Im thinking he was gonna announce his tour and it would have that convenient gap in it so there would be assumptions would be made. So he pretty much got ahead of that by saying ''sorry, im out''.
Still funny he thinks the BBC owns the fest. Although theyre a really important part of it now or these artists wouldnt be playing for sh*t without tv exposure.
the stealth is because its useful. Charging your phone, mobile reception, logistics stuff is how nobody notices. Cant have a barclay card vip area and such or else they think you lost the plot.
and again, they price it to barely keep the lights on and arent willing to create new revenue streams which will pay dividends in the future.
I do find it odd that he decided to say something, given that he hadn't been announced. It's not like he's doing so to take a stand against something morally objectionable, like when he protested about Barclaycard being a sponsor for BST due to their involvement with fossil fuels. Wishful thinking, but perhaps he's hoping that by putting the statement out there, he'll be offered revised terms and play after all. I can but dream...
How have you arrived at this conclusion? From what I can make out the BBC isn't dictating anything, but part of a headliner contract will involve negotiating with them, as festival partners, for a mutually acceptable broadcast agreement. That's far from the BBC having some kind of veto based on getting audience ratings.
From this article, it sounds as if his team were negotiating with the BBC for quite a while before they decided it was all too corporate, although the article reads to me like it was written with the intention to make Neil seem a bit flakey (the stuff about cancelling a tour because he cut his finger while making a sandwich, etc.). A passive dig from another Glastonbury partner?
Anyway, to suggest Glastonbury is under "corporate control" is a wholly inaccurate statement, as he probably knows. I wonder what really happened to piss him off to the extent he published those comments?