| Benn 13.05.2005 04:34 |
I have sent this to Brian's site in response to some of his comments on the Wembley saga: Brian, I was hugely disappointed to read the following comments from you regarding the Londong bid for the 2012 Olympic bid: How incredible that London, of all European major cities, has the WORST apology for a large music venue ... and no prospect of an improvement. The question that begs answering here is "How did you get yourselves in that position in the first place?". The London Docklands Arena is a wonderful venue, although slightly difficult to get to on the DLR. The acoustics of the hall are stunning. The Royal Albert Hall is, also, a superb venue as you well know. Although slightly smaller in size, surely you could have scheduled two nights at either of these places to compensate for the capacities. Equally, the decision could have been made to play somewhere just as accessible as London - Brighton Centre immediately springs to mind. I understand the fact that you leave the decisions like this to a team of management professionals, however, anyone professional enough to bother to check venues out before booking them would have known the reputation of the Wembley Pavillion and simply avoided it at all costs. For all it's faults, Earls Court wouldn't have been a bad idea......... What is the matter with us ? And this the City which is clamouring to host the Olympics? It's a joke. We couldn't host a Teddy Bears Tea Party. And I would like to know who is paying for all this advertising I see all around London, calling for us to "Support the Bid" Why ??? Do I want the Olympics here ? Hell No. Did anyone ask us, fellow Londoners, if we wanted this ? I don't think so. Another arrogance of the Ken Livingstone regime. I say again ...WHO IS PAYING ?? How about instead, spending our money on buliding a a decent venue for Rock music ??? For an extremely intelligent man, this is an unbelieveably narrow-minded viewpoint. Have you considered the millions of people in the **whole of the UK** that love sport more than they love rock music? Perhaps it may just be that promoting sport is better for the health and fitness of the nation than building a venue for people to sit on their arses in for 2 hours and watch a band? If London wins the bid, it will finally bring London onto the map as a world-class city and as an extention of that, will see vaslt improvements in tourist income for many years to come, simply because ondon will be the focal point for lovers of sport right across the world. This just sounds like a "Not in my back yard" to me. If you get what you want in terms of a large music venue (say, 15-20,000 people?), then it is only these few people that will derive any benefit from that as opposed to millions of people deriving benefit from being able to watch London on their televisions for 2 weeks and thinking "Yeah - London's place we should visit". Queen playing to 20,000 people at a show in London once in 20 years will do absolutely nothing for the profile of London, let alone the UK as a whole. Every year, the London Marathon is staged and provides a stunning showcase for the city with athletes from across the globe heaping the city with praise for it's architecture, history and, above all, the support that they receive from the people who line the streets to cheer them on. This ranges from the elite runners, to the disabled wheelchair athletes and the thousands of people that run for charity. A London Olympics would be the single biggest event the nation has staged and we will do a WONDERFUL job of it - this is the one thing that all the political parties have gotten together behind and is extremely refreshing and positive at a time when parts of the world are STILL trying to blow each other up. Presumably then, if you are asked to compose the Olympic Theme (as Freddie contributed to the Barcelona Olympics) and perform infront of millions at the o |
| Fenderek 13.05.2005 05:10 |
Benn- I still do not believe that london is capable of organising the Olympics. There's too many ppl in this city already and crap infrastructure- i.e. transport. Thay would have to rebuild entire city to let all the sportsmen and fans in... Sorry, can't see that one coming. London is miles behind NY, Paris, Madrid AND EVEN Moscow... We can back or not the bid as much as we want- London is not going to get it, I'm almost sure about it. Therefore- the whole campaign seems to me like wasted money. More buses anyone? Saying that- there's a possibility of you getting a reply, I think! I'm really curious :) |
| Benn 13.05.2005 05:40 |
Paris are the front runners at the moment with London second placed. The crucial presentations are due to be made to the IOC next month. Personally, I fail to see how the IOC can award the games to Paris when there is still a constant threat of strikes by public service workers. Madrid may come up on the rails if Juan Santonio Samaranch can grease enough palms. Political support for London is greater than either the French or Spanish governments have shown and NY is out of the question because of the constant terrorist threat. If London can maintain the bid profile within the UK public's consciousness and continue the good work, we WILL win the vote. |
| Fenderek 13.05.2005 06:11 |
