Anyone like to comment on Edgeley Park as a venue - I cant decide !!		

On the one hand it is fantastic to get your beer and sit out in the 
stand and gaze at the pitch, the Stocky landmarks and the Peninnes and 
listen to the barber shop sextet !

On the other the service area is long and narrow and it's difficult to 
get to the middle of the serving area so ended up drinking mostly beers 
from the end of the alphabet !.  Didnt get a chance to sample the food.

The beers for 1 a pint until 8pm was a nice innovation - squeezed two in !

Also as a traditional northener I was "disappointed" by the lack of any 
beers on the handpumps (that I could see) giving the option of a tight 
sparkler and creamy head.

Also there seemed to be more than the usual number of beers "not" on 
offer - preventing last session run-out I presume.

Actually the best pint of the night was afterwards in the Olde Vic - 
Moorhouses Blonde Witch (with a creamy head of course!  :-)

--
JohnB

JohnB wrote:

> Anyone like to comment on Edgeley Park as a venue - I cant decide !!
>

As a venue itself, it is great. Increased capacity but no problem
finding seating and separate rooms for food and entertainment are all
useful bonuses. Beer is also a lot cooler than it ever was in the Town
Hall. The main area does get crowded but this seems to be because
people insist on congregating there, rather than spreading out. I also
wish they had handpumps but Stockport have never been big on them for
some reason. There were a lot of complaints about not all the beer
being on. If they were holding them all back, it was a serious mistake.

In article ,
   JohnB  wrote:

> Moorhouses Blonde Witch (with a creamy head of course!  :-)


Oh wow! Is that available again? I heard it was a one-off last year.

One taste and hooked!

-- 
Chris de Cordova (West Cumbria & Western Lakes) www.cumbriacamra.org.uk
Whitehaven Beer Festival: Sept 30th & Oct 1st 2005 (www.whitehavenbeerfestival.co.uk)

Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film.

Chris de Cordova wrote:

> In article ,
>    JohnB  wrote:
> 
>>Moorhouses Blonde Witch (with a creamy head of course!  :-)
> 
> 
> Oh wow! Is that available again? I heard it was a one-off last year.
> 
> One taste and hooked!
> 

Yep - me and the lads are heading back to the Vic this week for a longer 
session on it - fingers crossed still on.

--
JohnB

"Alex"  wrote in message
news:1117870538.463595.107920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> JohnB wrote:
>> Anyone like to comment on Edgeley Park as a venue - I cant decide !!
>>
> As a venue itself, it is great. Increased capacity but no problem
> finding seating and separate rooms for food and entertainment are all
> useful bonuses. Beer is also a lot cooler than it ever was in the Town
> Hall. The main area does get crowded but this seems to be because
> people insist on congregating there, rather than spreading out. I also
> wish they had handpumps but Stockport have never been big on them for
> some reason. There were a lot of complaints about not all the beer
> being on. If they were holding them all back, it was a serious mistake.


Beer availability is controlled so that there is a reasonable selection 
available at every sessions.

To my mind that is a lot fairer (and is likely to ensure much better quality 
in the later sessions) than putting everything on as soon as the festival 
opens and then devil take the hindmost...

Record sales this year show that the punters are voting with their feet - 
and their throats.

And the fact that there was enough beer to allow serving until 11 pm on 
Saturday (unlike last year) is a major plus point.

-- 
http://www.stockportpubs.org.uk
"If a river bridge were not guarded by a parapet, the slackness of the
defaulting authority deserves the blame, not the people who fall in" -
Lieut. Col. Mervyn O'Gorman.

PeterE wrote:

> "Alex"  wrote in message
> news:1117870538.463595.107920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> > JohnB wrote:
> >> Anyone like to comment on Edgeley Park as a venue - I cant decide !!
> >>
> > As a venue itself, it is great. Increased capacity but no problem
> > finding seating and separate rooms for food and entertainment are all
> > useful bonuses. Beer is also a lot cooler than it ever was in the Town
> > Hall. The main area does get crowded but this seems to be because
> > people insist on congregating there, rather than spreading out. I also
> > wish they had handpumps but Stockport have never been big on them for
> > some reason. There were a lot of complaints about not all the beer
> > being on. If they were holding them all back, it was a serious mistake.
>
> Beer availability is controlled so that there is a reasonable selection
> available at every sessions.
>
> To my mind that is a lot fairer (and is likely to ensure much better quality
> in the later sessions) than putting everything on as soon as the festival
> opens and then devil take the hindmost...
>
> Record sales this year show that the punters are voting with their feet -
> and their throats.
>
> And the fact that there was enough beer to allow serving until 11 pm on
> Saturday (unlike last year) is a major plus point.
>

