Author Topic: U2 is done  (Read 11968 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Boom Cha!

  • Acrobat
  • ***
  • Posts: 13225
  • Where's my umbrella?
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #225 on: December 06, 2012, 05:06:52 PM »
I'm sure U2 will make it very well known when they're calling it quits. They'll want everyone to know. Especially Bono.

So, until they officially announce anything I wouldn't say U2 are done.

Offline So Cruel

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2490
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #226 on: December 06, 2012, 05:15:29 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
1. Well I have heard McGinness say different things as well. I've heard him same that the profits from merchandise were ahead of the profits from tickets. I have also heard him say that because they kept the ticket price low, despite it being the highest in the bands career to that point, that it only made small profits. That directly contradicts his statement above. Either way, neither statement provides any numbers.

Nice back tracking. A few posts ago you stated, in fact, you bolded "They NEVER stated that they did not make ANY profit from the sell of tickets." I showed clear evidence that McGuinness DID STATE that they didn't make any money from the Zoo TV tour and instead of admitting you were wrong you come back with " Well, I have heard McGuinness say different things..." Just admit you are wrong.

Quote
2. I provided actualy numbers, you didn't. No one else provided numbers. Those numbers were NOT speculation. Your questioning of the cost numbers IS SPECULATION!

Why do we need to provide numbers when we are the ones not stating how much profit U2 has made? You made the statements on U2's profits, not us. It is you that needs to back those up with facts. You provided numbers on tour grosses and day to day costs, but those are not profits. The profit numbers you came up with are pure SPECULATION!

Quote
3. I simply provided information. What did you did you do, you called me names. Why? Why would anyone engage in such behavior? Why would you attack another person for merely stating their case and defending it? What is wrong with that? Why does a person have to be called names and attacked simply because they actually used numbers and made an attempt to defend what they said?

Where have I called you names? Please show something in the last 3 pages where I am calling you names. I said you were a know it all about 5 pages ago and apologized for it. But every post you keep saying I am calling you names.

            You have engaged in name calling, and even made a post defending it as well as defending the behavior of other people engaged in the same behavior.

            Why do you continue to fail to acknowledge the fact that I stated my information for U2's totals were based on both facts and speculation? 10th time now that I have mentioned this yet no response from you at all.

            I did not see or recall McGuinness's statement in U2 By U2, and that statement contradicts several statements he has previously made about the tour. Your whole argument revolves around small sentences made by McGuinness at various times. It involves no data or numbers on anything. The statements contradict each other. Yet, you actually think I have to admit that I'm wrong about something because you found a sentence from McGuinness with no numbers that is in contradiction to other statements U2/McGuinness has made?!?!?

Quote
Why do we need to provide numbers when we are the ones not stating how much profit U2 has made? You made the statements on U2's profits, not us. It is you that needs to back those up with facts. You provided numbers on tour grosses and day to day costs, but those are not profits. The profit numbers you came up with are pure SPECULATION!

         If the numbers I came up with on U2's profit were pure SPECULATION as you now claim, what do you consider the the concert gross numbers and cost numbers to be? A profit figure that was based on pure speculation would not have actual concert grosses, album sales figures, and other factual data backing it up! Also, for the 11th time, I stated that the totals I came up with were based on factual data as well as things that were estimates and speculation, yet you continue to deny and not Acknowledge that fact!

          Its amazing the grief your willing to give someone because they defend a position and back it up with data. Should I bring up the thread where you engaged in this same type of behavior because I presented factual data about U2's album sales and concert gross and attendance which showed NLOTH and 360 to be a success well beyond that of POP and POPMART? I can't remember if it was name callling specifically, but there were a lot of clearly over the line personal comments in that thread as well, simply because I convincingly defended my point with REAL data.

Bethere, the reason we don't acknowledge that you used "facts and speculation" is that you try to use the end result of the speculation as fact. See your post 91 where you said "That proves that the money made by the time of 1988 was enough to a degree that they could live a VERY wealthy life style without ever having to record an album again." and "So, again, I'm correct in saying that the band had enough money by the end of the 1980s to go away and live a life of massive wealth and luxury." You arrived at a conclusion using some speculation but then told us "i'm correct" and "that proves".

