Cropredy 2021

[Nick]

Does anyone know(roughly) what the loss (abortive costs etc) would be if they go ahead and then have to cancel closer to the event and what the likely profit is if it goes ahead normally?

No idea of costs, but I do recall that Harvey Goldsmith, mega producer of stadium events including Live Aid, had to call in the receivers in 1999 after the failure of a festival he organised to mark the solar eclipse.

So if someone that big and that successful can struggle over the failure of a single event, more modest event organised stand no chance.

Cheers

Nick

If I remember correctly the Goldsmith issue was that his festival went ahead and no one came. He had to pay the artistes and crew etc. At what stage would FC have to pay all the artistes for Cropredy if it is cancelled? I am guessing a while after 28 June. I can’t see anyone claiming they turned down a job elsewhere in the current climate?

Yes, Goldsmith's eclipse festival went ahead and was badly attended. I thought of it as an example of how much of a person's wealth and business status can ride on a single event; how the risk in ventures like this can amount to gambles with significant fortunes that even the biggest players are not immune to.

I guess the point at which the risk shifts from avoidable to unavoidable for Cropredy is the 28th. That is probably the point at which they would start to incur charges for having to cancel, that whatever insurance they can get won't cover.
 

[PaulT]

Another factor no-one's mentioned yet is the lead time required for Hook Norton to brew sufficient beer for Cropredy punters if the festival is going ahead.

At least 50,000 pints of ale are consumed at the festival (estimate from The Woodworm Era book), "at least" being the operative words - nowadays it's probably more like 65-70,000 pints !

To ensure enough beer is brewed, especially as the new suppliers, I reckon Hook Norton would need at least a month, possibly even more notice to fulfil requirements. Beer takes time to brew, so they'll have a deadline by which they need to know what's going on.

Not worth imagining the fuss if they run out of beer before Saturday evening !

But if the number of attendees is down/limited...

And unlike most festivals, we can take our own supplies onto the field.

Just thought - as well as Hook Norton not having time to brew the ale, what about our various "concoctions" for The Toast??  It's getting to be too late for the full taste sensation of my vodka, kaolin & morphine and Henderson's Relish cocktail to reach maturity!    (Only joking, though I dare say it would taste better than that Dracula stuff I brought last time   )

[vince42]

Back of a fag packet guesses...

Average year 12,000 tickets at £125 = 1.5 million  plus merch etc.

Festival makes a modest profit say £100k - £150k ( you can look up at companies house )

Fixed costs of admin / office, planning, licensing , health and safety and other legal.  These are ongoing and likely increased due to circumstances.

Suppliers will have lead times - I imagine its not that easy to get a marquee at the moment for instance and beer has already been mentioned.  Staff might be harder to get if they have had to take different jobs to pay the bills and they will need to be given notice.

Even if all suppliers and artists are very flexible and able / willing to shoulder some of the costs I'd find it hard to believe the loss would be much less than £500k which would wipe out profits for several years.  

The grant from last year probably just about covers the fixed costs to keep the festival as a possibility.  I imagine more cash will be needed if it does not go ahead this year.

Its a tough decision either way.  A huge risk to go ahead and have to cancel but not going ahead puts the festivals future at risk as well if further funding is not forthcoming.  

Vince

[Nick Reg]

Back of a fag packet guesses...

Average year 12,000 tickets at £125 = 1.5 million  plus merch etc.

Festival makes a modest profit say £100k - £150k ( you can look up at companies house )

Fixed costs of admin / office, planning, licensing , health and safety and other legal.  These are ongoing and likely increased due to circumstances.

Suppliers will have lead times - I imagine its not that easy to get a marquee at the moment for instance and beer has already been mentioned.  Staff might be harder to get if they have had to take different jobs to pay the bills and they will need to be given notice.

Even if all suppliers and artists are very flexible and able / willing to shoulder some of the costs I'd find it hard to believe the loss would be much less than £500k which would wipe out profits for several years.  

The grant from last year probably just about covers the fixed costs to keep the festival as a possibility.  I imagine more cash will be needed if it does not go ahead this year.

Its a tough decision either way.  A huge risk to go ahead and have to cancel but not going ahead puts the festivals future at risk as well if further funding is not forthcoming.  

Vince

You cant tell what profit is being made if they file exempt accounts, especially if you dont know what dividends have been paid.

[delfini (Diane)]

They are between a rock and a hard place. I really don’t envy them. It is for us, and them, one of the highlights of the year. I remember Simon saying last year that he felt that he had been ‘sandbagged’ when they had to cancel.
Their livelihoods have been dramatically curtailed given this bloody virus and, if it means risking their financial future, with no government backed insurance in place, then they have no choice.