Why is it fairer? It's just different and frankly, annoying. If you
ordered enough beer in the first place, you'd have enough for Saturday
night. I know last year you were caught short, but Stockport always
seem to have this policy regardless. As I say, I like the venue and the
streaker was a novelty but the beer policy is seriously misguided.

PeterE wrote:


> Beer availability is controlled so that there is a reasonable selection 
> available at every sessions.


Hi Peter

I am no expert on beer longevity etc...

But why can't every barrel that is behind the bar be tapped and servable 
from the minute the doors open ?  Surely the beer will keep for the 48 
hours - or so does the quality go down that much.

As to "fairer" well that's debatable (assuming there are no quality 
issues) doesnt the policy just mean that each day is in essence a 
different fesival ?  Thus, it would be good to display in advance what 
beers will be available at each session - to allow punters to choose a 
favoured session.

However, as I would predict that most punters are only able to attend 
one or two sessions and that they are likely to be dictated by personal 
circumstances (I can't do weekends for example) I would say it was 
"fairer" to have all beers on from the first session.

However, overall, it's not a big issue as the number of beers available 
that the average punter hasn't tried previously or has and likes, far 
exceeds said  individual's capacity in a session !  Just disappoints 
when your favourite tipple is sitting there - unattainable !

But nice to hear that there was a good supply left for the "lucky" 
Saturday evening punters.

On balance though I do like the venue - but missed the streaker - male 
or female ?

Cheers
--
JohnB

JohnB wrote:
punters.

>
> On balance though I do like the venue - but missed the streaker - male
> or female ?
> 

Technically, half a streak I suppose, as he kept his top on:)

> Thus, it would be good to display in advance what beers will be available
> at each session - to allow punters to choose a favoured session.


See

http://www.stockportfestival.fsnet.co.uk/beerlist.htm

Or follow route http://www.stockportfestival.fsnet.co.uk/index.htm > Beer
and Ciders > Beer List

Usually updated live at the end of the day
Due to not arriving home until 2am Friday nights update was not posted this
year!
No dedication to duty :-(

"JohnB"  wrote in message
news:3ghd6cFcfdfgU1@individual.net

> PeterE wrote:
>
>> Beer availability is controlled so that there is a reasonable selection
>> available at every sessions.
>
> Hi Peter
>
> I am no expert on beer longevity etc...
>
> But why can't every barrel that is behind the bar be tapped and servable
> from the minute the doors open ?  Surely the beer will keep for the 48
> hours - or so does the quality go down that much.


In a beer festival (which is not a temperature-controlled environment) a 
beer that is tapped on Thursday afternoon will be pretty tired by Saturday.


> As to "fairer" well that's debatable (assuming there are no quality
> issues) doesnt the policy just mean that each day is in essence a
> different fesival ?  Thus, it would be good to display in advance what
> beers will be available at each session - to allow punters to choose a
> favoured session.


Well, if you put all the beers on from the start, you discriminate against 
the Saturday people in favour of the Thursday ones. Or you have fewer beers, 
but two or more casks of each, which rather negates the point of a beer 
festival.


> However, as I would predict that most punters are only able to attend
> one or two sessions and that they are likely to be dictated by personal
> circumstances (I can't do weekends for example) I would say it was
> "fairer" to have all beers on from the first session.


But that discriminates against punters at later sessions who will have a 
more limited range. As you say, for most people, there will be far more 
beers they haven't tried than they are able to drink, so everyone will have 
a sufficiently wide range to choose from.

The only people who benefit from the "everything on from the start" approach 
are tickers.

-- 
http://www.stockportpubs.org.uk
"If a river bridge were not guarded by a parapet, the slackness of the
defaulting authority deserves the blame, not the people who fall in" -
Lieut. Col. Mervyn O'Gorman.

