Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Has any Broadway show announced recoupment since the start of the pandemic? | |
| Posted by: mikem 09:28 am EDT 06/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Has any Broadway show announced recoupment since the start of the pandemic? I think the last may have been Hadestown for musicals and What the Constitution Means to Me for plays, both in 2019. The more I think about it, the more impressed I am that What the Constitution Means to Me recouped. I can not think of what the last play with no stars that did not win the Tony for Best Play that recouped would be. Of currently-running shows, Six opened over 8 months ago; it must be very close. Plaza Suite will do so, possibly Macbeth. Presumably The Music Man will. A Strange Loop, Moulin Rouge, and MJ could go either way. I have no idea what's happening with Harry Potter. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Has any Broadway show announced recoupment since the start of the pandemic? | |
| Last Edit: BroadwayTonyJ 02:48 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 02:46 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: Has any Broadway show announced recoupment since the start of the pandemic? - mikem 09:28 am EDT 06/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Oh Hello on Broadway (if you don't consider Nick Kroll and John Mulaney stars), may be the last play to recoup on Broadway without winning the Best Play Tony prior to Constitution. Six will definitely recoup. I agree that Plaza Suite and The Music Man should recoup, barring some unforeseen disaster. MJ looks to be on track. Too soon or too hard to tell about A Strange Loop, Moulin Rouge, Funny Girl, and Harry Potter. I haven't followed Macbeth as closely as I have the others. Off the top of my head, I'd say that its chances look pretty good -- it's the only show among those discussed in this thread that I haven't seen. |
|
| reply to this message |
| Lehman trilogy was bringing in $700k-$1m a week | |
| Posted by: dramedy 10:55 am EDT 06/20/22 | |
| In reply to: Has any Broadway show announced recoupment since the start of the pandemic? - mikem 09:28 am EDT 06/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I assume it recouped. Although it just goes to the bottom line, but the Covid money from insurance and government really makes it difficult to guess what shows actually are in black. Music man is making lots of money but Jackson and foster aren’t making $4k a week. Probably getting a percentage of the gross. Hello dolly barely recouped. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lehman trilogy was bringing in $700k-$1m a week | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 11:27 am EDT 06/20/22 | |
| In reply to: Lehman trilogy was bringing in $700k-$1m a week - dramedy 10:55 am EDT 06/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| There was a post on BWW in January of this year stating that The Lehman Trilogy had returned only 70% of its investment before closing. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Ah the perils of relying on message boards and/or, for that matter, snapshots | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:24 pm EDT 06/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Lehman trilogy was bringing in $700k-$1m a week - BroadwayTonyJ 11:27 am EDT 06/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| The post on BWW may, or may not, be correct, but even if it is correct, it means nothing. There is no direct correlation between making money and payouts to investors. Under the best of circumstances, "before closing" (or at closing) there would still be considerable funds that had not yet been received. There are also many expenses not yet paid. So it is completely reasonable that a good deal of money would not be in the hands of the investors at that point. Final week nets, various holdbacks, bonds , deposits, etc etc etc., would not have been reconciled, nor would the loadout, final bills, or accounting have been completed. I have no doubt the show recouped and then some, as Dramedy suggests. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| That’s crazy | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:40 am EDT 06/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Lehman trilogy was bringing in $700k-$1m a week - BroadwayTonyJ 11:27 am EDT 06/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| It brought in $13.5m over 16 weeks (1 week before covid). That’s $850k gross-gross. It’s hard to believe it lost money and I would think covid enhancement also involved that isn’t part of gross. It just shows that the rules of recoupment don’t apply to this period. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Posted by: jgerard 05:56 pm EDT 06/20/22 | |
| In reply to: That’s crazy - dramedy 11:40 am EDT 06/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Ha! The rules of recoupment don't apply to any period. They apply only to press releases put out by shameless producers to credulous reporters, investors, etc. | |
| Link | Show Boat, the hit that never recouped, despite what you may have read |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Posted by: ryhog 08:18 pm EDT 06/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - jgerard 05:56 pm EDT 06/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I am not sure what that review has to do with anything, but I also don't understand what "rules of recoupment" you are talking about. (Moreover, anything having to do with Garth is sui generis in relation to any other rules.) Perhaps you care to explain what you are talking about. There are no rules requiring public disclosure of recoupment: it's a matter between a production, its accountants, and its investors. As well as the government of course. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Posted by: jgerard 12:55 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - ryhog 08:18 pm EDT 06/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I was quoting the post above and pointing out that "rules of recoupment" (obviously not my construct) don't exist. When Show Boat opened at the former North York Performing Arts Center and Drabinsky bused the first-string critics up to see it, I urged readers to head to Toronto because it was far too expensive to justify a Broadway transfer. I was wrong about the move but not about the cost. When Drabinsky put out a press release claiming that Show Boat had recouped at the Gershwin, I declined to report that in Variety and he went ballistic in his usual restrained manner. Later, in New York magazine under the headline Flop Sweat, I wrote that the focus on Michael Ovitz's $20M Livent investment was misdirected and that the real story was the fire sale of Livent stock, a company that never should have been allowed on the NYSE in the first place. I continue to be astonished that seasoned Broadway investors and landlords continue to do business Drabinsky while Scott Rudin has been erased, at least for now. