• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


DeanoL last won the day on July 7 2014

DeanoL had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

262 Excellent

About DeanoL

  • Rank
    Festival Freak
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

2,130 profile views
  1. Sure, though as people have pointed out, permanent doesn't necessarily mean full time: 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.
  2. 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...
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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!
  7. Yeah - is this the new "arty" late night thing that Emily was talking about months ago or that something else?
  8. I think they are. But they're fighting for the long term. Not just for the next festival. I know it sounds backwards but the best position Glastonbury (the company) can be in for running Glastonbury (the festival) is to be able to survive without having to run Glastonbury (the festival). If your entire company has a single point of failure then it's always going to be vulnerable, and those who can trigger that failure are essentially in a ridiculously powerful position over you
  9. He did This Could Be The Last Time in 2014.
  10. I think you over-estimate how many people care that much about the festival (at least that don't already have tickets). Then you're in the same scenario whenever the next renewal is unless there's a viable alternative. If you start looking at Glastonbury as a business, that aims to still be around in 10/20/30 years' time, rather than Michael Eavis' hobby, then this all makes loads of sense. It's not necessarily about specifics with landowners demanding more, or Emily wanting to do something different. Or even the issues with weather last year (and honestly I think we were far closer to Glastonbury having to kick in some emergency plan than people realise). But if your business is running a single event with significant risk associated with it, and you have some money available to invest, any business advisor will have a single suggestion: diversify. You don't keep spending that money on even more drainage and keeping other landowners happy. You spend the money on setting up an entirely separate income stream. Because then you have redundancy, if the first event fails for any reason, you remain in business and people still have a job. And you don't have to sell out to some greedy investor either. Also by running a festival on a new site, they prove their ability to create a festival elsewhere - they demonstrate that they're capable of creating festivals. Not just running a festival on Worthy Farm. Which is a somewhat different thing. They're not going to want to drop the Worthy Farm festival, because that then puts them in the same position again - of being dependent on a single event. Once the new festival is established, there's no reason Glastonbury couldn't run both festivals annually. Sure, it'd need more people, but it wouldn't need twice as many people. So much of what you're doing is the same. I struggle to see a scenario where that isn't their ideal outcome. That they're looking at a new festival demonstrates Emily is interested in actually keeping Glastonbury Festival Limited as an ongoing concern. I'd be more worried if they just carried on as usual because that would suggest an attitude of "ah well, if it gets impossible to run it here we'll just pack it all in". Crucially, I doubt they know what they're doing yet. They won't have to make a call on 2020 until after this years' festival at the earliest. Whether to plan for a festival on the farm, or plan to do the new one again. Of course, with the latter option they'll need a plan to weather another potential fallow year if 2019 doesn't go to plan. So it may depend on how much money they have left over after this year's festival. Which is why I think a festival at Worthy in 2020 is very likely. Any choice on what happens after that will depend entirely on how 2019 goes: did it sell, was it a success, how much time and effort did it take and so on. And I think at that point they'll make a choice on what to do in 2021 - which could be running either festival, or both. TLDR: this is perfectly normal behaviour for a business. It's crazy not to have a backup plan for if there are issues with Worthy Farm, and that backup plan can't just be "move it". They need a new income stream that's independent from Glastonbury.
  11. I know it doesn't read that way but I took the 'next generation' comment to be more that Emily is going to be dealing with 22 sons/daughters of the other landowners too. And that's a whole new ball game compared to Michael's dealing with the current ones.
  12. That they're giving themselves two years to plan this, and clearly looking at sites not previously used for festivals, suggests to me they're planning something big, rather than a smaller boutique thing. That doesn't mean Glastonbury sized, but I'd expect at least Reading/V size.
  13. They clearly want to run a new festival elsewhere, and the simple truth is that if you want something even near the scale of Glastonbury, you're looking at a site without the pre-existing infrastructure. It's a huge job. Giving themselves two years to do it is frankly the only sane approach. For similar reasons, I'm almost certain they'll be doing the festival they know how to run at Worthy Farm in 2020. Because the true feasibility of any new site isn't going to measured until the festival actually happens there. 2019, Bazaar could well be a clusterfuck. Especially if they aim as high as the current festival. There's just zero way they could go into 2019 with a set in stone plan for running it in the same place in 2020. Too many variables. And I don't think they can be in a position to have another year off in 2020 after 2018. So I think planning for 2020 at Worthy will go ahead as per normal. Past that, I don't think even they know, and nor do they need to. 2020 could be the final festival at Worthy. Or they could alternate every year. Or just use the new site to cover fallow years (but perhaps go back to having them every four years). Or they could run both shows. On consecutive or even the same weekends. Or at opposite ends of the summer. The simple fact is no one knows. And no one will know until that festival in 2019 actually happens.
  14. They do this though, don't they? It's just with the sheer number of people they can't search many. Testing being available seems like it would make it more attractive for (legit) dealers? I'm sure there must be plenty who take their own stuff that would happily pay a bit more to remove the stress of getting it through the gate, if they could be sure what they were taking inside?
  15. It's a good book. And it's not an instruction guide. It was, and remains, an expose of that entire community. Just that in infiltrating it the guy actually bought into the entire thing. Even then, when the book published and was broadly sympathetic it still pissed off a lot of people involved. That's why it's an interesting read.