PeterE wrote:

> The only people who benefit from the "everything on from the start" approach
> are tickers.
>

Or those of us who, due to CAMRA business, could only attend on
Thursday. Other festivals seem to do just fine. Why you continue with
such an unpopular policy is baffling. More substance and less smoke and
mirrors I suggest.

You say this policy is misguided because you don't understand it.

First, beer that is tapped during setup won't last until the end of the
festival - one beer festival lost thousands of pounds because the
organisers tapped every barrel at the start.

Second, those who visit the festival later will suffer because, even if
beer is still drinkable, some beers are bound to have been finished by
the time they get there.

Regards, Colin Mills

Colin_Mills wrote:

> 
> You say this policy is misguided because you don't understand it.
> 
> First, beer that is tapped during setup won't last until the end of the
> festival - one beer festival lost thousands of pounds because the
> organisers tapped every barrel at the start.
> 
> Second, those who visit the festival later will suffer because, even if
> beer is still drinkable, some beers are bound to have been finished by
> the time they get there.


None of this matters a scrap to the tickers whose priorities have
nothing to do with taste, quality, or fairness to anyone else who
attends a festival.

John B

Colin_Mills wrote:

> You say this policy is misguided because you don't understand it.


I described it as misguided because I understand it all too well. It's
your festival, so you are entitled to run it as you like. However,
don't try and justify it in practical terms, please.


>
> First, beer that is tapped during setup won't last until the end of the
> festival - one beer festival lost thousands of pounds because the
> organisers tapped every barrel at the start.
>

Really? I'd like details-how many beers over what period? If that was
an absolute, every other festival would do the same. The fact is, there
are plenty of festivals who have been successfully running longer than
Stockport who seem to manage fine. Or are you saying they're not up to
scratch?



> Second, those who visit the festival later will suffer because, even if
> beer is still drinkable, some beers are bound to have been finished by
> the time they get there.
>

And? That is logical and understandable. As has been said, it's not any
fairer than depriving people early on. The diifference is that your
scheme is unecessarily unpopular.

In article ,
   Alex  wrote:

> > First, beer that is tapped during setup won't last until the end of the
> > festival - one beer festival lost thousands of pounds because the
> > organisers tapped every barrel at the start.
> >
> Really?


Yes, really. I happen to know the guy that organised one such festival.
The beer was absolutely fine on the first session for the few people that
were there, less so later and then later still people didn't feel like
drinking it on account of it having lost condition.


> I'd like details-how many beers over what period?


IIRC about 80 beers over a three (four?) day festival. 


> If that was
> an absolute, every other festival would do the same.


Festival organisers are *advised* not to breach all casks at the start and
plan to phase in beers through the festival by bringing each to correct
condition at different times. This isn't always possible and the beers
sometimes come on later than planned


> The fact is, there
> are plenty of festivals who have been successfully running longer than
> Stockport who seem to manage fine. Or are you saying they're not up to
> scratch?


I'm sure people could point to less than par beer at festivals - I seem to
recall one of the Pickthall contributors doing just that. Care to ask him
why he thinks the beer wasn't at its best? 
Go on, accuse him of defending CAMRA.

-- 
Steve Pampling

In article <d82hmf$r63$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, PeterE
 wrote:

> Well, if you put all the beers on from the start, you discriminate
> against the Saturday people in favour of the Thursday ones.


If a festival has been open since Thursday, if I attended on the
Saturday night I would certainly expect to find a more limited choice.

-- 
Chris de Cordova (West Cumbria & Western Lakes) www.cumbriacamra.org.uk
Whitehaven Beer Festival: Sept 30th & Oct 1st 2005 (www.whitehavenbeerfestival.co.uk)

The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread.

