Flash@TMB

Weird huh?

Well that was about as random as it gets. Wonder if that has ever been done outside the Arctic circle? Made a change from the chili sauce.

I'll be there tonight from around 8pm onwards. Seek me out as I haven't a clue who you are.

It's a red beer, a gueze matured in oak casks. Very unusual stuff and takes a lot of getting used to.

Tart fruity and complex would be an accurate description of a decent balsamic vinegar come to think of it. Vinegar doesn't get you pissed though

This could backfire BIG TIME on the Portman Group. There is no such thing as bad publicity. And Brewdog could not buy exposure at this level. If I was them then the next step would be to place censored stickers over the label, or perhaps release "an interfering little ale" called Nanny State. Then I'd phone the Daily Mail. The Portman Group would have to view each label or name change as a separate item, so by going to war with them Brewdog would be guaranteed years of free publicity, whilst the PG's credibility would dive. JD Wetherspoons - responsible drinking - they're having a laugh.

I'll point Fudge in the general direction of this (and keep reminding him until in sinks in).

Back in the day promoters would occasionally pay a bike team to act as *AHEM* security. Just like the Stones did at Altamont (despite how well that turned out). I guess they just preferred watching a dozen bikers beat up on 200 rampaging kids, probably cos you place bets on the number of casualties and stuff. Those were the days.

That's a nice idea but unfortunately the venue is still liable to the authorities if anything goes wrong, and though your plan looks good on paper it wouldn't wash in front of an angry licensing board. The best way to accomplish this is to hire a church hall or a scout hut. Let people bring their own booze. If it all goes tits up then you can abscond. Nobody is going to indite a man of the cloth.

If a promoter was to put on a gig in an unequipped venue and swing for ALL the associated costs then I'd expect them to be seeking a cut of the bar take. That's how we used to work it, years ago, before we had a PA. You see in that instance the promoter would be taking all the risk and the bar would be seeing all the upside. You need to strike a balance that works for all parties, and that will vary from venue to venue.

We don't hit the promoter up for any of those things, and even subsidise the cost of the promo materials... but that's another (albeit minor) reason why letting people under 18 in doesn't appeal to us. The promoter keeps the door charge, although if the door take is positive a little is syphoned off into a war chest to bail out under performing gates. In my experience the door charge is at best enough to cover: bands ticket hatch person (if separate from promoter) intra band DJ (if separate from promoter) promoter promotional material / tickets Any additional costs like paying for PA, engineer, security, rider, accommodation, venue hire would likely double the ticket price, which in turn would reduce the number of punters, which would prevent the sums from adding up.

That's a good grasp of the issue. Another way of looking at this, is that the council was being supportive of younger people by subsiding gigs that would not otherwise have been economically viable. I have no problem with that.

Not sure but suspect you might have misunderstood. We have no intention of ever breaching our fire capacity, and I'm pretty sure that other venues don't breach theirs either, for starters it's not really possible to cram in more people than that, and secondly because if anything went wrong then we'd go to jail for a very long time. The issue I have is where venues promo material falsely states that it has a much higher capacity. The inability of the average punter to comprehend how many people there are at a packed gig, and the tendency for people to exaggerate compounds this. For example if a venue claims to hold 300 people, and the room is clearly at capacity then people who were there will tell you "yeah there were 300 people at that gig", when in fact the chances are that there were really only 160... The reason for misrepresenting capacity is that bigger is often perceived to be better. When bands decide on a venue they will often optimistically calculate the maximum split to be a percentage of a capacity crowd multiplied by the proposed door charge/ticket price, thus making a venue that overstates it's capacity to appear more attractive. This leaves us with a nasty dilemma - do we continue to state the true capacity, or to claim one that is 60% higher? Regardless, the reality will never exceed the fire capacity.

Good post

We tried it, there were too many negatives, we scrapped it. The problem is the access to alcohol. We've experienced the situation where a kid collapses drunk despite being searched on entry, not being served, and having regular toilet checks. We then learn from it's mates that it necked a bottle of Sourz round the corner a few minutes before being admitted. The potential pitfalls are loss of license and going to jail on a manslaughter charge (hey but at least all the kids would think we were cool for a whole 5 mins). The only practical way to get around this would be to run a venue that did was not licensed to sell drink. Umm how successful do you think that would be. Let's not kid (ho ho) ourselves. possible access to drink is half the attraction for under 18s going to gigs. Fact is that most of these kids will later develop into adults and then be able to spend many years going to see bands and getting pished. If anyone feels strongly about this then there's absolutely nothing to stop them from leasing one of the many vacant pubs and hosting gigs for children. Just contact Punch Taverns and ask for a new tenants information pack.

EDIT: "While it may be possible to pack in more than 1 person per 50cm2" should read - "While it may be possible to pack in more than 1 person per 1/2m2." Schoolboy error, but I was in a rush. 50cm2 is 1/4 of a square meter.

I couldn't disagree more. Having an 18+ policy has some minor benefits, you know little things, like being economically viable. Oh - and avoiding going to jail for life because some kid has drunk itself to death in the toilets.

