When is enough,enough?

[The Nal]

Just a last one here form me on this.

Someone living in an expensive place like London with kids who earns £50,000 a year has to subsidise a ticket for a single person with no kids living in a much cheaper place whos earning £49,900?

[Quark]

29 minutes ago, russycarps said:

charging the rich a higher ticket price to subsidise the poor seems the obvious solution, but there was nearly a riot on this forum last time it was suggested, such was the rage of the wealthy at the prospect of paying a fraction more to help those in need...

 

 

 

 

The riot nearly kicked off because when people challenged the logistics of implementing such a scheme and its relative value in the grand scheme of things you started frothing at the mouth and accusing everyone of being a Tory c**t like a potty-mouthed Citizen Smith.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Quark

[nikkic]

1 minute ago, The Nal said:

Just a last one here form me on this.

Someone living in an expensive place like London with kids who earns £50,000 a year has to subsidise a ticket for a single person with no kids living in a much cheaper place whos earning £49,900?

No. They subsidise the people who are on minimum wage. 

[RichardWaller]

22 minutes ago, russycarps said:

charging the rich a higher ticket price to subsidise the poor seems the obvious solution, but there was nearly a riot on this forum last time it was suggested, such was the rage of the wealthy at the prospect of paying a fraction more to help those in need...

 

13 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Anyone earning over £50k pays £350, anyone unemployed/minimum wage pays £150. You have until April to submit 3 x payslips/proof of unemployment.

Must've missed it last time this was suggested on here, but I don't think it's that outrageous an idea. Here, Manchester International Festival offers discounted tickets for low earners. Not sure what the cut off is, haven't looked into it but I know people who get paid more than I do who've qualified for discounted tickets. 

11 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

That would sort the lower end but how do you propose to get the rich bastards to won up to their earnings.

I'd have hoped that Glastonbury wouldn't necessarily attract the kind of people who'll get paid £50k plus and quibble over £100, but I'm probably wrong! Personally, if I was on £50k a year, I couldn't be arsed to worm me way around the extra £100, especialy knowing that a decent chunk of it is gonna go to charity anyway. It'd be a nightmare to implement wouldn't it? Are they gonna want payslips with our registrations now? If owt like this did happen, think the only way could be for deposit scheme to stay the same, then spend the next 5 months figuring out who's paying what... Even then, could end up with a lot more people eligible for £150 than £350.. Aye, nice idea to stop people being excluded but think it'd be too much of a pain in the arse for em.

[The Nal]

3 minutes ago, nikkic said:

No. They subsidise the people who are on minimum wage. 

What if they're skint?

[eastynh]

22 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Anyone earning over £50k pays £350, anyone unemployed/minimum wage pays £150. You have until April to submit 3 x payslips/proof of unemployment.

 

 

Peoole on £50000 already pay more tax to help subsidise those less well off than themselves. Why should they pay more to help subsidise poorer peoples leisure pursuits?

This country has bigger issues. We need to adress the issues why the poorer members of this country felt so neglected that they voted for Brexit. Not all of them are racist bigots. What these people don't need is subsidised Glastonbury tickets to take their mind off issues which are plighting their lives.

For the record I am on nowhere near £50K

[russycarps]

16 minutes ago, Splonk said:

The admin costs of doing this would put up prices even more.

How about having a small pot of tickets that target areas/ people that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it?

Yep great idea. The problem is giving away tickets for free will still cause a loss of income for the festival. It needs to be funded somehow. I dont see why it cant be the very rich that do so (those earning over £50k seem like an appropriate group....)

 

[russycarps]

double post

Edited March 28, 2017 by russycarps

[russycarps]

12 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Peoole on £50000 already pay more tax to help subsidise those less well off than themselves. Why should they pay more to help subsidise poorer peoples leisure pursuits?

This country has bigger issues. We need to adress the issues why the poorer members of this country felt so neglected that they voted for Brexit. Not all of them are racist bigots. What these people don't need is subsidised Glastonbury tickets to take their mind off issues which are plighting their lives.

For the record I am on nowhere near £50K

Thankfully you arent their spokesperson.