Steven Pampling wrote:

> In article ,
>    Alex  wrote:
> > > First, beer that is tapped during setup won't last until the end of the
> > > festival - one beer festival lost thousands of pounds because the
> > > organisers tapped every barrel at the start.
> > >
> > Really?
>
> Yes, really. I happen to know the guy that organised one such festival.
> The beer was absolutely fine on the first session for the few people that
> were there, less so later and then later still people didn't feel like
> drinking it on account of it having lost condition.
>
> > I'd like details-how many beers over what period?
>
> IIRC about 80 beers over a three (four?) day festival.
>


I never doubted it happened, just the reasons for it. I've been to many
festivals where the beer has been poor throughout-too warm and flat,
for example. Nothing whatsoever to do with putting the beer on too
early. If it was purely an issue of quality, then by your scenario,
Stockport should always have excellent beer on. When they didn't.
Certainly at their previous festivals, the beers were handicapped by
the limitations of the venue.



> > If that was
> > an absolute, every other festival would do the same.
>
> Festival organisers are *advised* not to breach all casks at the start and
> plan to phase in beers through the festival by bringing each to correct
> condition at different times. This isn't always possible and the beers
> sometimes come on later than planned
>


But then a lot of the "advice" given is not very helpful. Luckily, some
people know what they are doing.


> > The fact is, there
> > are plenty of festivals who have been successfully running longer than
> > Stockport who seem to manage fine. Or are you saying they're not up to
> > scratch?
>
> I'm sure people could point to less than par beer at festivals - I seem to
> recall one of the Pickthall contributors doing just that. Care to ask him
> why he thinks the beer wasn't at its best?
> Go on, accuse him of defending CAMRA.
>

That will be the day:) I just don't think you have justified Stockport
holding beers back for a 2.5 days festival. If it was purely about
quality, I could agree. But it isn't...

Alex:

>I described it as misguided because I understand it all
> too well.

Nothing you say convinces me you understand at all.

>It's your festival, so you are entitled to run it as you like.

In fact, I'm not involved at all with the Stockport Festival.

> However, don't try and justify it in practical terms,
> please.

Why on earth shouldn't a beer festival policy be justified in practical
terms? This is a bigoted response.

Colin Mills

"Colin_Mills"  wrote in message
news:1118430211.851035.71220@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> Alex:
>> I described it as misguided because I understand it all
>> too well.
> Nothing you say convinces me you understand at all.
>> It's your festival, so you are entitled to run it as you like.
> In fact, I'm not involved at all with the Stockport Festival.
>> However, don't try and justify it in practical terms,
>> please.
> Why on earth shouldn't a beer festival policy be justified in practical
> terms? This is a bigoted response.


Well, as far as I'm concerned there are very sound practical reasons:

(a) to reduce financial risk by ensuring that, in the event of disappointing 
attendance, the festival is not left with large quantities of beer in tapped 
casks that cannot be sold on,
(b) to maintain quality - at a beer festival, with beer stored at ambient 
temperature, a cask that is tapped on the Thursday will be very tired by 
Saturday evening, and
(c) to ensure that a reasonable choice of beers and beer styles is available 
to customers at every session

The main downside is that some tickers miss out on a few ticks :p

-- 
http://www.stockportpubs.org.uk
"If a river bridge were not guarded by a parapet, the slackness of the
defaulting authority deserves the blame, not the people who fall in" -
Lieut. Col. Mervyn O'Gorman.

Colin_Mills wrote:

> In fact, I'm not involved at all with the Stockport Festival.
> > However, don't try and justify it in practical terms,
> > please.
> Why on earth shouldn't a beer festival policy be justified in practical
> terms? This is a bigoted response.
>

Are you being deliberately obtuse here? Read my comments again in their
entirety. Perhaps I should have said "justify it in terms of
practicality." Meaning, I don't believe you can justify this policy
merely by the excuses you have given-qualty control etc. It is merely
done to maintain appearances. In what way is this a bigoted response?

PeterE wrote:

> "Colin_Mills"  wrote in message
> news:1118430211.851035.71220@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> > Alex:
> >> I described it as misguided because I understand it all
> >> too well.
> > Nothing you say convinces me you understand at all.
> >> It's your festival, so you are entitled to run it as you like.
> > In fact, I'm not involved at all with the Stockport Festival.
> >> However, don't try and justify it in practical terms,
> >> please.
> > Why on earth shouldn't a beer festival policy be justified in practical
> > terms? This is a bigoted response.
>
> Well, as far as I'm concerned there are very sound practical reasons:
>
> (a) to reduce financial risk by ensuring that, in the event of disappointing
> attendance, the festival is not left with large quantities of beer in tapped
> casks that cannot be sold on,
> (b) to maintain quality - at a beer festival, with beer stored at ambient
> temperature, a cask that is tapped on the Thursday will be very tired by
> Saturday evening, and
> (c) to ensure that a reasonable choice of beers and beer styles is available
> to customers at every session
>
> The main downside is that some tickers miss out on a few ticks :p
>