Benn wrote: Personally, I fail to see how the IOC can award the games to Paris when there is still a constant threat of strikes by public service workers.Will they award the games to the city where there is a constatnt threat of strikes by tube drivers...? Benn wrote: Political support for London is greater than either the French or Spanish governments have shown and NY is out of the question because of the constant terrorist threat.You may be right here. But I think you're forgetting Moscow. It may be the black horse of this bid... There's shit loads of money there, they can do it... Benn wrote: If London can maintain the bid profile within the UK public's consciousness and continue the good work, we WILL win the vote.I'm not sure... I don't know, remebering Millenium Dome fiasco and few other things... Are you really sure it's such a great idea? How will fans travel to venues? District Line? Or coaches on too narrow streets, where two cars can't pass each other because there's nowhere else to park. Imagine few hundred thousands ppl ARRIVING to London. Maybe my imagination is limited, or I just don't believe in this city (CITY, rather than country) anymore... Of course, I wouldn't mind eating my words... |
| Serry... 13.05.2005 06:58 |
Fenderek wrote: Sorry, can't see that one coming. London is miles behind NY, Paris, Madrid AND EVEN Moscow...One certain guy from Moscow called Serry Funster would like to know more about this remark 'EVEN'? They gonna offer to Moscow Euro-2012 or Olympic Games, so we must made a choice. Besides we're gonna be a home town for ice hockey championship in 2006 or 2007, and for the final of UEFA Champions League in 2007/2008. Too many plans, too much money, and too little enthusiasm from people of Moscow. |
| Benn 13.05.2005 07:26 |
Serry: Vladimir Putin hasn't backed the bid publicly - the IOC won't award the games to a city where the national government isn't seen to be behind the bid. Fenderek: >constatnt threat of strikes by tube drivers...? But that's just it - they are threats. ASLEF (or whoever the commie bastards are!) make the noises and then back down - look at what happened to the firefighters dispute; as soon as they realise that, in reality, they all get a decent deal for being pretty lacksadasical in their work (ie lateness, etc), they call off the threat. >How will fans travel to venues? District Line? Or coaches on too narrow streets, where two cars can't pass each other because there's nowhere else to park. LRT has outlined a number of different policies for getting to the venues - for example, bus lanes will be dedicated to specially scheduled bus / coach services that will transport people to venues. London Underground has pledged to provide an increased (greater frequency) service. >Imagine few hundred thousands ppl ARRIVING to London. But that happens every day throughout the year and we manage to cope. >Maybe my imagination is limited, or I just don't believe in this city (CITY, rather than country) anymore... Just remember that we live in the most beautiful country in the world - who else can deliver so many historic places of interest in such a small space as the UK? And London in particular? |
| Fenderek 13.05.2005 07:30 |
Serry: Why EVEN? Because ppl in Wester Europe for along time regarded everything that was behind Iron Curtain as a wild area, where polar bears were walking etc... Geez, I've heard that about Poland only a year ago. This opinions still exist. As you noticed (did you?)- I also wrote in another post that I actually regard Moscow as black horse in the bid- and added EVEN because I can imagine many ppl from UK or USA don't know how much happened since 1989... i.e. Moscow underground is far better than London one... I meant nothing wrong with the EVEN remark, Serry, quite opposite. :) I regard Moscow as an extremely beutiful city (apart from few areas, but that's everywhere...), with a lot of money and huge potential... |
| Serry... 13.05.2005 07:34 |
Thanks to Putin then. Olympics is not very good thing for us, to be honest... They advertise it everywhere in Moscow! On every corner, on every bus, taxi... I think I need to check my toilet - there's probably something about the bid too... |
| djaef 13.05.2005 07:39 |
Benn wrote: Just remember that we live in the most beautiful country in the worldOh Benn, sorry I had no idea you lived in Australia. :) It's good to see you supporting the bid for our pommie cousins. It'll be fun to see them fall on their asses if they get it, particularly following as they are in the footsteps of Sydney 2000, the benchmark Olympic games of the modern era :) |
| scallyuk 13.05.2005 07:52 |
>But that's just it - they are threats. ASLEF (or whoever the commie bastards are!) Don't like the phrasing there Benn. Especially without a smilie. The trade union movement is no longer driven by the hard line left but mainly by those of us who have decided that as management will do almost anything they can to get more than a fair days work for less than a fair days pay including ignoring safety laws and pressurising people to waive their rights to a home life. You did read the outcry about the Euopean working time directive from the CBI right? The only workers complaing were those who have to work overtime to get a reasonable - not good - standard of living. The firefighters backed down because they preferred to be employed , albeit at a pretty poor rate of pay for what they do than be made unemployed. Dismissed for striking is not a good recommendation to a future employer irrespective of the reasosn behind it. LRT has outlined a number of different policies for getting to the venues - for example, bus lanes will be dedicated to specially scheduled bus / coach services that will transport people to venues. London