2019 Festival Move

[glasto-worker]

5 hours ago, Fingerbobs said:

Long Marston Airfield fits nicely within that 100 mile radius. Is he looking to wake up the dear old Phoenix?

I worked at The Phoenix 1993 to 1997 so I know the site well - At that time it was set up as a Arena event - in some years there was some access issues with entry for cars - never did find out the real reason as we were already onsite - all I know is cars were stacked up as far away as the M40 - have my doubts as its not a huge site - time will tell. 

[eFestivals]

13 hours ago, Sawdusty Surfer said:

'To let the land recover'  Looks to me like they want an alternative site for the current fallow year cycle to keep the income stream flowing.

yep, it's that. Emily has a big team of full-time staff that need to be paid for, something Michael never had. 

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, Sawdusty Surfer said:

OK, just spoken to someone who really should be 'in the know'. He said there are negotiations taking place but all still up in the air . 

yeah, well, it was no coincidence that Michael invited local TV to the farm yesterday and told them 2019 and the other stuff Emily had briefed him about, even tho there's nothing firmed up with the site yet.

It's about managing local sensitivities, and threatening to take the ball away.

[hurdy]

8 hours ago, Fingerbobs said:

Long Marston Airfield fits nicely within that 100 mile radius. Is he looking to wake up the dear old Phoenix?

That was my first thought too

[eFestivals]

10 hours ago, joeltg said:

As soon as I saw the article my take on it was the bbc were mixed up and the move would possibly happen for 2018, then back to somerset for 19. 

Be nice to have no fallow years hey , possibly even take some heat off ticket day but I doubt it!  

Also as mentioned above, gives them more negotiation when it comes to those other greedy land owners if they have another alternative site.  think 19 other farmers in total own the land. 

Michael very definitely told the BBC that the new site would be used for 2019 - there's no mix up.

The finances around the full-time staff don't really allow for a year off (it can be done, but it's wasteful), so shuffling the fallow year around is the only realistic option.

[briddj]

So in the space of three months we've moved on from this official announcement?

http://www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/2017-tickets-on-sale-in-october/

"We can also confirm that we will be taking our next fallow year in 2018, in order to give the farm, the village and the Festival team the traditional year off. There are no plans to hold an event at another location in 2018. "

 

[___S_o_m_a__]

 

[trevethin]

I think it may be referring to holding a smaller festival during a fallow year.

As others have said maybe at Long Marston or Eastnor.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, briddj said:

So in the space of three months we've moved on from this official announcement?

http://www.glastonburyfestivals.co.uk/2017-tickets-on-sale-in-october/

"We can also confirm that we will be taking our next fallow year in 2018, in order to give the farm, the village and the Festival team the traditional year off. There are no plans to hold an event at another location in 2018. "

 

Yep, looks like it.

It's not really too much of a surprise cos the cost of tens of idle staff with no festival to work on is high, so if they've sorted a new site with enough time to be able to shuffle things around that's what they'll do.

I was actually quite surprised to see them via the statement you've quoted fix the date of the fallow year so far in advance when they'd been trying to do something else, tho there's more going on than the face-value of the statement - such as managing local sensitivities, and particularly after what was a chaotic festival for locals with those traffic issues.

And I think that locals sensitivities thing is pretty much proven again by the timing of yesterday's announcement, which has pretty much pushed the scrutiny board stuff into the background, when it will have had much more prominence (and more problems off the back of it for the fest) if they'd not been yesterday's 'move' announcement.

I suspect that the site Michael is talking about is the same site as was mentioned a month or two back (I can't remember what the actual words were), where we speculated here about Cirencester park &/or Lord Bathurst's pile - and this time they've chosen words which make it harder to pin-point (because we quickly sussed out Longleat, and we quickly focused on Bathurst).

BTW, I got to check out the Lord Bathurst stuff, and direct from the lips of Lady B (the dowager, not the Lord's wife) she says it's not there - tho it's not impossible that she's out of the loop with what her son is up to.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, trevethin said:

I think it may be referring to holding a smaller festival during a fallow year.

As others have said maybe at Long Marston or Eastnor.

It's difficult to work out cos making that statement yesterday was defo part of a PR game.

But as far as I'm aware, the remit for an alternative site is one that's big enough to move the main fest to if necessary, so that the threat of moving is always there, so that adjacent landowners can't screw the Eavii for too much money in Pilton.

 

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

I still think it's posturing from Michael. Despite the several weeks, if not months of disruption, the festival is worth a huge amount to the Somerset economy, a fact I know that Michael is very proud of (the official figure is noted on the wall of the Glastonbury: Land and Legend exhibition at the V&A and I can't remember it, but it's significant). Personally, I think these are thinly veiled threats to those who continue to place obstacles in the way of the organisation, but we'll see. Either way, the headlines have raised eyebrows this morning.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, SPTFRE said:

I still think it's posturing from Michael.

that wasn't a 'natural' Michael I saw on the beeb last night, it was a Michael who'd been told what he could say and what he couldn't. Put another way, he's been knobbled by Emily.

The timing of yesterday rather gives it away as more about PR management than what was actually said, tho that doesn't mean what was said is tosh - more that it's a diversion from other things that could be in the news instead.

 

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, SPTFRE said:

Either way, the headlines have raised eyebrows this morning.

yeah, tho a large part of that is because of the shoddy reporting of what Michael actually said. 

[briddj]

46 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, looks like it.

It's not really too much of a surprise cos the cost of tens of idle staff with no festival to work on is high, so if they've sorted a new site with enough time to be able to shuffle things around that's what they'll do.

