OMNI-CHARABANG's

Ok sounds good to me sure we can get past the unions if the people who "work" for us are not in the union. Can I be your partner my bank balance could certainly do with a top up. :-)
On a more serious note I do think that all companies should be incorporated but, they are not and more importantly it would seem that they do not have to be so unless this legislation is changed there is little anyone can do about it except seek a change in the Business Law Act. Think that may have far reaching implications and would then drag in the dance schools etc that are also "for profit" and not incorporated. Could be a bit of a slippery slope argument in the end but may be well worth further investigation

EMAILNOTICES>noIs it true John Milson is the person behind Omnibus?

> Is it true John Milson is the person behind Omnibus?Short Question Sorty answerNO absolutely not

EMAILNOTICES>noSo who is, then?

Hi Kylie> So who is, then?I'm not sure and, of course, as Omnibus is a private company it is under no obligation to disclose - except perhaps to the taxman.The last i was aware, i thought there were 5 business partners involved - four from the Underwood clan (Gloria, husband, daughter and son-in-law) and Pat Barton. I've met them all personally and i have a great deal of respect for their energy, enthusiasm and dedication. I believe they've worked very hard to build Omnibus and the work the company has staged is a great credit to their professional outlook.I'm disappointed that they don't appear to have progressed far in paying actors and that they've chosen not to incorporate. I believe these "failures" leave the company open to the types of criticisms voiced here and I'm curious about their reasons why.Cheers
Grant

The insider goss, goes sometyhing like this. (unless they have all told me lies ALL LIES!Pat Barton has left hte company.
So now it is like Mike Oshea
Gloria Underwood
Captain Brian Underwood
Tania martin i think has left. (we dont know whetyher she is financially involved)

EMAILNOTICES>noSo, if it's a business, then we can find out by doing a search - a small fee is payable - at the Australian Securities Commission to find out who the directors are.

Having been involved with a number of enterprising ventures and even had a few my self.
I have a wee bit of an insight into various ways the industry works.
Firstly it easy to deal with people and gain a work force if the spice is right, as the price certainly is, need to gain experience and their ego¹s stroked by being able to work on or about the BIG stage - so pick the biggest you can afford, book the venue and they will come out of the wood work.(Ref;- Freinds Of The Theatre's Working in Proffessional venues as an example)Reading the previous postings.
I think you all have valid points and it is rather enjoyable.Just for the hell of 'IT' - I should start a Technical theatre Crewing company that will possibly trade as some gooky name or other (I have not decided on yet}(why not CHARABUNG?????}.This will offer full crewing for all types of productions and each of the technicians will be trained in all aspects of the technical theatre, which they would not normally get - only at a cost to them by going to College or being paid to do so.It is mainly targeted at large spaces such as 6 main venues in Perth.I know I can undercut any and all other contractors, as my crews are pure amateurs and have an that extra incentive to learn, experience and be part of the BIG theatre - as they are able to be in the best shows that hit the boards.One of the main advantages is not being restricted by the usual committee camels trying to be a horse.Sure I know what the punters want and how to extract the green backs enough to support me and of course a few flunkies, and do my bit for Australiain by keeping the dole cue shorter.Also as I won¹t have to pay the venues crew, as they will work for me, I can mount some Major extravaganzas - that would put Disney to shame. The down side is I may have to pay the Muso¹s, as I have yet to formulate a plan to incorporate them.I will be a registered trading name and possible later be trading as a unit trust of a Pty Ltd structure.I doubt I would last very long before the Minister for Fair trading and various others, including the Unions, would be tech' screwing me to a flat and fly¹n me out. Fagganism is not allowed apparently?There are probably lots of reasons why - I won't be able to get away it, as most of them are obvious - I leave it to you.Sure I will fill a void and give opportunities for others to see and be part of the BIG theatre, that the community theatre¹s do not fill at present.But the biggest void to fill - would be my bank account?????What do you recon 'ahJoe 'Omni-directional' McCabe

> So, if it's a business, then we can find out by doing a search
> - a small fee is payable - at the Australian Securities Commission
> to find out who the directors are.Sure can but why bother. There are 4 partners always have been and they have already been mentioned . A search through the ASIC will only revel that they are a registered trading name (internet search) However if you want to pay the fee then I guess you can. However, Omnibus is a member of the ITA, so why not just ask them.
I have noted, with some interest, that one of the people posting comments did actually accept a directing job with Omnibus, PAID directing job may I add. At the time they had no trouble accepting the offer of payment and certainly didnt suggest that their own pay should be split up amongst the non paid actors. I guess that sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many , to some people anyway.

