Hope to see you at the Baw. x

Honestly, it’s been most reassuring to hear all this, and I really thank you for taking the time. I know it must be quite intrusive to have a bunch of random internet people suddenly start telling you how to do your job, so thanks again.

I think it is also valuable that this has brought out the fact that the Bowery itself needs to be busier, and that is actually the responsibility of all of us, of we really do care about keeping the place open.

I will say that a more systematic approach to publicity would probably make a big difference, because self-promotion wasn’t a forte, it must be said. Not that I can talk, because I’m shit at promoting my own gigs, but there’s less of a commercial imperative there.

“You can’t say to people that you’re putting someone else in charge of their business,” – I’ve never said that.

“it seems wrong to take the place off them for failing to meet non-explicit requirements. And it seems wrong to expect to put someone else in charge of their business and expect them to work under them.” – That would be wrong and that’s why we aren’t doing that.

“what’s happening at the moment seems a bit like going from 0-100mph in a second or two.” Agreed, things do seem to have been moving fast, hence the confusion.I think we basically all need to sit down and work out what we would like to happen and how to make that happen, however there will be time for this and there is no huge rush on for the Bowery to suddenly turn a massive profit or anything like that, we just need to work out sustainability and ideally growth for the place in general.

“I realise, of course, that I am getting into the realms of ‘none of your business’ here” – Don’t worry about it, I’m happy to be as open as I can be about what’s going on, as I feel that’s to everyone’s benefit.

Making someone else responsible for the whole building but not asking Ruth and Jane to leave is basically enforcing statutory redundancy, is it not? You can’t say to people that you’re putting someone else in charge of their business, but you’d still like them to stay on and work for whoever that might be.

So I appreciate that the plans for the gig space sound, in theory, assuming your ‘hope so’s work out, to be really good. It’s certainly goodto know that there are no imminent plans to change the focus of downstairs.

However, I really am not convinced that your ‘working with the Bowery’ is the same in reality as it looks on paper. If someone else is brought in to manage the overall building, as opposed to ‘the rest’ of the building, working alongside an existing business rather than above it, then the idea of the Bowery as an independent business is gone. You are effectively asking people to become staff within their own business.

Now, due to the financial situation and the informality of the arrangement, I can understand saying to them that from this point onwards the Bowery needs to be making what would essentially become a minimum rent, and if not met then it would have to be incorporated into the Roxy Art House.

But what’s happening at the moment seems a bit like going from 0-100mph in a second or two. In a commercial organisation this would be one thing, but the EUS isn’t a commercial organisation. If they need to make more money, tell them so, formalise the agreement and set them targets. Then if they can’t meet them, fair enough, it will enour faut as much as theirs, and no-one can complain.

But it seems wrong to take the place off them for failing to meet non-explicit requirements. And it seems wrong to expect to put someone else in charge of their business and expect them to work under them.

I realise, of course, that I am getting into the realms of ‘none of your business’ here, so feel free to decline to respond to as much of this comment as you reckon.

all good ideas I think, especially the “Friends of the Roxy”. Matthew I’ll try and answer your questions and comments:

“When I called I did ask for the name of someone to speak to regarding the plans for the Roxy Art House, but the guy was in such a panic by then he didn’t seem to be able to think to say anything but ‘No no no no no’” – the director works on all the projects, many of which involve adults with extra support needs, and I think essentially he was surprised at being called out of the blue and his mind was on other things.

1. Is what is currently the downstairs gig space still going to be used for live music?

I would hope so, I think it’s perfect for this

2. Will the downstairs bar also stay open?

Again I would hope so.

3. Does making revenue include increasing the hire costs for the downstairs space? If so, by what sort of percentage do you reckon?

Currently there are no hire costs per se, so it would just be a case of formalising some sort of hire or looking at other options. We’re trying to do this in tandem with Bowery crew to see what’s possible.

4. If they weren’t making enough money to support their existence were the Bowery given any sort of warning that being taken over was imminent, and were they given any sort of concrete targets which might have prevented this?

Take over isn’t imminent, I think this is the key misunderstanding. They have not been asked to leave, we’re just looking at ways at making the place sustainable.

5. Could the general manager of the building not work alongside the Bowery as it currently exists, and simply book gigs there the same as everyone else, in order to increase revenues?

Sure, yes, for now that is a good solution, but ideally I personally feel it would be great for the building to function more as a whole and for the bar to be integrated. But like you say for now that could be an option.