I am desperate to be there and ‘see all my friends’, but if they can’t risk it, then they can’t risk it. Speculation gets me nowhere.

It is a bloody awful situation for them, and they have my full sympathy and support.

[Dan O.]

Another factor no-one's mentioned yet is the lead time required for Hook Norton to brew sufficient beer for Cropredy punters if the festival is going ahead.

At least 50,000 pints of ale are consumed at the festival (estimate from The Woodworm Era book), "at least" being the operative words - nowadays it's probably more like 65-70,000 pints !

To ensure enough beer is brewed, especially as the new suppliers, I reckon Hook Norton would need at least a month, possibly even more notice to fulfil requirements. Beer takes time to brew, so they'll have a deadline by which they need to know what's going on.

Not worth imagining the fuss if they run out of beer before Saturday evening !

Consulted a friend of mine in the brewing industry (in no way connected to Hook Norton), and he estimated that they would need at least two weeks' notice to brew the quantities of beer described above, which, as I'd guessed, makes June 28th a plausible date for this reason too.

[YaBB Master (Colin)]

There's an awful lot of ranting on social media about getting the government to offer festivals insurance.
It occurs to me that if they thought there was very little chance of having to pay out, they would offer it.
So is the conclusion that they think that measures won't be relaxed far enough and many will be cancelled.

[ColinB]

Slightly off topic but related to this, in the latest Private Eye they report that the government is dragging their heels in the negotiations to do with musicians touring EU countries. Seems that so far they've only struck deals with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

Says Horace Trubridge of the Musicians Union, "... this government cares not a jot for the UK creative industries."

[Wandering Steve]

Meanwhile ten miles down the road at silverstone  140,000 people will be attending the British Grand Prix

[GubGub (Al)]

There's an awful lot of ranting on social media about getting the government to offer festivals insurance.
It occurs to me that if they thought there was very little chance of having to pay out, they would offer it.
So is the conclusion that they think that measures won't be relaxed far enough and many will be cancelled.

This has always been my assumption along with the perception (as a huge generalisation) that music festival attendees (and I mean across the board here, not solely or necessarily Cropredy) may not be predominantly amongst their core support. They may not want to encourage large gatherings where opposing views may be encouraged.

[PaulT]

In which case, and I hope I'm not giving the "govern"ment any ideas, they may as well suspend Parliament, as the PM keeps moaning that the parties facing him are not backing him. That's why they're called Her Majesty's Opposition, you buffoon.  

[Wandering Steve]

There's an awful lot of ranting on social media about getting the government to offer festivals insurance.
It occurs to me that if they thought there was very little chance of having to pay out, they would offer it.
So is the conclusion that they think that measures won't be relaxed far enough and many will be cancelled.

This has always been my assumption along with the perception (as a huge generalisation) that music festival attendees (and I mean across the board here, not solely or necessarily Cropredy) may not be predominantly amongst their core support. They may not want to encourage large gatherings where opposing views may be encouraged.

Although Jeremy Corbyn was on the Glastonbury stage which kind of shoots that theory down.
Maybe Cropredy can invite health secretary Matt Hancock along if he’s not too busy…..

[Dan O.]

[/quote]

Maybe Cropredy can invite health secretary Matt Hancock along if he’s not too busy…..
[/quote]

What for  - to have things thrown at him ? *  

*disclaimer - please note my emojis, don't wish this perfectly decent thread to descend into political slanging. Please mod if necessary...

[John From Austin]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-publishes-events-research-programme-report

No major outbreaks, no significant risk of transmission at test events.

[PaulT]

Yes, just seen that... Digits crossed for Monday

[GubGub (Al)]

There's an awful lot of ranting on social media about getting the government to offer festivals insurance.
It occurs to me that if they thought there was very little chance of having to pay out, they would offer it.
So is the conclusion that they think that measures won't be relaxed far enough and many will be cancelled.

This has always been my assumption along with the perception (as a huge generalisation) that music festival attendees (and I mean across the board here, not solely or necessarily Cropredy) may not be predominantly amongst their core support. They may not want to encourage large gatherings where opposing views may be encouraged.

Although Jeremy Corbyn was on the Glastonbury stage which kind of shoots that theory down.

I'm not sure how. Last time I looked, JC was in opposition.  If anything it underlines my point, i.e. they may be reluctant to throw money at people who probably don't support them.

[Wandering Steve]

There's an awful lot of ranting on social media about getting the government to offer festivals insurance.
It occurs to me that if they thought there was very little chance of having to pay out, they would offer it.
So is the conclusion that they think that measures won't be relaxed far enough and many will be cancelled.

