In Leeds, England, there is a band called Kaiser Chiefs. They have been around, in one form or another, for years now and they are fairly successful in the British Isle. They've won awards and sold a lot of CDs and have a faithful following. It stands to reason that, when a new arena was built in Leeds that a hometown band would be the first to play there and inaugurate it and all that.
Apparently, the people who manage Leeds Arena thought that was a good idea, and Kaiser Chiefs agreed to be the band to break in the venue. But then, capitalism and greed forced their way into the equation and now Kaiser Chiefs will be the third band to play their new hometown arena, after Elton John and Bruce Springsteen.
John has only a national connection to Leeds, having not been born there. Springsteen, being an American artist, has little or no connection to Leeds and thus you can see the foundation of this insult. Why would you insult a locally grown act, one as successful as Kaiser Chiefs, in favor of a pair of icons who got their start in the 1970s? Is this a nod to the fact that a much older and wealthier audience is more likely to pay excessive ticket prices?
Money rules, apparently, and this sort of insult takes guts. When John and Springsteen are no longer touring, who will remember the slight given to the hometown heroes?
Kaiser Chiefs should tell the organizers to keep their money and go play elsewhere. I hope they are in a position to do so.