If the festival had to move locations would you still go?

[frostypaw]

Sad to hear this - no doubt from here it's the neighbours profiteering

I like the idea of doing a smaller fest after the next fallow year, that'll crash their land values... Then I can buy it all with my euromillions win and give it to Michael for free tickets

[eFestivals]

I guess the downside of being a non-profit is they don't have the capital on hand to buy the land up when it goes on sale.

 

as I understand it, since the (initially) poor selling tickets in 2008, they've made efforts to build up a reserve of capital - so I guess they'd be prepared to dip into that for the right acquisition.

 

While I'd be sad to see it move, I also find the idea quite exciting. Yes, you know the current site like the back of your hand, but remember the first time you went when everything was new and you never knew what was around the corner? You get that again.

that's occurred to me too.

However, I'm guessing the move would lose an amount of that for the first year at least, just because that first time would cause lots of new issues that needed to be dealt with, which would probably be at the expense of the sort of optional extras that are part of what makes Glastonbury special.

[Untz]

I wonder how much money they could source from us festival goers to buy land. I'd certainly pay some extra money on a ticket, like a donation, if it meant that not only could the festival continue, but it would stabilise ticket prices for a few years as they wouldn't have to rent the land.

 

I guess it wouldn't be that popular as a lot of people just see the festival as this big company and not really know or care how it operates. 

[incident]

If I were in ME's position I would just tell the farmer in question to do one. If some things have to be shifted around inside the festival and/or the capacity reduced by 10,000, so be it.

Not that simple.

I don't know which fields in particular are an issue this time, but the Festival is dealing with multiple landowners - some of whom have one field, some of whom have many. The festival has told landowners to do one in the past - in particular (and I think this is common knowledge) the guy who owners Big Lickle / Barren Ground has a terrible relationship with GFL and his fields aren't going to be available in the foreseeable future unless there's an ownership change.

But if you take out one or more of the fields inside the fence, it's not just a case of trimming the site to fit. It's fairly safe to assume that the farmers would insist on retaining access to their property, which given that the Festival takes over several roads & paths could be a major headache - not just in terms of making the routes available (ie fencing a path through), but the bigger issue would be adjusting the Festivals own internal traffic system.

Even outside the fence, it's an issue - the Festivals reach spans a far larger area than most realise.

My view (and I feel quite strongly about this) is that anyone who's using one of the unofficial off-site accommodation providers - Tangerine Fields, Camp Kerala, Love Fields, etc is directly making it more difficult for the festival to continue to exist in its current form. By encouraging landowners to turn over more fields to this kind of shit, you're helping to change the economics so that the festival is unable to get the land it needs at an viable rate.

I'm certain that part of the reason Worthy View exists as an official service is to try and undercut these people, but every year we hear about more of these off-site options for people who are too delicate to cope with an actual festival so I'm not sure how effectively it's worked.

[stuartbert two hats]

I wonder how much money they could source from us festival goers to buy land. I'd certainly pay some extra money on a ticket, like a donation, if it meant that not only could the festival continue, but it would stabilise ticket prices for a few years as they wouldn't have to rent the land.

 

I guess it wouldn't be that popular as a lot of people just see the festival as this big company and not really know or care how it operates. 

 

What, like a Kickstarter?  That's an idea so crazy-brilliant it could probably earn millions and potentially kill the festival if done wrong.  There is so much demand/love for the festival around that tapped properly this problem probably could just go away.

 

How to tap it though - that's the kicker!

[michael eavis' beard]

If they moved the festival it would loose a lot and would signal the beginning of the end I think.  I reckon I'd go to an alternative location at least once to see what it was like but can't see it being as good.  The "Love The Farm, Leave No Trace" slogan had an impact because people do actually love the farm.

 

Out of interest - in terms of all the scaling back talk - how much of the current festival is actually held on Eavis land?  I seem to remember hearing that a lot of the car parking and some additional camping etc is on neighbouring land but not sure.  Wondering how big an Eavis-only-land Glastonbury would look?

[Pinhead]

Not that simple.

I don't know which fields in particular are an issue this time, but the Festival is dealing with multiple landowners - some of whom have one field, some of whom have many. The festival has told landowners to do one in the past - in particular (and I think this is common knowledge) the guy who owners Big Lickle / Barren Ground has a terrible relationship with GFL and his fields aren't going to be available in the foreseeable future unless there's an ownership change.

