Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Oasis


Guest

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

But if all the tickets went next week, with hundreds of thousands unable to secure them, it won't make a difference. They'll sell out whatever they put on 

 

I'm sure they'll more than sell out whatever shows are announced, that's not really all that relevant. If you're a promoter with a million plus tickets to sell, and the real profit only comes on the last 3-5% sold (assuming both Noel and Liam will be getting big guarantees - which we don't know for sure but seems very likely), you don't even think about anything else until the money is actually in the bank - which as yet it isn't.

 

Even once the tickets are sold (or if the promoter is prepared to take it as guaranteed that they will sell), the conversation would be along the lines of "We're paying you all this money for exclusivity, why would we say yes to a festival we don't get a cut from? If you're prepared to do more dates then we can book Cardiff / Sunderland / Villa Park / another night in Manchester and everyone makes more money"

 

That's the reason there's an established history of headline level acts on a big money reunion tour not playing Glastonbury, at least not on the first go around, despite speculation that they would - The Stone Roses, RATM, The Police, etc all got named on here to various degrees and never turned up.

 

The big money reunion acts that do ultimately headline always come later on - The Verve are the closest we've had to a reunion headliner going straight to Glastonbury, with them doing festivals on the second set of dates having done their own shows the year before. GnR did Glastonbury on about the 3rd (or was it 4th?) go around for the classic(ish) lineup, and The Who played after they'd already become re-established as a touring act.

 

If Oasis are still around in 2027, then yep I'd see them as likely candidates. For next year? Seems a long shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, incident said:

That's the reason there's an established history of headline level acts on a big money reunion tour not playing Glastonbury, at least not on the first go around, despite speculation that they would - The Stone Roses, RATM, The Police, etc all got named on here to various degrees and never turned up.

 

 

None of those acts have longstanding relationships with the festival the way Oasis do. I wouldn't bet against them doing it. As solo acts they know it pays sweet FA and they do it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CaledonianGonzo said:

None of those acts have longstanding relationships with the festival the way Oasis do. I wouldn't bet against them doing it. As solo acts they know it pays sweet FA and they do it anyway.

 

The Stone Roses literally owed the festival a headline slot..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Suprefan said:


only the delusional people are in denial they can sell out all these dates because people dont exist in any other countries not named england.

They are still huge in Asia and Latin America. They'd sell out at least 2 80k stadiums here in Argentina no doubt. They played smaller venues when they were active, but there would be a lot of casual fans and younger people who've never seen them that would go. And the hype machine is bigger than ever for gigs/festivals. FOMO is real. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

 

None of those acts have longstanding relationships with the festival the way Oasis do. I wouldn't bet against them doing it. As solo acts they know it pays sweet FA and they do it anyway.


Agreed. They also have enough power in this scenario to make it a prerequisite of booking the stadium tour, like Coldplay and Arctic Monkeys have done in the past

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, TheBoss23 said:

He did 5 in 2022 and his world tour is going well into 2025. Just because Wembley is booked for 10 nights doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll be used for 10.

In fairness the lack of any Sheeran this year anywhere in the UK was a surprise and to a degree so was last summer, even if he did some spring and winter shows in this land. So it's likely he's planning something for the UK next summer given his tour is carrying on into 2025.

 

What that is - who knows. He does have a large gap between 6th July and 26th July at present and while is playing all over mainland Europe, has nothing for UK/Ireland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CaledonianGonzo said:

As I said, no sort of relationship there - and in the interim they didn't show up as talking heads on every single bit of Glastonbury related tv content.

 

A less flippant answer -

 

Yes, it's fair to say that both brothers have a much stronger connection to the festival than most acts, and that's why I'm sure they will play at some point if they hold it together. But both brothers have played recently and so may not feel it's an itch they need to scratch straight away.

 

The money aspect is a huge factor, and one I think people are brushing past just because they don't want to think that it'd be a blocker. But even setting that aside and assuming they were both happy to take that hit, them playing Glastonbury next year still doesn't make much logistical sense.

 

Based on the dates that are being speculated, Glastonbury would be a few weeks ahead of everything else and so potentially their first show (certainly one of the first, unless they spring another surprise) together in front of a large crowd in over 15 years. Given the history of the band, having an early show televised for the whole country/world to see sounds like a huge risk to take.

 

Glastonbury is a card that they can keep in their pocket, and pretty much play it whenever they want, and it feels more likely that they'd do so when they're ready rather than when the fans want it. For me they seem much more likely to do the festival towards the end of the run, when they're settled in and comfortable with each other on stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have noted some of the European festival threads are murmuring about whether they could persuade Oasis. I guess if it is the case that tomorrow is the big announcement of the big shows what the scope is - whether it explicitly states it'll just be for the heavily rumoured Manchester/London shows or whether there is enough for more elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Suprefan said:


only the delusional people are in denial they can sell out all these dates because people dont exist in any other countries not named england.


A Danish friend messaged this morning to say he has to be there if it’s happening. Small sample size, but instantly disproves this idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, VCK2 said:

And Glastonbury seemingly like to book headliners who don't have many other shows in the UK in the same year.

If Glastonbury could have had Taylor Swift in the middle of the eras tour they would have despite all the other shows she was playing and it will be the same for Oasis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Euphoricape said:

Messenger_creation_8A027066-FA79-4B9C-8D02-A49B39F82CB7.jpeg

 

Am I reading that correctly? Nine nights in a row in Manchester, sixteen in London? That's absolutely ridiculous, but then this is Oasis, not many bands have the pull they do.

Glasto sized gap there so I could be wrong after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...