Simon Gross:
Response to The 98% Article
I have created this website because I believe people should be able to read my side of the story.
An article has been published about me which I believe presents a damaging and unfair picture of me, my character and my current work.
I accept that SG Productions Limited entered voluntary liquidation in 2015. That is a matter of record. I do not seek to hide from that.
However, I do not accept that this historic company matter should be used to suggest that there is an ongoing pattern of unpaid or mistreated performers in my current work.
I also strongly dispute a number of claims and implications made about me.
The article refers to SG Productions, historic online comments, alleged experiences from performers and wider concerns about my work. In my view, the article does not give a fair or balanced picture. It also fails to properly reflect recent work, recent performer feedback, and the steps that have been taken to address concerns raised.
I believe the article has caused serious damage to my reputation and has affected my ability to work, cast productions and continue my professional activities.
Background To SG Productions
SG Productions Limited went into voluntary liquidation in 2015.
I accept that this happened. Like many small businesses, the company faced financial difficulties and was wound down through a formal liquidation process.
What I do not accept is that this should now be used, many years later, to suggest that my current work operates in the same way or that I am currently running a business that mistreats performers.
The position regarding historic debts, company records and any claims from that period should be dealt with accurately and with proper evidence.
Where historic matters are referred to, they should be clearly separated from my current work.
The Entertainment Providers
The Entertainment Providers is my current trading name.
It is not SG Productions Limited.
The article refers to both SG Productions and The Entertainment Providers in a way that I believe risks confusing historic issues with my current work.
In recent years, I have continued to work with performers, creatives and entertainment professionals. I have produced shows, worked with casts and continued to provide opportunities in the industry.
Recent performers have given positive feedback about their experiences. This includes comments about being paid on time, being supported in rehearsals, receiving clear communication and feeling respected as performers.
Recent Performer Feedback
Several people who have worked with me recently have provided positive feedback.
This includes performers who have said they were paid on time and in full, that communication was good, and that they felt supported during their contract.
I am grateful for that feedback because it reflects the way I try to work today.
Recent feedback does not rewrite history, and I am not presenting it as if it does. However, it is relevant because the article gives the impression of an ongoing pattern. I believe people should also see the experiences of those who have worked with me recently.
Legal Correspondence
My solicitors have written regarding the article.
Concerns have been raised about the way claims have been presented, the lack of balance, and the impact the article has had on my reputation and work.
I have asked for the article to be removed or corrected.
At the time of writing, my position remains that the article is unfair, damaging and lacking important context.
My Response To The Wider Allegations
I strongly dispute the suggestion that I abuse performers or routinely leave people unpaid.
I also dispute the suggestion that people should avoid working with me based on the article.
Where genuine issues have arisen in the past, they should be dealt with through proper evidence, proper process and proper context.
I do not believe it is fair for anonymous comments, old social media posts or one-sided accounts to be used to define a person’s whole career or current professional conduct.
Why I Am Responding Publicly
I did not want to create a public website about this.
However, when an article appears prominently online and affects someone’s reputation, silence can be misunderstood.
I believe I have a right to respond.
This website is not about attacking anyone. It is about setting out my position, providing context and allowing people to read more than one side.
I ask anyone reading about me online to consider the full picture.
Read the article if you wish. Read this response too. Look at the timeline, the documents and the recent feedback.
Then make up your own mind.