In terms of Zoo TV's profits, like I said about 10x, we cannot know if it was profitable like you said without knowing all the numbers. We don't know how much promoters were paid, the taxes, and what the day to day costs entail. Knowing that I don't know all the costs, etc.. I will take McGuinness and the bands word for it that tour didn't make money.

In terms of the "grief" you've received, I really don't see it. I said you were a know it all about 10 pages ago and apologized. Since then I've just been questioning your posts. If you think that is "grief" or "name calling" then you need a thicker skin.

I am in agreement with TD, I'd rather listen to U2 and enjoy the music then to continue this thread; plus, I don't think it's going anywhere and I don't want you to feel bullied. Enjoy your day.

 I have an opinion. I think I'm right. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't deserve to be called names because of that. I think I'm right about the issue based on the facts, estimates, and speculation that I presented. I have seen what you had to say and don't think its accurate at all. There is nothing wrong with saying that. There is something wrong though when you continue to attack and name call another person. There is another thread where you engaged in similar behavior. Its one thing to present opposing views on a topic, is another when you name call and begin to talk about another poster rather than the topic. Again, this is not the first thread where this has happened.

Quote
In terms of Zoo TV's profits, like I said about 10x, we cannot know if it was profitable like you said without knowing all the numbers. We don't know how much promoters were paid, the taxes, and what the day to day costs entail. Knowing that I don't know all the costs, etc.. I will take McGuinness and the bands word for it that tour didn't make money.

          1. There is no reason to suspect that we do not have all the cost numbers at all. The cost of each of the tours since ZOO TV has been reported as well as the gross.

     2. Your one statement by McGuinness contradicts multiple other statements he has made in the past. None of the statements had any numbers attached to them either. Ultimately, that makes them irrelevant. The hard numbers of gross and cost are known, and thats really all that is needed.

Quote
In terms of the "grief" you've received, I really don't see it. I said you were a know it all about 10 pages ago and apologized. Since then I've just been questioning your posts. If you think that is "grief" or "name calling" then you need a thicker skin.

               It is clear in both this thread and the thread from August that you gradually turn away from the U2 topic and start talking about ME as opposed to U2. Again, why call someone a name? Why would you do that?

Just give it up Bethere. Both TD and I have said we are done, but you keep going on about it. You can believe what you want. You keep whining about being given grief and being called names by myself. Please point it out in the last 10 pages . Please do. You've whined about for about 8 pages now. And by the way, you don't know all the costs. You actually have no clue what is in those day to day costs. And you have no clue how much as promoter gets paid (which isn't a cost, it's taken from revenue). Let's just end it here. You believe what you want and i'll believe what I want.

JTBaby, do you have that double facepalm pic yet?

Offline Theophilus

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 52
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #227 on: December 06, 2012, 05:15:53 PM »
Quote
I had been holding out hope that we might get to hear new u2 music in 2013, or 2014 or even 2015.  But, I really don't think they care enough anymore.

It seems that a good part of what drives interest in popular music (as in fashion and art) is novelty. But I would submit that great music is timeless. We live in a wonderful time where we no longer have to attend live concerts to experience a live concert in a better way than we could at a venue. I am talking about concerts or performances captured on DVD. Take Jeff Beck's recent Live at Ronnie Scott's DVD. Unbelievable. I have watched that almost 50 times since buying it over a year ago and never seem to tire of it. Fleetwood Mac's The Dance is another amazing visual and auditory feast. U2's Rattle and Hum is one of the best rock films ever made.

What I am saying is this: new isn't always good - just look at the quality of most punk or rap (not hip hop) music. U2 has been a superlative rock band and probably the best Ireland has ever given us. A lot of their music is fairly timeless. I can always listen to it - just like I can always eat pancakes for breakfast. Maybe not every day, but I never get to a point where I say I don't want any more ever.

Offline So Cruel

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2490
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #228 on: December 06, 2012, 05:18:31 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
I had been holding out hope that we might get to hear new u2 music in 2013, or 2014 or even 2015.  But, I really don't think they care enough anymore.

It seems that a good part of what drives interest in popular music (as in fashion and art) is novelty. But I would submit that great music is timeless. We live in a wonderful time where we no longer have to attend live concerts to experience a live concert in a better way than we could at a venue. I am talking about concerts or performances captured on DVD. Take Jeff Beck's recent Live at Ronnie Scott's DVD. Unbelievable. I have watched that almost 50 times since buying it over a year ago and never seem to tire of it. Fleetwood Mac's The Dance is another amazing visual and auditory feast. U2's Rattle and Hum is one of the best rock films ever made.