I was actually quite surprised to see them via the statement you've quoted fix the date of the fallow year so far in advance when they'd been trying to do something else, tho there's more going on than the face-value of the statement - such as managing local sensitivities, and particularly after what was a chaotic festival for locals with those traffic issues.

And I think that locals sensitivities thing is pretty much proven again by the timing of yesterday's announcement, which has pretty much pushed the scrutiny board stuff into the background, when it will have had much more prominence (and more problems off the back of it for the fest) if they'd not been yesterday's 'move' announcement.

I suspect that the site Michael is talking about is the same site as was mentioned a month or two back (I can't remember what the actual words were), where we speculated here about Cirencester park &/or Lord Bathurst's pile - and this time they've chosen words which make it harder to pin-point (because we quickly sussed out Longleat, and we quickly focused on Bathurst).

BTW, I got to check out the Lord Bathurst stuff, and direct from the lips of Lady B (the dowager, not the Lord's wife) she says it's not there - tho it's not impossible that she's out of the loop with what her son is up to.

i think the blocking of the scrutiny board stories definitely makes a lot of sense, whether 2019 proves to be true or not might be irrelevant once we get there.

[stuartbert two hats]

.

Edited December 20, 2016 by stuartbert two hats
double post

[stuartbert two hats]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

yeah, well, it was no coincidence that Michael invited local TV to the farm yesterday and told them 2019 and the other stuff Emily had briefed him about, even tho there's nothing firmed up with the site yet.

It's about managing local sensitivities, and threatening to take the ball away.

So is 2019 official and not just a headline writer doing 2+2=2019?

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Michael very definitely told the BBC that the new site would be used for 2019 - there's no mix up.

The finances around the full-time staff don't really allow for a year off (it can be done, but it's wasteful), so shuffling the fallow year around is the only realistic option.

Do you have other info we're not privy to?

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

So is 2019 official and not just a headline writer doing 2+2=2019?

the local beeb said something along the lines of "2019 was what Michael told us", tho they didn't show him saying it - so presumably it's not a presumption.

25 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Do you have other info we're not privy to?

dunno, have you seen the local beeb's output around what Michael said yesterday (see just above)?

They clearly stated in one of the bits I saw that Michael told them the new site could be used in 2019.

(my wording wasn't great in what you asked that question against. The 'definitely' is that he told them 2019, not that the alternative site would definitely be used in 2019 [I guess that's not a signed and sealed deal yet]).

[watsonjm]

Not going to lie, I will be livid if they move the fallow year.  I waited off booking my wedding till it was confirmed

[5co77ie]

Think it's interesting that the scrutiny report says " the council and other agencies are unable to limit their number as their existence is a result of entrepreneurism."

Adding, "These sites are organised independently and the regulatory agencies required to ensure compliance of a variety of legal requirements is not offset against any fee and no enforcement costs are currently recoverable. Equally noise nuisance, traffic nuisance and poor public safety as a result of poorly managed external campsite operations all impact on the Festival's relationship with the local community and potentially their relationship with any ticket holder that uses those facilities."

 

So, if something goes wrong in the external campsites Glastonbury Festival could be viewed as culpable even though it's sod all to do with them. That must be determined a risk and I wonder to what degree it's an acceptable risk.

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by 5co77ie

[stuartbert two hats]

25 minutes ago, watsonjm said:

Not going to lie, I will be livid if they move the fallow year.  I waited off booking my wedding till it was confirmed

Exactly what happened to me with the 2012 move.  I "knew" how often the fallow year happened, so arranged my June wedding for 2011.  Little hats arrived and didn't get back to the farm until 2014!

Edited December 20, 2016 by stuartbert two hats

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

Think it's interesting that the scrutiny report says " the council and other agencies are unable to limit their number as their existence is a result of entrepreneurism."

Adding, "These sites are organised independently and the regulatory agencies required to ensure compliance of a variety of legal requirements is not offset against any fee and no enforcement costs are currently recoverable. Equally noise nuisance, traffic nuisance and poor public safety as a result of poorly managed external campsite operations all impact on the Festival's relationship with the local community and potentially their relationship with any ticket holder that uses those facilities."

 

So, if something goes wrong in the external campsites Glastonbury Festival could be viewed as culpable even though it's sod all to do with them. That must be determined a risk and I wonder to what degree it's an acceptable risk.

That reads to me as tho they're considering how those independant operations might be brought within some sort of overall plan for the good of everyone, rather than merely noting they're outside of the plans at the moment.

After all, in the council's view the fest is good for the area, so ensuring everyone's kept happy (rather than annoyed by a bad operator) is what they'll be aiming to do.

[briddj]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I was actually quite surprised to see them via the statement you've quoted fix the date of the fallow year so far in advance when they'd been trying to do something else, tho there's more going on than the face-value of the statement - such as managing local sensitivities, and particularly after what was a chaotic festival for locals with those traffic issues.

 

Just looked back and the 2012 fallow year was confirmed in October 2010 - so those dates would match up quite well. But 2012 obviously had different constraints around it.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, briddj said:

Just looked back and the 2012 fallow year was confirmed in October 2010 - so those dates would match up quite well. But 2012 obviously had different constraints around it.

it was known about long before October 2010, cos the following June would have been the fallow year otherwise and everyone knew they'd be a fest in 2011.

[briddj]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

it was known about long before October 2010, cos the following June would have been the fallow year otherwise and everyone knew they'd be a fest in 2011.

A very good point.

Though if the festival is held is 2018 we are up to one fallow year in the last 12!

[denwyn]

I'm sure locals would welcome this, must be hell for them. I love Glastonbury, but if it moved for a year or two wouldn't be a bad thing. My own view is it needs a total revamp, far to big, needs ticket sales cut by 25%. Huge crowds around stages this year were dangerous, on site security needs beefing up loads.