This has always been my assumption along with the perception (as a huge generalisation) that music festival attendees (and I mean across the board here, not solely or necessarily Cropredy) may not be predominantly amongst their core support. They may not want to encourage large gatherings where opposing views may be encouraged.

Although Jeremy Corbyn was on the Glastonbury stage which kind of shoots that theory down.

I'm not sure how. Last time I looked, JC was in opposition.  If anything it underlines my point, i.e. they may be reluctant to throw money at people who probably don't support them.

My point is that it isn’t a point

I doubt that the decision come Monday will involve banning people of different political persuasions.

[GubGub (Al)]

There's an awful lot of ranting on social media about getting the government to offer festivals insurance.
It occurs to me that if they thought there was very little chance of having to pay out, they would offer it.
So is the conclusion that they think that measures won't be relaxed far enough and many will be cancelled.

This has always been my assumption along with the perception (as a huge generalisation) that music festival attendees (and I mean across the board here, not solely or necessarily Cropredy) may not be predominantly amongst their core support. They may not want to encourage large gatherings where opposing views may be encouraged.

Although Jeremy Corbyn was on the Glastonbury stage which kind of shoots that theory down.

I'm not sure how. Last time I looked, JC was in opposition.  If anything it underlines my point, i.e. they may be reluctant to throw money at people who probably don't support them.

My point is that it isn’t a point

I doubt that the decision come Monday will involve banning people of different political persuasions.

What decision? The issue under discussion, arising from Colin's post, is the reluctance of the government to underwrite Covid cancellation insurance for festivals in general. My inference is that the festival industry and it's customer base may not be predominantly politically sympathetic to this government and that some political rabble rousing from the stage is not uncommon at festivals (even Cropredy on rare occasions). Hence the government's reluctance to support them.

[Wandering Steve]

There's an awful lot of ranting on social media about getting the government to offer festivals insurance.
It occurs to me that if they thought there was very little chance of having to pay out, they would offer it.
So is the conclusion that they think that measures won't be relaxed far enough and many will be cancelled.

This has always been my assumption along with the perception (as a huge generalisation) that music festival attendees (and I mean across the board here, not solely or necessarily Cropredy) may not be predominantly amongst their core support. They may not want to encourage large gatherings where opposing views may be encouraged.

Although Jeremy Corbyn was on the Glastonbury stage which kind of shoots that theory down.

I'm not sure how. Last time I looked, JC was in opposition.  If anything it underlines my point, i.e. they may be reluctant to throw money at people who probably don't support them.

My point is that it isn’t a point

I doubt that the decision come Monday will involve banning people of different political persuasions.

What decision? The issue under discussion, arising from Colin's post, is the reluctance of the government to underwrite Covid cancellation insurance for festivals in general. My inference is that the festival industry and it's customer base may not be predominantly politically sympathetic to this government and that some political rabble rousing from the stage is not uncommon at festivals (even Cropredy on rare occasions). Hence the government's reluctance to support them.

The decision to hold or not hold the festival this year has nothing to do with political viewpoints.
Indeed I was told the lay of the land regards the decision this evening.
I will say no more at this point as an official announcement / update is to be made on Monday.

[GubGub (Al)]

There's an awful lot of ranting on social media about getting the government to offer festivals insurance.
It occurs to me that if they thought there was very little chance of having to pay out, they would offer it.
So is the conclusion that they think that measures won't be relaxed far enough and many will be cancelled.

This has always been my assumption along with the perception (as a huge generalisation) that music festival attendees (and I mean across the board here, not solely or necessarily Cropredy) may not be predominantly amongst their core support. They may not want to encourage large gatherings where opposing views may be encouraged.

Although Jeremy Corbyn was on the Glastonbury stage which kind of shoots that theory down.

I'm not sure how. Last time I looked, JC was in opposition.  If anything it underlines my point, i.e. they may be reluctant to throw money at people who probably don't support them.

My point is that it isn’t a point

I doubt that the decision come Monday will involve banning people of different political persuasions.

What decision? The issue under discussion, arising from Colin's post, is the reluctance of the government to underwrite Covid cancellation insurance for festivals in general. My inference is that the festival industry and it's customer base may not be predominantly politically sympathetic to this government and that some political rabble rousing from the stage is not uncommon at festivals (even Cropredy on rare occasions). Hence the government's reluctance to support them.

The decision to hold or not hold the festival this year has nothing to do with political viewpoints.
Indeed I was told the lay of the land regards the decision this evening.
I will say no more at this point as an official announcement / update is to be made on Monday.

Fair enough but the position for many (other) festivals is dependent on the government's stand on Covid cancellation insurance and that is unquestionably a political decision. And once again, this discussion was not specifically in relation to Cropredy but to festivals in general.