| re: Is that stop clause enforced much? | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 06:48 am EDT 06/27/24 | |
| In reply to: re: Is that stop clause enforced much? - ryhog 04:23 pm EDT 06/26/24 | |
|
|
|
| The 'stop clause' has had many iterations. Here is the 'stop clause' from a Broadway show I produced (not co produced. Produced) " (a) Stop Clause Commencing on XXXXX, if the GrossWeeklyBoxOfficeReceipts falls below xxxxxxxxxx Dollars for each of two consecutive weeks (excluding the weeks that include July 4, Rosh Hashonah, Yom Kippur and the week immediately following New Year’s week), Licensor shall thereafter at any time (irrespective of the fact that this right could have been exercised at an earlier date) have the right to terminate this Agreement at the close of a designated performance week by giving Licensee at least two (2) weeks written notice of said termination. Licensee and Licensor convent and agree that neither they nor their agents, servants or employees nor anyone acting on behalf of either of them will purchase or cause to be purchased any tickets at any time during the run of the Attraction for the purpose of exceeding this stop clause sum." Theatreowners usually invoke the 'stop clause' at their first opportunity - not to close the show, necessarily, but to have the right to close your show anytime they want to. BEETLEJUICE is an example of a show that triggered its 'stop clause' early in the run, before it became successful. That allowed the Shuberts to kick them out for Scott Rudn's THE MUSIC MAN. I believe that up until the mid 1970's, when the deal between theatre owners and producers became more or less what it is today, the 'stop clause' was used much more aggressively, causing shows to close very quickly. And there was a reason for it. The deal back then was more or less that the Producer got 70% of the box office, and the theatre owner 30%. And the theatr-eowner paid all of their own bills out of that. If your show had little or no advance sales, the theatre would want you out quickly, so as not to have a show that didn't let them pay their bills. The deal changed in the 1970s' The theatres still took a piece of the box office - but the producer now pays a license fee weekly (rent), the salaries of all the theatre employees (down to custodians and porters), their benefits, the employer share of taxes, part of the theatre's insurance, property taxes - and for toilet paper, light bulbs and on and on. A much better deal. Today its relatively easy for a theatre-owner to let a show that wants to remain with low grosses after triggering the stop clause remain - until a new show is ready to come in - as owning a Broadway theatre became like owning a Casino. The House always wins. There was a long period when the theatre owner was paid nothing until there was a paying audience was in the the theatre. That wasn't to damaging back when shows opened 4 or 5 nights after starting to move in. When load in and tech rehearsals escalated to 4 weeks plus - well - that wouldn't work so well! |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: Is that stop clause enforced much? - ryhog 04:23 pm EDT 06/26/24 |
| Next: | re: Is that stop clause enforced much? - ryhog 07:18 pm EDT 06/27/24 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.019232 seconds.