> I have noted, with some interest, that one of the people posting
> comments did actually accept a directing job with Omnibus, PAID directing
> At the time they had no trouble accepting the offer
> of payment and certainly didnt suggest that their own pay should be
> split up amongst the non paid actors. I guess that sometimes the needs
> of the one outweigh the needs of the many , to some people anyway.Dear Carol,Please tell us all who is this hypocrit you are referring to?Sincerely
Helena

It is actually a charabanc, so i am told, but I grew only knowing the 'bang' bit> Ok sounds good to me sure we can get past the unions if the people
> who "work" for us are not in the union. Can I be your partner
> my bank balance could certainly do with a top up. :-)Welcome aboard Carol - We have already got companies operating this way - so why should the Union worry. Take most of the performing artz centres, who use and abuse volunteers to cork up their empire-ships and secure a future for the few, so they can believe they are enhancing the many.> On a more serious note I do think that all companies should be
> incorporated but, they are not and more importantly it would seem
> that they do not have to be so unless this legislation is changed
> there is little anyone can do about it except seek a change in the
> Business Law Act.Having been caught a number of times by Companies with the payed up capital of $2. This a major problem within our system - I hope some one can change it, but I doubt if will ever happen, as this a hedge for their bets. There is more to be said about a trading name, at least you have the option of recovery from their total assets of the individual (under state local court &/or petition for bankruptcy with the Fed's). But that's another story and not what this is about.Omnibus obviously do not want to be incorporated or corporated beyond what they are now, so therefore they feel that there is little or no risk to their personal assets. As they are the 'Captain' of their own ship, they answer to themselves only, win - loose or draw. However, I am sure they would have enough reserves on hand to fund a flop or a disaster - if not they are yo-yo's without any string - if they have these funds, were they gained by not paying what other companies have to? If so are they a quick quid merchant, who use up the weekness of others or have a true quest to enhance the performing arts for the good of all - If it was put to the test, I doubt if the general public and/or my self could buy the later, without something to the contrary that is a true picture of their enterprise.Think that may have far reaching implications and
> would then drag in the dance schools etc that are also "for profit"
> and not incorporated. Could be a bit of a slippery slope argument
> in the end but may be well worth further investigation{The real life Fagan, so I am told, was deported to Australia.}I think there is a wee difference between paying to be taught (I don't think that is the case here} and using people for one's own gain and reward.Sure it gets up my nose when "for profit" schools 'come on' as though they were incorporated and believe they should be supported in the same manner.
I get rather up tight with "artists" who see themselves as the "do gooders" and get on to boards and committees to service their own biz, as though it was "not for profit" - but I am only Tech, what would I know, I suppose that's why I am here!Joe 'stringless' McCabe

Hi.
Well I've sort of been a silent observer here for a while and I don't see what the fuss is all about really.
Yes, omnibus do not pay everyone.
Yes, they don't let people look at their books but isn't that their business?I've done some shows with them, and I have to admit I loved pretty much every minute of it. No matter what you do in theatre, monetary gain should always be seen as an added bonus, not as something that creates tension! I do belive that if you are going to pay one person, you should pay everyone, but it's not really up to any of us to say what Omnibus should do with their money.So yeah, if you're after money may I suggest getting into another business, because it's a well known fact that actors "suffer for their craft".Anyway, keep happy.Bec.

