Rolling Stones...

[Gnomicide]

Have you got stripped companion? It's a great bootleg released around the same time....very similar to stripped. If you want a copy let me know....

Good man, I may well take you up on that. PM sent.

[netspy]

I don't know how reliable this website is but ...

http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/03/13/exclusive-rolling-stones-will-play-2-nights-in-hyde-park-plus-glastonbury

[mike46]

I don't know how reliable this website is but ...

http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/03/13/exclusive-rolling-stones-will-play-2-nights-in-hyde-park-plus-glastonbury

Looks to fit the new Hyde park dates but they could well have seen they'd changed and are putting rumours together.

Either way SOMETHING has to come out in a week or so regarding the Stones - be it Glasto related or not - it seems they've made their plans now so it's just a matter of time.

[eFestivals]

I don't know how reliable this website is but ...

http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/03/13/exclusive-rolling-stones-will-play-2-nights-in-hyde-park-plus-glastonbury

it looks like they've worked that up from IORR or something similar.

Everything is starting to look like the Stones are sorted (but then again it might just be lots of wrong stories from one bad source), but I can't use a newspaper report like that as confirmation - because if I did they'd be at least 12 headliners for Glastonbury this year.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Surprised by the news of *2* Hyde Parks shows, but I suppose if those are the last ever European shows then a lot of their continental fans will be prepared to travel.

The new promoters must be aware of the issues that Live Nation had with volume there. Surely.

[magicmojo]

Richard Branson has tweeted the following-

We at Virgin Live will have some huge tour news soon. Watch this space!

[Matt42]

This is looking incredibly good. Congratulations eavis!

[eFestivals]

This is looking incredibly good. Congratulations eavis!

we know the Stones are definitely touring.

We don't know where they're touring. You might be right, but you're also premature.

[Ed209]

Oops

Edited March 14, 2013 by Ed209

[Ed209]

does eavis deserve congratulations if it transpires that they've taken 100s of thousands of pounds away from chartity to get a band which in all likelihood is going to fax in a very mediocre performance?

I hope them and the stones prove me wrong....if they are actually booked

Edited March 14, 2013 by Ed209

[mike46]

does eavis deserve congratulations if it transpires that they've taken 100s of thousands of pounds away from chartity to get a band which in all likelihood is going to fax in a very mediocre performance?

I hope them and the stones prove me wrong....if they are actually booked

No one knows how the Glasto finances work so there's no proof of them taking hundreds of thousands away from charity and I'd be very surprised if that's actually the case. Don't foget Arctics and Mumford will be pretty cheap...

[elias]

does eavis deserve congratulations if it transpires that they've taken 100s of thousands of pounds away from chartity to get a band which in all likelihood is going to fax in a very mediocre performance?

I hope them and the stones prove me wrong....if they are actually booked

A few massive assumptions there Ed?

1. That The Stones are playing.

2. We don't know how much Mr Eavis is paying them.

3. We certainly don't know whether this would detract from any charity payments.

4. We have no idea what sort of performance they will put on.

I know you say 'if it transpires', but you might as well say 'if it transpires that they are playing for nothing and bringing on stage a three headed alien does Eavis deserve congratulations?'

[Ed209]

This is why there is the 'if' statements in there. Just interested if people would think the congrats would still be deserved.

[zahidf]

A few massive assumptions there Ed?

1. That The Stones are playing.

2. We don't know how much Mr Eavis is paying them.

3. We certainly don't know whether this would detract from any charity payments.

4. We have no idea what sort of performance they will put on.

I know you say 'if it transpires', but you might as well say 'if it transpires that they are playing for nothing and bringing on stage a three headed alien does Eavis deserve congratulations?'

I think the word was that they were offerered 1 millions, which is around 3 times as high as the ususal glasto fee.

[eFestivals]

No one knows how the Glasto finances work so there's no proof of them taking hundreds of thousands away from charity and I'd be very surprised if that's actually the case. Don't foget Arctics and Mumford will be pretty cheap...

I have a pretty fair idea how the finances work, and any extra money for a headliner is certainly at the expense of the good causes.

'cheap' for arctics and anyone else is relative. Just about every act plays Glasto on the cheap in any year (they are paid less than they would be for a more normal show).

