Summer Events in Finsbury Park - What goes back to the Park?

I've spent a lot of time in Finsbury Park over the last 12 years or so. I've used the park itself a lot in the last 5 years, so have seen it through the years. I would have to admit that I really enjoy the buzz of staging these big events in our community, but also totally support the residents who are significantly inconvenienced. I recently wondered what the pay off was for them? For a few weeks in the summer, what do they (do we) get from this inconvenience? I'm not really interested in political comments, but would welcome some insight into the terms and conditions that allow these events to be staged? I'm all for it, and maybe even for more, if its tied to investment back into the park. I wonder what £1m invested into the children's playground, a splash park, new toilets, a community building, a sports clubhouse would do? I've been to so many locations in London where the park has become the community hub, and has become somewhere that's worth travelling to. If asked, I bet most people in FP are from within 1 mile. So, what is promised by Haringey council to the park for staging these events? Who's going to Labour Live by the way? Tickets are £35, and only £30 if you're unemployed. For the many not the few eh?


  • I'd imagine the money just goes in to the council's budget. Minus some money to make repairs to the park following the event.

    In the same way your vehicle tax doesn't go to the roads.

    I'd prefer they spent it on things other than the park. Like adult and children's services, and housing
  • It gets lost in fudging if its used in the way you suggest. If it goes to the park then its obvious and measurable. I wouldn't trust any council to follow through on a pledge to take money generated from something like this through to services. Completely unaccountable, and too easy to hide. We'd all like to see services improve, but not through theoretical investments from a big commercial venture using the park.
  • That's why I've always favoured hypothecation of taxes and other government income to improve accountability in the tax system.
  • I don't necessarily follow the "fudging" argument. What is the Council going to spend it on other than public services, directly or indirectly? I think the question is whether it should be ringfenced in favour of investment in the park. There is in fact ringfencing, for good or ill, according to this:

  • Thanks Trainspotter. That explains it all. Its a legal requirement!

    So I guess they limit their budget for things like parks, open spaces, community events, community event training, etc, and just rely on events to fund it.
  • So in actual fact there is no benefit to the park, it’s to the Council’s bottom line. And in my opinion having seen the costs, it’s sold off pretty cheaply.
  • quarter of a million a day, plus repair costs, doesn't sound that cheap...
  • Using wireless. £55 per person, 10,000 people over 3 days. That’s £1.65m. Each person spends £30 inside, that’s £900k. That’s a low estimate. So that’s a conservative £2.65m revenue using simple calculations. And I doubt the promoters pay the published rate. The playground has broken equipment in it and as long as that sort of money is floating around it’s a disgrace that it remains that way. Same as the skanky bogs and delapidted outhouses.
  • £250k ago seems to me to be pretty good
  • Festival costs:

    20% in VAT
    3% goes to PRS
    For a 10,000-capacity festival:
    Power will cost between £60,000 and £100,000
    Taking the waste away £30,000
    Security, barriers, toilets, lighting, stages, sound?

    I guess they make a bit back in sponsorship...
  • I got the impression that is the council's fee
  • Capacity is 45 k
  • Wireless keeps coming back so I guess the margins are absolutely fine. The park remains uninvested and the local neighbours have people urinate in their garden for 2 months and have drugs dealt outside their houses. Well at least the council managed to cut their spending on the park, and they can use the cash to patch up an overspend somewhere else.
  • I live very close to the park. I am resigned to a certain amount of commercial exploitation and am on the fence about whether council spending should prioritise investment in the park over other services as I'm also a resident of Haringey and a fellow citizen of residents of Haringey who clearly have more complex needs than me. Perhaps a balance should be struck - which it presumably is by requiring the park to pay for itself - though I note that the Council website talks about investment "in parks" rather than "in the park" and I agree there are some real areas of neglect in the park (though I note the derelict play equipment near the station has finally been removed!). I recall some discussion about the role of the Friends of Finsbury Park in all this - something about them vetoing suggested expenditure in the park on the basis that they considered the fruits of the concerts to be dirty money. Seemed a bit foolish to me and I don't know if things have moved on as we are finally seeing a bit of investment. The play equipment is perfectly functional though imo apart from the odd slide having been removed from the red and blue frame thing, which is already earmarked for an upgrade.
  • On the subject of power for the event - walked past today and spotted several blocks of portable lighting. LED lights, running off a diesel generator.

    No doubt everything else is supplied in a similar way.

    Perhaps it's time council spent some of the loot from these events on permanent mains supply points that can be used by events in the park - and insist that they are used - so that we not getting diesel exhaust into the bargain?

    (I suspect, that the travelling fairgrounds are probably using far crankier, and less pollution abated generous than the music events do).
  • Seems to me that thry're not paying for enough policing if the problems with antisocial behaviour recur every year.
Sign In or Register to comment.