Now we're getting there. (c) is obviously the driving factor. Which is
fair enough, as it's your festival. Just be more honest about it. You
don't need to try and wrap it up with (a) and (b). A festival as
established as Stockport should know pretty well how much beer to order
by now. And the quality issue is a red herring. By the sound of it,
you've either got terrible environmental control or poor cellarmanship.
Otherwise, why be so worried about the beer on Saturday?
Oh, and you seem to think that tickers are the main group affected by
this policy. I'm not sure if you are implying I may belong to this
dreaded group, but as anyone who knows me will testify, I most
certainly do not. I just oppose this policy as a normal beer loving
member of the public.

In article , Alex
 wrote:



> Steven Pampling wrote:

[Snip]

> > Yes, really. I happen to know the guy that organised one such
> > festival. The beer was absolutely fine on the first session for the
> > few people that were there, less so later and then later still people
> > didn't feel like drinking it on account of it having lost condition.

[Snip]

> I never doubted it happened, just the reasons for it. I've been to many
> festivals where the beer has been poor throughout-too warm and flat, for
> example. Nothing whatsoever to do with putting the beer on too early. If
> it was purely an issue of quality, then by your scenario, Stockport
> should always have excellent beer on.


I suspect you realise that keeping the beer well has more than just tapping
early or not to affect it. However, since you mention beer being flat you
might like to consider what happens when you have too much beer tapped too
early - it goes flat before people drink it.
Temperature can be countered by cooling, lack of condition due to early
venting can't.



> When they didn't. Certainly at
> their previous festivals, the beers were handicapped by the limitations
> of the venue.


Hmmm. On that basis organising a large festival in a building with a glass
roof in August would be a bit iffy.


> > > If that was an absolute, every other festival would do the same.
> >
> > Festival organisers are *advised* not to breach all casks at the start
> > and plan to phase in beers through the festival by bringing each to
> > correct condition at different times. This isn't always possible and
> > the beers sometimes come on later than planned
> >

> But then a lot of the "advice" given is not very helpful. Luckily, some
> people know what they are doing.


No one knows everything. Sensible people always listen to advice, the
clever ones use it.


> > > The fact is, there are plenty of festivals who have been
> > > successfully running longer than Stockport who seem to manage fine.
> > > Or are you saying they're not up to scratch?

> > I'm sure people could point to less than par beer at festivals - I
> > seem to recall one of the Pickthall contributors doing just that. Care
> > to ask him why he thinks the beer wasn't at its best? Go on, accuse
> > him of defending CAMRA.

> That will be the day:) I just don't think you have justified Stockport
> holding beers back for a 2.5 days festival. If it was purely about
> quality, I could agree. But it isn't...


I always refused to put beer on until I was happy to drink it. It isn't
"holding back" and unless you like drinking murky beer you'd agree to it
not being on.
Of course every ticker I've ever met always wanted to tell me how they'd
travelled miles for that specific beer and they didn't mind cloudy beer.

Maybe Stockport have good and bad times, but when I've been to the
festival (on  Saturday) the beer was OK. Some was a touch tired, having
been broached a while, but the newer fresher tapped stuff was OK. Maybe
they should have put it all on on the first day then I could have had a
consistently tired pint.

-- 
Steve Pampling

Alex:

> Are you being deliberately obtuse here? Read my
> comments again in their entirety.

No, I'm not being obtuse here, deliberately or otherwise, and the
reasons I suggest for the Stockport BF policy are not excuses.

> In what way is this a bigoted response?

Since you are unreasonably determined not to believe that such a policy
can be justified, you wouldn't understand or accept any explanation I
could give.

I shall not respond to any further postings you make, and I don't feel
you will do yourself any good by continuing this line of argument.

