IJDb ...
Resources ...
Community ...
Search ...
Consultation on BJC surplus cash
Introduction
The last 5 British Juggling Conventions have made a financial surplus. This is usually held in trust for a few years to help out any future BJCs should they make a loss, then set aside to be spent in the local area to promote juggling. Since this money was received from the attendees of these conventions we would appreciate your opinions on our plans for its use.
The organisers of BJC1999 (Durham) and BJC2K (York) feel that there is now sufficient knowledge, which we are willing and able to share, to ensure future conventions do not lose money. That being said, it is impossible to plan to exactly break even (if one less person than you plan for turns up, you are in trouble). As a result there are now several thousand pounds sitting in bank accounts around the country, which have been designated for use promoting juggling.
We propose to spend this money to give an annual grant to a good cause (or causes) in UK juggling. This paper sets out the option that we are currently proposing, with negotiations in progress with other past BJCs to see if they'd like to join us.
The Plan
To set up a fund which would provide a grant, probably of around £500 to an individual or group in the UK to promote juggling.
Discussions are ongoing with The Circus Space to see if they'd be willing to administer this for us, providing the advertising, selection process and distribution. They already manage several similar schemes.
We feel that this funding should go to an up and coming performer or group of performers. This could help them with circus school fees, or, if they are not following that route, provide practice space and help with director or choreographer fees, or other production costs.
In return they would be expected to perform for free in the BJC show that year, providing a direct link between those who provided the cash and those who benefited from it.
Future BJCs would not be obliged to maintain the fund, but would be encouraged to do so if they have received performers through it. If the fund ever runs out of cash the award will be discontinued and we'll all look back on a job well done.
The Questions
What we want from you is your comments on this idea. Feel free to comment on any aspect, but we especially want to know:
- How should the fund be administered? Bear in mind the long-term effects of this and the fact that none of the people proposing this want to take it on for the rest of their lives. It will need accountancy expertise and long term commitment
- Who should judge the applicants?
- Who should be eligible to apply for the award? All circus artists? Just jugglers? What about associated skills like contact, diabolo and devilstick? Unicyclists? Aerialists? Acrobats?
- Should it be available to established acts, or should it just be upcoming new talent?
- Should it be available to groups who don't focus on performance, i.e. community groups or workshops?
- Should there still be some cash held to help out future conventions?
Getting in touch
Please make sure every juggler you know hears about this. Print it and take it to workshops, pass it to people who aren't on the groups we've advertised this in, tell your friends about it, post it to them. We are aware that some of the most vociferous members of the juggling community are not online and are relying on everyone to help disseminate this document.
When you respond please include details of your past involvement in BJCs. This money has come from the pockets of people who have paid to attend the BJC in the past, so if you're one of them we'll pay more attention to you.
To respond:
On the web: If you're reading this document at www.jugglingdb.com then please use the 'Add comment' feature below.
Email: bjc_surplus@yahoo.co.uk
Write to:
BJC Surplus Consultation,
c/o Mike Armstrong,
Flat 5, 2 Graingerville South,
Westgate Road,
Fenham,
Newcastle upon Tyne,
NE4 6UH.
The Disclaimer
Your opinions are important to us, but we probably won't be able to accommodate everyone's suggestions. As we are the people who put a lot of effort into voluntarily organising the events that made this money, we will have the final say on how it is spent.
Mike Armstrong, Mini Mansell, Lorri Reese, Rob Stone, Nicole Taylor
5th August 2002
Surely, if the BJC is making a significant profit it's time to bring the prices down a bit.
The money would be better off spent helping out convention organisers who have made a loss, first time organisers or vulnerable conventions to avoid last-minute cancellations ( i.e chocfest in York)
To get to the point, put the money back into the BCJ and other conventions because most of us are doing this for a laugh not a living.
Being a full-on hobby juggler, with no intention of ever doing anything more than this ('cept possibly tequila.), I'd be concerned about the administration of such a fund - as you've all stated so far it's a difficult thing to manage and decide where the money goes.
Personally I'd like to see the money be plowed back into the BJC iteslf, rather than going to external stuff. I know this might be difficult, but since Manchester in, erm, ooh, the middle ages, the price of the convention has rocketed. Maybe as a lot of us are reasonalby well paid types this is OK, but I'd prefer it if the convention could be made cheaper without impingeing on the fairly high quality we get these days, perhaps by using the fund towards the venue, buses, theatre hire or faclilties etc?
I've managed to avoid running a big convention ever (whew!), but we could use the fund to assist with some of the larger outlays, or possibly going to other conventions, rather than other performers?
Obviously we want to promote juggling and related skills, but I would prefer the promotion to be done with less of a bias towards (albeit not necesarily professional) performers, and more towards the hobby jugglers. Is that getting too self-centered? Hmmm.
Firstly, I think someone should say thanks to the organisers of the last few conventions for doing such a stirling job and still having the energy to get up and organise this afterwards! "Thanks guys!"
Right, now to try to think of some controversial stuff that hasn't already be said.....
The whole idea.....
Generally good but I would still like to see the price of the convention go down if it's consistantly making a profit. I understand that there are problems in this (motivation for committees getting good deals, a lot of money still only means a small reduction in the price of each ticket etc.) but someone must be able to think of a way around this which is no more complicated than the current proposal. I also like Scott's idea of grants to people who wouldn't normally be able to go to the BJC but I think that it would be impossible to administer - how will we know who has the least money without complicated assessment procedures?