What I am saying is this: new isn't always good - just look at the quality of most punk or rap (not hip hop) music. U2 has been a superlative rock band and probably the best Ireland has ever given us. A lot of their music is fairly timeless. I can always listen to it - just like I can always eat pancakes for breakfast. Maybe not every day, but I never get to a point where I say I don't want any more ever.

Is that the Jeff Beck DVD where he's playing at a bar in London? My brother played that for me and even though I'm not much of a Beck fan but it was pretty good.

Offline Theophilus

  • Wanderer
  • *
  • Posts: 52
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #229 on: December 06, 2012, 05:24:58 PM »
Quote
Is that the Jeff Beck DVD where he's playing at a bar in London? My brother played that for me and even though I'm not much of a Beck fan but it was pretty good.

Yes...that is the one. He plays instrumental jazz rock with some of the best technically proficient musicians in the world. In terms of musicianship, you don't get much better than that performance. What makes Beck interesting (as opposed to one of his mentors, John McLaughlin) is that he takes really complex music and makes it sound very cool. I consider him to be one of the best 10 electric guitarists ever.

I am surprised Beck appears to have never played with U2. He has played with most everyone else at one time or another.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 05:28:31 PM by Theophilus »

Offline JTBaby

  • Elevated
  • ***
  • Posts: 4325
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #230 on: December 06, 2012, 07:42:16 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
1. Well I have heard McGinness say different things as well. I've heard him same that the profits from merchandise were ahead of the profits from tickets. I have also heard him say that because they kept the ticket price low, despite it being the highest in the bands career to that point, that it only made small profits. That directly contradicts his statement above. Either way, neither statement provides any numbers.

Nice back tracking. A few posts ago you stated, in fact, you bolded "They NEVER stated that they did not make ANY profit from the sell of tickets." I showed clear evidence that McGuinness DID STATE that they didn't make any money from the Zoo TV tour and instead of admitting you were wrong you come back with " Well, I have heard McGuinness say different things..." Just admit you are wrong.

Quote
2. I provided actualy numbers, you didn't. No one else provided numbers. Those numbers were NOT speculation. Your questioning of the cost numbers IS SPECULATION!

Why do we need to provide numbers when we are the ones not stating how much profit U2 has made? You made the statements on U2's profits, not us. It is you that needs to back those up with facts. You provided numbers on tour grosses and day to day costs, but those are not profits. The profit numbers you came up with are pure SPECULATION!

Quote
3. I simply provided information. What did you did you do, you called me names. Why? Why would anyone engage in such behavior? Why would you attack another person for merely stating their case and defending it? What is wrong with that? Why does a person have to be called names and attacked simply because they actually used numbers and made an attempt to defend what they said?

Where have I called you names? Please show something in the last 3 pages where I am calling you names. I said you were a know it all about 5 pages ago and apologized for it. But every post you keep saying I am calling you names.

            You have engaged in name calling, and even made a post defending it as well as defending the behavior of other people engaged in the same behavior.

            Why do you continue to fail to acknowledge the fact that I stated my information for U2's totals were based on both facts and speculation? 10th time now that I have mentioned this yet no response from you at all.

            I did not see or recall McGuinness's statement in U2 By U2, and that statement contradicts several statements he has previously made about the tour. Your whole argument revolves around small sentences made by McGuinness at various times. It involves no data or numbers on anything. The statements contradict each other. Yet, you actually think I have to admit that I'm wrong about something because you found a sentence from McGuinness with no numbers that is in contradiction to other statements U2/McGuinness has made?!?!?

Quote
Why do we need to provide numbers when we are the ones not stating how much profit U2 has made? You made the statements on U2's profits, not us. It is you that needs to back those up with facts. You provided numbers on tour grosses and day to day costs, but those are not profits. The profit numbers you came up with are pure SPECULATION!

         If the numbers I came up with on U2's profit were pure SPECULATION as you now claim, what do you consider the the concert gross numbers and cost numbers to be? A profit figure that was based on pure speculation would not have actual concert grosses, album sales figures, and other factual data backing it up! Also, for the 11th time, I stated that the totals I came up with were based on factual data as well as things that were estimates and speculation, yet you continue to deny and not Acknowledge that fact!

