I said nothing of the kind. I said that such haste was considered inadvisable by many because of the insufficient timescale for planning and booking. It was a risk. The risk you mention of skipping a year is also a real one. An identical dilemma arose at Beverley some years ago. In each case, a sort of festival somehow muddled through, hampered by opposing cliques, each convinced that one or other course of action was the only way, without a great deal of reference to the hard financial and practical considerations.

I am thoroughly tired of many (most) contributors to this thread shooting their mouths off without bothering to read what's been said before nor taking the trouble to look at the simple facts (as succinctly outlined by Steve Heap when outlining his rationale for relinquishing control in 2004), and diminishing the matter to 'you're not in the Middle Bar gang, you're not one of us' as though it was a playground squabble. Sidmouth has meant infinitely more to a whole lot of people than huddling in a pub all day (which could be done anywhere) and yes, we would like the old Sidmouth, that the loud-mouthed gang of recent camp followers actually know nothing about, back. As this would make not the slightest difference to a few people stuck in a bar, it is quite astonishing that they kick up such whingeing, abusive fuss at those who do want it. Not that it's coming: my outline of how it could be achieved would be dismissed out of hand because no-one has the slightest clue about how to raise the dosh. That's why I couldn't be arsed to waste hours costing and explaining it: the present 'management' has neither the vision nor commitment and meanwhile, Sidmouth becomes 'just another festival'. Keep it.