Hi Carol and HelenaGee, Carol, and you'd just conceded ...> On a more serious note I do think that all [community theatre?] companies
> should be incorporated [...]
> Think that may have far reaching implications and
> would then drag in the dance schools etc that are also "for profit"
> and not incorporated. Could be a bit of a slippery slope argument
> in the end but may be well worth further investigationwhich is the position i've maintained from my very first post. :)Not that it is a legal requirement. Just that i, personally, for the reasons i've outlined over several posts, believe that community theatres should incorporate.It would appear that you do too. Isn't it nice that we agree on something. Something, i would have thought, that is central to this debate.Then the "straw man" had to show his head again. (Remember how easily his head fell off?) More ill-informed ad hominen argument and knocking down notions no-one has suggested here - certainly not me.Carol Lange wrote
>> I have noted, with some interest, that one of the people posting
>> comments did actually accept a directing job with Omnibus, PAID directingHow mysterious! Pity that there is no mystery. It is very public knowledge for anyone interested that Omnibus approached me to direct for them about 4-5 years ago.I didn't do the job and i wasn't paid.So, help me out here, Carol. I've got a terrible memory and i'm just trying to recollect suggesting anywhere in this debate that:* no-one should be "PAID"
* all the actors should be paid equallyPretty contradictory.Funny, i thought i said, as recently as my last post:> The single thing that i have found most telling in this debate is that
> i'm yet to hear anyone suggest that the Omnibus should not become incorporated
> or should not try and pay something to at least some of the actors if it
> can afford to.But maybe i was mistaken, perhaps i actually said something else. ;)Then Helena replied to Carol:
> Please tell us all who is this hypocrit you are referring to?Hypocrite is mighty big word to bandy around and it pays to check your facts (hehehe and your spelling!) before firing it off.If you wish to tag someone a hypocrite, its helpful to make sure that they actually hold the opinion you think they are misrepresenting....Throughout this debate (i'm going to indulge in a little generalising of my own) the "pro-Omnibus" camp have energetically repudiated supposed slurs against "their" company. You'd think we'd spat on their posters! But I don't recall seeing anyone posting "OMNIBUS SUX!", or "Your shows are [insert favourite invective here]!"All this animosity, when in fact many of you probably agree with the rest of us that incorporation is a good idea and it would be nice to pay at least some actors....Incidentally, when i was discussing directing with Omnibus management, paying actors was very much on my agenda. At the time i was given to understand that the company was paying a director as a step towards paying some of its principal cast members "real soon now". That was four years ago when their ticket prices were half that they are now.Cheers
Grant

EMAILNOTICES>no> Pat Barton has left the company.
> So now it is like Mike Oshea
> Gloria Underwood
> Captain Brian UnderwoodIt was my understanding that the Underwoods were to Top of the Group (but I could be wrong)> Tania martin i think has left. (we dont know whetyher she is
> financially involved)I don't think she ever was.Jeff "Knowing Too Much?" Watkins

EMAILNOTICES>no> Yes, omnibus do not pay everyone.
> Yes, they don't let people look at their books but isn't that
> their business?Sure it is - but if we saw the books and how the funds were distributed we might actually be able to understand *why* Omnibus can't pay its actors and only others involved. That's all we want.

> Carol Lange wrote> How mysterious! Pity that there is no mystery. It is very public
> knowledge for anyone interested that Omnibus approached me to direct
> for them about 4-5 years ago.> I didn't do the job and i wasn't paid.Hello Grant...ummm dont recall suggesting it was you thank you for the information However what I wrote and I quote was "I have noted, with some interest, that one of the people posting comments did actually accept a directing job with Omnibus, PAID directing job may I add." As you eliquently pointed out you did not accept the offer...hence , thus and therefor tis not you kind Sir to whom I refer :-)

I think you said that really well, keep up the good work.love and Omnibusses
James

EMAILNOTICES>no> Has anyone actually asked any of these people who run Omnibus recently about *why* they can't pay its actors?

Has anyone else seen the Hobbit at the Regal?Gorgeous sets and costumes, atmospheric lighting and sound effects, but most of all splendid puppets ad puppeteers! The company neatly avoids the potential trap of relying on sheer spectacle and provides a somewhat rushed precis of the book with some very memorable characters well portrayed. I felt genuinely engaged almost all the time - not bad for some stuffed shirts and bits of foam rubber.Gandalf was a little too "flash" for my liking and dim rememberance of him from the book, but that was probably necessary to keep the show moving along. Bilbo was superb but my favourite was Gollum - everything i could have wished for :)*takes a running kick at a sleeping dog*Couldn't help noticing that this company paid 12 actors and 5 production and backstage team, venue costs, theatre technicians, touring costs, plus the thousands of dollars invested in developing the show in the first place, magnificent production values, everyone paid a proper wage... Even with economies of scale, all this must have cost more than $49.50 per ticket?Nope, top price $38.*wondering*Cheers
Grant