          Its amazing the grief your willing to give someone because they defend a position and back it up with data. Should I bring up the thread where you engaged in this same type of behavior because I presented factual data about U2's album sales and concert gross and attendance which showed NLOTH and 360 to be a success well beyond that of POP and POPMART? I can't remember if it was name callling specifically, but there were a lot of clearly over the line personal comments in that thread as well, simply because I convincingly defended my point with REAL data.

Bethere, the reason we don't acknowledge that you used "facts and speculation" is that you try to use the end result of the speculation as fact. See your post 91 where you said "That proves that the money made by the time of 1988 was enough to a degree that they could live a VERY wealthy life style without ever having to record an album again." and "So, again, I'm correct in saying that the band had enough money by the end of the 1980s to go away and live a life of massive wealth and luxury." You arrived at a conclusion using some speculation but then told us "i'm correct" and "that proves".

In terms of Zoo TV's profits, like I said about 10x, we cannot know if it was profitable like you said without knowing all the numbers. We don't know how much promoters were paid, the taxes, and what the day to day costs entail. Knowing that I don't know all the costs, etc.. I will take McGuinness and the bands word for it that tour didn't make money.

In terms of the "grief" you've received, I really don't see it. I said you were a know it all about 10 pages ago and apologized. Since then I've just been questioning your posts. If you think that is "grief" or "name calling" then you need a thicker skin.

I am in agreement with TD, I'd rather listen to U2 and enjoy the music then to continue this thread; plus, I don't think it's going anywhere and I don't want you to feel bullied. Enjoy your day.

 I have an opinion. I think I'm right. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't deserve to be called names because of that. I think I'm right about the issue based on the facts, estimates, and speculation that I presented. I have seen what you had to say and don't think its accurate at all. There is nothing wrong with saying that. There is something wrong though when you continue to attack and name call another person. There is another thread where you engaged in similar behavior. Its one thing to present opposing views on a topic, is another when you name call and begin to talk about another poster rather than the topic. Again, this is not the first thread where this has happened.

Quote
In terms of Zoo TV's profits, like I said about 10x, we cannot know if it was profitable like you said without knowing all the numbers. We don't know how much promoters were paid, the taxes, and what the day to day costs entail. Knowing that I don't know all the costs, etc.. I will take McGuinness and the bands word for it that tour didn't make money.

          1. There is no reason to suspect that we do not have all the cost numbers at all. The cost of each of the tours since ZOO TV has been reported as well as the gross.

     2. Your one statement by McGuinness contradicts multiple other statements he has made in the past. None of the statements had any numbers attached to them either. Ultimately, that makes them irrelevant. The hard numbers of gross and cost are known, and thats really all that is needed.

Quote
In terms of the "grief" you've received, I really don't see it. I said you were a know it all about 10 pages ago and apologized. Since then I've just been questioning your posts. If you think that is "grief" or "name calling" then you need a thicker skin.

               It is clear in both this thread and the thread from August that you gradually turn away from the U2 topic and start talking about ME as opposed to U2. Again, why call someone a name? Why would you do that?

Just give it up Bethere. Both TD and I have said we are done, but you keep going on about it. You can believe what you want. You keep whining about being given grief and being called names by myself. Please point it out in the last 10 pages . Please do. You've whined about for about 8 pages now. And by the way, you don't know all the costs. You actually have no clue what is in those day to day costs. And you have no clue how much as promoter gets paid (which isn't a cost, it's taken from revenue). Let's just end it here. You believe what you want and i'll believe what I want.

JTBaby, do you have that double facepalm pic yet?

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline So Cruel

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2490
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #231 on: December 06, 2012, 07:57:01 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
1. Well I have heard McGinness say different things as well. I've heard him same that the profits from merchandise were ahead of the profits from tickets. I have also heard him say that because they kept the ticket price low, despite it being the highest in the bands career to that point, that it only made small profits. That directly contradicts his statement above. Either way, neither statement provides any numbers.

Nice back tracking. A few posts ago you stated, in fact, you bolded "They NEVER stated that they did not make ANY profit from the sell of tickets." I showed clear evidence that McGuinness DID STATE that they didn't make any money from the Zoo TV tour and instead of admitting you were wrong you come back with " Well, I have heard McGuinness say different things..." Just admit you are wrong.

