An internal Arts Council email, seen by The Birmingham Post, shows its officers discussed how best to withhold figures relating to a threatened arts organisation.

The email was among documents obtained by Birmingham Opera Company, which faces losing its entire £330,000 annual grant, under the Freedom of Information Act.

It was prompted by a request from The Post for comparative figures showing subsidy-per-attendee for opera companies in England.

In a letter to The Birmingham Post on Friday January 4, responding to our initial coverage of the cuts, Sally Luton, regional executive director of Arts Council England West Midlands, stated that "in 2006 Birmingham Opera Company's work had the highest subsidy per attendee of the entire UK opera sector". The actual figure, which she did not quote, was £149.

Later that day The Post emailed the Arts Council's Birmingham press officer asking for comparative figures for other other companies. A reply received at 5.30pm on Tuesday January 8 said these figures could not be provided because they were "commercially sensitive", andThe Post would have to approach individual companies.

A figure of £50 was subsequently obtained from English National Opera. This compared with Birmingham Opera Company's figures of £24 for 2007/08 and £96 in 2005/06.

However, since BOC's productions involve community casts, it could be argued that a fairer measure would be one which included both audience members and participants. On this basis the subsidy per audience member/participant was £19 for 2007/08, £53 for 2006-7 and £46 for 2005-6.

It has now emerged that four hours before it sent the email citing commercial sensitivity, the Arts Council's Birmingham office received advice from London recommending it give a completely different answer.

The email from Henry Little, interim director of music strategy, to London press officer Brian Maycock and West Midlands music officer Andrew Miller, recommends "refuting" the request for a subsidy per head analysis on the grounds that in the large scale opera sector it is "a completely unrepresentative equation".

Mr Little goes on to quote a paragraph from an unidentified document which concludes:

"It's arguable that the subsidy-per-seat calculation is becoming redundant in an age of multiple distribution platforms and an increasingly diverse programme of activity".

Last night Ms Luton said: "There are a lot of factors that go into the subsidy per head figure as it stands, for example, the number of actual performances. BOC do few performances per year on an irregular basis. We've raised this along with our other concerns with the company.

"There is no disagreement between our national office and ourselves regarding the validity of subsidy per head as an indicator of organisational health. "We agree that the measure needs to be used with extreme caution. However, I referenced the issue of subsidy per head in my letter of January 4 as a shorthand reference to our broader concerns.

"Since issuing our proposals, we have held productive discussions with Birmingham City Council who share our desire to deepen and extend the impact of the company's work within Birmingham and we are continuing to talk to the Birmingham Opera Company."

But Graham Vick, artistic director of Birmingham Opera Company, said: "They are just floundering around finding what evidence they can to support a prejudiced decision."