But if you take out one or more of the fields inside the fence, it's not just a case of trimming the site to fit. It's fairly safe to assume that the farmers would insist on retaining access to their property, which given that the Festival takes over several roads & paths could be a major headache - not just in terms of making the routes available (ie fencing a path through), but the bigger issue would be adjusting the Festivals own internal traffic system.

Even outside the fence, it's an issue - the Festivals reach spans a far larger area than most realise.

My view (and I feel quite strongly about this) is that anyone who's using one of the unofficial off-site accommodation providers - Tangerine Fields, Camp Kerala, Love Fields, etc is directly making it more difficult for the festival to continue to exist in its current form. By encouraging landowners to turn over more fields to this kind of shit, you're helping to change the economics so that the festival is unable to get the land it needs at an viable rate.

I'm certain that part of the reason Worthy View exists as an official service is to try and undercut these people, but every year we hear about more of these off-site options for people who are too delicate to cope with an actual festival so I'm not sure how effectively it's worked.

Its the same guy isnt it.....?

Totally agree with all this. Said on here once before that I was sure that the external camping would be bad for the festival - didnt appreciate at the time however that it would be quite in this way.

I think they could shift it and re-jig traffic, parking, gate management etc. Its just is there a will to continue if all that might happen is that the next landowner along starts taking the piss....

[DeanoL]

as I understand it, since the (initially) poor selling tickets in 2008, they've made efforts to build up a reserve of capital - so I guess they'd be prepared to dip into that for the right acquisition.

 

That should help then. I always figured the entire operating surplus made up the charity donation.

 

No idea what the going rate for land like that is even when there isn't the festival effect. They could stick £50 on a ticket for one year - make clear it's a one-off, apologise to people that it prices out, but stress it's important for the future of the festival. That raises 5-7 million. I've no idea if that solves all the problems or is barely a drop in the bucket though.

[Pinhead]

I've no idea how big the estate is, but Boomtown is now 45,000 people and I know there's space for many more.

Admittedly, it's not all exactly the ideal space because of the inclines at some point.

Would it do 200k people though in all honesty....! Yeah that bowl is a killer isnt it - didnt they put in an escalator or something at Boomtown?

[Untz]

What, like a Kickstarter?  That's an idea so crazy-brilliant it could probably earn millions and potentially kill the festival if done wrong.  There is so much demand/love for the festival around that tapped properly this problem probably could just go away.

 

How to tap it though - that's the kicker!

 

Essentially, yeah. 

 

There's so many ways for it go wrong or to upset people though, I doubt the festival would feel comfortable with taking people's money like that. Imagine paying up some money and then not getting tickets for a few years. It is an interesting idea though.

[incident]

I think they could shift it and re-jig traffic, parking, gate management etc. Its just is there a will to continue if all that might happen is that the next landowner along starts taking the piss....

Trouble is, they've already re-jigged it a lot reduce the reliance on adjacent fields. Just look at the amount of stuff that's been sent off-site to the Bath & West Showgrounds over the past 10 years. You can only do so much before the effect causes other problems.

I'd imagine the next major change to come would be to send some or all of the Parking off-site - it'll probably get to the stage where it's cheaper just to hire a few acres next to Junction 23 of the M5, and run a shuttle service.

[grumpyhack]

The Glastonbury Festival is an ethos and spirit that I'd want preserved. It's the old "the music comes second" bit.  I'd rather maintain that spirit found in the Greenfields and other outlying areas and scale down the size if need be.

[Paul_w]

"I'm always worried about the future, about the land not being available because I only own the middle bit," he told Sky News.

"Where the pyramid is and all the land around it is owned by other people, so that could be a problem long-term.

Read more: http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Michael-Eavis-says-Glastonbury-Festival-Worthy/story-26728179-detail/story.html#ixzz3dVEYV0cE 
Follow us: @WesternDaily on Twitter | WesternDaily on Facebook

 

Have to say I'm very surprised that the Eavis's don't own the pyramid field, thought that was about as central as it got, the "middle bit" must be surprisingly small. Would be curious to know how much and what bits they actually own

[incident]

Have to say I'm very surprised that the Eavis's don't own the pyramid field, thought that was about as central as it got, the "middle bit" must be surprisingly small. Would be curious to know how much and what bits they actually own

It's all about punctuation, and the Western Daily Press really should go on a refresher course..