Colin Mills

Colin_Mills wrote:

> Alex:
> > Are you being deliberately obtuse here? Read my
> > comments again in their entirety.
> No, I'm not being obtuse here, deliberately or otherwise, and the
> reasons I suggest for the Stockport BF policy are not excuses.
> > In what way is this a bigoted response?
> Since you are unreasonably determined not to believe that such a policy
> can be justified, you wouldn't understand or accept any explanation I
> could give.
>
> I shall not respond to any further postings you make, and I don't feel
> you will do yourself any good by continuing this line of argument.
>

Obviously there's no point continuing, since we are so far apart.
Interesting phrase "unreasonably determined," though. Being unconvinced
by your arguements obvioulsy makes me unreasonable whilst you are
presumably perfectly entitled to ignore your critics. I begin to see
why the festival organisers have such an oligarchical reputation.

Steven Pampling wrote:

> In article , Alex
>  wrote:
>
> > When they didn't. Certainly at
> > their previous festivals, the beers were handicapped by the limitations
> > of the venue.
>
> Hmmm. On that basis organising a large festival in a building with a glass
> roof in August would be a bit iffy.
>


Presumably a reference to the GBBF. Not a very exact comparison I would
have thought. Rather expensive cooling equipment used there, for a
start, IIRC. I'm sure a lot of festivals would like that luxury. Even
then, in terms of beer quality, the GBBF isn't the best in the country.



> No one knows everything. Sensible people always listen to advice, the
> clever ones use it.
>


Advice is surely judged on its merits. All I was saying is if people
can successfully ignore it, then I would question whether it's worth
giving.



> I always refused to put beer on until I was happy to drink it. It isn't
> "holding back" and unless you like drinking murky beer you'd agree to it
> not being on.
> Of course every ticker I've ever met always wanted to tell me how they'd
> travelled miles for that specific beer and they didn't mind cloudy beer.
>


No one said anything about putting beers on that weren't ready. We are
simply talking about whether all beer that is ready can and should go
on. They have admitted "holding back" beer for reasons other than
quality concern. Which is a different matter altogether. I don't know
why you brought tickers into the debate. Perhaps you think they are the
only people bothered and therefore I must be one. For the record, once
more, I'm most certainly not.


> Maybe Stockport have good and bad times, but when I've been to the
> festival (on  Saturday) the beer was OK. Some was a touch tired, having
> been broached a while, but the newer fresher tapped stuff was OK. Maybe
> they should have put it all on on the first day then I could have had a
> consistently tired pint.
>

Or they could run a smaller festival. Just open Fri/Sat, maybe. Why
open Thurs eve if it's that problematic? I'd suggest getting along to
see how some other festivals manage.

Alex wrote:



> 
> No one said anything about putting beers on that weren't ready. We are
> simply talking about whether all beer that is ready can and should go
> on. They have admitted "holding back" beer for reasons other than
> quality concern. Which is a different matter altogether. I don't know
> why you brought tickers into the debate. Perhaps you think they are the
> only people bothered and therefore I must be one. For the record, once
> more, I'm most certainly not.

<snip>
> >
> Or they could run a smaller festival. Just open Fri/Sat, maybe. Why
> open Thurs eve if it's that problematic? I'd suggest getting along to
> see how some other festivals manage.


Perhaps they could look at the small two-day festival where I am beer
manager (amongst other things).
Always top notch beer, consistently good feedback, very popular, always
a sell-out.

Beers are managed so that all are available at some time in each session.

Pretty much what Stockport does it seems, and people keep flocking back.

We must be doing something right.

John B

"Alex"  wrote in message
news:1118664028.503974.158630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> Colin_Mills wrote:
>>
>> I shall not respond to any further postings you make, and I don't feel
>> you will do yourself any good by continuing this line of argument.
>>
> Obviously there's no point continuing, since we are so far apart.
> Interesting phrase "unreasonably determined," though. Being unconvinced
> by your arguements obvioulsy makes me unreasonable whilst you are
> presumably perfectly entitled to ignore your critics. I begin to see
> why the festival organisers have such an oligarchical reputation.


It should be pointed out that Colin is not involved in the organisation of 
Stockport festival.

And you do seem wilfully determined not to accept that the opposing point of 
view may have any legitimacy whatsoever.