I am not quite sure what qualifies you to be the person to tell anyone they do not need a cheaper glastonbury ticket.

 

 

 

 

[popcornmaster]

3 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Which operators (apart from boomtown) here have they lost ground to in innovation terms?

Have they even lost ground to Boomtown? I've only been once and it did nothing for me, admittedly it's not to my tastes musically, but I thought the aesthetics weren't executed anywhere near as well at Boomtown.

[dj matt james]

30 minutes ago, giantkatestacks said:

Coming back to the 'why do new stuff like the drive-in' etc. I think that part of Glastonbury's remit, conscious or not, is to pay it forward in terms of the new and innovation in festivals generally. I think they know they have lost ground to more nimble operators here and abroad and want to claw some of it back. 

that could be a very valid point - I haven't been but other festivals like boomtown have really stretched the envelope. The photos from boomtown look out of this world.

[russycarps]

1 minute ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

I've never been. Only going on what people have written on here. 

it sounds like the greatest place on earth judging by the reports on here. Always makes me feel bad about being an old fart.

 

[popcornmaster]

Would/Could costs be cut if they implemented at a Coachella-style 2 weekend situation?

Sure, a lot of costs would be doubled but some things are surely one off costs?

Admittedly you're screwed if it's a heavy downpour 2 weeks before and it looks like the Somme coupled with the amount of shit some groups leave. I guess realistically it's not possible but hypothetically?

[popcornmaster]

3 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

I've never been. Only going on what people have written on here. 

Ah, well I'll go against the grain and say I didn't rate it. It felt budget in comparison to Glastonbury's night areas.

1 minute ago, russycarps said:

it sounds like the greatest place on earth judging by the reports on here. Always makes me feel bad about being an old fart.

 

That's because the amount of MD consumed there would make anywhere the greatest place on earth.

[Tuna]

Getting a bit uneasy seeing the comma in the title... @bennyhana22, your ruling please.

[Odessa]

1 minute ago, russycarps said:

Thankfully you arent their spokesperson.

I am not quite sure what qualifies you to be the person to tell anyone they do not need a cheaper glastonbury ticket.

 

Give it a rest ffs. £150, the price you're suggesting it's subsidised to, will get you to plenty of (good) festivals. If someone really wants to go to a festival and they have £150 for a ticket there's nothing stopping them. As was suggested the other week, it seems like the only reason you want them to go to Glastonbury rather than another festival is to have the atmosphere at Glastonbury to be more how you want it to be.

Nobody needs a cheaper Glastonbury ticket. Literally not one person in the whole world. I really wanted to go in 2014 but I couldn't afford it, so I didn't go. So what.

[eastynh]

6 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Thankfully you arent their spokesperson.

I am not quite sure what qualifies you to be the person to tell anyone they do not need a cheaper glastonbury ticket.

 

 

 

 

I am no ones spokesperson yet I am entitled to my view point just as you are.

Do you think what the poor people in this country need it subsidised Glastonbury tickets? If you do then you really are detached from reality.

Now if Glastonbury put up their ticket prices by £100 and all proceeds were going to pay for housing for the homeless or to pay for the education for childen from deprived areas then imo that is extremely valid and worthwhile. 

Yet I don't believe that people should be FORCED subsidise the leisure pursuit of someone on a low income. In all probability the people who could afford to go Glastonbury if the tickets were £100 cheaper will have a roof over their heads and food on the table. There are far more deserving cases of peoples charity in our society.

 

[not worthy]

I am sure the Glastonbury team will learn a lot from the Variety Bazaar experience.

It seems that the Glastonbury Festival has enough interest/hype to sell out without the need for new areas/more cost. If that is the case, why do it? To keep it fresh? well that only counts if the punters are broadly the same each time. As we know the site is huge and you can't do it all in one festival.

Maybe the Variety Bazaar demand over a few iterations will draw the need for new creativity to that event and leave the team to focus on the core of the Glastonbury experience at the main festival without feeling like they're twiddling their thumbs if they don't keep changing it

[Odessa]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

Yet I don't believe that people should be FORCED subsidise the leisure pursuit of someone on a low income. In all probability the people who could afford to go Glastonbury if the tickets were £100 cheaper will have a roof over their heads and food on the table. There are far more deserving cases of peoples charity in our society.