Underground has pledged to provide an increased (greater frequency) service. Ah so Normal life in London will grind to a halt so people can get to the venues. Do you /have you lived in London? It's quite usual to travel at less than 10mph around the ciy to get to work now. If I'm delayed further because someone wants to get to a sports venue I'm going to be less than pleased. I think that's the point that Brian is making. we will be getting the Olympics at the cost of almost shutting down normal life in London. How will LU get more tubes on the same lines? How will they get more tubes full stop - they have no money and huge debts. Anyway it's not the tubes that are the problem they will still have the same ropey signals and tracks and historically the maintenance is piss poor. >Imagine few hundred thousands ppl ARRIVING to London. But that happens every day throughout the year and we manage to cope. Ah but imagine a few hundred thousand MORE >Just remember that we live in the most beautiful country in the world. Tend to disagree there and i've been to a fair few of the rest of them. > who else can deliver so many historic places of interest in such a small space as the UK? And London in particular? But they AREN'T coming for the history or they'd be coming already. They are coming for the Olympics and the whole point is that to attract enough visitors they have to be able to reach the venues easily and <relatively> cheaply. London is one of the MOST Overpriced cities in the world already and I can't see prices falling during the olympics can you ? Neil |
| Benn 13.05.2005 07:53 |
Djaef, >Oh Benn, sorry I had no idea you lived in Australia. :) I lived in Sydney for a while - playing cricket. Lovely place and great people, but, to be honest, the novelty of the Harbour wore off on me within a week. I found places like Orange and newcastle to be far more "interesting" to be in........ >It's good to see you supporting the bid for our pommie cousins. It'll be fun to see them fall on their asses if they get it, particularly following as they are in the footsteps of Sydney 2000, the benchmark Olympic games of the modern era :) OK - so the fact that your stadia are not used for anything other than rugby and "footie" means that the LEGACY of the Olympics in Sydney is one of excessive capital expenditure on facilities that have been used for nothing else since? Sure, Sydney was an AMAZING spectacle - I was there for the whole thing in '00 and was amazed at how well it went, but it was an exercise in back-slapping for the great and the good - ticket prices (and the shocking allocation to corporate sponsors) meant that many real Aussies were prevented from getting to see the main events - where was the aboriginal representation other than as a token gesture at the opening and closing ceremonies? For such a "multi-cultural" country, there was a surprising amount of xenophobia........ |
| Fenderek 13.05.2005 08:02 |
scallyuk wrote: London is one of the MOST Overpriced cities in the world already and I can't see prices falling during the olympics can you ?GOOD POINT! |
| Benn 13.05.2005 08:06 |
Scally, >You did read the outcry about the Euopean working time directive from the CBI right? The only workers complaing were those who have to work overtime to get a reasonable - not good - standard of living Lots of smiling. But that is as a product of the work that they do. I don't have a problem with people campaigning for better pay if they are in jobs that ONLY THEY can do - nurses, doctors, surgeons, etc etc. What I do have a problem with is people that, I don't know, sweep roads, bleating about the fact that tehy have to work harder and longer than everyone else. If you don't like it, re-train and do something else. Surely, the best way ot better yourself is to take control of your own life and learn things that will help you to earn more money? >The firefighters backed down because they preferred to be employed , albeit at a pretty poor rate of pay for what they do than be made unemployed. Dismissed for striking is not a good recommendation to a future employer irrespective of the reasosn behind it. They already received "danger" money and are also allowed to work on their days off - a friend of mine is a sparky and joined the fireservice, simply because he knew that he could ramp up is annual earnings and ply his trade in his own time. The guy's on a combimed wage of roughly £60k. The majority of people in the fireservice (according to him) are doing EXACTLY the same thing. >Ah so Normal life in London will grind to a halt so people can get to the venues. Do you /have you lived in London? It's quite usual to travel at less than 10mph around the ciy to get to work now. As it is in most places around the world - the US in particular. The problem with the UK, I believe, is that work takes too much importance these days. I have to use the M25 every single day and the number of people you see that are *fighting* to get in to work is unbelieveable. >If I'm delayed further because someone wants to get to a sports venue I'm going to be less than pleased. I think that's the point that Brian is making. we will be getting the Olympics at the cost of almost shutting down normal life in London. So, two or three weeks of trouble. It's not the end of the world. You'll STILL get in to work - people (companies) will just have to understand that it's going to be a problem for a while and that, when it's over, life will still continue and the clocks will still tick over. No one's going to go out of business just because you're an hour late for work in the morning, are they? I think it's an exciting time for the country - get us out there in the minds of the world and prove that we are a nation to be reckoned with in global terms and not just as a puppet of George W Bush. |