-- 
http://www.stockportpubs.org.uk
"If a river bridge were not guarded by a parapet, the slackness of the
defaulting authority deserves the blame, not the people who fall in" -
Lieut. Col. Mervyn O'Gorman.

"Alex"  wrote in message
news:1118665918.703251.18710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

>
> Or they could run a smaller festival. Just open Fri/Sat, maybe. Why
> open Thurs eve if it's that problematic? I'd suggest getting along to
> see how some other festivals manage.


Spreading the hall hire costs over less sales would make the festival 
uneconomic.

And, the fact that it's extremely successful year-on-year and gets 
overwhelmingly positive feedback does suggest we must be doing something 
right!

-- 
http://www.stockportpubs.org.uk
"If a river bridge were not guarded by a parapet, the slackness of the
defaulting authority deserves the blame, not the people who fall in" -
Lieut. Col. Mervyn O'Gorman.

JohnB wrote:

> Perhaps they could look at the small two-day festival where I am beer
> manager (amongst other things).
> Always top notch beer, consistently good feedback, very popular, always
> a sell-out.
>
> Beers are managed so that all are available at some time in each session.
>
> Pretty much what Stockport does it seems, and people keep flocking back.


Not really. You're saying (I think), that you hold beers back purely
for beer management reasons. Stockport say that but then seem to be
qualifying it with other issues. Which is where I disagree.


>
> We must be doing something right.
>

 No one said Stockport isn't successful. It certainly isn't because of
the beer policy though is it? I congratulate you on running a
successful festival as well, but others are a success withour beer
management. So I don't think that proves anything in itself. Have you
actually asked people if they are in favour of beer management? I ask
because I have and they are overwhelmingly against it.

PeterE wrote:

> It should be pointed out that Colin is not involved in the organisation of
> Stockport festival.
>
> And you do seem wilfully determined not to accept that the opposing point of
> view may have any legitimacy whatsoever.
>

I am simply representing a viewpoint that several people hold. I don't
say your views don't have any legitimacy at all but simply that they
are not convincing, in my experience. It is you who seem unwilling to
accept any change in your mind set. AFAIK you (meaning Stockport
festival), have never varied your system and yet are convinced it is
the only way to do things. If you were telling me something I didn't
know about beer and festivals, I would be happy to admit it and defend
your corner. However, you haven't, so I can't see any reason to change
my opinion.

PeterE wrote:

> "Alex"  wrote in message
> news:1118665918.703251.18710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> >
> > Or they could run a smaller festival. Just open Fri/Sat, maybe. Why
> > open Thurs eve if it's that problematic? I'd suggest getting along to
> > see how some other festivals manage.
>
> Spreading the hall hire costs over less sales would make the festival
> uneconomic.
>
> And, the fact that it's extremely successful year-on-year and gets
> overwhelmingly positive feedback does suggest we must be doing something
> right!
>

But that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement, does it? You
know very well that most feedback is positive. I'll hold my hands up if
I'm wrong, but I doubt you have actually conducted much research into
whether specific issues such as beer availability should be changed.
You seem very resistant to change. Obviously of no concern to you, but
there will be a few less customers at the event next year. And don't
mention tickers:)

In article ,
   Alex  wrote:

> Presumably a reference to the GBBF. Not a very exact comparison I would
> have thought. Rather expensive cooling equipment used there, for a
> start, IIRC. I'm sure a lot of festivals would like that luxury.


It isn't a luxury.

Any CAMRA festival can use the equipment. Those that don't either haven't
read the information about doing so or don't want to.

Yes, the glass roof was a reference to GBBF but if I substituted under
canvas at a racecourse you'd have to shift north west. Again the guys there
use cooling. (They read the info and do want to keep the beer cool)

-- 
Steve Pampling

Alex wrote:

> 
> JohnB wrote:
> > Perhaps they could look at the small two-day festival where I am beer
> > manager (amongst other things).
> > Always top notch beer, consistently good feedback, very popular, always
> > a sell-out.
> >
> > Beers are managed so that all are available at some time in each session.
> >
> > Pretty much what Stockport does it seems, and people keep flocking back.
> 
> Not really. You're saying (I think), that you hold beers back purely
> for beer management reasons. 