"because I only own the middle bit, where the Pyramid is - and all the land around is owned by other people"

[stuartbert two hats]

"I'm always worried about the future, about the land not being available because I only own the middle bit," he told Sky News.

"Where the pyramid is and all the land around it is owned by other people, so that could be a problem long-term.

Read more: http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Michael-Eavis-says-Glastonbury-Festival-Worthy/story-26728179-detail/story.html#ixzz3dVEYV0cE 

Follow us: @WesternDaily on Twitter | WesternDaily on Facebook

 

Have to say I'm very surprised that the Eavis's don't own the pyramid field, thought that was about as central as it got, the "middle bit" must be surprisingly small. Would be curious to know how much and what bits they actually own

I'm pretty sure that's a misquote.  Watch the video he says he does own the pyramid.

 

"I only own the middle bit. That's me, where the pyramid is."

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1504832/glastonbury-may-have-to-move-says-founder

[stuartbert two hats]

It's all about punctuation, and the Western Daily Press really should go on a refresher course..

"because I only own the middle bit, where the Pyramid is - and all the land around is owned by other people"

It's just a straight lift from the Sky story.  Lazy reporting from Western Daily Press and poor paraphrasing from Sky.

[Pinhead]

It'll be available at the Land Registry I would have thought.

Yeah I get that idea about the parking - it really does take up a substantial amount of land. Perhaps they should say everyone must come by train, bus, bike or on foot in the future. Must cost a bit to rent all that parking land and thats money not going to charity so I can see why ME charges £25 for the parking ticket.

[Pinhead]

I always believed he owned the Pyramid Field - its on all the old site maps and the stage hasn't moved out of that field in its history has it?

[Paul_w]

I always believed he owned the Pyramid Field - its on all the old site maps and the stage hasn't moved out of that field in its history has it?

He does, it was just bad punctuation from sky/WDP. Not sure if the car parks are really the issue as the £25 surely must cover the cost of renting the fields, i would imagine inside the site is more the threat, as well as external land owners using their sites for glamping (such as what happened in the east camper van fields this year

[Pinhead]

Yes its a double edged sword. On the one hand ME has to keep the local landownders on his side by giving them an oppertunity to make money out of the whole event. On the other, it looks as if several are now scrabbling to get what they can out of the whole arrangement and playing hardball with their land / access contribution making the whole thing a nightmare to negotiate and balance between landowners.

[FrankieX]

I think if this does happen, they should hold it in a different site every year. And it should be called Glastonbury Tour.

[LEDZEP66]

I like the sense of community you get from Glastonbury and the whole way of living together in tents and generally doing what ever you want for the week. This is the reason I go to Glastonbury over other festivals and if it had to move I would hope these things would move with it. At the end of the day I go to 1 festival a year and that is glastonbury, not going hasn't crossed my mine in 8 years. I would go to the new location and hope it has the spirit and the ethos glastonbury has. If this hasn't transferred over and it becomes a generic festival it would all come down to the muscic for me so which ever festival has the best line up would be that years visit.

 

Imagine if it does move and it has been annouced the year before. Demand for tickets would be out of this world and the emotions of everyone on site. Michael Eavis giving a farewell speach on the pyramid after the Sunday headliner (would have to be Led Zep), the site would flood from tears.

[grumpyhack]

What ME may have said on Sky and what's on the Sky website may be different.  In which case the Western Daily Press my have got it from the Sky website which quotes Michael as saying:

"Where the pyramid is and all the land around it is owned by other people, so that could be a problem long-term.

"I may have to find a site that's bigger and is all under the control of one person. That's the ideal situation, so that might happen in the long-term".

[gmb1992]

I like the view of the Tor and Iike that it's in a valley so you can get that nice hazy fog in the mornings. 

 

I would give it a go if it moved to see if there was the same atmosphere or is it is a special avalon feeling 

[Jonny Hobbs]

Where on earth would you find a plot of land big enough, that didnt cost the earth?!