Jump to content

The Variety Bazaar


JoeyT
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 504
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

19 hours ago, Cooter said:

Agree, but sadly I think it's ME (the fighter) that's thinking of throwing the towel in after so many successful years and then passing on the fight to EE who can't be bothered to fight for everything the festival stands for, let alone the festival itself.

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.

6 hours ago, Charm said:

Probably not, I don't think most people care as much as us, think that's the reason why we've all ended up here. 
Charm x

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Vanderlyle said:

I'd suggest you never go for a wider wander around the internet...

I think you're right, this is my only home on the internet, don't use Facebook or anything like it and only set up a twitter account to follow The Thingy, most people on here seem so lovely that down votes on seemingly innocent posts always surprise me and make me feel a bit sad, suppose I'm very naive. 
Charm x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's looking good to me . New areas being built and the potential of having another place to go during fallow year all sounds good. Plus the festival business becomes more stable and stronger on negotiation with other land owners.

 

I'm all for another festival by the same team. The talent is ridiculous how they can create such a special place, a different world really where you go and forget about troubles and pace of the real world. You look around and everyone is smiling their heads off. I could happily spend hours at the park just sitting on the hill people watching and its worth every penny.

 

I personally think that if it's the same team they can create a place anywhere they are the talent. Yes there's defiently nostalgia and the way the current site is set out makes it all the more brilliant but I believe the team will be able to create something on the same level. After all they are the talent behind it, if festival republic came to the same site they'd turn it into a commercial replica of any other site.

 

 

Terrible name tho  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

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.

This is not quite true. The limited company behind the festival has total equity of just over £6.4m (as at Dec 15). In the accounts they (the eavis family) state they think this is a sufficient float.

You're right that this could be hugely higher, but the finances aren't as tight as you state.

Edited by russycarps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, strummer77 said:

They don't have the agreements actually in place and you have to do licence applications etc. 

Sounds like she very much will keep it where it is, but by saying 'we will' or 'I can confirm' she would also be losing any negotiating position with farmers. Even if everything was 100% rosey, you don't give away your negotiating position!

Good point old son 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, russycarps said:

This is not quite true. The limited company behind the festival has total equity of just over £6.4m (as at Dec 15). In the accounts they (the eavis family) state they think this is a sufficient float.

You're right that this could be hugely higher, but the finances aren't as tight as you state.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DeanoL said:

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.

As far as I'm aware, Glasto have built themselves a 'war chest' of around £5M, after the scare they got when tickets sold slowly in 2007(?). And I'm pretty sure the permanent staff is more like 20 than 100.

Anyway .... the first email I've read this morning is from a well known mid-sized festival organiser, who mailed to suggest Eastnor Park as the possible location.

He might be right (as far as I can tell, it's a guess and not knowledge), tho if he is it would be an event of only 30-40,0000 as I'm pretty sure there's issues about how much of the land can be used by a festival (to keep the deer happy).

I'm not sure about others, but I'm thinking this new event is likely to be a bigger affair than that, because I'd thought one of the criteria for a new site is that it would be able to take a festival of around GF's size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

As far as I'm aware, Glasto have built themselves a 'war chest' of around £5M, after the scare they got when tickets sold slowly in 2007(?). And I'm pretty sure the permanent staff is more like 20 than 100.

Anyway .... the first email I've read this morning is from a well known mid-sized festival organiser, who mailed to suggest Eastnor Park as the possible location.

He might be right (as far as I can tell, it's a guess and not knowledge), tho if he is it would be an event of only 30-40,0000 as I'm pretty sure there's issues about how much of the land can be used by a festival (to keep the deer happy).

I'm not sure about others, but I'm thinking this new event is likely to be a bigger affair than that, because I'd thought one of the criteria for a new site is that it would be able to take a festival of around GF's size.

It was 2008.

But surely a festival the size of Glastonbury somewhere else is going to be a real struggle?  Isn't it about double the capacity of the likes of Reading etc when you include everybody?  Yes, I agree they would like something bigger than 30-40k but I'd have thought finding somewhere else with the infrastructure to accommodate 200k people would be a struggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DeanoL said:

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.

Some really good points in here, particularly the last couple of paragraphs. Got to admire their resiliency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, michael eavis' beard said:

It was 2008.

But surely a festival the size of Glastonbury somewhere else is going to be a real struggle?  Isn't it about double the capacity of the likes of Reading etc when you include everybody?  Yes, I agree they would like something bigger than 30-40k but I'd have thought finding somewhere else with the infrastructure to accommodate 200k people would be a struggle.

We can hold the festival on Hampton Common and Bushy Park near where I live. Shuttle buses between venues and you can all kip in my living room. There's a common hallway outside for any overflow. Should easily be able to fit in 200k with stacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For several strong reasons I'm convinced VB will be significantly smaller than Glastonbury, mainly from a financial side, way too big a risk to start a new festival of similar size, complexity and cost. I can see there being around the same non- music areas but much reduced number of stages. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say there's absolutely no chance they'll try for something as big as Glastonbury, and almost no chance they'll go for smething even as big as R&L.

30-40k is manageable, and for a new festival on a (probably) brand new site is risky enough already.

agree with the above posters, can see it being far more geared towards the "visual entertainment" type stuff than music.

some might say that there needs to be scalability to eventually relocate Glastonbury, but there's little evidence that this is the plan, and everything for the next few years just points to them wanting somewhere for 2019 to put on another event before going back to Worthy Farm in 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Unless it's a bring your own booze festival - which it cant possibly be - then it'll be just another festival.

I wonder how many people would pack up going to glastonbury if they couldnt drink their own booze freely?

Lots I'd say. Imagine a load of Heineken cattle bars all around the place and security confiscating your non bar bought booze. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Nal said:

Lots I'd say. Imagine a load of Heineken cattle bars all around the place and security confiscating your non bar bought booze. 

Yep. I'd be one of them. It's a massive (and unfair) advantage that glastonbury has over all over festivals. I cant quite remember how they get away with it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...