Quote
2. I provided actualy numbers, you didn't. No one else provided numbers. Those numbers were NOT speculation. Your questioning of the cost numbers IS SPECULATION!

Why do we need to provide numbers when we are the ones not stating how much profit U2 has made? You made the statements on U2's profits, not us. It is you that needs to back those up with facts. You provided numbers on tour grosses and day to day costs, but those are not profits. The profit numbers you came up with are pure SPECULATION!

Quote
3. I simply provided information. What did you did you do, you called me names. Why? Why would anyone engage in such behavior? Why would you attack another person for merely stating their case and defending it? What is wrong with that? Why does a person have to be called names and attacked simply because they actually used numbers and made an attempt to defend what they said?

Where have I called you names? Please show something in the last 3 pages where I am calling you names. I said you were a know it all about 5 pages ago and apologized for it. But every post you keep saying I am calling you names.

            You have engaged in name calling, and even made a post defending it as well as defending the behavior of other people engaged in the same behavior.

            Why do you continue to fail to acknowledge the fact that I stated my information for U2's totals were based on both facts and speculation? 10th time now that I have mentioned this yet no response from you at all.

            I did not see or recall McGuinness's statement in U2 By U2, and that statement contradicts several statements he has previously made about the tour. Your whole argument revolves around small sentences made by McGuinness at various times. It involves no data or numbers on anything. The statements contradict each other. Yet, you actually think I have to admit that I'm wrong about something because you found a sentence from McGuinness with no numbers that is in contradiction to other statements U2/McGuinness has made?!?!?

Quote
Why do we need to provide numbers when we are the ones not stating how much profit U2 has made? You made the statements on U2's profits, not us. It is you that needs to back those up with facts. You provided numbers on tour grosses and day to day costs, but those are not profits. The profit numbers you came up with are pure SPECULATION!

         If the numbers I came up with on U2's profit were pure SPECULATION as you now claim, what do you consider the the concert gross numbers and cost numbers to be? A profit figure that was based on pure speculation would not have actual concert grosses, album sales figures, and other factual data backing it up! Also, for the 11th time, I stated that the totals I came up with were based on factual data as well as things that were estimates and speculation, yet you continue to deny and not Acknowledge that fact!

          Its amazing the grief your willing to give someone because they defend a position and back it up with data. Should I bring up the thread where you engaged in this same type of behavior because I presented factual data about U2's album sales and concert gross and attendance which showed NLOTH and 360 to be a success well beyond that of POP and POPMART? I can't remember if it was name callling specifically, but there were a lot of clearly over the line personal comments in that thread as well, simply because I convincingly defended my point with REAL data.

Bethere, the reason we don't acknowledge that you used "facts and speculation" is that you try to use the end result of the speculation as fact. See your post 91 where you said "That proves that the money made by the time of 1988 was enough to a degree that they could live a VERY wealthy life style without ever having to record an album again." and "So, again, I'm correct in saying that the band had enough money by the end of the 1980s to go away and live a life of massive wealth and luxury." You arrived at a conclusion using some speculation but then told us "i'm correct" and "that proves".

In terms of Zoo TV's profits, like I said about 10x, we cannot know if it was profitable like you said without knowing all the numbers. We don't know how much promoters were paid, the taxes, and what the day to day costs entail. Knowing that I don't know all the costs, etc.. I will take McGuinness and the bands word for it that tour didn't make money.

In terms of the "grief" you've received, I really don't see it. I said you were a know it all about 10 pages ago and apologized. Since then I've just been questioning your posts. If you think that is "grief" or "name calling" then you need a thicker skin.

I am in agreement with TD, I'd rather listen to U2 and enjoy the music then to continue this thread; plus, I don't think it's going anywhere and I don't want you to feel bullied. Enjoy your day.

 I have an opinion. I think I'm right. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't deserve to be called names because of that. I think I'm right about the issue based on the facts, estimates, and speculation that I presented. I have seen what you had to say and don't think its accurate at all. There is nothing wrong with saying that. There is something wrong though when you continue to attack and name call another person. There is another thread where you engaged in similar behavior. Its one thing to present opposing views on a topic, is another when you name call and begin to talk about another poster rather than the topic. Again, this is not the first thread where this has happened.

