Rolling Stones...

[The Naughty One]

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

Who decides if they are worth the price? I think the only person who can decide if they are 'worth it' is Michael Eavis. We may all have an opinion but we have all paid him for our tickets, so if he then wants to use HIS money to pay The Rolling Stones then that's his prerogative.

I'll be over the moon if they play. I know they will be nowhere near as good as the were in their heyday but it will still be good to see them.

[magicmojo]

I think people need to trust Michael Eavis a bit more.

If the festival are paying more than usual for the stones perhaps he believes the difference can be made up by charging more for things like foreign tv rights.

Until it is confirmed they're playing and what their fee is none of us really know if he has sold his soul to the devil or not.......I'm certainly not gonna read too much into the stories which appeared in the press.

[abdoujaparov]

Who decides if they are worth the price?

Me. I was expressing my opinion

[The Naughty One]

Me. I was expressing my opinion

Fair enough, can't disagree with that then.

[russycarps]

"workers" who don't actually work is what I've been led to believe.

On a previous occasion, that translated into a bit of a clear out of the more ... erm ... shall we say 'traditional' festival goers.

Ah I see. I wonder how many of those people are still going? the festival will always retain a few crusties though, they make good exhibits for people to gawp at on the thursday on their lap of the site

[Ed209]

Who decides if they are worth the price? I think the only person who can decide if they are 'worth it' is Michael Eavis. We may all have an opinion but we have all paid him for our tickets, so if he then wants to use HIS money to pay The Rolling Stones then that's his prerogative.

I'll be over the moon if they play. I know they will be nowhere near as good as the were in their heyday but it will still be good to see them.

we decide if they're worth the price. Its not HIS money at all. Its our bleeding money. That is until they've provided the service that we've already paid for, i.e. a great big party. We've paid in advance for something in very good faith that they will use this money wisely. Eavis knows this as well as anyone.

As the consumer we have every right to judge how that has been spent.

So If we turn up on the first day to find out Eavis has spent every penny on a giant sculpture of a dog turd, standing proud in the pyramid field, and then a single stage of someone farting into a microphone, and there's nothing else there, we're not allowed to feel a little pissed off at the way he's spent the money?

[MEGABOWL]

Technically sold out this year though...

Of course. I should have been clearer, I meant in future years.

[mike46]

I havn't seen a single post that "over exaggerated the charity element". Most people seem to accept that it's all about balance even though they may be concerned about potential upset of that balance.

What I did see however was your statement:

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

Which certanly is a case of over-exaggeration.

I meant as in people solely choosing glastonbury because £15 of their ticket price goes to charity, and there were no other influences I struggle to believe that anyone simply chose glastonbury for this one reason alone, so no I wouldn't say that is an exaggeration.

If I'm wrong, and you did then I apologise. However I must ask why you didn't choose a festival that's much cheaper and then make a larger contribution?

I'm not saying that the charity side of things aren't an influence, it's one of the reasons I myself attend every year but its definitely not the only reason I buy a ticket.

[The Naughty One]

we decide if they're worth the price. Its not HIS money at all. Its our bleeding money. That is until they've provided the service that we've already paid for, i.e. a great big party. We've paid in advance for something in very good faith that they will use this money wisely. Eavis knows this as well as anyone.

As the consumer we have every right to judge how that has been spent.

So If we turn up on the first day to find out Eavis has spent every penny on a giant sculpture of a dog turd, standing proud in the pyramid field, and then a single stage of someone farting into a microphone, and there's nothing else there, we're not allowed to feel a little pissed off at the way he's spent the money?

As of the second week in April we will have bought tickets to his festival which means the money is his, he then spends the money on what he thinks will put on a good festival for his punters. He has built up a reputation over the years hence why people are happy to pay £200+ without knowing who will be playing however if he decided that he was only going to have a single stage with someone farting into a microphone then there wouldn't be anything we could do (apart from never go again).

The point I was objecting to was the statement 'they are not worth it' when nobody on here knows a) if they are definitely playing b ) how good/bad their performance was c) how much they are getting paid.

Edited March 14, 2013 by The Naughty One

[marktea]

I meant as in people solely choosing glastonbury because £15 of their ticket price goes to charity, and there were no other influences I struggle to believe that anyone simply chose glastonbury for this one reason alone, so no I wouldn't say that is an exaggeration.

If I'm wrong, and you did then I apologise. However I must ask why you didn't choose a festival that's much cheaper and then make a larger contribution?

