with a snippet of song; dance styles in vogue at the
time; maintaining 'The Blue Moon Orchestra'; sourcing musicians.
Farrington discusses his reasons for not pursuing a career in
recording and broadcasting; how he became an employer of musicians;
deputising at the Tivoli; sourcing musicians to work in television
in the early days; working two jobs; playing at Government House;
routine for musicians playing at Government House; protocol when
playing at Government House; popular dance repertoire; supporting
charities; obtaining sheet music and orchestrations; his favourite
musicians and their attributes; Bob Gibson; Jimmy Burke; Kenny
Weate; Max Reddy; Stella Lamond; Toni Lamond; Helen Reddy; working
several Dennis Farrington Orchestras on the same night; a brush
with gangsters; meeting Pat Lewis in 1972; dress codes and
presentation; musicians and alcohol; his children and
grandchildren; his O.A.M; his life governorship of Royal Melbourne
Hospital.
Vale Dennis.
_______________________
Brian Moran OAM
Vice President of Australian
Entertainment Agents Association Inc.
Ph 03 94973227
briangum@tpg.com.au
| 