DeanoL

Members
  • Content count

    1,848
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

DeanoL last won the day on July 7 2014

DeanoL had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

262 Excellent

About DeanoL

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

2,154 profile views
  1. And themselves. They're being paid a fee based on X amount of tickets being sold at £Y. If any tickets are being sold for more than £Y, they're losing out. This is why I can't believe the likes of Take That etc. don't know that tickets are being put directly on the secondary market. Because there's no way their manager accepts it without demanding the band get a cut of it.
  2. Huh, never knew that was the reason for the football rules before but it does make sense. Always wondered why it applied there and for nothing else.
  3. I think what people are missing is that the strictness of what coach you get on depends hugely on where you're going. If you're going to London or Bristol where there are coaches leaving every half hour it really doesn't matter, you just end up queuing and get on the first one out. But if you're going somwhere further afield there might only be 3 or 4 coaches going there throughout the day (from each provider) so they'll be more stringent.
  4. Yeah sounds like that in particular which... well, it wasn't great last year. The Shangri-la crew do a lot of great stuff but actual comedic stuff on stage... I do wish they'd hand it over to people who were actually funny.
  5. Maybe the festival are just booking 4 headline-worthy acts as a matter of course now because of the issues with drop-outs in the past?
  6. NX have to subcontract for the coaches to get the number required and I'd imagine after last year a lot of places will outright say no or ask for more money.
  7. Availability of coaches.
  8. I guess the one concern I have might be the one people are sort of skirting around here. And that's the festival is more than the sum of its parts. It does a lot of things well but few really stand out. Yes, it normally has some big names, but then also some that disappoint. Shangri-la is great but doesn't change more and has been increasingly more focused on the dance music, but its dance music offering certainly doesn't stand up to the big dance festivals either. And it's immersive elements are no Punchdrunk. Arcadia do their own shows elsewhere now. The Theatre and Circus fields are terrific, and I can't think of any other festival that does anything similar. I don't even know of any pure theatre / cabaret festivals that do anything on that scale outside of Glastonbury (are there are?) - but even then, it suffers from repeating so many of the same acts year after year, there's little innovation to it. It's the same across the site really - that's not meant to be negative, just that part of the appeal of Glastonbury is that it's all in one place. Each individual element is done better elsewhere.
  9. Sure, though as people have pointed out, permanent doesn't necessarily mean full time: http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/glastonbury-festival-made-just-50p-6619439 http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/glastonbury-festival-profits-plummeted-year/story-27967180-detail/story.html http://routenote.com/blog/glastonbury-festival-2014-made-less-than-50p-per-ticket-as-profits-plummet/ Possibly, but remember 2012 was when Melvin Benn and Festival Republic ceased being involved - I don't know how much support they offered in terms of staffing via FR, and what degree roles needed to be replaced, so it does seem likely the staff numbers would have jumped, by how much it's hard to say. And presumably FR wouldn't have had the same issues with having to lay people off during fallow years as there would be other stuff for them to work on.
  10. I think they full-well know what, which is why they're actually doing it this time, rather than just grandstanding about planning to do it. They're bad at making empty threats sure, but in this case the gun is fully loaded and while they'd rather not sure I think they have every intention of doing so. I mean, you don't actually rent another site and run an entire other festival there just as a bluff...
  11. That's kind of my point. You're not even comprehending the idea that you could just not drink if cost is an issue. It'd still be the best place on earth or whatever. Getting pissed isn't compulsory, if you can't enjoy it sober then it's probably not actually as good as you think it is. Stu is right on the freedom issue - I wouldn't want to see camping and arena separated either. But there are other options there too.
  12. I did search it and found a few references to 100 permanent staff in newspaper articles. I was surprised how high it was too. I'm amazed at how many people say they think the festival is the greatest place on earth, but then would stop going if they couldn't take their own booze. I did the festival sober one year, by necessity. It was still great.
  13. That's tight. 100 permanent staff. Let's say they earn an average of 30k, that's 38k with pension contributions and NI, so that's £3.8m in your fallow year gone on staff alone. Enough to easily weather one fallow, sure, but two would be tricky.
  14. That's just not true. Michael has always fought each year as it comes, as hard as he can. But Glastonbury as a company is so big now that that doesn't quite work. Here's the though that should be scary enough to keep you up at night: Glastonbury doesn't have a huge operating surplus because it donates the vast majority of its profit to charity. It doesn't have a "war chest" so to speak. Which means: Glastonbury can't cope with an unplanned fallow year. One thing goes wrong: landowner withdraws, council take away the license, etc. It doesn't mean "no Glasto that year". It means all the staff are going home, getting other jobs and there's no Glasto ever again. With something like this, it secures the future of Glastonbury as an entity. It puts them into a position to be able to say, "okay, we can't feasibly run the festival next year, so we won't". It means that yes, maybe they won't fight quite so hard for every year. Maybe we will miss a few more shows at Worthy than we might have otherwise. But it also gives me confidence the festival will be around in 10-20 years' time and Worthy will always be an option for it. Just not a necessity like it is right now. I mean, was no one else there last year? Seriously, the site was one more serious downpour away from being genuinely hazardous. Hell, if the flooding had continued on Mon/Tue prior, then they may not have been able to finish the build. It could have been cancelled for safety reasons. And of any serious/fatal injury had happened because of conditions last year... They cut it fine but they got away with it. They got lucky again. Look at the festival history, and the number of times it's nearly gone away. It was saved by the fence, it was saved by the MF deal, it was saved by a new booking policy after it didn't sell out in 2009... A combination of luck and some smart but hell brained schemes kept it alive. But I'm not going to assume it'll always weather every problem. Hell, I've been about here in one way or another for 14 years and I don't think I care as much as most posters here!
  15. Yeah - is this the new "arty" late night thing that Emily was talking about months ago or that something else?