| scallyuk 13.05.2005 08:46 |
>But that is as a product of the work that they do........Surely, the best way ot better yourself is to take control of your own life and learn things that will help you to earn more money? Those who can usually are doing it in their <spare > time , oh sorry they are usually underpaid so they have to work overtime and therefore don't have any spare time. It's not actually about money in a lot of cases. You make the point well , later in your post , <The problem with the UK, I believe, is that work takes too much importance these days. > It has to if you don't have money and only when you do can you make the work/life balance choices objectively. >They already received "danger" money and are also allowed to work on their days off - Your point is? Most people can work on their days off . I can and do contract work outside my normal job and get paid for it when it suits me. It's the fact that for so many other people it is often necessary that is the problem. As for Danger money well it is dangerous. >The majority of people in the fireservice (according to him) are doing EXACTLY the same thing. I think the situation shows how much sparky's get for working part time not how much Firement get paid. The BASE pay as a fireman isn't high. The allowances reflect the unsocial and hazardous nature of the job and I wouldn't do it for a big clock. >The problem with the UK, I believe, is that work takes too much importance these days. Couldn't agree more. Working from home has it's benefits and it's risks from an employers perspective and lexibility is not always viewed positively. >I have to use the M25 every single day and the number of people you see that are *fighting* to get in to work is unbelieveable. My record is 3.5 hours from Croydon to Heathrow on the M25 , because some numpty in a beamer decide to use the hard shoulder to bypass a jam, lost it and totalled 3 other cars. >So, two or three weeks of trouble. It's not the end of the world. You'll STILL get in to work - people (companies) will just have to understand that it's going to be a problem for a while and that, when it's over, life will still continue and the clocks will still tick over. No one's going to go out of business just because you're an hour late for work in the morning, are they? I do work from home most of the time and travel into London only for really important business . Missing one of those could mean someone goes out of business so yes. >I think it's an exciting time for the country - get us out there in the minds of the world and prove that we are a nation to be reckoned with in global terms and not just as a puppet of George W Bush. There are better ways to do that and we've just missed the biggest opportunity of all. IMpressive as a third term in office is, the return of the Bliar has reinforced world opinion that politically this country has nothign new to offer. I think we'll have to keep disagreeing on this one <g> |
| Mr.Jingles 13.05.2005 10:15 |
Most New Yorkers don't want the Olympics in this city. If NY is approved, then a construction for a West Side Manhattan Stadium is most likely to happen. The cost of the construction and other related expenses could take up to 1 Billion dollars mostly from tax payers money. After all, the city is in debt after 9/11 and way too much money is already being spent on building the 'Freedom Tower' to replace 'The World Trade Center'. The terrorist threat is the least of the worries to have the Olympics in NY. |
| Son of Bryans Permed Poodle 13.05.2005 11:02 |
Ok guys... but now back to the topic! This is what Brian had to say on his soapbox: RETURN TO THE SUBJECT OF THE "PAVILION" "Yes - I said I would return to the subject of the "Pavilion" at Wembley. If I had known what an utterly unsuitable building this was, I never would have played it. And I'm sure this goes for the rest of us too. I was disgusted that this had been offered as a suitable venue to musically entertain 12,000 people. In my opinion it is a disgrace, and everyone should know it. We will be looking into what can be done to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again where we are concerned. As for dealing with the complaints, I will be very interested to see what the Wembley people propose. This cannot be the first time this has happened. I feel angry and disappointed for all those who didn't get a decent view - which I think means just about anyone further back than the mixing desk. It was bitterly disappointing for us to find that all the effort we put in to make the show COME CLOSE to everyone in the audience were frustrated in this terrible tent. There have also been many complaints about the behaviour of the stewards, which I think reflects the policies of the venue. I think an inquiry is justified, into the whole thing. We, the band, and our production team, gave 150 per cent, but to those of you in the blue seats, only a small percentage can have reached you. This is miserable for you and for us. How incredible that London, of all European major cities, has the WORST apology for a large music venue ... and no prospect of an improvement. What is the matter with us ? And this the City which is clamouring to host the Olympics? It's a joke. We couldn't host a Teddy Bears Tea Party. And I would like to know who is paying for all this advertising I see all around London, calling for us to "Support the Bid" Why ??? Do I want the Olympics here ? Hell No. Did anyone ask us, fellow Londoners, if we wanted this ? I don't think so. Another arrogance of the Ken Livingstone regime. I say again ...WHO IS PAYING ?? How about instead, spending our money on buliding a a decent venue for Rock music ??? Cheers all Bri" IMHO he forgot to say... "Thanks all you idiots who spent your hard earned money to see us, it´s Livingstone´s fault, not our´s or our management´s fault!" |