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Posted by: ryhog 02:15 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - jgerard 12:55 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| My point (that I must not be conveying very well) is that there of course ARE rules of recoupment, but they are not the stuff of press releases. When you speak about investors being impressed (in your subsequent post), perhaps you mean potential future investors. Press releases do of course have a (potentially) salutary effect on future investors, as well as on potential customers. It's not really hard to figure out that hyping the demand for a show sells tickets. It also buttresses (validly or not) a producer's pedigree. But for PRESENT investors in a show, there is no confusion or mystery about recoupment. The only rules of recoupment that DO exist provide those investors with precise proof: if the money is in your bank account, then the producer has returned all or part of your investment. If the money is not in your account, nothing in a press release means a thing to you (and, for that matter, nothing in a press release is actionable by you). I am not sure why you keep bringing up Garth in relation to this (he had nothing to do with Lehman). It's no secret that I share your head scratching regarding some of those who are doing business with this deadbeat fraudster, but the essence of a con man is that they somehow know how to charm otherwise smart people into being conned over and over. (As I have also pointed out though, one reason Garth has so many secondary and tertiary people working on his show is that a LOT of people said no.) [Fwiw, and I don't want to go off on the tangent, I don't agree with you about the importance of Mike Ovitz to the Livent saga.] But as I said before, nothing about Garth has the slightest thing to do with Lehman's recoupment (or not). Unless you are accusing its producers of being pathological fraudsters, which I am pretty sure you are not. Finally, bringing up Rudin is also a red herring. Rudin was not "erased" by investors or landlords; he erased himself. And for good reason: it was the only way he had a prayer of avoiding being criminally charged. Using the press through spin (often without substantial basis) to one's advantage is nothing new in this business (or most). Rudin did a lot of things I would call silly, but again, I don't think you are accusing him of defrauding people by the things you mention. Clear-eyed analysis = good. :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Posted by: jgerard 04:17 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - ryhog 02:15 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| Neither of my posts had anything to do with Lehman Bros in particular but with the more general subject of recoupment and how it is understood by average readers, industry professionals and the reporters covering them. And I'd argue that Rudin's investors up through and including Dolly might take issue with your conclusion about where the money went, even if fraud was not technically involved. I'm certain you know this and why, suddenly, his shows listed just three producers rather than his long-suffering minions. And you may be the only smart observer of this business to call any of Rudin's actions "silly." There may be some disagreement on that. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Posted by: ryhog 05:59 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - jgerard 04:17 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| re broadening the subject, ok. I thought you were responding to Dramedy's Lehman-specific post. re "if fraud was not technically involved," that's a mighty big if. Understand, I would not shed a tear if you could reveal fraud but I think what those investors were kvetching about had to do with Rudin's choices in how to spend money, something that is certainly contemplated by the parameters of the offering. Even within that context, I think Rudin was actually nowhere near the cutting edge of (still not fraudulent) self-dealing that some others are known for. re "silly," the first thing that comes to mind is the aforementioned ridiculous ad buys that could not possibly be justified financially (and, as we now know know, he did not always pay for as required). There were others, like misjudging value, and closing shows that could have continued to run profitably. (And I'll leave to the side the nonsense like suing the Lee estate to satiate some personal power trip.) Anyway, all of this is well and good but I think most folks on this thread were trying to stay on point. Oh, and I may or may not be smart, but I am far from the only person who called him silly! Once again, I implore: clear-eyed analysis=good. :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Last Edit: writerkev 09:45 pm EDT 06/20/22 | |
| Posted by: writerkev 09:42 pm EDT 06/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - ryhog 08:18 pm EDT 06/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Jeremy is simply quoting dramedy in the post immediately preceding his when he says “rules of recoupment.” I take it to mean when dramedy looked at the total revenue over the course of Lehman Trilogy’s run, he estimated that it certainly should have recouped. When Broadway Tony said it returned only 70% (unbelievable as that is and incorrect or not), that’s what led dramedy to say he questions his assumptions of profitability—or “rules of recoupment”—during the pandemic economy. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| You Are Misinterpreting My Post: I Merely Was Quoting a Comment from BWW -- I Was NOT Expressing My Own Opinion | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 08:08 am EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - writerkev 09:42 pm EDT 06/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| The comment on BWW was germane to the discussion so I posted it. I have no "inside" information one way or the other about whether or not The Lehman Trilogy recouped. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You Are Misinterpreting My Post: I Merely Was Quoting a Comment from BWW -- I Was NOT Expressing My Own Opinion | |
