Rolling Stones...

[Mud Dweller]

Very true, no argument against that at all.

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

[eFestivals]

Led Zeplin and Pink Floyd?

ahhhh ... Led Zep. I forgot them.

So make that three bands who could top them, but all still with the dead members problem.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

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.

You'll be able to see by the value or the rest of the lineup, and the figures which come out with the accounts at the end of it.

[Wooderson]

If Mick wants to book acts like the Stones and continue to support charity to the same extent somethings prolly gotta give.

Mick E could - could - announce an increase in the ticketprice with the funds specially ringfenced for his chosen charities. There might be a few bitter mugs that'd kick off and grumble about it but the fest would still sell out.

Mick gets his vanity act to play - and the charities don't suffer as a result of their greed. Festival maintains its holier than thou esthetic.

/joke

Edited March 14, 2013 by Wooderson

[mike46]

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.

What is the roufglh annual donation by Glasto anyway? 20mill seems to be a number I've heard?

Anyway, put it in this perspective:

R+L paid the libertines 1.2 million for 2 x 1 hour sets.

We're (possibly) gettin the stones for just as long but 200k cheaper...

[brettredmayne]

ahhhh ... Led Zep. I forgot them.

So make that three bands who could top them, but all still with the dead members problem.

This is now a brain teaser as thought I had it

[whisty]

This is now a brain teaser as thought I had it

Still 2 Beatles left?

[brettredmayne]

Still 2 Beatles left?

without lennon it could never be the beatles.

[FloorFiller]

i wouldn't say 'congratulations'. after months and months of waiting for a 'yes' and the massive possibility that they wouldn't do it , leaving the festival with (arguably) poorer headliners as a result of that, i'd say 'Eavis you lucky bastard'. all power to him for sticking to his guns and keeping at it, but if it hadn't all worked out (which it still might not've, although it's looking very much like it's a done deal) he really would've had to pull some tricks out of the bag to cover his ass

[whisty]

without lennon it could never be the beatles.

His lad could step in, lookalikey and all that.

[eFestivals]

What is the roufglh annual donation by Glasto anyway? 20mill seems to be a number I've heard?

.... it's much much less than that.

I'm not actually up-to-date on what is given away to various good causes, but I'm pretty sure it's in the £1M-£3M range.

Anyway, put it in this perspective:

R+L paid the libertines 1.2 million for 2 x 1 hour sets.

We're (possibly) gettin the stones for just as long but 200k cheaper...

but what you're ignoring is that Glastonbury always gets its headliners on the cheap.

So while Eavis still might be getting the stones at a bargain price, if they're being paid more than the Glasto norm then that's going to have to be at the expense of something else.

I've heard that there's another big crack-down on freeloaders on staff tickets this year, so perhaps that's one method that Eavis is using to try and claw back some of what the Stones are having.

[**claire**]

.... it's much much less than that.

I'm not actually up-to-date on what is given away to various good causes, but I'm pretty sure it's in the £1M-£3M range.but what you're ignoring is that Glastonbury always gets its headliners on the cheap.

So while Eavis still might be getting the stones at a bargain price, if they're being paid more than the Glasto norm then that's going to have to be at the expense of something else.

I've heard that there's another big crack-down on freeloaders on staff tickets this year, so perhaps that's one method that Eavis is using to try and claw back some of what the Stones are having.

Ooh, would this mean a few more tickets are put into the resale pot? I can dream I guess!

[eFestivals]

Ooh, would this mean a few more tickets are put into the resale pot? I can dream I guess!

I'm guessing that's what it'll mean, yup.

[**claire**]

You might have just made my day Neil. Thank you!

[1waveydavey]

I had a thought today... The Stones Will be very aware of the uproar over ticket prices. I know they have a rep for wanting to get "market value" for what they are worth. But... Think about the huge PR coup if they said we're doing Glastonbury and donating the money back to the charities.

They've done charity gigs before, rumors of two Hyde Park gigs will be good paying gigs for them.

There could be one more twist in this yet.

Or I could be talking utter rubbish and I have to tell you all, I spout my fair share!

[Ed209]

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?'

To go back to this point though. What's the bigger assumption? The Stones charge silly amounts and fax in a performance. Or The stones do it at a knock down price and play a blinder.

I think one of those is much more likely than the other.

[Ed209]

although obviously the truth could hover somewhere between those two

[mike46]

As Neil said, if Eavis is able to add in some extra tickets by cutting down on the free loaders then that would make the money back in no time - 3,415 extra tickets would give the added £700,000 the Stones have reportedly been paid more than normal headliners.

137,500 is the normal punter allocation isn't it?

[zahidf]

To go back to this point though. What's the bigger assumption? The Stones charge silly amounts and fax in a performance. Or The stones do it at a knock down price and play a blinder.

I think one of those is much more likely than the other.

Yeah, the first one. They are very old, and once the money is in, who cares about the performance?

[abdoujaparov]

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.

you clearly have no idea about economics...

the extra £10 on the ticket price reflects additional costs. The equation is quite simple, if the Stones charge more, Eavis makes a smaller surplus and the good causes get less money. Its really very simple

[Brave Sir Robin]

I had a thought today... The Stones Will be very aware of the uproar over ticket prices. I know they have a rep for wanting to get "market value" for what they are worth. But... Think about the huge PR coup if they said we're doing Glastonbury and donating the money back to the charities.

They've done charity gigs before, rumors of two Hyde Park gigs will be good paying gigs for them.

There could be one more twist in this yet.

Or I could be talking utter rubbish and I have to tell you all, I spout my fair share!

I'd had this thought myself. Would be amazing PR for them. Mick could even announce it during the actual show.

Obviously it won't happen!

[eFestivals]

137,500 is the normal punter allocation isn't it?

I don't think there's an absolutely fixed number - because the number of performer and worker tixs varies (and any spares get sold) - but I believe it's somewhere around that, yep.

3,415 extra tickets would give the added £700,000

except of course it's not all clear extra profit. They'd be over £100k of VAT within that.

I also think they'd be added other costs - even if it's just toilets (but might include more workers & infrastructure needed too) - onto the fest by having thousands of extra punters.

[Brave Sir Robin]

The Beeb are showing more than ever this year, and live, with this red button malarkey. Would have thought they'd be paying a load more for that, which might help?

[elias]

To go back to this point though. What's the bigger assumption? The Stones charge silly amounts and fax in a performance. Or The stones do it at a knock down price and play a blinder.

I think one of those is much more likely than the other.

Fair point. One is more likely than the other.

My naivety and optimism still hopes for a happy outcome though.

[MrHew]

I don’t know how it works for the other charities but it won’t affect how much Oxfam get. Oxfam provide stewards who are technically paid at minimum wage for the hours they do, the payment just goes straight to Oxfam. Therefore, unless Glastonbury suddenly decide they need less stewards Oxfam aren’t going to miss out.