| Fenderek 13.05.2005 11:06 |
Man, you're boring... |
| Son of Bryans Permed Poodle 13.05.2005 11:15 |
@Fenderek Did you pay to see them... have you been there? |
| Fenderek 13.05.2005 11:30 |
Yes, I did, like 6 other shows. And even though it was a crappy venue, I'm not going to cry over 50 pounds, mate. It's not that much. I'm sure you'd feel better going to Bingo Club or something, but I had my share of fun. Were you there? Do you know what you are talking about? Do you know how bad the sound REALLY was? Haw bad the view REALLY was? Maybe ppl are only exaggerating? How do you know, if you're so against...? And if you weren't there??? Aren't you talkking about something you have no idea about? |
| Benn 13.05.2005 11:33 |
Son Of Brian's Permed Poodle. Brian isn't saying that at all. He has admitted, although not directly, that the band are at fault for agreeing to play at The Wembley Pavillion. They entrust venue booking to their management team, but who regulates those people - clearly, the band don't and they just turn up and play. It'll be interesting to see whether Brian does acknowledge that letter both in terms of his stance now and what they are going to do about it in the future. There are some huge, sweeping statements there that he really ought to know better about and will need to justify what he has said. |
| doremi 13.05.2005 11:46 |
Benn wrote: Son Of Brian's Permed Poodle. Brian isn't saying that at all. He has admitted, although not directly, that the band are at fault for agreeing to play at The Wembley Pavillion. They entrust venue booking to their management team, but who regulates those people - clearly, the band don't and they just turn up and play. It'll be interesting to see whether Brian does acknowledge that letter both in terms of his stance now and what they are going to do about it in the future. There are some huge, sweeping statements there that he really ought to know better about and will need to justify what he has said. scallyuk wrote: Benn while I disagree with some of the specifics in your letter I do agree with the complaints about the venue and have also written to brian . My comments were: Never before have I had to resort to going to the bar and working my way back to my seat the long way round just so I could see the band ,. The front of house sound wasn’t too bad although the lack of solid walls tended to suck out any reverb and the bottom end just didn’t hold up. You’re right the venue is totally unsuitable for any form of entertainment but I feel that you or your management and tour organisers to be more exact have to take some of the blame. I spend a fair amount of my time organising and attending corporate events and there is no way that I would agree to book a venue unless my team had not only seen the glossy and sometimes misleading bumpf sent out by venues but had also inspected the place AND witnessed an event in progress at that venue. That way we know not only that the capacity is ok, but also that the security arrangements and layout meet our AND our customers needs. Did this not happen for this tour? We, the audience weren’t customers of Wembley Pavilion but customers of a partnership between Queen and Paul Rodgers who had decided to use Wembley Pavilion as a place to sell us their services. Never mind what Wembley are going to do about complaints , What are Queen Productions and CCE/Phil McIntyre going to do about it. NI agree with everything both of you said...and I also read Brian's soapbox this morning thinking...OK? I am interested to see what he has to say as follow up..or rather follow through. Also the band needs to stop blindly trusting every damn thing venue promoters, management & booking do (IF that even is the TRUE story...or just a smokescreen like the Ashley Simpson incident/debacle, where she kept placing blame on everyone but herself). I sincerely hope the band was NOT knowledgeable of this ahead of time and is not just placing the blame elsewhere to save face, and if the venue promoters, Queen management and booking were at fault... .....that's really no excuse either, as Brian, Roger, & Paul Rodgers should definitely be more proactively INVOLVED and be more hands on so that these type of things don't ever happen...again, in this case. As they say, ignorance is NO excuse. Some of Brian's statements do sound sort of like damage control/placing blame elsewhere though...which he has a running history of doing with Queen for decades now...I have yet to see whenever something goes awry/wrong..from Sun City..to bad sound at a show, to the smallest trifle...Brian NEVER owns up to things and neither does the band. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault. Then he rants and rationalizes and revises the incidents to make himself and Queen look like martyred, perfect saints who can do no wrong. Yawn. |
| HDvorak 13.05.2005 11:48 |