| Posted by: writerkev 09:25 am EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: You Are Misinterpreting My Post: I Merely Was Quoting a Comment from BWW -- I Was NOT Expressing My Own Opinion - BroadwayTonyJ 08:08 am EDT 06/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| Your opinion of your own statement is irrelevant to the weird twisting around the phrase "rules of recoupment" that happened in this thread. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| THE LEHMAN TRILOGY -- Recouped or Did Not Recoup? | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 10:16 am EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: You Are Misinterpreting My Post: I Merely Was Quoting a Comment from BWW -- I Was NOT Expressing My Own Opinion - writerkev 09:25 am EDT 06/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| The only person twisting the phrase "rules of recoupment" is jgerard who seems obsessed with Drabinsky. As ryhog points out, Drabinsky is irrelevant to this discussion. The Lehman Trilogy's capitalization was $5.75 million. According to dramedy the show's total 16-week gross-gross is $13.5 million. We need at least two more pieces of information in order to make an intelligent guess at recoupment, i.e., #1 -- the amount of covid insurance money received by the production and #2 -- the show's weekly running cost. Does anyone have that information? The BWW poster's comment is a piece of the puzzle. As such, it's just as relevant to this discussion as the speculation on the part of dramedy and ryhog that the show must have recouped. Here's another question: since the National Theatre was the lead producer, is this show even considered a commercial production or would it be a non-profit one? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: THE LEHMAN TRILOGY -- Recouped or Did Not Recoup? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 02:18 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: THE LEHMAN TRILOGY -- Recouped or Did Not Recoup? - BroadwayTonyJ 10:16 am EDT 06/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| It was a commercial production. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:24 pm EDT 06/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - writerkev 09:42 pm EDT 06/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I realize Dramedy used the expression first, but I don't understand what either of them is talking about. The only obligation to disclose (and pay) anything is between the parties to the deal. I can't fathom what's wrong with a producer having their press agent announce recoupment: it's something to be proud of, and also something that is good PR for both producer and production. (To answer the other question, not announcing may just be a personal preference, or not as important to some, just as throwing away money on full page color Sunday ads in the Times is not everybody's idea of a smart move. Maybe some have good reasons, maybe some don't.) But I don't know what anyone can add to the discussion by citing to what a known fraudster may or may not have done almost 30 years ago. Nothing in a press release has anything to do with a producer's obligations to investors. I'd just like to see clear discussion of relevant matters. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Posted by: jgerard 01:03 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - ryhog 10:24 pm EDT 06/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Well, press releases are made to impress credulous investors and industry reporters alike. They may not have anything to do with legal obligation, but they have everything to do with image. Cf Scott Rudin's weekly press releases, dutifully regurgitated in theater columns, about all the records Mockingbird was breaking, no matter how meaningless. Or, further back, Cameron Mackintosh's pronouncements re Miss Saigon's advance and SRO status, which proved to be a manipulation Alex Witchel smartly revealed in the Times. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Last Edit: writerkev 05:28 am EDT 06/21/22 | |
| Posted by: writerkev 05:20 am EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - ryhog 10:24 pm EDT 06/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| Neither of them are talking about any of that when they use the words “rules of recoupment.” It’s not about any literal rules or obligations about announcing in the press. Dramedy simply used it to refer to guidelines to assume profitability, number of weeks above certain revenue. You’re reading way too much into a simple phrase. There’s nothing to be confused about. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Posted by: mikem 08:43 pm EDT 06/20/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - ryhog 08:18 pm EDT 06/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I understand that the production has no obligation to announce recoupment, but from a business perspective, what are the reasons that would lead a production to keep their recoupment silent? Would it ever be viewed as a negative? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 02:40 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - mikem 08:43 pm EDT 06/20/22 | |
|
|
|
| I wonder if (in this particular case) announcing recoupment in January might have sent a message to Tony voters that Lehman was already successful. So give your vote to another worthy show that might benefit more to have a Best Play Tony in its resume. Just a thought. It's hard to imagine a really good reason for not announcing the recoupment of one's show. It just seems to go against Broadway tradition. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Posted by: ryhog 04:58 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - BroadwayTonyJ 02:40 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| Actually, it's not a "tradition." It's something that has become relatively popular in recent years because (a) there has been an explosion of attention paid to Broadway's business (internet, social media, etc) and (b) there has been an explosion of investors. (Traditionally, a producer hit up a few friends for what was in essence a private business enterprise.) Some producers just don't like sharing. :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: That’s crazy | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 05:23 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: That’s crazy - ryhog 04:58 pm EDT 06/21/22 | |
|
|
|
| I've been following Broadway shows since 1954. It was very common for theatre columnists in the print media to report whenever a show recouped or if it didn't. Shows were almost always labeled as either hits or flops. However, it was also very common for a play or musical that was popular but not necessarily a blockbuster to run for 300 to 500 performances, close on Broadway without recouping, go on a national tour, and then recoup on the road. That seemed to change around 1988. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.093650 seconds.