ourtess Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Learjet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Slumming it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I hate these bloody hippies! (Seat free Ourtess?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the mo beats experience Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Edit: I also like the comparison with the Isle of Wight festival, ignoring the fact that it was a cultural landmark of sorts in the 60's and is thus able to trade on that cachet. It's also actually a festival, not a series of evening concerts with expensive parking and a few crappy burger vans, expensive 'premium' seating arrangements centred around middle aged acts. Fully in agreement, the line-up announced is not going to attract 1 person from the UK, nor excite anyone over here i wouldn't have thought. If this is the best they can come up with then it's no surprise the govt won't help out, its on a loser right from the off. If it is indeed a 3 year plan to try to compete with "proper" festivals, then they need someone involved who knows something about music. Although i would've gone to see Duran Duran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I had no interest in any of the bands. I wasn't enough of a fan of any of the artists to spend a sober evening in a cold tent watching them. It wasn't cold and who said anything about sober?! I'd have to be to get back to Douglas. And what were all the notices on the radio about saying bring warm clothes because it's frickin freezing? It was wet but not cold, especially with the dancing, look out John Travolta! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 if peel wants the pbf let the peel commisioners pick up the underwriting for it and let peel rate payers pay for it any takers i dont think so? The problem is that there are a few thousand houses in Peel. Each paying £15 in rates. Its never going to work. In that case the NSC and villa can all be paid for by Douglas corporation.........What should all our taxes support? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Edit: I also like the comparison with the Isle of Wight festival, ignoring the fact that it was a cultural landmark of sorts in the 60's and is thus able to trade on that cachet. It's also actually a festival, not a series of evening concerts with expensive parking and a few crappy burger vans, expensive 'premium' seating arrangements centred around middle aged acts. Fully in agreement, the line-up announced is not going to attract 1 person from the UK, nor excite anyone over here i wouldn't have thought. If this is the best they can come up with then it's no surprise the govt won't help out, its on a loser right from the off. If it is indeed a 3 year plan to try to compete with "proper" festivals, then they need someone involved who knows something about music. Although i would've gone to see Duran Duran There are groupies that follow their bands around wherever they go! I hope that Tynwald does approve the need for the minister to discuss the three year plan and agree to underwrite the three years as necessary. I would have gone to see at least two of the acts, still a lot cheaper than going off island with the price and reliability on the costa packet and fly maybe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather of Manx House Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 That was one hell of a rant. I lost all will to live when they mentioned Andy Kershaw was gonna be involved. No wonder the poor bloke has gone to pieces with the whole expectancy placed on his fragile shoulders. And as for them "confirming" the line-up ? Thank fuck it's been cancelled. Although, thinking on, surely "Saga" would be interested in sponorship... ...GOMH*... ...PS "Rock The Rock". You *know* it makes sense ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I would have gone to see at least two of the acts, still a lot cheaper than going off island with the price and reliability on the costa packet and fly maybe! That maybe but the business case I heard made by Steve Rodden was on the basis of 4,500 visiting the Island for 5 days and spending £450 per head. The locals attendence would be important but that is not what the business case is made on. To me it is not a festival and it could be made a lot more of a festival a lot cheaper. However ignoring that I would be tempted to agree to the guarantee of at max £250,000 but it is not a straight £250,000 but £10 per night per visitor with a ceiling of £250,000. That comes to £225,000 if it attracts 4,500 people staying for 5 nights. That way it is a win win, PBF basically get their guarantee in full if they are accurate in their figures, Government can argue that the guarantee is covered by the additional visitor spend. If the island does not get the visitor numbers then Government will not have to pay out as much but that to me is fair as PBF are the organisors and the onces making the buisness case and forcasts so they should stand or fall by them . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather of Manx House Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I would have gone to see at least two of the acts, still a lot cheaper than going off island with the price and reliability on the costa packet and fly maybe! That maybe but the business case I heard made by Steve Rodden was on the basis of 4,500 visiting the Island for 5 days and spending £450 per head. The locals attendence would be important but that is not what the business case is made on. To me it is not a festival and it could be made a lot more of a festival a lot cheaper. However ignoring that I would be tempted to agree to the guarantee of at max £250,000 but it is not a straight £250,000 but £10 per night per visitor with a ceiling of £250,000. That comes to £225,000 if it attracts 4,500 people staying for 5 nights. That way it is a win win, PBF basically get their guarantee in full if they are accurate in their figures, Government can argue that the guarantee is covered by the additional visitor spend. If the island does not get the visitor numbers then Government will not have to pay out as much but that to me is fair as PBF are the organisors and the onces making the buisness case and forcasts so they should stand or fall by them . *scratches head* :huh: :huh: ...GOMH*... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Take Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 There are groupies that follow their bands around wherever they go! Only enough probably to fill the first two or three rows, if that. Plus, Duran Duran's fans will start dying off soon of old age so there will be less and less each year. I hope that Tynwald does approve the need for the minister to discuss the three year plan and agree to underwrite the three years as necessary. If the three year plan is viable then why not get a business loan - it is a private venture after all, same as any other start up business (the rest of whom don't think it's their automatic right to public funding). Then if when it's profitable in a few years, they can pay off the bank and roll around in all that luurvely money they're making and lord it over all their doubters saying 'IN YOUR FACE' while burning £50 notes in front of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 *scratches head* :huh: :huh: ...GOMH*... Sorry if my post was confusing but I am not in favour of the blanket £250,000 guarantee plus the £40,000 advertising contribution. I do though recognise the business case put forward that if the IoM gets an extra 4,500 visitors over 5 nights the IoM will benefit as will the Governments tax revenues. If we got those numbers there may be some merit in considering the guarantee. PBF appear confident of those figures, the Government less so hence they are unhappy to provide the guarantee. My option was therefore not a blanket guarantee but one based on a figure per visitor per night. If PBF figures are right they will get their guarantee in full and the Govt should be happy to provide due to the extra visitor spend. If PBF are wrong and the Govt is right about the figures then the Govt is covered as it will only provide a lesser amount of guarantee based on the lower number of visitors. The risk in respect of the guarantee therefore rests with the organisors, PBF, who will have to live up to their figures to get the full guarantee. If PBF puts on a festival which only attracts a minority of visitors from across then Govt will not have to dig deep to provide a guarantee when it will not see an additional visitor spend to offset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather of Manx House Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 *scratches head* :huh: :huh: ...GOMH*... Sorry if my post was confusing but I am not in favour of the blanket £250,000 guarantee plus the £40,000 advertising contribution. I do though recognise the business case put forward that if the IoM gets an extra 4,500 visitors over 5 nights the IoM will benefit as will the Governments tax revenues. If we got those numbers there may be some merit in considering the guarantee. PBF appear confident of those figures, the Government less so hence they are unhappy to provide the guarantee. My option was therefore not a blanket guarantee but one based on a figure per visitor per night. If PBF figures are right they will get their guarantee in full and the Govt should be happy to provide due to the extra visitor spend. If PBF are wrong and the Govt is right about the figures then the Govt is covered as it will only provide a lesser amount of guarantee based on the lower number of visitors. The risk in respect of the guarantee therefore rests with the organisors, PBF, who will have to live up to their figures to get the full guarantee. If PBF puts on a festival which only attracts a minority of visitors from across then Govt will not have to dig deep to provide a guarantee when it will not see an additional visitor spend to offset. They haven't, at any point, shown the business model to be viable. Ergo there is no value in underwriting it. Its that simple, I'm afraid... ...GOMH*... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 They haven't, at any point, shown the business model to be viable. Ergo there is no value in underwriting it. Its that simple, I'm afraid... ...GOMH*... I am with you on that one but there are many who argue it should be underwritten including PBF and are trying to make capital out of it. I just thought it was a possibly neat way to turn their demands back on them by saying OK then we will back you IF your projections stack up etc. I do not for a moment think they do and at that point PBF would have to put up or shut up. I think PBF's bluff would have been called and PBF would crawl back to where they came and it would put an end to this whole charade. Alternatitively if PBF did agree, it would be back on and if the figures turned out correct then PBF would get their guarantee, if not PBF would pick up the tab. Presently I can see this is going to run and run and we are going to get more outlandish claims from one side or the other as it is difficult to disprove either way. " We had Take That booked, The Stones, Coldplay, Kylie Manogue, Scissor Scistors, etc etc if only we had the government guarantee". I agree that in my view the business models is not viable but that does not mean that with a couple of years of such publicity and pressure the Govt will not at some point cave in. I was just thinking of a way of passing it back to PBF to draw a line under it once & for all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 The tourism side, where the organisers get £10 per head from off island atendees, would this mean that only those pre-booked could be counted, what about those that decided to do it on the spur of the moment? This would mean additional costs to ask people to advise where they are from as they are going into the festival. Apart from that not a bad idea, lateral thinking A* Where does the leisure side come in? Why shouldn't my money be used to provide a on island festival, this enables me to save money by not having transport costs, hotel costs and food costs to consider. What value would the government put on local spending? We are always advised we shouldn't shop totally online to keep businesses on the island, why is there so many knocking this venture, you don't get something for nothing! By the way I am not (hopefully) about to drop dead, but I do remember Duran Duran...........Not 40 yet! Or is that old now a days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.