[Mud Dweller]

1 million is also alot less than what they usually pocket for a gig. I'm not defending them but it work's both ways. They could have easily done another festival and commanded a much bigger fee

Whatever way you look at it it's a huge coup for Glastonbury if true. Over the years Eavis has made no secret of how much he's wanted the Stones

[whisty]

1 million is also alot less than what they usually pocket for a gig. I'm not defending them but it work's both ways. They could have easily done another festival and commanded a much bigger fee

Whatever way you look at it it's a huge coup for Glastonbury if true. Over the years Eavis has made no secret of how much he's wanted the Stones

I wonder where the Stones would fit in of a list of biggest ever headliners?

[eFestivals]

1 million is also alot less than what they usually pocket for a gig. I'm not defending them but it work's both ways.

not in relation to the good causes it doesn't.

If the Stones are getting (say) £500k more than a headliner is normally paid, that's £500k less that the good causes will receive than they otherwise would do.

There's all sorts of justifications Eavis could make to defend that extra money for the stones - including that the good causes might benefit more in the longer term - but in relation to this particular year it's a loss for the good causes if the Stones are being paid more than the glastonbury norm.

[mike46]

I have a pretty fair idea how the finances work, and any extra money for a headliner is certainly at the expense of the good causes.

'cheap' for arctics and anyone else is relative. Just about every act plays Glasto on the cheap in any year (they are paid less than they would be for a more normal show).

But for all we know Glasto could have some left over from 2011? when they thought they had them or Prince and Beyonce was pushed up, then there's the extra £10 per ticket for this year - that's a £1,775,000 added to the pot.

I don't agree with anyone getting paid that much for one gig, I'd just be very surprised if it means Eavis is giving less to charity, regardless of how much he wants them I don't think he'd do that.

[eFestivals]

I wonder where the Stones would fit in of a list of biggest ever headliners?

I'd say they'd be the biggest ever.

I'd also say that there's only two other acts which could (in theory, not in practice) top them - but it's theory only, because those bands no longer exist and could not exist due to dead members.

[zahidf]

I'd say they'd be the biggest ever.

I'd also say that there's only two other acts which could (in theory, not in practice) top them - but it's theory only, because those bands no longer exist and could not exist due to dead members.

I'd say U2 may tie with them to be honest...

[zahidf]

But for all we know Glasto could have some left over from 2011? when they thought they had them or Prince and Beyonce was pushed up, then there's the extra £10 per ticket for this year - that's a £1,775,000 added to the pot.

I don't agree with anyone getting paid that much for one gig, I'd just be very surprised if it means Eavis is giving less to charity, regardless of how much he wants them I don't think he'd do that.

Doubt it. Money would have been invested in the farm/given to charity.

Knock on effect is pretty bad for the festival, if that is what headliners want to be paid now. Guess lack of other options have forced the Eavis's hand to some degree.

[eFestivals]

But for all we know Glasto could have some left over from 2011? when they thought they had them or Prince and Beyonce was pushed up, then there's the extra £10 per ticket for this year - that's a £1,775,000 added to the pot.

I don't agree with anyone getting paid that much for one gig, I'd just be very surprised if it means Eavis is giving less to charity, regardless of how much he wants them I don't think he'd do that.

but that's assuming that other acts weren't booked with 'the prince money' (and of course they were), and that the costs of running the fest haven't increased (and they definitely have).

On any 'one festival' basis (or even your 'past festival' basis), I'd say it's impossible to say that what the Stones are getting (if they're getting more than the norm) isn't at the expense of the good causes.

[brettredmayne]

I'd say they'd be the biggest ever.

I'd also say that there's only two other acts which could (in theory, not in practice) top them - but it's theory only, because those bands no longer exist and could not exist due to dead members.

Led Zeplin and Pink Floyd?

[whisty]

I don't agree with anyone getting paid that much for one gig, I'd just be very surprised if it means Eavis is giving less to charity, regardless of how much he wants them I don't think he'd do that.

Well if he's wanted them for years and they're "the biggest headliner ever" and after all it is his festival and he's getting on a bit he can surely be indulged for one year