I'm not saying that the charity side of things aren't an influence, it's one of the reasons I myself attend every year but its definitely not the only reason I buy a ticket.

So, much as it appeared originally, you relied on an extreme and wholly unrealistic statement to undermine the perfectly justifiable concerns of those who place a lot of importance on the charitable / commercial mix at Glastonbury.

Sorry to bang on but it's a sort of 'political correctness gone mad' style of argument that gets used far too much and is insufficiently challenged.

Edited March 14, 2013 by marktea

[abdoujaparov]

Ah I see. I wonder how many of those people are still going? the festival will always retain a few crusties though, they make good exhibits for people to gawp at on the thursday on their lap of the site

I knew I served a purpose. Thank you

[russycarps]

I knew I served a purpose. Thank you

no problem, just please know your place and dont look anyone in the eye, the poor mites find dreadlocks and dogs on strings very intimidating!

[abdoujaparov]

no problem, just please know your place and dont look anyone in the eye, the poor mites find dreadlocks and dogs on strings very intimidating!

I dont have a dog any more, sadly

[eFestivals]

I dont have a dog any more, sadly

did the string break and so he ran away?

[Matt42]

I've missed alot of this discussion :')

[airwaves]

I've missed alot of this discussion :')

To summarise the 122 pages so far for you.

Will the Stones play Glasto this year?

Maybe! Maybe not!

that's it......

[mike46]

So, much as it appeared originally, you relied on an extreme and wholly unrealistic statement to undermine the perfectly justifiable concerns of those who place a lot of importance on the charitable / commercial mix at Glastonbury.

Sorry to bang on but it's a sort of 'political correctness gone mad' style of argument that gets used far too much and is insufficiently challenged.

I think it's probably a case that I should had worded it better and people misunderstood me.

Lets face it, We're all here 'cos we love those Somerset fields, it's been two years and everyone's getting a little case of cabin fever.

Fear not, be the stones there or not we set sail in 103 days!

[Guitargeek]

So, back to the rolling stones then!!!

Blimey...

[Matt42]

So, back to the rolling stones then!!!

Blimey...

Back? the whole stones discussion never stopped!

[Boris]

I agree with Mike46 that a large number of people have bought a ticket to a festival where they expect to have a ***ing great time, see some great bands, and not thought much if at all about the charity aspect.However as Neil says, some definately have. Would we still go if there was no charity aspect? Possibly not in my case as not only would that be the case but so would numerous disaffected integral associates of the festival that make it what it is. Would we still go if there was barely any known headliners? In my case yes if it retained it's scope and buzz.. but I admit I'd feel tempted to go elsewhere with my (limited) cash, such as Shambers, BD, Bee Turd etc. Do I care if the Bearded One has spent (almost) all the cash on the Stones? Not hugely. It would be a pity of course for the charities, of whom I do care, but it would be a one-off I expect. Eavis is entited to put on the show he wants and throughout the history of the festival this would not be the worst outcome ever by far. Bring it on. And yes for me my only chance ever to see a legend- spent or not.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Boris

[marktea]

I think it's probably a case that I should had worded it better and people misunderstood me.

Lets face it, We're all here 'cos we love those Somerset fields, it's been two years and everyone's getting a little case of cabin fever.

Fear not, be the stones there or not we set sail in 103 days!

Agreed

And if the Stones do play I'll be there I expect. On reflection there is only one person's judgment that counts on this and that's Mr Eavis. If he thinks the deal works for the festival and the charities (if there is a deal) then that would be good enough for me.

[Bisque]

I want the Stones to play just to annoy my Dad

(who is a huge Stones fan & was unable to make the London gigs)

[PurpleFire]

Two Hyde Park Gigs (July 6th and July 13th) and Glastonbury?

Twitter is the source sorry!

[eFestivals]

Two Hyde Park Gigs (July 6th and July 13th) and Glastonbury?

Twitter is the source sorry!

nah, an unsourced newspaper story is the source.

[alibear]

nah, an unsourced newspaper story is the source.

Do you know it not to be true? Or you just don't know whether it is true?

Someone I know met a 'booker' for Glastonbury last night, who said the Rolling Stones and Fleetwood Mac were"definitely" headlining. I had to point out FM's US tour dates in June to prove it couldn't be true. It's amazing how many random people claim to be 'in the know' just for a bit of kudos!

(I reckon that clown might be right on the Stones though)

Edited March 15, 2013 by alibear