Benn, one last pester. :) If you could let me know your e-mail addy by sending to hdovrak@gmail.com, There's a wealth of info you might be interested in. |
| scallyuk 13.05.2005 11:49 |
Benn while I disagree with some of the specifics in your letter I do agree with the complaints about the venue and have also written to brian . My comments were: Never before have I had to resort to going to the bar and working my way back to my seat the long way round just so I could see the band ,. The front of house sound wasn’t too bad although the lack of solid walls tended to suck out any reverb and the bottom end just didn’t hold up. You’re right the venue is totally unsuitable for any form of entertainment but I feel that you or your management and tour organisers to be more exact have to take some of the blame. I spend a fair amount of my time organising and attending corporate events and there is no way that I would agree to book a venue unless my team had not only seen the glossy and sometimes misleading bumpf sent out by venues but had also inspected the place AND witnessed an event in progress at that venue. That way we know not only that the capacity is ok, but also that the security arrangements and layout meet our AND our customers needs. Did this not happen for this tour? We, the audience weren’t customers of Wembley Pavilion but customers of a partnership between Queen and Paul Rodgers who had decided to use Wembley Pavilion as a place to sell us their services. Never mind what Wembley are going to do about complaints , What are Queen Productions and CCE/Phil McIntyre going to do about it. N |
| queenisalive 13.05.2005 11:51 |
bollocks -Brian can say what the hell he likes - its his opinon and he is entitled to it, if youdont like it don't fuckin' read it. |
| Benn 13.05.2005 11:53 |
Scally - great letter chap. What is interesting is that Harvy Goldsmith Ents. isn't promoting the Queen name any longer - that will almost certainly be at the root of the issue. |
| Son of Bryans Permed Poodle 13.05.2005 12:05 |
@Fenderek "...I´m not going to cry over 50 pounds, mate. It's not that much..." Don´t tell your parents in Poland how much 50 pounds are worth... Brian (and the rest of the band) could have easily said .."no, we´re never gonna play in here for money" when they first entered the Wembley Pavilion for their rehearsals.... No, it was not "their" fault... it´s as usual their management... no, not even their (management´s) fault.... c´mon ppl, it´s Ken Livingston´s fault!!! :-)) Brian is a true saint, isn´t he? |
| Fenderek 13.05.2005 12:24 |
I never said Brian is a saint. But he took SOME responsibility for what happened. We'll see if that mens anything... I know how much 50 pounds is in Poland. Thing is- I live in London, in England- why would I care? Should I feel bad about starving children in Kenya right now? |
| bryans permed poodle 15069 13.05.2005 14:13 |
Simple fact is London is a shit hole and the wrong place to stage the Olympics. Paris is a much better option a far prettier city. However as born Brummie the Olympics should have been held in Birmingham and the national stadium should be in Birmingham. Reason: Birmingham is in central England and everybody has easy access to it. |
| Son of Bryans Permed Poodle 13.05.2005 14:22 |
Dad.... RIP 2005 :-) |
| AwkbyName 13.05.2005 17:38 |
Not going to get too into the whole Olympic bid bit, but I live in Stepney Green, the number 25 is the only bus that runs directly from the West End to Stratford and I travel every day on the district line and it's hell, oh and they have just tonight announced a walk out on this line on May 23rd!!! As for Wembley Pavillion, the place totally lacks atmosphere, but... I was way back in F3 row 20, wasn't much further back you could get, and yes they were but specs on the stage (lucky for me I had my 300m lens)but the sound at the back was fantastic, and a bad venue certainly didn't spoil my enjoyment of what will probably be a once in a lifetime chance for me. I'm not going to tell anyone else what they should think, but I had a bloody marvelous time |
| Carrots Of The Piratebean 13.05.2005 19:31 |
djaef wrote: Oh Benn, sorry I had no idea you lived in Australia. :) It's good to see you supporting the bid for our pommie cousins. It'll be fun to see them fall on their asses if they get it, particularly following as they are in the footsteps of Sydney 2000, the benchmark Olympic games of the modern era :)I know this is a little off topic, but did you know that by using the word "pommie" you are actually referring to Australians coz the word pommie really comes from the phrase "Prisoner Of Mother England". Think about it... where did the English send their prisoners in the old days? Now back to the subject, as someone already said Brian is entitled to his opinion but I couldnt help feel that his hand was forced into making a comment about the venue after hearing of all the negative comments. I mean if he had kept his mouth shut, he would have been damned for it so he "might" have said this to save face. Thats just my opinion. |
| John S Stuart 13.05.2005 20:29 |
Axel F: "...did you know that by using the word "pommie" you are actually referring to Australians coz the word pommie really comes from the phrase "Prisoner Of Mother England". Actually, this is another urban legend which is simply NOT true. "Pommy" was based on the word "pomegranate" - either because the redness of the fruit supposedly matched the typically florid British complexion, or because (like "Johnny Grant") it was used as rhyming slang for "immigrant." link However, it would be interesting to read what our Australian cousins have to say about the subject. (PS: Because is spelt b-e-c-a-u-s-e not c-o-z!) |