On the current proposal......
It's a good idea but:
I don't think circus space should do the selection even if they do agree to administer the finances. All long standing bodies have cultures and preferences of their own and, even without accusing circus space of any unfair bias, I don't believe their culture to be that of the majority of attendees of BJCs.
I think that the selection should be through a show at the BJC (kind of like the old springboard competitions). Each person or group ('act' for short although it may not be an act as such at that stage) would get a certain amount of time to make their case in whatever way they choose. Everyone present then gets a vote - the act or acts with the most votes wins the cash, no lengthy meeting, no discussion. No-one would be obliged to turn up to judge so the worst that would happen would be a small group decision (the same as an elected committee I would argue because the same people would turn up as would have stood for election) and the best would be a consensus amongst the majority of convention goers with no-one's opinion excluded.
I also agree with LP and Charlie, workshops and community projects should be elegible (some do some very fine things) but they would have to compete for the cash alongside anyone else and if the proposal was naff and seemed unsustainable or unappealing they just wouldn't win.
As for nationality....who are we to say someone from another country isn't elegible? If they compete and win and agree to perform the next year I think they have as much right as anyone else. Many foreign guests are more regular visitors at BJCs than a lot of our homegrown jugglers - it's their money too. I don't think jugglers and zenophobia go well together and while there are certainly some countries where funding is more readily available than it is here, I would argue that there are many more where it isn't.
As for old-hands or newcomers, I think our best move would be to make it perfectly clear that the money is for projects that do not have another funding source. But as for excluding people, where do you draw the line? Obviously we'd laugh in the face of the Chinese State and be quite sympathetic to a talented school leaver but where is the line between them?
I say let anyone apply (a couple of months in advance to keep out people who got drunk the night before and thought it sounded like a good idea!) and let the BJC attendees decide - we're not stupid (sometimes too drunk to see, but not stupid!).
Right, essay over!
Looking forward to seeing the results of all this soon!
H
(who's been to 7 out of the last 8 BJCs - it was nothing personal Bristol!)
I think this sounds like a good idea, like others I feel inclined to say the money should go to new acts, a risk of giving it to community groups, especially new ones, is that they could get the money buy loads of gear then collapse a few weeks later for whatever reason and the money would be lost for ever.
I suspect it would have to be administered by Circus space or similiar, but are they prepered to do it ? as was said in the original proposal no one wants the job of handling this fund for ever more.
Any activity that would be considered for an act at a BJC should be eligible to apply, not just jugglers.
Please don't judge these awards at a BJC most people there are wanting to have a good time and would not attend a specific "judging meeting", this would lead to a minority judging who gets the award in a hurry, perhaps whoever manages the fund could draw up a short list and a resume of there proposals put up on the IJDB or ukjugglers and a voting poll thingy set up.
Definately keep a fund back to help out future BJC's knowing there's a bit of a safety net may well encourage more people to volunteer to run them.
I could be wrong, but I get the impression from reading the previous comments that most of them come from commited and serious jugglers/convention-goers, but none from actual performers: the people whom the fund would be working for.
I was on the very first of The Circus Space's BTEC course (1995-1997), and have also since trained at the French State Circus School. I've been living and working here in Germany since 1998 (and am therefore since this time less often seen at BJCs!).
To the questions...
"Who should judge the applicants?"
Not the people present at the BJC business meeting. But definately a panel of mixed organisors/performers/teachers, professional and amateur. I find that a vote at a BJC for this group may be the best solution.
"Who should be eligible to apply for the award?"
British OR British-based jugglers: those who are already training for professional life, AND ALSO those who are already working professionally. I know that this disagrees with a lot of the other comments posted here, so I feel I should expand on this.
British OR British-based jugglers: eg surely foreign students at TCS or Circomedia (etc) should also be entitled to this grant.
"upcoming new talent or established acts": I feel strongly that both should be eligible. In reply to Little Paul, who wrote:
"New talent definately. Established acts have other funding avenues available to them allready. New talent doesn't necesarily have that same level of existing support."
One could quote this exact same sentence with the "new talent" and the "established acts" bits swapped. It simply isn't an argument either way. It is truer to say that whilst one is studying at a circus school, the infrastructure, the time and the drive are there already to produce new and creative work. It is far harder for "established acts" to take time and space to create new material. New talent has far greater "existing support" in this sense. Note that my defination of "new talent" implies a clear desire to be a professional performer. I believe that a circus school student should be more entitled to such a grant than a hobby-juggler, but NOT MORE ENTITLED than an already performing person.
It is clear that the final decision would be made from the committee: and it is therefore unlikely that Haggis, Gandini Juggling, or indeed myself, would receive such a grant, but I see no reason to exclude this group. Such people may have far greater ideas, desires and needs than the "up-and-coming" talent. And may also produce more important work...
"Should it be available to groups who don't focus on performance, i.e. community groups or workshops?"
NO. Performers and groups of performers.
"Should there still be some cash held to help out future conventions?"
YES. No question about that one ;-)
Would appreciate any mail on grants/ community groups etc. Ta