2016 Last ever Glastonbury at Worthy Farm?

[bigbilly]

I know you have to take everything Michael says with a pinch of salt but could it be the last one this year?

[Waapster]

Well there's one next year, isn't there?

[cb4747]

14 minutes ago, Waapster said:

Well there's one next year, isn't there?

Yep 2017 confirmed. I reckon it will still be at worthy farm next year. I can't imagine them changing it that soon. Unless the pollution levels peak this year and they get a slapped wrist.

[Spindles]

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/may/02/glastonbury-festival-2017-michael-eavis

Grauniad is running with the story, at least.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Spindles said:

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/may/02/glastonbury-festival-2017-michael-eavis

Grauniad is running with the story, at least.

Michael's definitely got it wrong talking about a possible moved festival in 2017. From what Emily has said to us, it's definitely for 2018 not 2017.

[Hugh Jass]

7 minutes ago, Spindles said:

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/may/02/glastonbury-festival-2017-michael-eavis

Grauniad is running with the story, at least.

"Headlining acts include Coldplay, Adele and Beck."

Ouch. Take that Bellamy!

[Fishman]

9 hours ago, bigbilly said:

I know you have to take everything Michael says with a pinch of salt but could it be the last one this year?

I think we all need to remember he's 80, bless him.

Worthy Farm next year, Longleatbury 2018 then, .... who knows (but hopefully back at the farm).

[dj matt james]

The local rumours are that they have been buying land at an alternative site for a few years now. The general opinion is that the festival won't be down the farm for much longer.

[Inconspicuous]

I don't understand why they would have made all the costly long term infrastructure changes that they have recently if they have been seriously thinking of moving for years.

[Spindles]

Because they were of long term benefit to the land and obtained for free by being part of the running costs over a period of years.  

[Splatt]

Very sad if true, there's part of me that doesn't believe it, but as someone else posted earlier it's being mentioned far too often now so there's got to be something in it. I can't imagine the supposed Longleat venture for 2018 is being done as a one-off either - I'd of thought it would cost much more to establish the site/all the extra planning etc that for just one year it wouldn't be particularly viable. If 2018 goes ahead then I think a more long term move is seriously on the cards.

[Pinhead]

1 hour ago, Spindles said:

Because they were of long term benefit to the land and obtained for free by being part of the running costs over a period of years.  

Many expensive infrastructure investments made on the land have no benefit to the farm outside of the festival however. Remember the huge concrete water tanks and pumping facility that was installed some years ago now in order to be able to take the burden off the local mains and keep the water pressure up. Cost hundreds of thousands I think. Vital for keeping 200K punters watered. Little value for topping up water troughs for dairy herds though really

Interesting local gossip about buying up land - where is that - won't be Longleat anyway...

Appreciate all the logistic arguments why a move is being planned. Will be very sad to see it go from the current site however and I wonder just how much the Eavii really do appreciate how people feel regarding the connection, spiritual, historical, nostalgic etc. that people have between the land and the festival. Bet Bella and Andrew would have had none of it

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

They won't announce before the last one it's the last one that's for sure.

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

Could just be scaremongering from Michael? At a recent talk I attended he mentioned that the struggles with local government are now, in the main, things of the past and the festival is seen as a huge economic boost to the area to the point that planning and councillors are now very cooperative, going out of their way to help rather than be obstructive. A complete turnaround. 

He's clearly unhappy about the rise in costs around the periphery of the festival and maybe using thinly veiled threats to relocate to scare those increasing their costs to think twice? For instance, those who rent out their fields for car parking must make a killing for that 10-day period at the end of June. If the festival relocates, that's some serious numbers in lost revenue. 

Organisationally, Glastonbury has always been a political beast on a national and local basis. Now it's a major cash cow, seems like everybody wants a piece of the action. Must be soul-destroying for the organisers at times.

[DeanoL]

I think thinking in terms of stopping/starting is too specific. I think we'll get something of a more fluid switchover.

So a smaller festival in Longleat in 2017, which they'll gradually scale up to Glastonbury size, addressing issues along the way. Then at the same time, start scaling back the Worthy festival to just the land that they own or landowners will provide for a reasonable fee. I think eventually we'll be seeing the main Eavis festival at Longleat, but there will still be a festival at Worthy, which takes advantage of all the permanent constructions, but doesn't have to deal with the tricky outer areas.

[maelzoid]

My goodness, the comments following the Grauniad article are terrible. Almost all of them bashing the perceived bourgeoisies of the festival... they're Guardian readers FFS!

[mike86]

2 hours ago, dj matt james said:

The local rumours are that they have been buying land at an alternative site for a few years now. The general opinion is that the festival won't be down the farm for much longer.

Aren't the company accounts published? Surely it'd be very easy to see if they were buying up land.

[Pinhead]

33 minutes ago, SPTFRE said:

Could just be scaremongering from Michael? At a recent talk I attended he mentioned that the struggles with local government are now, in the main, things of the past and the festival is seen as a huge economic boost to the area to the point that planning and councillors are now very cooperative, going out of their way to help rather than be obstructive. A complete turnaround. 

He's clearly unhappy about the rise in costs around the periphery of the festival and maybe using thinly veiled threats to relocate to scare those increasing their costs to think twice? For instance, those who rent out their fields for car parking must make a killing for that 10-day period at the end of June. If the festival relocates, that's some serious numbers in lost revenue. 

