Rolling Stones...

[Justiceforcedave]

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.

Of for fucks sake.... different bands cost different amounts depending on their size and popularity. I'm sure there are some bands who play for less then they'd usually go out for and some who still ask for their usual fee. Some play for the exposure the festival gives them and some are probably booked because they give the festival press and make it look good. The Stones come into the latter catagory!

Also as much as I love the charitable side of the festival (I really do think it's great) I'm still going to a festival! I'm still paying to see bands and do activities and have fun. I'm sure that some people would you rather that Glastonbury just booked the cheapest bands it could and gave more away to charity but you know what? I don't think that a festival that did that would last very long in this day and age. Glastonbury is still a festival primarily and charitable organisation second (hence being called Glastonbury festival and not the Glastonbury charity) and a festival should book the best bands it can!

Edited March 14, 2013 by Justiceforcedave

[Justiceforcedave]

If you're all so precious about the charities missing out why don't you put your money where your mouth is and give your £200 ticket money away to charity instead of going to the festival?

[graham1030]

Nobody on here knows how much the stones have been paid! ( they haven't even been confirmed yet) people are talking about Eavis like he would be a bad man for paying extra to get the stones to play.

Top headliners cost top dollar whether you are glasto or not (admittedly they do get them cheaper)

And looking at most other UK festivals in my opinion the headliners are very very poor so he had to do something different. He could have done what the other festivals have done and gone for (in my opinion) bad headliners but then you lot would have been on here moaning about them.

You have to remember he has the future of the festival to secure as well. A bad set of headliners this year and terrible weather could mean next year doesn't sell out jeopardizing the whole future of the festival.

by paying slightly more to get the stones will generate so much publicity and get so many people talking and watching on the tv that it will ensure the festival keeps selling out each year.

[russycarps]

brilliant news that there are less tickets going to the free loading corporate parasites this year

[Justiceforcedave]

brilliant news that there are less tickets going to the free loading corporate parasites this year

^ This

[eFestivals]

If you're all so precious about the charities missing out why don't you put your money where your mouth is and give your £200 ticket money away to charity instead of going to the festival?

I can act smug here, and say that efestivals gives one percent of its turnover to WaterAid, which equates to much more than that.

But in all seriousness, any issue I have (which isn't huge, btw) about the stones being paid more than the norm (if they are, of course) isn't really about how you're presenting it.

I've bought my ticket no matter who is playing, and I've bought that ticket knowing that in normal circumstances a normal amount of money goes to the good causes. If the stones cause things to work abnormally and so less money goes to the good causes, why shouldn't I have an issue with that?

I'd have less of an issue with it if Mick and co paid their taxes, too. There's all sorts of not-great angles around money and the stones.

[eFestivals]

brilliant news that there are less tickets going to the free loading corporate parasites this year

erm ... it wasn't 'corporate' types I was referring to.

[Justiceforcedave]

I can act smug here, and say that efestivals gives one percent of its turnover to WaterAid, which equates to much more than that.

But in all seriousness, any issue I have (which isn't huge, btw) about the stones being paid more than the norm (if they are, of course) isn't really about how you're presenting it.

I've bought my ticket no matter who is playing, and I've bought that ticket knowing that in normal circumstances a normal amount of money goes to the good causes. If the stones cause things to work abnormally and so less money goes to the good causes, why shouldn't I have an issue with that?

I'd have less of an issue with it if Mick and co paid their taxes, too. There's all sorts of not-great angles around money and the stones.

Yes but that puts you in a slightly unique position to the majority Neil and in regard to Taxes that's a whole other ball game!

I understand where you're coming from to a point, but ultimately the Stones are a more expensive band and the festival has chosen to book them, why have they done that? Because they're a festival and because lots of the punters will be over the moon about having the Rolling Stones headling one of the nights!

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

I dont know how it works for the other charities but it wont 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 arent going to miss out.

We are talking about additional charity donations that Glastonbury makes.

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Of for fucks sake.... different bands cost different amounts depending on their size and popularity. I'm sure there are some bands who play for less then they'd usually go out for and some who still ask for their usual fee. Some play for the exposure the festival gives them and some are probably booked because they give the festival press and make it look good. The Stones come into the latter catagory!

Also as much as I love the charitable side of the festival (I really do think it's great) I'm still going to a festival! I'm still paying to see bands and do activities and have fun. I'm sure that some people would you rather that Glastonbury just booked the cheapest bands it could and gave more away to charity but you know what? I don't think that a festival that did that would last very long in this day and age. Glastonbury is still a festival primarily and charitable organisation second (hence being called Glastonbury festival and not the Glastonbury charity) and a festival should book the best bands it can!

So Glastonbury should just book whatever acts it can irregardless of its principles? What about Screwdriver and Blood And Honour and acts like that?

I think Glastonbury could survive easily.

[russycarps]

erm ... it wasn't 'corporate' types I was referring to.

gah!

well whoever they are. I'm sure the festival is better with them not being there

[LondonTom]

Charity aspects of the festival are great unless it effects them getting supersized headliners..then its fine if they don't bother one year.