While it may be possible to pack in more than 1 person per 50cm2 it's not really workable, so in most cases the fire capacity is the max capacity unless you're trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records! Most people would be experiencing moderate discomfort as a venue approached it's fire capacity. Until recently our capacity was 178 but that has recently increased as we are in the process of altering the room and the layout of the seating. Once that work is complete we'll need to do the calculations again, but I'd estimate that it will end up around 190-200, say 195 as a guess. If we play by the same *COUGH* marketing rules/formula as certain other venues then we'd be claiming 325.

I'm not at the naming and shaming point yet.

I'm not inferring that venues are packing in people over and above their fire capacities. Most venues have trouble filling the place with punters at the best of times... Not this is more a promotional issue. If a band is used to playing in England or the central belt then the catchment areas there are much bigger than in Aberdeen due to population density. Bands coming up North are usually unaware of how sparse the population is up here and may therefore anticipate requiring a larger venue (unless they've done their homework). What pisses me off, is when a band is duped into playing a smaller venue because that venue claims to have a significantly higher capacity than is actually the case. IMOI two important factors when sizing and selecting an appropriate venue are: 1) Max number of punters anticipated, in most cases this will be lower in Aberdeen than it would be in Glasgow (unless the band has a huge Aberdeen following for some reason). 2) The venues draw. This is the average attendance at gigs for a particular venue. I heard of one instance where a band packed out a small venue, then reached new heights of popularity and booked a venue more than double the size only to play to less than a one third the number of people. So personally I would prefer if all venues were forced by law to state their true capacities, as opposed to telling the licensing board one thing and the rest of the world another.

It was recently pointed out to me that there are serous discrepancies in the capacities claimed by several local venues. Fortunately the forthcoming licensing law requires that all capacities must be calculated by an architect and shown on the plans that accompany the premises application. This is complicated, but as a rough guide it equates to 1/2 square meter for every person standing. This means that the real capacities are now a matter of public record. Doubtless this will do nothing to prevent venues from overstating their capacity on their web pages etc. In most cases capacities are overstated by around +50% - seriously. For a venue with a rectangular footprint to have a capacity of 300 it would need to encompass 150 square meters of standing room (not including it's stage or the area behind it's bar). So in the event that said venue was 20m long (the furthest permitted distance between fire escapes) then it would need to be on average 7.5m wide throughout. For Comparison the Moorings is 23m to the stage and an average of 4.3m wide (over 5m wide on the dancefloor, shrinking to 4m wide for the length of the bar, then widening out by the front door). Of course if a venue has multiple disconnected rooms then it could bend the truth by adding these capacities together... but that doesn't really give an indication of how many people could watch one band - does it? Should The Moorings start claiming a capacity of 300-350 or should I just raise this issue with the council? Amusingly one venue which claims to hold 100 people more than we do, actually holds 45 people less. Thoughts anyone?

It's been amusing revisiting this thread after all this time. In the intervening period Snafu, Retro Rebels, and The Moorings Bar have collaborated on several events, and this has worked out very well for all parties. If you guys are reading this then "THANK YOU". Until recently only Snafu, Drummonds, and The Moorings Bar were cooperating by taking each others gig posters and promo material. Unfortunately subsequent to it's takeover this is no longer the case with Drummonds. Ironically The Tunnels, Drummonds, and Moshulu stood to gain most by participating in this as they typically host many more gigs than Snafu and The Moorings do. After years of putting up anyones posters (and not seeing any detrimental effect from doing this) we shall now be refusing posters from The Tunnels, Drummonds, and Moshulu. That's their loss. If they ever see sense then we'll happily reinstate the open policy. In the meantime we'll continue to accept posters from (most) other sources. It was interesting to note that many of my predictions from earlier in the thread have since come to pass.

At least it would stop all the shoplifting.

If you fancy starting another thread on science then I'll happily get into all that with you... just be warned that some people are likely to get very upset with me.

This is reminiscent of last winters 'initiative' where "The Police and City Council were working with young people to clamp down on the selling of booze to children". They were sending kids aged 14-15 under cover into pubs and clubs to try and buy drink. Again the intentions may have been well meaning but the plan was ill conceived. Personally I would have preferred to see them sending children down to the red light district undercover (ho ho) to solicit drivers for sex... but I guess that might have opened a few unwelcome cans of worms LMAO! It would appear that a few well placed fascists have a hand in the running of this town. The sweaty palms thing would indicate that they are going after drug users rather than drug pushers (let's be clear there is a big distinction between dealer and pusher) since pushers (unlike dealers) will not usually have ingested the drugs themselves. It's not actually illegal to ingest drugs. Just wait till they start taking hair cuttings and storing the results on your citizens ID card. "You papers please - ahh I sink you shall now be vearing zis 'D' patch on your clothing. Report to ze Department of Public Security to have you unique identification number tattooed on your forehead. You shall be billed 200 for zis privilaged. Now open your mouth so zat ze dentist can check your teeth." Interestingly it is apparently perfectly OK for persons unknown in our city council to sell off a prime plot of city centre real estate to Stewart Milne at a knock down price under false pretenses. Remember the City Warf scandal earlier in the year when Mr Milne somehow purchase a couple of acres of car park behind Union Street for only 500K??? Either the people responsible for that were criminals or so fuckin stupid they should be committed to Cornhill.