Organisationally, Glastonbury has always been a political beast on a national and local basis. Now it's a major cash cow, seems like everybody wants a piece of the action. Must be soul-destroying for the organisers at times.

Yes, I have heard the same about the local and council support for the festival these days too. Most of the past local detractors have either died or just faced up to the fact that its there now. However, I would have thought that any other proposed site for the festival would be best suited to remaining within the MDP catchment so as to maintain continuity with the interrelationship regarding festival organisation.

I don't personally believe Michael would use this proposal as a threat. I think Michael decides to do something and then just does it and says sod the landowners in this case and their increasing costs and issues. However, I'm not sure its just about costs anyway. The site cannot expand any further and is if anything shrinking as landowners once happy to rent their land out instead now focus on their own particular ways of monetising their proximity to the festival - running their own camping operations typically. This puts a strain on the logistics of running the festival. Its also to do with some of those landowners wanting to expand their own farming operations, which means putting up structures and making other infrastructure changes that may contribute to an increased festival logistics strain. I would not be surprised if the large milking facility in the SW of the site through which Gate D used to run could be one of these.

So, sad as it is, the Eavii may have a point about the site becoming increasingly unsuitable. However somehow I'd rather it just ended gracefully at its current home than an attempt be made to recreated it elsewhere, but then that's just me being an old fart who has a lot of nostalgia invested in that place....

[dj matt james]

32 minutes ago, MikeJ86 said:

Aren't the company accounts published? Surely it'd be very easy to see if they were buying up land.

quite probably.

[stuartbert two hats]

27 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

Yes, I have heard the same about the local and council support for the festival these days too. Most of the past local detractors have either died or just faced up to the fact that its there now. However, I would have thought that any other proposed site for the festival would be best suited to remaining within the MDP catchment so as to maintain continuity with the interrelationship regarding festival organisation.

I don't personally believe Michael would use this proposal as a threat. I think Michael decides to do something and then just does it and says sod the landowners in this case and their increasing costs and issues. However, I'm not sure its just about costs anyway. The site cannot expand any further and is if anything shrinking as landowners once happy to rent their land out instead now focus on their own particular ways of monetising their proximity to the festival - running their own camping operations typically. This puts a strain on the logistics of running the festival. Its also to do with some of those landowners wanting to expand their own farming operations, which means putting up structures and making other infrastructure changes that may contribute to an increased festival logistics strain. I would not be surprised if the large milking facility in the SW of the site through which Gate D used to run could be one of these.

So, sad as it is, the Eavii may have a point about the site becoming increasingly unsuitable. However somehow I'd rather it just ended gracefully at its current home than an attempt be made to recreated it elsewhere, but then that's just me being an old fart who has a lot of nostalgia invested in that place....

That's a good point, I don't recall seeing mentioned before.

[sparkythetortoise]

39 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

I don't personally believe Michael would use this proposal as a threat.

In the Speakers tent last year he pretty much came right out and said as much. He said that the rumours of moving - which, lets face it, have been going on for years - were started by him as a direct result of the ever increasing rent demands made by the neighbours that owned the land used for car parks. I can't quote him directly a year on, but he said something to the effect that he wanted to demonstrate to them that they didn't have him over a barrel, which they were beginning to assume, just enough to make them think about killing the golden goose.  

Oh - and on another occasion, he went on about how the new long drops were designed to last ten years. That was while standing in the recycling sheds, which he had also spent a fortune on. He has definitely ploughed money into the long term future of the festival at the farm. I really don't think we need take these reports very seriously

 

Edited May 3, 2016 by sparkythetortoise

[clarkete]

44 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

However, I would have thought that any other proposed site for the festival would be best suited to remaining within the MDP catchment so as to maintain continuity with the interrelationship regarding festival organisation.

Not MDC, or have I misunderstood?

[pie_and_a_pint]

1 hour ago, maelzoid said:

My goodness, the comments following the Grauniad article are terrible. Almost all of them bashing the perceived bourgeoisies of the festival... they're Guardian readers FFS!

Are the comments about Glastonbury being immoral in a world where there are refugee camps still there... I had to stop reading at that point!

[Pinhead]

Yeah, MDC - my bad.

I would think that there is deliberately little information regarding the proposed new site since local and legal negotiations will likely be very sensitive and may take several years if a site large enough to accommodate 200K+ is being proposed. It is not out of the question that numbers could be reduced, at least initially, as part of an agreement to secure a new location.

[clarkete]

2 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

Yeah, MDC - my bad.

I would think that there is deliberately little information regarding the proposed new site since local and legal negotiations will likely be very sensitive and may take several years if a site large enough to accommodate 200K+ is being proposed. It is not out of the question that numbers could be reduced, at least initially, as part of an agreement to secure a new location.

Ah, good to know I'm not too out of the loop   

Thirty years ago when I moved to Somerset the festival had experienced some falling out with MDC, hence they offered the old duffers on the council the opportunity to go along and see for themselves as too many had only heard terrible headlines.  My old man got elected and I was lucky enough that there were a couple of years when I was able to utilise one of his tickets - he did go too btw and he always found it an enjoyable eye opener.

I'm sure with the myriad of experience that the festival have had in the intervening time that they could point out the PR and commercial benefits to another site that they were looking at.