6. Would sitting down with the girls, explaining what was going wrong, and trying to find a mutually workable solution to the lack of revenue tried? Apologies if this seems like a stupid question.

Yep, we’re on that right now so it’s all looking up!

“do you really not see that keeping the space open is not the same as keeping the Bowery?” – I do see that and fully agree. We are not trying to take the all the good work of the Bowery and cash in on it.

Hope that some of that makes sense,

All the best,

Dan

In the first instance the motivation of the landlords / owners/influencers needs to be understood. (Its normally sex, money or power) Lets assume it’s cash, although it could easily be power/politics but I don’t know the EUS workings so best ignore that.

If the prime motivation is really short term cash that can be realised by a sale then your screwed anyway.

If there’s a need for a sustainable income stream then it’s worth pursuing.

You probably know the rules from here, decide who is really in the team100%, be creative and make the numbers work (business plan), get a lot of people onside including external investment if you can, negotiate like hell. Agree a deal and get the legal stuff tied in.

I know it sounds simplistic but in my experience most things in a business environment are, it’s just people who complicate stuff.

If you put the right proposition to the right person you always have a chance. Good luck.

With varying tiers of membership/benefits you could a) lock in your target market b) secure a steady and predictable stream of revenue which makes bank managers a whole lot less of a pain in the butt and lowers financing costs 3) have less need to go head to head with commercial venues thereby improving the quality and quirkiness of the mix and assuring the achievement of EUS objectives.

Just a thought.

case law follows :

CG68030 – Goodwill: ownership of goodwill

Case Law provides authority for the proposition that goodwill is not capable of being separated from the business with which it is associated. For example, in IRC v Muller & Co Margarine Limited, (1901) AC 217, Lord Lindley said at page 235:

……goodwill is inseparable from the business to which it adds value and exists where the business is carried on.
The same proposition is stated clearly in Halsbury’s Laws of England, Volume 35 at paragraph 1208:

Goodwill is not a thing which can be separated and dealt with apart from the business out of which it arises……
A number of authorities are cited in Halsbury in support of this proposition including the Muller case. Of particular relevance are Wedderburn v Wedderburn (no 4) (1856) Beav. 84 where Romilly MR said at 104:

The goodwill of a trade, although inseparable from the business, is an appreciable part of the assets of a concern……
Also, Robertson v Quiddington (1860) 28 Beav.529 in which Romilly MR said at 535:

I fully concur in the observations on both sides, not only that the goodwill is a valuable and tangible thing in many cases, but it is never a tangible thing unless it is connected with the business itself, from which it cannot be separated.
And, Star Industrial Company Ltd v Yap Kwee Kor (1976) FSR 256 (P.C.) in which Lord Diplock said at 269:

Goodwill, as the subject of proprietary rights, is incapable of subsisting by itself. It has no independent existence apart from the business to which it is attached.
Furthermore, in Balloon Promotions Limited v Wilson, SpC 524, the Special Commissioner concluded at paragraph 165 of his decision that:

Goodwill cannot subsist by itself but must be attached to a business.
In the light of the above authorities HMRC considers that because goodwill is inseparable from the business in which it is generated and has its existence the disposal of a business as a going concern must involve the transfer of goodwill.

I do have a couple of questions if you don’t mind, although I know you’re hardly obliged to answer them.

1. Is what is currently the downstairs gig space still going to be used for live music?

2. Will the downstairs bar also stay open?

3. Does making revenue include increasing the hire costs for the downstairs space? If so, by what sort of percentage do you reckon?

4. If they weren’t making enough money to support their existence were the Bowery given any sort of warning that being taken over was imminent, and were they given any sort of concrete targets which might have prevented this?

5. Could the general manager of the building not work alongside the Bowery as it currently exists, and simply book gigs there the same as everyone else, in order to increase revenues?

6. Would sitting down with the girls, explaining what was going wrong, and trying to find a mutually workable solution to the lack of revenue tried? Apologies if this seems like a stupid question.

I know you’ve already acknowledged that the communication was handled badly, but do you really not see that keeping the space open is not the same as keeping the Bowery? The people running it are so integral to what the place itself is that them not being there is basically the same as the Bowery not being there. It not just the space itself, which is great, but their enthusiasm and encouragement which have made it so important to the communities which use the place.

Which is not to say that you can’t run a new venture along similar lines which can also be successful, but that still translates in the eyes of pretty much everyone there as the Bowery having been closed.

Anyway, thanks for your patience and thanks for coming on the site to speak to us all.