Quote
In terms of Zoo TV's profits, like I said about 10x, we cannot know if it was profitable like you said without knowing all the numbers. We don't know how much promoters were paid, the taxes, and what the day to day costs entail. Knowing that I don't know all the costs, etc.. I will take McGuinness and the bands word for it that tour didn't make money.

          1. There is no reason to suspect that we do not have all the cost numbers at all. The cost of each of the tours since ZOO TV has been reported as well as the gross.

     2. Your one statement by McGuinness contradicts multiple other statements he has made in the past. None of the statements had any numbers attached to them either. Ultimately, that makes them irrelevant. The hard numbers of gross and cost are known, and thats really all that is needed.

Quote
In terms of the "grief" you've received, I really don't see it. I said you were a know it all about 10 pages ago and apologized. Since then I've just been questioning your posts. If you think that is "grief" or "name calling" then you need a thicker skin.

               It is clear in both this thread and the thread from August that you gradually turn away from the U2 topic and start talking about ME as opposed to U2. Again, why call someone a name? Why would you do that?

Just give it up Bethere. Both TD and I have said we are done, but you keep going on about it. You can believe what you want. You keep whining about being given grief and being called names by myself. Please point it out in the last 10 pages . Please do. You've whined about for about 8 pages now. And by the way, you don't know all the costs. You actually have no clue what is in those day to day costs. And you have no clue how much as promoter gets paid (which isn't a cost, it's taken from revenue). Let's just end it here. You believe what you want and i'll believe what I want.

JTBaby, do you have that double facepalm pic yet?

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Thank you

Offline bethere

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1207
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #232 on: December 07, 2012, 07:54:12 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
1. Well I have heard McGinness say different things as well. I've heard him same that the profits from merchandise were ahead of the profits from tickets. I have also heard him say that because they kept the ticket price low, despite it being the highest in the bands career to that point, that it only made small profits. That directly contradicts his statement above. Either way, neither statement provides any numbers.

Nice back tracking. A few posts ago you stated, in fact, you bolded "They NEVER stated that they did not make ANY profit from the sell of tickets." I showed clear evidence that McGuinness DID STATE that they didn't make any money from the Zoo TV tour and instead of admitting you were wrong you come back with " Well, I have heard McGuinness say different things..." Just admit you are wrong.

Quote
2. I provided actualy numbers, you didn't. No one else provided numbers. Those numbers were NOT speculation. Your questioning of the cost numbers IS SPECULATION!

Why do we need to provide numbers when we are the ones not stating how much profit U2 has made? You made the statements on U2's profits, not us. It is you that needs to back those up with facts. You provided numbers on tour grosses and day to day costs, but those are not profits. The profit numbers you came up with are pure SPECULATION!

Quote
3. I simply provided information. What did you did you do, you called me names. Why? Why would anyone engage in such behavior? Why would you attack another person for merely stating their case and defending it? What is wrong with that? Why does a person have to be called names and attacked simply because they actually used numbers and made an attempt to defend what they said?

Where have I called you names? Please show something in the last 3 pages where I am calling you names. I said you were a know it all about 5 pages ago and apologized for it. But every post you keep saying I am calling you names.

            You have engaged in name calling, and even made a post defending it as well as defending the behavior of other people engaged in the same behavior.

            Why do you continue to fail to acknowledge the fact that I stated my information for U2's totals were based on both facts and speculation? 10th time now that I have mentioned this yet no response from you at all.

            I did not see or recall McGuinness's statement in U2 By U2, and that statement contradicts several statements he has previously made about the tour. Your whole argument revolves around small sentences made by McGuinness at various times. It involves no data or numbers on anything. The statements contradict each other. Yet, you actually think I have to admit that I'm wrong about something because you found a sentence from McGuinness with no numbers that is in contradiction to other statements U2/McGuinness has made?!?!?

Quote
Why do we need to provide numbers when we are the ones not stating how much profit U2 has made? You made the statements on U2's profits, not us. It is you that needs to back those up with facts. You provided numbers on tour grosses and day to day costs, but those are not profits. The profit numbers you came up with are pure SPECULATION!

         If the numbers I came up with on U2's profit were pure SPECULATION as you now claim, what do you consider the the concert gross numbers and cost numbers to be? A profit figure that was based on pure speculation would not have actual concert grosses, album sales figures, and other factual data backing it up! Also, for the 11th time, I stated that the totals I came up with were based on factual data as well as things that were estimates and speculation, yet you continue to deny and not Acknowledge that fact!

