Foo Fighters

[eFestivals]

means people who are going to glastonbury wont(or less likely too) buy tickets for the wembley shows i believe

yep, exactly that.

[5co77ie]

the crowdfunded thing is something separate.

And if the wembley shows are true, they have a promoter on board.

So if they don't have one - then it's likely that they aren't true?

[Matt42]

yep, exactly that.

However if Glastonbury announces as usual (March-April) those Wembley shows will have already been announced and tickets will have already been sold.

[brettredmayne]

I can imagine foo fighters shows will be on sale before December

[eFestivals]

So if they don't have one - then it's likely that they aren't true?

I'd say so, yep.

But as Grohl supposedly announced those Wembley shows from the stage, it looks like it's a done deal.

[eFestivals]

However if Glastonbury announces as usual (March-April) those Wembley shows will have already been announced and tickets will have already been sold.

perhaps, yep .... tho if you'd committed to giving someone (say) five million quid, wouldn't you be keen to *guarantee* that you're going to earn that five million quid back again?

Why take a risk that you don't have to take?

[zahidf]

I'd say so, yep.

But as Grohl supposedly announced those Wembley shows from the stage, it looks like it's a done deal.

I was at one of the club gigs: he defnitely said they were doing Wembley next year.

I think Foo's are at the stage though were they can do what they like live wise. If they sell out Wembley, they could get permission to do Glasto, If that's what Grohl wants. If anything, Sonisphere letting Metallica play last year was a lot more risky for sonisphere, given their history and proximity to the festival.

Edited October 21, 2014 by zahidf

[eFestivals]

I was at one of the club gigs: he defnitely said they were doing Wembley next year.

I think Foo's are at the stage though were they can do what they like live wise. If they sell out Wembley, they could get permission to do Glasto, If that's what Grohl wants. If anything, Sonisphere letting Metallica play last year was a lot more risky for sonisphere, given their history and proximity to the festival.

given the connectivity between Metallica and Soni, I suspect that wasn't for Metallica's full fee, and so gave them the leverage to do Glastonbury.

In fact, as Metallica were in deep discussions with Glastonbury before the signed the Soni deal, it's quite possibly the case that the Soni deal always allowed them to do Glasto.

I can only make guesses about the Foos on the limited info available, but my suspicion there is that's a deal that was tied up early enough to exclude the likes of Glasto - unless Foos always had it in mind for a show anyway, which is possible as i know there's been regular convos between Glasto and Foos over the years.

But i'd still plump for Foos at Wembley being an exclusive deal (with the only possible exception bto that being a R/L show, now ruled out by state-side shows that weekend). Melvin is very very hot on tying big-money acts down.

[Gucci Piggy]

Did Foos say anything other than when Dave mentioned the "week at Wembley"?

I think that quote was him talking about them playing Wembley in the past, not saying that they're doing it next year.

He said something about how the club shows "make a change from the week at Wembley" or something, didn't he?

[sisco]

Did I miss something? Where was this?

From John Giddings

[Matt42]

On the other hand, if lucky' info is true that download "failed" to get the foos. It makes the exclusivity of Wembley look more likely.

However it's all about timing right? If they announce Wembley in November when the album drops and the hype is at its peak tickets will surely fly.

The foos are massive ticket sellers, they could easily pull off 3 nights at Wembley and Glasto.

[eFestivals]

The foos are massive ticket sellers, they could easily pull off 3 nights at Wembley and Glasto.

Yep, they probably could.

But if you had £5M, would you want to risk that £5M on that being correct, when you could lessen the risks?

Any smart businessman will try and cover the risks as much as they're able to. Covering the risks with a band is done by limiting the alternative ways the money could flow.

[zahidf]

given the connectivity between Metallica and Soni, I suspect that wasn't for Metallica's full fee, and so gave them the leverage to do Glastonbury.

In fact, as Metallica were in deep discussions with Glastonbury before the signed the Soni deal, it's quite possibly the case that the Soni deal always allowed them to do Glasto.

I can only make guesses about the Foos on the limited info available, but my suspicion there is that's a deal that was tied up early enough to exclude the likes of Glasto - unless Foos always had it in mind for a show anyway, which is possible as i know there's been regular convos between Glasto and Foos over the years.

But i'd still plump for Foos at Wembley being an exclusive deal (with the only possible exception bto that being a R/L show, now ruled out by state-side shows that weekend). Melvin is very very hot on tying big-money acts down.

Is melvin promoting the Foo's shows at Wembley?

My feeling was that they would a stadium tour next year, alongside maybe T in the Park and Glasto, then Reading in 2016.

Whilst money is important to the Foo's, i also think they play what they like, and they could feel headlining Glasto is something as a band they've never done and would help them in way's other than money. COmpared to say AC/DC or Fleetwood Mac, were money is more important.

Edited October 21, 2014 by zahidf

[LondonTom]

Thought this should go in here rather than the Radiohead thread

Foos are headlining Glasto im afraid.

Not for Glasto, all I know is they were close to signing for Download but chose Glasto instead.

Edited October 21, 2014 by LondonTom

[5co77ie]

given the connectivity between Metallica and Soni

I guess with Soni now DEAG I wonder if that's all over now

[5co77ie]

My feeling was that they would a stadium tour next year, alongside maybe T in the Park and Glasto, then Reading in 2016.