> Has anyone else seen the Hobbit at the Regal?> *takes a running kick at a sleeping dog*> Couldn't help noticing that this company paid 12 actors and 5
> production and backstage team, venue costs, theatre technicians, touring
> costs, plus the thousands of dollars invested in developing the show
> in the first place, magnificent production values, everyone paid a
> proper wage... Even with economies of scale, all this must have cost
> more than $49.50 per ticket?> Nope, top price $38.> *wondering*Is this a comparison Grant?
Others might say it is not, because they are totally profession ? - well what I mean is - Omni uses Amateurs, where it can get away with it.
The big ŒO¹ puts performances on for the betterment of theatre, it¹s not really for profit, it¹s for the love of helping performers. So why shouldn¹t everyone else, including the performers, get paid? - if they can engineer it that way of course!
Wasn¹t there another Company a long while ago. Who paid only their Principals performers? Also they transported them to and from rehearsals in taxi¹s, wined, dined and accommodate them during the shows. Didn¹t that ended up in the red for mega bucks and those that were paid and rewarded evaporate.
Leaving those poor souls, who worked their guts out and never got paid - after a lot of promises, holding the bag.
Those poor unpaid used up volunteers, being good old reliables in true thespian style, propped it up in order to keep it all going.
Nah!! That does not really happen in theatre-Probably just one of my fantasies or old age?I was connected to a few productions that paid everyone (except the half wit of course).
Isn¹t it funny, nearly every show I do there he is - the idiot - I should not knock him, he so good hearted, who possible puts in the most time and effort with no coins to rub together.
This is one of my regrets, he should have of been paid.
Looking back I suppose he just did it for the love of it.
He was amazing he would be at every rehearsal, build sets, get in the way and at most times be a complete pain.
All we every really did for him was to abuse and use him. Although sometimes he was fed, watered and allowed him, if we remembered, time off and to sleep occasionally,? - There again, no matter how he was treated, the pratt was always first there every time and last to leave. What can you do with this type of person???? - you have to use them up of course.
Then what do you know, he comes back for more again and again - TWIT! - how do you get rid of him when he does It for nothing?
However, I have made a resolution.
Next time, which won¹t be far away, I will ensure the idiot (as he is lovingly known - while he still keeps hanging around, why???), he will be paid, at least something, next time!Joe McCabe> Cheers
> Grant

> Couldn't help noticing that this company paid 12 actors and 5
> production and backstage team, venue costs, theatre technicians, touring
> costs, plus the thousands of dollars invested in developing the show
> in the first place, magnificent production values, everyone paid a
> proper wage... Even with economies of scale, all this must have cost
> more than $49.50 per ticket?> Nope, top price $38.> *wondering*> Cheers
> Grant
But could they afford to pay a cast of 45 actors and 10 backstage crew at the same ticket priceI wonder tooCarol Lange

Hi all
my name is ahmad khanji,
and I am studying the Higer National Diploma for E-business and coputing , and I have a question tha I would be very graetfull if any one of you dear participants can answer:
what is a corporated company and what is the incorporated company ?
I has looked for an answer for this question on the web but I was not able to find it
so If you could answer me I would be very gratfuf
thank you for reading and giving me the chance to participate
ahmad khanji

ahmad wrote:
>
> Hi all
> my name is ahmad khanji,
> and I am studying the Higer National Diploma for E-business
> and coputing , and I have a question tha I would be very
> graetfull if any one of you dear participants can answer:
> what is a corporated company and what is the incorporated
> company ?
> I has looked for an answer for this question on the web but I
> was not able to find it so If you could answer me I would be very gratfuf



Hmmm...I know this is my tired old horse I flog about spelling and word usage, but it really would help you to simply use a dictionary.


There is no such word as corporated.


corporation is a noun: a corporation.

corporate is an adjective: a corporate body; corporate ownership.

incorporate is a verb: to incorporate = to form a corporation

incorporated is an adjective in the past tense: the company has been incorporated (ie: inc. )


The different words are simply to do with to what part of speech they belong.
It all means an an organisation formed into a legal association, and having a continuous existence, powers & liabilities which are apart from those of its members.



Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]