| teddybear 13.05.2005 21:12 |
Benn wrote: Djaef, - where was the aboriginal representation other than as a token gesture at the opening and closing ceremonies? For such a "multi-cultural" country, there was a surprising amount of xenophobia........This is an ignorant remark. For one thing, most aboriginals are not interested in the Olympic Games as they see it as 'white mans sport" - but they will turn out in droves to support their own Rugby finals. Also there are not alot of Aboriginals that live in Sydney as it is way too expensive to live there (and sadly, most aboriginals live on welfare) - they live mainly up on the coast of New South Wales - in places like Bowraville and Nambucca Heads - and I can assure you, they were not one bit interested in the games - even when Kathy Freeman was running as they think she sold out to her race anyway, by participating in white man sports !! But they do actively follow their own Rugby. But to say that Australia was Xenophobic coz they could not afford to buy tickets to go and see the games, well that is just stupid - as there were alot of others that could not afford it either. And the fact that not many participate in the games themselves shows they have little interest in it too, along with the few of them that play Aussie cricket? (again they refer to that as "white mans' sport). As for the Olympic Games - well tis nice for a city to hold them I guess, but they usually cost more than they make and become a liability to the country. Oh and for the record - Telstra Stadium is being used ALOT for various sporting and music events and conventions. It is not sitting there idle. It is a great stadium. |
| Dilemma 13.05.2005 21:23 |
Just sent to BM, lets see if he replies (he replied to my last one) Subject - Wembley - Olympics and Ken have NOTHING to do with this Brian You seem to be missing the point. Blaming everyone under the sun does not make you or us feel any better about the situation. I was 3 rows from the back and am fuming that you have the audacity to blame Ken Livingstone and every other poor sod. This is a private venue and the reason it is crap is because the other alternative the Wembley arena had been crap for far too long and the company that owns it and the stadium is now doing something about it. It was your management team that booked it. If you refused to use it, it would not exist. I suspect the economics of capacity and return on capital came into play. Why don't you and Wembley do the decent thing and offer people who were behind the mixing desk a free download of the gig or a CD. It'll cost peanuts and will restore some confidence with the real fans who were at the back ! By the way the advertising for the olympics bid is paid for by companies like mine who are premier partners on the bid. (BA, Virgin Atlantic, EDF Energy, Accenture, BT) . These companies see the long term benefits for london and the country, and obviously will benefit out of it too. Having grown up in wembley and seeing it decline so much, it is great to see the new stadium go up, and the arena being refurbished. Getting the olympics will also boost other areas too. See here for more details. link Cheers See you in Hyde park Steve |
| Carrots Of The Piratebean 13.05.2005 21:37 |
John S Stuart wrote: (PS: Because is spelt b-e-c-a-u-s-e not c-o-z!)I know how its spelt John, I was only using the abbreviated version. :P |
| whiteman 14.05.2005 01:59 |
i can agree with what most people have said about Brians comments regarding the venue, surely a band checks an arena before agreeing to play it,they don't just turn up on the day and think "SHIT this is crap!!" Compared to the other shows in the UK ie-Sheffield,Newcastle etc Wembley must have looked like a giant dog kennel and it is beyond belief they agreed to use it. Fans should complain to QueenProductions not wembley as they are selling a venue TO Queen NOT to the punters,as someone mentioned a free download of the show is the least these fans deserve as some kind of apology.Glad i went to Sheffield now but still feel for the fans who were short changed by this whole fuck up end of rant............... |
| teddybear 14.05.2005 03:18 |
Yes, spot on "Whiteman" - there are folks that are PAID to check on venues and their suitability - so the responsibility does lie there, that is for sure. I am so sorry that for so many Wembley was a disaster. |
| Serry... 14.05.2005 07:38 |
John S Stuart wrote: Axel F: "...did you know that by using the word "pommie" you are actually referring to Australians coz the word pommie really comes from the phrase "Prisoner Of Mother England". Actually, this is another urban legend which is simply NOT true. "Pommy" was based on the word "pomegranate" - either because the redness of the fruit supposedly matched the typically florid British complexion, or because (like "Johnny Grant") it was used as rhyming slang for "immigrant." link However, it would be interesting to read what our Australian cousins have to say about the subject. (PS: Because is spelt b-e-c-a-u-s-e not c-o-z!)Thanks John! I always couldn't understand the the last word in line "getting so hard to tell - if you're yank, oz or pom" in Roger's 'Dear Mr Murdoch'. |
| doremi 14.05.2005 14:12 |