I agree, I think they're the act that the European festivals have re-aligned for - I don't think anyone else would be mad enough to play what could be 5 festival dates back to back, plus stadium shows. If they are then this may have been pencilled in as a five date series of shows at Wembley - which whilst being firmed up has become five festival dates.

and they could feel headlining Glasto is something as a band they've never done

They have played Glastonbury before and weren't impressed. Which conversely leads me to still think it's not the Foos. So if it's not the Foos who else could or would do 5 back to back shows, and then leave for the States at the start of July. Edited October 21, 2014 by 5co77ie

[eFestivals]

Is melvin promoting the Foo's shows at Wembley?

I'm guessing he will be, yeah. Melvin is Chairman of Wembley PLC, as well as his role in Festival Republic.

I'm pretty sure that all of the shows that happen at Wembley are done within the Live Nation 'family' (tho perhaps I'm wrong about that; I've never checked it out in full detail).

My feeling was that they would a stadium tour next year, alongside maybe T in the Park and Glasto, then Reading in 2016.

My feeling was that Melvin would have tried his hardest to get them to do R/L, tho the show they've just announced now rules them out of doing that.

T in the Park is quite possible, as that's also Live Nation. If foos are doing Wembley, then I expect all other shows to be linked to Live Nation in some manner.

Having committed to paying them for Wembley (if they have), LN will not be keen to allow them to do competing shows.

Whilst money is important to the Foo's, i also think they play what they like, and they could feel headlining Glasto is something as a band they've never done and would help them in way's other than money. COmpared to say AC/DC or Fleetwood Mac, were money is more important.

All of those bands could want to do Glasto; similarly, they might not be bothered at all.

I'd say that money is of the same importance to all of those acts - they don't need it in theory, tho who knows precisely what's going on in the background of any members that might cause them to raise its importance?

Where the money really counts around these already-very-rich geezers is with their management, who are on a percentage of what the band earns. The management will always try and steer bands like these away from the likes of Glasto because it's a (comparatively) poor payer. Note that the relevant management are often not getting a penny of record sales; if they are getting something from sales it's unlikely that they will be from the whole of that band's catalogue. This makes any sales boost from Glasto much less important for what a band might do than typically gets said by many people here.

We could guess that Grohl desperately wants to do Glasto, but we could guess the same for the other bands too. Unless there's any real indication they're just empty guesses, because those opportunities have pretty much always been there and they've not bothered with them yet.

[eFestivals]

They have played Glastonbury before and weren't impressed.

that's not true as far as i'm aware.

There's nothing to my knowledge that has Grohl disliking Glastonbury. What there is is him liking R/L more where they're a better fit, and where there's more money to be made.

I know for certain that a number of years ago there was regular talking between Glasto and Foos. My presumption is that nothing came of it because there was always more money on offer from R/L.

[5co77ie]

that's not true as far as i'm aware.

There's nothing to my knowledge that has Grohl disliking Glastonbury. What there is is him liking R/L more where they're a better fit, and where there's more money to be made.

I know for certain that a number of years ago there was regular talking between Glasto and Foos. My presumption is that nothing came of it because there was always more money on offer from R/L.

In the film 'Back And Forth' Grohl says something along the lines of some festivals we enjoy, and some we don't - the imagery over the voice over at this point is of Foos playing in the rain at Glastonbury.

[Justiceforcedave]

that's not true as far as i'm aware.

There's nothing to my knowledge that has Grohl disliking Glastonbury. What there is is him liking R/L more where they're a better fit, and where there's more money to be made.

I know for certain that a number of years ago there was regular talking between Glasto and Foos. My presumption is that nothing came of it because there was always more money on offer from R/L.

Grohl definitely has an affinity (and huge history) with Reading. It's something he's never shy of mentioning

However much big bands like to make money though, there are some who seem to be able to see the bigger picture. Doing 3 club shows before the Invictus games for example is not something they HAD to do. Sure it creates a lot of hype and a nice media frenzy leading up the release of a new album but they certainly didn't need to play the 3 shows back to back. I assume they did it because they wanted to.

Likewise I'm sure the band understand the benefit of playing Glastonbury and Dave Grohl must have an understanding of it's heritage and what kind of impact it can have on a band or musicians legacy in the UK.

In summary, I'd understand a contract stopping the Foos playing Glasto but not so much the fee or the history/lack of.

[eFestivals]

Grohl definitely has an affinity (and huge history) with Reading. It's something he's never shy of mentioning

<snip>

In summary, I'd understand a contract stopping the Foos playing Glasto but not so much the fee or the history/lack of.

Have you tried to reconcile these two things into a coherent whole?

From what's in my knowledge, the lure of R/L - including the money on offer with its conditions - has stopped Foos doing Glastonbury.

[neil999]

Have you tried to reconcile these two things into a coherent whole?

From what's in my knowledge, the lure of R/L - including the money on offer with its conditions - has stopped Foos doing Glastonbury.

do you think they are a good choice for glastonbury?

[eFestivals]

do you think they are a good choice for glastonbury?

apart from being about 15 years too late, yeah, why not.

[neil999]

apart from being about 15 years too late, yeah, why not.

haha, im not their biggest fan...but im pretty certain they will go down a storm..

[dentalplan]

In the film 'Back And Forth' Grohl says something along the lines of some festivals we enjoy, and some we don't - the imagery over the voice over at this point is of Foos playing in the rain at Glastonbury.

Well Arcade Fire had a rainy one and weren't best pleased with the experience, and they were coaxed into coming back, so you never know.