 

This is bang on. Anyone with £150 for a festival ticket plus the money all the other costs bring, is definitely not in need of charity. Well, maybe they are if it improves the atmosphere at Glastonbury for russycarps at no expense to him.

[OBface]

52 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Anyone earning over £50k pays £350, anyone unemployed/minimum wage pays £150. You have until April to submit 3 x payslips/proof of unemployment.

 

 

I would happily pay this. Not sure how you get the right balance of £150/£350 to cover costs though.

37 minutes ago, Splonk said:

The admin costs of doing this would put up prices even more.

How about having a small pot of tickets that target areas/ people that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it?

This sort of scheme would be brilliant. 

 

[Mr.Tease]

13 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Yep great idea. The problem is giving away tickets for free will still cause a loss of income for the festival. It needs to be funded somehow. I dont see why it cant be the very rich that do so (those earning over £50k seem like an appropriate group....)

 

I look on Worthy View as a basic scheme to charge richer people more for their tickets to subsidise normal tickets (problem is we still need some lower priced tickets)- people on higher incomes seem to be happy to pay more for just the illusion that they're getting more/ are more important.

If you introduced a scheme whereby it was much more overt (richer people pay more to subsidise people on lower incomes), a lot of them would be in tears over the injustice. If instead you introduced a new 'gold' ticket status whereby more expensive tickets would allow holders access to a longdrop painted gold and a "special VIP lounging field" (an empty field with gold painted deck chairs and champaign service), the same people would lap it up.

[dj matt james]

4 minutes ago, not worthy said:

I am sure the Glastonbury team will learn a lot from the Variety Bazaar experience.

It seems that the Glastonbury Festival has enough interest/hype to sell out without the need for new areas/more cost. If that is the case, why do it? To keep it fresh? well that only counts if the punters are broadly the same each time. As we know the site is huge and you can't do it all in one festival.

Maybe the Variety Bazaar demand over a few iterations will draw the need for new creativity to that event and leave the team to focus on the core of the Glastonbury experience at the main festival without feeling like they're twiddling their thumbs if they don't keep changing it

The variety bazaar has been brought about as a way for the Eavis' to keep hold of their team of staff. They are concerned that if they have a complete fallow year the wealth of experience in the team will be poached by other festivals. Nearly all the team have this as a full time job - a full year off is extremely costly and lots of people would look for other things to do during the fallow year.

[K2SO]

It's getting there for me. I think if it hit £300, I'd probably swerve. Same goes for gigs in general. It depends on the size of the venue, what band it is, etc

[eastynh]

4 minutes ago, Odessa said:

This is bang on. Anyone with £150 for a festival ticket plus the money all the other costs bring, is definitely not in need of charity. Well, maybe they are if it improves the atmosphere at Glastonbury for russycarps at no expense to him.

What Russy means is let the really rich subsidise the festival for the middle classes or those working classes who might be struggling a bit with a few kids.

Now how would Russy feel if the really rich subsidised it for the really poor to go? The kids from the deprived council estates with pretty much no hope in life. His comfy little utopia would soon come to an end if all chavs, scallies and Jeremy Klye candidates turned up at Glastonbury ay the expense of the rich. 

What Russy wants is the rich to subsidise it for people like himself who may not have as much disposal income as himself to go.

That is extremely charitable of him.

 

 

[not worthy]

1 minute ago, dj matt james said:

The variety bazaar has been brought about as a way for the Eavis' to keep hold of their team of staff. They are concerned that if they have a complete fallow year the wealth of experience in the team will be poached by other festivals. Nearly all the team have this as a full time job - a full year off is extremely costly and lots of people would look for other things to do during the fallow year.

yep, I know. Must've made my point badly. Glastonbury doesn't have a demand sensitivity against which any creativity can be measured by the team. Variety Bazaar may have. Who knows, a smaller/cheaper Glastonbury with fewer areas (less land dependency on others, and less license hassle) may be the longer term way forward with Variety Bazaar being the experimental version.