Edited March 14, 2013 by LondonTom

[abdoujaparov]

I can act smug here, and say that efestivals gives one percent of its turnover to WaterAid, which equates to much more than that.

But in all seriousness, any issue I have (which isn't huge, btw) about the stones being paid more than the norm (if they are, of course) isn't really about how you're presenting it.

I've bought my ticket no matter who is playing, and I've bought that ticket knowing that in normal circumstances a normal amount of money goes to the good causes. If the stones cause things to work abnormally and so less money goes to the good causes, why shouldn't I have an issue with that?

I'd have less of an issue with it if Mick and co paid their taxes, too. There's all sorts of not-great angles around money and the stones.

Agree with this.

It's not so much that the Stones are (likely) to be paid more than the going rate for Pilton. It's that Eavis is paying more than the going rate for a bunch of tax-dodging, money grabbing has-beens. They are a band he's wanted to book for years and he looks like he's getting what he wanted, which is nice for him, but the price isnt worth it

[Justiceforcedave]

So Glastonbury should just book whatever acts it can irregardless of its principles? What about Screwdriver and Blood And Honour and acts like that?

I think Glastonbury could survive easily.

Not at all, Glasto has it just right and they've (seemingly) managed to get the Rolling Stones for a fraction of what their usual fee would be so good for them.

[MrHew]

We are talking about additional charity donations that Glastonbury makes.

I did NOT pick up on that, sorry...

[Justiceforcedave]

Agree with this.

It's not so much that the Stones are (likely) to be paid more than the going rate for Pilton. It's that Eavis is paying more than the going rate for a bunch of tax-dodging, money grabbing has-beens. They are a band he's wanted to book for years and he looks like he's getting what he wanted, which is nice for him, but the price isnt worth it

There will be many people that agree with you, but you can't argue that there will also be plenty of people who are delighted. Eavis and co must have thought it was worth it.

[abdoujaparov]

There will be many people that agree with you, but you can't argue that there will also be plenty of people who are delighted. Eavis and co must have thought it was worth it.

Yes, there will be people who are delighted.

There are also people who read the Daily Mail and watch Britain's Got Talent.....

[eFestivals]

gah!

well whoever they are. I'm sure the festival is better with them not being there

You sure? You're saying it's a great thing here for something you've railed against in the past.

[Justiceforcedave]

So Glastonbury should just book whatever acts it can irregardless of its principles? What about Screwdriver and Blood And Honour and acts like that?

I think Glastonbury could survive easily.

Just to clarify exactly what I meant. When I say "best bands it can" I mean within it's remit and for it's audience.

And It'd be nice to think that Glastonbury could survive without booking big popular acts (the ones that I'm refering too and that cost more) but do you really think if we took the Pyramid and Other stages style bands out of the equation it would be able to compete with everything else that's out there? Certainly not on the level that it does at the moment (which is the reason it's able to give so much money to charity).

[eFestivals]

Yes but that puts you in a slightly unique position to the majority Neil and in regard to Taxes that's a whole other ball game!

The taxes is ultimately a part of the same ball game - them wanting money for themselves that a more caring &/or moral view would instead be helping those in need.

I'd have less issue with them wanting a higher Glasto fee if they paid their taxes happily; I'd have less issue with their tax evasion if they were wanting a 'normal' glasto fee.

It's all part of the same thing - greed beyond the point of excess.

[Justiceforcedave]

Yes, there will be people who are delighted.

There are also people who read the Daily Mail and watch Britain's Got Talent.....

...and there are also people that are racist and rob old ladies etc etc etc.

[mike46]

So say that the stones are getting £700,000 more, that's roughly £5 per person (excluding VAT and all that stuff). If people are really that worried the festival won't be giving enough to a chosen charity, why don't you give an extra fiver from this months pay cheque?

No one here bought their tickets because £15 of it was going to charity.

[Justiceforcedave]

So say that the stones are getting £700,000 more, that's roughly £5 per person (excluding VAT and all that stuff). If people are really that worried the festival won't be giving enough to a chosen charity, why don't you give an extra fiver from this months pay cheque?

No one here bought their tickets because £15 of it was going to charity.

^ again this!

[marktea]

So say that the stones are getting £700,000 more, that's roughly £5 per person (excluding VAT and all that stuff). If people are really that worried the festival won't be giving enough to a chosen charity, why don't you give an extra fiver from this months pay cheque?

No one here bought their tickets because £15 of it was going to charity.

Bit presumptious this.

There are many reasons why people would choose a particular festival and there are certainly lots of reasons to choose Glastonbury, being as it is, the best. But I can tell you that amongst that mix of reasons, the charitable donations the festival makes and the publicity and support it gives to certain causes is really important to me. I suspect there may well be others who feel the same way.

[eFestivals]

No one here bought their tickets because £15 of it was going to charity.

Sorry to tell you, but you're wrong. I did.

I haven't bought tickets to see any particular acts, I've bought tickets to go to Glastonbury festival, and a part of what the festival is is it's good cause donations.

Bear in mind that I could probably get away without having to buy a ticket at all. I always buy one, because I have no wish to freeload for something I'd go to anyway.