Quote:
Originally Posted by creep
Why do you think U2 360 has not been profitable? Because there was an article in 2009 that said the tour did not yet break even after the first leg?
|
Just some basic math man.
Paul McGuiness stated:
“The overhead is about $750,000 daily, whether we play or not. That’s just to have the crew on payroll, to rent the trucks, all that."
Anyhow - Given how the tour lasted for about 760 days overheads alone would have added up to about 570 Million. Now add everything else such as building the stage, TEMP workers and all other variable costs (which are not part of that estimate) you can easily see the costs of it going up to 700 million. Now given it has grossed about 740 million...I'd be surprised it has broken even.
Quote:
Originally Posted by creep
The only reason BJ do not invest in stage productions like "The Claw" is that they do not have the drawing power to make up for the expenses. It's that simple.
|
Right. Let's leave it at that. That statement alone almost made me spill my coffee laughing. Not worth wasting time on a discussion with someone who is quite as short-sighted (to not say something else) and write that, given everything else that was posted in this topic. Take that tour out, and take Bon Jovi's only big production tour out as well (Because we Can) and suddenly both have grossed the same (despite Jovi being the youngest band in that top 5, despite Jovi having a hair metal heritage, despite Jovi never being adored by media, despite Jon not headlining newspapers for saving Africa etc).