Yes we do.
> Stockport say that but then seem to be
> qualifying it with other issues. Which is where I disagree.
> 
> >
> > We must be doing something right.
> >
>  No one said Stockport isn't successful. It certainly isn't because of
> the beer policy though is it? I congratulate you on running a
> successful festival as well, but others are a success withour beer
> management. So I don't think that proves anything in itself. Have you
> actually asked people if they are in favour of beer management?


We used to have everything available from first opening, until it ran
out. We were plagued with complaints, particularly on the Saturday
(mainly from tickers) when several of the beers were no longer available.
We carried out a survey of customers and have settled on our present
policy. 
Since we have introduced managing the beers over the whole festival, we
have had nothing but praise and support, except from, yes you've guessed
it,  a very small number of the panda bottle brigade.
I choose to ignore both of them.


>  I ask
> because I have and they are overwhelmingly against it.


I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be happier with a lower
choice on subsequent days of a festival.

John B

JohnB wrote:

> Alex wrote:

.. You're saying (I think), that you hold beers back purely

> > for beer management reasons.
>
> Yes we do.

>From personal experience, I'm against it, I have to say. However, it is

your choice. Just as opening hours, which are another hot topic, are.


> We used to have everything available from first opening, until it ran
> out. We were plagued with complaints, particularly on the Saturday
> (mainly from tickers) when several of the beers were no longer available.
> We carried out a survey of customers and have settled on our present
> policy.
> Since we have introduced managing the beers over the whole festival, we
> have had nothing but praise and support, except from, yes you've guessed
> it,  a very small number of the panda bottle brigade.
> I choose to ignore both of them.


Oh dear, I fear we're meeting on the middle ground. These people are
the bane of many a festival I have to say.


> I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be happier with a lower
> choice on subsequent days of a festival.
>

And yet I found the reverse strange! Now if there's one topic I will
acccept no better qualified expert, it's local drinking habits. It
might be horses for courses, but the expectations round here are for
more choice earlier and less later. I've had it described as "drinking
common sense." I can honestly say I know very few people who support
beer management. And not a Panda Pop bottle in sight:)

"Alex"  wrote in message
news:1118752223.174059.76680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

>
> And yet I found the reverse strange! Now if there's one topic I will
> acccept no better qualified expert, it's local drinking habits. It
> might be horses for courses, but the expectations round here are for
> more choice earlier and less later. I've had it described as "drinking
> common sense." I can honestly say I know very few people who support
> beer management. And not a Panda Pop bottle in sight:)


Have you expressed your concerns to the Stockport Festival organising 
committee, either directly or via the website?

-- 
http://www.stockportpubs.org.uk
"If a river bridge were not guarded by a parapet, the slackness of the
defaulting authority deserves the blame, not the people who fall in" -
Lieut. Col. Mervyn O'Gorman.

PeterE wrote:

> Have you expressed your concerns to the Stockport Festival organising
> committee, either directly or via the website?
> 
> -- 

Yes, I think that's where I came in:)

"JohnB"  wrote in message 
news:3gbrp6Fbp4ofU1@individual.net...


> On the one hand it is fantastic to get your beer and sit out in the stand 
> and gaze at the pitch, the Stocky landmarks and the Peninnes and listen to 
> the barber shop sextet !


I went on the Saturday afternoon, didn't hear any music as I was sat in the 
"stands" enjoying the view of the landscape and the aircraft coming into 
land at Manchester airport. Marvellous! Could have done with a table though.


> On the other the service area is long and narrow and it's difficult to get 
> to the middle of the serving area so ended up drinking mostly beers from 
> the end of the alphabet !.  Didnt get a chance to sample the food.


Was a bit cramped. I'd shift the beer into the place the music was taking 
place. Closer to the food as well!

>
> Also as a traditional northener I was "disappointed" by the lack of any 
> beers on the handpumps (that I could see) giving the option of a tight 
> sparkler and creamy head.


Nothing more traditional than beer straight from the cask.


> Also there seemed to be more than the usual number of beers "not" on 
> offer - preventing last session run-out I presume.


I would prefer fewer beers and more volume. Gives a better chance of tasting 
a beer you fancy.