I took from "The summer festival uses its profits in part to fund charitable donations" that 5.2 million donation was post profit.
The pre profit costs II would say are from "Glastonbury also paid £1.3mn to charities and local groups in return for services at the site, such as for volunteer stewards, while giving thousands of tickets free to locals."
My issue is the mass majority will read the headline and opening sentence and move on. I think it's negative and misleading (if not overly sensationalist), whereas the rest of the article is actually nicely balanced.
The 'already sold out' argument won't affect their decision choosing on a replacement for Neil Young. The fact that we know about the negotiations with him is unusual but this is just another day in the office for the bookers.
They won't just throw anyone at it because they've sold all the tickets for this year.
Talking about Sabrina stepping in to replace Neil Young feels reasonable given she wouldn't be anywhere close to the first choice and they're going to be in reactive mode and keen to avoid a repeat of SZA.
Better her than Ed Sheeran.
Sabrina is quite literally one of the largest artists in the world at the moment, i wouldn't say its that mad to think she could headline. I do agree Chappell is the most interesting musically, though im sure Sabrina would be well received among the masses
Recommended Posts