Contractual reasons

[tomainley]

http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/76522

"We can't give you that yet. We're under… It's just for contractual reasons"

Metallica?

[bekimo]

Obviously

[Ben Atkins]

I have heard this is Prince (from a friend that works for EMI). Has said he doesnt want to sign a contract!

[ThomThomDrum]

If it is Prince and its because he does not want to sign a contract well he should be just told to fuck off. The little prick

[jeffie]

Have to say with his track record, no contract, no play.

[nicknickmm]

I have heard this is Prince (from a friend that works for EMI). Has said he doesnt want to sign a contract!

[Wooderson]

Is Sonisphere sold out?

"Contractual Reasons" is French for bullshit.

[tomainley]

I love how much speculation surrounds Glastonbury.. its so exciting

Edited April 4, 2014 by tomainley

[bekimo]

Is Sonisphere sold out?

"Contractual Reasons" is French for bullshit.

[the_arsonist]

It hasn't. But that's what happens when you set up a carbon copy Download Festival, and repeat your lineup every other year.

[Wooderson]

Contractual reasons = "ONLY CONCERTS EITHER BAND WILL PLAY IN THE UK IN 2014."

[bekimo]

It hasn't. But that's what happens when you set up a carbon copy Download Festival, and repeat your lineup every other year.

[Alcatraz]

Is Sonisphere sold out?

"Contractual Reasons" is French for bullshit.

[kalifire]

I'm confused by this...

"For contractual reasons" could mean Metallica because of their Sonisphere contract but it could mean Prince because of his Glasto contract (he's had it written in that he doesn't want his name connected until much closer to the event).

"A few weeks ago" could mean Metallica and that's why they're holding off, because of Sonisphere, but it could mean Prince, because that's when he was in the UK and able to meet/sign.

It's not obvious that it's one or the other, but the fact it could be either is incredible.

[pentura]

Maybe we're all being mind - f**cked and it's Metallica featuring Prince!

[Alcatraz]

It's not obvious that it's one or the other, but the fact it could be either is incredible.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Alcatraz

[eFestivals]

I'm confused by this...

"For contractual reasons" could mean Metallica because of their Sonisphere contract but it could mean Prince because of his Glasto contract (he's had it written in that he doesn't want his name connected until much closer to the event).

"A few weeks ago" could mean Metallica and that's why they're holding off, because of Sonisphere, but it could mean Prince, because that's when he was in the UK and able to meet/sign.

It's not obvious that it's one or the other, but the fact it could be either is incredible.

It *IS* obviously Metallica from where I'm sat.

[kalifire]

It *IS* obviously Metallica from where I'm sat.

[eFestivals]

Or in the scenario that Neil has painted out, it could be both.

Both could play, but the contractual thing is Metallica.

[ThomThomDrum]

Both could play, but the contractual thing is Metallica.

[Bhoy67]

Give the headline slot to jake bugg.

[Supermerv]

Give the headline slot to jake bugg.

[eFestivals]

But is the talk of Prince refusing to sign a contract not also a "contractual thing"?

he's refusing to commit from what I've heard. That means he can't be announced at all, cos he's not playing. So no, without a contract, there can be no "contractual thing".

[ThomThomDrum]

he's refusing to commit from what I've heard. That means he can't be announced at all, cos he's not playing. So no, without a contract, there can be no "contractual thing".

[UEF]

Fair enough.

I suppose the confusion exists as some say he will not sign one while others say he has refused them.

Either way I hope Glastonbury are still not desperately chasing him for this year or any other. He does not deserve such attention IMO, talented as he may be