          Its amazing the grief your willing to give someone because they defend a position and back it up with data. Should I bring up the thread where you engaged in this same type of behavior because I presented factual data about U2's album sales and concert gross and attendance which showed NLOTH and 360 to be a success well beyond that of POP and POPMART? I can't remember if it was name callling specifically, but there were a lot of clearly over the line personal comments in that thread as well, simply because I convincingly defended my point with REAL data.

Bethere, the reason we don't acknowledge that you used "facts and speculation" is that you try to use the end result of the speculation as fact. See your post 91 where you said "That proves that the money made by the time of 1988 was enough to a degree that they could live a VERY wealthy life style without ever having to record an album again." and "So, again, I'm correct in saying that the band had enough money by the end of the 1980s to go away and live a life of massive wealth and luxury." You arrived at a conclusion using some speculation but then told us "i'm correct" and "that proves".

In terms of Zoo TV's profits, like I said about 10x, we cannot know if it was profitable like you said without knowing all the numbers. We don't know how much promoters were paid, the taxes, and what the day to day costs entail. Knowing that I don't know all the costs, etc.. I will take McGuinness and the bands word for it that tour didn't make money.

In terms of the "grief" you've received, I really don't see it. I said you were a know it all about 10 pages ago and apologized. Since then I've just been questioning your posts. If you think that is "grief" or "name calling" then you need a thicker skin.

I am in agreement with TD, I'd rather listen to U2 and enjoy the music then to continue this thread; plus, I don't think it's going anywhere and I don't want you to feel bullied. Enjoy your day.

 I have an opinion. I think I'm right. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't deserve to be called names because of that. I think I'm right about the issue based on the facts, estimates, and speculation that I presented. I have seen what you had to say and don't think its accurate at all. There is nothing wrong with saying that. There is something wrong though when you continue to attack and name call another person. There is another thread where you engaged in similar behavior. Its one thing to present opposing views on a topic, is another when you name call and begin to talk about another poster rather than the topic. Again, this is not the first thread where this has happened.

Quote
In terms of Zoo TV's profits, like I said about 10x, we cannot know if it was profitable like you said without knowing all the numbers. We don't know how much promoters were paid, the taxes, and what the day to day costs entail. Knowing that I don't know all the costs, etc.. I will take McGuinness and the bands word for it that tour didn't make money.

          1. There is no reason to suspect that we do not have all the cost numbers at all. The cost of each of the tours since ZOO TV has been reported as well as the gross.

     2. Your one statement by McGuinness contradicts multiple other statements he has made in the past. None of the statements had any numbers attached to them either. Ultimately, that makes them irrelevant. The hard numbers of gross and cost are known, and thats really all that is needed.

Quote
In terms of the "grief" you've received, I really don't see it. I said you were a know it all about 10 pages ago and apologized. Since then I've just been questioning your posts. If you think that is "grief" or "name calling" then you need a thicker skin.

               It is clear in both this thread and the thread from August that you gradually turn away from the U2 topic and start talking about ME as opposed to U2. Again, why call someone a name? Why would you do that?

Just give it up Bethere. Both TD and I have said we are done, but you keep going on about it. You can believe what you want. You keep whining about being given grief and being called names by myself. Please point it out in the last 10 pages . Please do. You've whined about for about 8 pages now. And by the way, you don't know all the costs. You actually have no clue what is in those day to day costs. And you have no clue how much as promoter gets paid (which isn't a cost, it's taken from revenue). Let's just end it here. You believe what you want and i'll believe what I want.

JTBaby, do you have that double facepalm pic yet?

              The only person whining and going after other people is yourself. I mean, what is the point of this picture? Another negative thing directed at myself. Just about every single one of your post in the past 10 pages contains some negative comment or defense of a negative comment directed at ME, as opposed to discussing the topic. That includes your latest post obviously. You started this and continued it, both in this thread and the thread from August.

              The cost figure by the way is NOT some daily figure of food, fuel, lodging and pay for the bands crew. Its the total cost of the tour divided over the days of the length of the tour. Its also often expressed as cost per show. Total cost of the tour, yes everything including paying the promoter, divided by the number of shows equals the cost of each show on the tour.