Dilemma wrote: Just sent to BM, lets see if he replies (he replied to my last one) Subject - Wembley - Olympics and Ken have NOTHING to do with this Brian You seem to be missing the point. Blaming everyone under the sun does not make you or us feel any better about the situation. I was 3 rows from the back and am fuming that you have the audacity to blame Ken Livingstone and every other poor sod. This is a private venue and the reason it is crap is because the other alternative the Wembley arena had been crap for far too long and the company that owns it and the stadium is now doing something about it. It was your management team that booked it. If you refused to use it, it would not exist. I suspect the economics of capacity and return on capital came into play. Why don't you and Wembley do the decent thing and offer people who were behind the mixing desk a free download of the gig or a CD. It'll cost peanuts and will restore some confidence with the real fans who were at the back ! By the way the advertising for the olympics bid is paid for by companies like mine who are premier partners on the bid. (BA, Virgin Atlantic, EDF Energy, Accenture, BT) . These companies see the long term benefits for london and the country, and obviously will benefit out of it too. Having grown up in wembley and seeing it decline so much, it is great to see the new stadium go up, and the arena being refurbished. Getting the olympics will also boost other areas too. See here for more details. link Cheers See you in Hyde park SteveGreat letter. Please let me know if Brian answers and what he says. |
| teddybear 14.05.2005 17:29 |
I am an Aussie and the term "poms" has always referred to the British. I believe it was born out of wartime. Also it is not used as much now as it was - except for in the Cricket - when we play the "poms" at their game. But there are still alot of us that use the term "Poms" for the British and "Yanks" for the Americans. |
| Benn 17.05.2005 05:10 |
Quite a large letters update on Brian's website last night, but, as expected, he has decided to ignore the questions surrounding his opinion of the London Olympic Bid. Seemingly, he is arrogant enough to believe that he can not be challenged on this point. Unsurprising really. |
| Dilemma 17.05.2005 18:18 |
Dilemma wrote: Just sent to BM, lets see if he replies (he replied to my last one) Subject - Wembley - Olympics and Ken have NOTHING to do with this Brian You seem to be missing the point. Blaming everyone under the sun does not make you or us feel any better about the situation. I was 3 rows from the back and am fuming that you have the audacity to blame Ken Livingstone and every other poor sod. This is a private venue and the reason it is crap is because the other alternative the Wembley arena had been crap for far too long and the company that owns it and the stadium is now doing something about it. It was your management team that booked it. If you refused to use it, it would not exist. I suspect the economics of capacity and return on capital came into play. Why don't you and Wembley do the decent thing and offer people who were behind the mixing desk a free download of the gig or a CD. It'll cost peanuts and will restore some confidence with the real fans who were at the back ! By the way the advertising for the olympics bid is paid for by companies like mine who are premier partners on the bid. (BA, Virgin Atlantic, EDF Energy, Accenture, BT) . These companies see the long term benefits for london and the country, and obviously will benefit out of it too. Having grown up in wembley and seeing it decline so much, it is great to see the new stadium go up, and the arena being refurbished. Getting the olympics will also boost other areas too. See here for more details. link Cheers See you in Hyde park SteveNo direct reply from Brian to me as yet, but I do think his offer of something at Hyde park may go some way to appease people. Providing that is that they want whatever it is...... Perhaps he's taking the flak on the chin as opposed to carrying on blaming others. See link for his response. See ya in Hyde park ......hopefully for a freebie ! |
| teleman 17.05.2005 19:42 |
In response to those who believe a band should check out every venue they perform at ... This is not always easily done. You rely on management to have an awareness of appropriate venues. There isn't always opportunity to scope out each venue and by the time you are doing your soundcheck it is too late to bail. At least he's aware of the sound problems. |
| Benn 18.05.2005 04:33 |
Teleman, The band's management company is based in the UK - the band members all live in / around London. The venue they are saying they are so sorry for playing at is IN London. There is no excuse AT ALL for this. |
| teleman 18.05.2005 14:48 |
Benn wrote: Teleman, The band's management company is based in the UK - the band members all live in / around London. The venue they are saying they are so sorry for playing at is IN London. There is no excuse AT ALL for this.There is always an excuse :) Seriously speaking, I would hold management responsible. As a musician there isn't always time to check out even a local venue. How often does a venue have live bands playing and how many free nights are available to the band members to go to the venue on a night when a similar band is playing? And for members of a band like Queen+ they have to deal with the fame factor as well. After a quarter century of performing I've suffered the same fate on a smaller scale. Nothing like being booked into a sh!t venue and being unable to scope it out beforehand. |