Report

Let me start by saying that there’s no perfect system and when demand FAR outweighs supply, there are always going to be a lot of disappointed people. I do agree with Emily that a balance has to be struck between giving everyone a somewhat fair chance, but those who really want to be there getting a better chance than the “I’ll just give it a try” applicants, so a proper ballot is out of the question.   I would slightly challenge the assumption that everyone who “really wants to be there” is able to figure out loopholes in the system. It’s particularly difficult for groups like my own who’ve never been before but had been specifically planning a “Glastonbury 2025” trip for years. We simply don’t have the numbers to form a big cartel, the tech knowledge to have hundreds of unique tabs on the go, or the contacts in the “Glastonbury club” to be in the know how to beat the system.   Contrary to popular belief, the new system is far less gameable by bots than the old one, so I would like to see a variation the new system retained. However, I would make the following changes:   1. Firstly, I would make it that you have to log in to the waiting room using your registration to even get into the queue. At the moment you could have several computers with hundreds of tabs each (using chrome profiles or Firefox containers) and you just wait and see which of them gets to the front first. It’s a pure numbers game. I make a back-of-the-envelope calculation that a single tab on a single device has a 2.8% chance of getting tickets across the coach and general sale. If you have 100 of them on the go then that jumps to 95% chance that at least one will be successful. 200 on the go means 99.7% chance. I would make it a single queue ID per registration to immediately solve this problem.   2. To combat multiple registrations, I would suggest that it should be a single registration per name and postcode (for example you could have two Michael Smiths with different addresses, but not two with the same postcode), and I’d enforce proof of ID and proof of address checks to combat people putting granny’s address in for a second entry or doing entries both with and without middle names (or fake names entirely!). In the very unlikely event of two different people having the exact same name and postcode then the staff would have to get involved to “unfreeze” the registrations.   3. I think all bookings should HAVE to include the lead booker (whose registration is logged in). Instead of being able to book for any six people at all, it should always be yourself plus up to five others. One of the biggest ways that the current system overly benefits the big syndicates is that as soon as one of the sub-groups of 6 gets tickets, that entire group apart from the lead booker can switch up to looking for the next group in the same spreadsheet. If all bookings HAD to include the lead booker, then as soon as your mate has sorted you a ticket you might as well leave the queue.   Would be very interested to get everyone’s thoughts on this. I do think this system has a lot of potential to be better in the long run than a return to the F5 wars, the dreaded ballot system, or even a return to in person or over the telephone sales, but I think the few tweaks that I have suggested would make it generally fairer across the board.

Feel like Self Esteem is a bit big for the Park now too, even with those monster clashes 

Still nothing, I want to book a campervan ticket presume you'll need an individual email in order to do so? 

Most accurate review of stereophonics I have read.  They are one of the misy joyless live acts I have seen with no stage presence or charisma.    Some decent tunes from back in the day. 

Any chance of Confidence Man? Got a huge crowd on the Other this year. Now on the back of a stonking new album.  Got to be due a bump up the running order.