Albert Hall plan could mean fewer seats for public

Critics fear that private seatholders are to benefit from proposal to alter concert venue’s rule book

THE Royal Albert Hall is experiencing the loudest note of discord in its history as a major row has broken out over plans to change its Royal Charter.

Critics say the plans, which require the passing of a new act of parliament, could lead to fewer seats for the public amid concerns that private seatholders are trying to increase their control.

Two former presidents have attacked the proposals, with insiders warning that the “top-level feud” risks dragging the institution “through the mud”.

The Hall has long faced calls that its council members are “cashing in” on the venue by selling on their tickets at a profit. While this is legal, some feel it is an “abuse of privilege”.

Construction of the central London venue, which was established by a Royal Charter in 1867, was funded by the sale of seats to wealthy benefactors. The seats, which make up about a quarter of its audience, are in private hands.

For ordinary concerts, seatholders are encouraged to sell their seats back to the venue at face value if they do not wish to use them, but there is nothing to stop them from selling them on. Occasionally, the Hall is hired out on an “exclusive” basis, asking seatholders to give up their seats so the entire audience can be made up of the public.

One suggested change to the Royal Charter is raising the voter threshold from 50 per cent to 75 per cent for any decisions about the terms that the Hall can be hired out for exclusive use, where members have to give up seats.

The Hall said this aims to regularise the practice, which is currently agreed informally. But critics said it would make it easier for seatholders to block attempts to make more seats public.

The row was sparked by the Hall’s management asking its 329 members for their thoughts on the draft of a parliamentary bill ahead of a special general meeting in September.

Jon Moynihan, a former president, then wrote to members warning that while the measures may “make a bit more money for members for a year or two” they will be “damaging” to the long-term future of the Hall. Richard Lyttleton, another ex-president, called the bill an attempt by seatholders to “tighten their grip” on the Hall.

This week, Ian McCulloch, the president, wrote to members saying: “Perhaps having two former presidents manoeuvring against council in one week is carelessness on my part.”

A source told The Sunday Telegraph: “It has whipped up a lot of upset within the Hall. There is this top-level feud within the members who sit on the council and they are dragging the rest of the Hall through the mud.”

A Royal Albert Hall spokesman said the Hall is “committed to upholding the highest standards of governance” and said they reject suggestions that trustees are acting in an unlawful or improper manner that is not in the best interests of the charity.