DeanoL

Yup. So they give the staff a pay cut to be able to keep going. Not having pay increases in line with inflation is the exact same thing as having actual pay cuts when there's low to zero inflation (except without the possible tax benefit for the employee). It just doesn't feel as bad as "number don't go down". It's likely just as impossible for Glastonbury to not put ticket prices up 10% this year for the same reasons. But you can bet people will moan far more about that than they will about not having had a decent pay rise.

I've had very little too. I'm just sick of everyone looking at prices going up and saying "they're all getting greedy now" instead of looking at their employers and going "your lack of any pay rise is in fact a significant pay cut in real terms". It'll happen in a few weeks when the Glastonbury price is announced at £375. It'll happen again the following year when it's £405. And the Eavis' will be blamed, even though increasing the price 10% will do nothing more than cover the increased costs they'll face as those will all have gone up with inflation as well.

I'm only talking about 2023 to 2024 prices. Like you I can't figure out why the prices went up so much between 2019 and 2022. Totally unexplainable and random.

That if the festival increases the ticket price by 10% this year, and you can't afford it, you need to be complaining at your employer, not the festival. Because the festival price has stayed the same while your wages have fallen.

That inflation since the last ticket day sale is 8-10%, so if the price from the last ticket sale goes up by 10%, it's not an increase in real terms. Now as for what happened between the 2019 and 2022 festivals that caused such a large increase in price, when there wasn't massive inflation, I leave as an exercise to the reader.

If it hits £400 that will be because of prices going up inline with inflation. Costs for stalls will go up the same amount, as will the cost of the food from those stalls and everything else. And none of that will be a problem as long as your wages go up with inflation too. This is where it gets problematic, but yeah just putting a "if it goes over £400 something must be done" out there doesn't make sense. If your wages don't increase with inflation, your employer is essentially giving you a pay cut, and that's why you can't afford Glastonbury anymore. Not because Glastonbury got unreasonably expensive.

7-10% is just inflation. A smaller rise than that and it's effectively a price reduction.

Not really, with a package holiday, or a sofa or whatever, the payment plan is in lieu of paying everything there and then. Instead of paying now, you pay over six months in instalments or whatever. In those cases, the norm is that you just pay up front. The payment plan is essentially credit. I can't think of any examples of payment plans being introduced that involve the customer paying for something sooner when the norm is you pay later. With Shambala you could do the instalments on 1st of Feb, 5th Apr and 7th of June 2023, or you could just pay upfront in October. They don't let you put just £50 down in October and just pay the balance on 7 June. The only other place I've seen anything remotely similar is gas/electric direct debits and that's also somewhat controversial.

Because it means you know you got a ticket, so you're not saving for a thing that might happen. With interest rates where they are now, I think a payment plan option could actually be viewed as exploitative, as it's getting more of people's money earlier, and getting the interest off it. And if it's just an option, what happens if you miss a payment? You keep your ticket as long as you settle up by April? In which case it doesn't really provide the sort of incentive those struggling to save off their own back would need.

It sometimes does. If you look at that page the first thing on it is that they want people to bring less stuff, which doesn't seem to be working. I suspect the plea for not bringing wet wipes isn't going well either.

Well no, but it's sort of a double standard of "they should ban Nos" and "but not the drugs I prefer". It does suggest there's other reasons they care about it. Like I said last week, must be the sheep 😄

https://www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/information/advice/packing-list/ Still loads of flares as well. Doesn't make loads of difference unfortunately. It's actually kind of weird they're calling out Nos on that list and not all the other illegal substances mind.

Disposable vapes were banned as of this year.

I'd imagine many who got thrown out after putting card details in are praying for the new one!

I think it's difficult. Probably about £300. Last year was above my upper limit, but we stuck with it because we wanted to see Elton anyway and that would have been a good third of the ticket price at least. But most headliners these days we're not fussed about. And it's only really headliners that work that way for us because they're the only ones that do full sets. It's great if an act we love is on mid-afternoon on the Other stage, but I'm still going to want to go see them on tour. So that doesn't actually "save" any money. Whereas we'd skip a tour date if they're headlining a stage.

It's quite the flex to define your touring cycles as "eras" but good for them!

£380

Pretty rare for anyone on the main stages (Woodsies/Park/Pyramid/Other/Acoustic/West Holts) unless they've had a significant career bump and playing a bigger stage.

I remembered something but it was a while back. They've not pushed it since then: https://www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/nitrous-oxide-not-welcome-in-the-festivals-sacred-space/

Glasto care more than most as the used canisters are a hazard for sheep.

I did wonder - read a fascinating book last year, American Kingpin, about the takedown of Silk Road - wasn't sure if something else had just stepped in or if they'd actually succeeded in killing that method of distribution. (Though again, NOS is a hell of a lot more conspicuous to mail as well)

I'd never seen so many as after Jamie Webster at Avalon (think we were waiting for Lottery Winners) though you might be right about elsewhere.

I think it'll still be a thing but certainly less of a thing. The one real big difference between it and other drugs, is that's it's hard to consume inconspicuously! (Plus the simple fact of reduced availability. I think some people would be surprised at the number of people that will happily overdo it on whatever is legal, but just simply don't know "a guy" - my days of that stuff are well past me, same for all my social circle, and frankly I'd have no clue how to even go about getting anything these days)

When was the last time they floated it and were knocked back then?

I mean that's interesting, as it suggests they could certainly run Woodsies (if Silver Hayes is effectively 0 after midnight, with the volume that runs at (audible from over in Rivermead/Pylon) then they should be fine to run stuff in that part of the site. But the point is this stuff can be renegotiated. If this hasn't changed over the past ten years then I suspect they got around it by paying to ensure that the residential areas near Silver Hayes were no longer "free fields" for their definition. This isn't the early 2000s where the council were looking for any reason to shut the festival down. The relationship is a lot better and more constructive now. The license you link above was not handed down to Glastonbury Festival by the council - it was discussed and agreed and can be discussed and changed again. Indeed, it should be. Not just because we want the festival to change, but because the needs and concerns of residents will change a lot over the years, and that needs to be accounted for.