A representative for the Novosibirsk events agency Concert 54, Alexey Utkin, addressed the cancellation of performances by Irina Saltykova, Natalia Gulkina, and Kai Metov at the Disco Extravaganza in Novosibirsk. The news carried a firm stance that the show would proceed with other previously announced acts, even as some artists were unable to participate. Utkin’s statements stressed that the event would go on with replacements, and details about monetary arrangements were the subject of contention among the parties involved.
According to Utkin, Metov had not confirmed his appearance or agreed to terms for the show, and no compensation had been exchanged in connection with his potential involvement. Saltykova, who joined in the skepticism toward the event’s organizers, suggested she had not received any payment either. This stance painted a picture of a production facing serious trust issues among those connected to the lineup, casting shadows over the planning process and the financial expectations tied to appearances at the festival.
Utkin added that the only artists who would be missing from the lineup were Saltykova, Metov, Gulkina, and Titomir. He attributed this absence to the actions and attitudes that emerged after Metov’s public remarks, noting that the dispute had led to a broader withdrawal of cooperation from several stars. He also claimed that Saltykova had moved to disengage from the event after what he described as a complicated set of negotiations, raising questions about the compensation arrangements and the responsibilities of both the organizer and the performers.
In a further development, Utkin asserted that Saltykova had allegedly declined a proposed agreement, though the specifics of that proposal were not disclosed in detail. He claimed that a significant amount of money had been claimed in relation to the negotiations, though it remained unclear whether the sum would be returned. He warned of potential legal action under applicable fraud provisions if the matters could not be resolved through discussion or mediation. The tension highlighted the fragile nature of arranging performances where multiple parties must align on contracts, payments, and public commitments, especially in a high-profile event with regional impact.
Observers and attendees noted the tensions surrounding the event as part of a broader conversation about how deals in the entertainment industry are managed. There was a sense that the dispute extended beyond a single show, touching on professional reputations, the reliability of different stakeholders, and the expectations of fans who had planned to attend. In this climate, the organizers emphasized their commitment to presenting a viable alternative lineup that would still deliver a memorable experience for the audience, while acknowledging the complications that had arisen with some artists. The situation served as a case study in the operational challenges of coordinating large-scale performances where last‑minute changes can ripple through schedules, finances, and public perception.
Meanwhile, another topic in the entertainment circuit involved discussions about New Year’s television programming and the way talent is scheduled for year-end broadcasts. The discourse reflected ongoing debates about how such programs secure backing from sponsors and networks, and how artists balance personal schedules with the demands of televised appearances. In related notes, a former deputy from Yaroslavl commented on a separate cancellation involving a comedian, illustrating that cancellations and reshuffles have been a recurring theme across different segments of the live entertainment scene. As events continue to unfold, industry professionals stress the importance of clear negotiation terms, transparent financial arrangements, and reliable communication channels to minimize disruption and preserve trust among artists, organizers, and audiences alike.