Offline So Cruel

  • Desert Rose
  • **
  • Posts: 2490
  • it ain't no sin to be glad that you're alive
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #233 on: December 07, 2012, 09:38:18 AM »
Quote
Bethere wrote:  The only person whining and going after other people is yourself. I mean, what is the point of this picture? Another negative thing directed at myself. Just about every single one of your post in the past 10 pages contains some negative comment or defense of a negative comment directed at ME, as opposed to discussing the topic. That includes your latest post obviously. You started this and continued it, both in this thread and the thread from August.

              The cost figure by the way is NOT some daily figure of food, fuel, lodging and pay for the bands crew. Its the total cost of the tour divided over the days of the length of the tour. Its also often expressed as cost per show. Total cost of the tour, yes everything including paying the promoter, divided by the number of shows equals the cost of each show on the tour.

Bethere, on post 174 you wrote: "I can't say preciselly all the cost that were included in those daily cost figures." and "It probably does not include everything". Now you say you can figure out total cost based on the daily costs. It shows you've changed your stance to try and prove your conclusion. Once again, if you don't know what is in the daily costs (which you previously admitted you didn't), you can't figure out the total cost. So, once again, I will believe the band and McGuinness and you can believe yourself.

In regards to the double facepalm picture, it wasn't posted by me. It was posted by JTBaby, and it wasn't done to show you grief. It's a bit of comedy.

We don't agree. That's obvious. So let's just end the discussion here. Have a nice day.

« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 09:44:20 AM by So Cruel »

Offline Satellitedog

  • Up With the Sun
  • ***
  • Posts: 6953
  • http://soundcloud.com/satellitedog/mysterious-ways
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #234 on: December 07, 2012, 09:42:28 AM »
Nope. You F-ing don't.

Offline Tumbling Dice

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 22462
  • I won't pay the usual fee
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #235 on: December 07, 2012, 09:52:04 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote

              The cost figure by the way is NOT some daily figure of food, fuel, lodging and pay for the bands crew. Its the total cost of the tour divided over the days of the length of the tour. Its also often expressed as cost per show. Total cost of the tour, yes everything including paying the promoter, divided by the number of shows equals the cost of each show on the tour.

Bethere, on post 174 you wrote: "I can't say preciselly all the cost that were included in those daily cost figures." and "It probably does not include everything". Now you say the daily cost is the total cost. It shows you've changed your stance to try and prove your conclusion. Once again, I will believe the band and McGuinness and you can believe yourself.


I wonder if we're going to get a source for bethere's new found knowledge.  And does it include every week for the whole duration of the tour, including breaks in the itinerary, or just the weeks when they're on the road?

Also U2 said they had to play nearly half the shows on the 360 tour just to break even.  So does that mean they had NO running costs beyond that point (which doesn't make sense) or does it mean that every penny of the gross beyond that point was pure profit?
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 10:02:13 AM by Tumbling Dice »

Offline xy

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 936
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #236 on: December 07, 2012, 02:47:23 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Going on what we know, Paul McCartney spends over 4 Million on general living expenses in a year, and based on the fact that Bono also has to keep up numerous properties, I'd guesstimate that the Hewson family spend between 3-4 Million a year on living expenses (And that's in pounds sterling.)  And that's assuming that Bono is as tight as Macca in donating his own money to charity.

         What we know about Paul McCartney says NOTHING about Bono.

Moreso since Macca is considerably wealthier.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

They weren't millionaires by 1987 because most money went into making Rattle and Hum. Famously the T-shirt and merchandise sales were what kept Zoo TV from going bankrupt.


I don't believe a word of that



You don't have to. The band has often stated they invested most of the money they made with JT into Rattle and Hum, and McGuiness has stated several times merchandise and T-shirt sales were why they weren't "screwed" by the end of Zoo TV.

On the other hand, with Popmart they got payed in advance 100 million dollars from their promotor regardless of the money they made and indeed Popmart and onwards were very lucrative tours.

« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 02:49:43 PM by xy »

Offline Tumbling Dice

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 22462
  • I won't pay the usual fee
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #237 on: December 07, 2012, 02:51:34 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Going on what we know, Paul McCartney spends over 4 Million on general living expenses in a year, and based on the fact that Bono also has to keep up numerous properties, I'd guesstimate that the Hewson family spend between 3-4 Million a year on living expenses (And that's in pounds sterling.)  And that's assuming that Bono is as tight as Macca in donating his own money to charity.

         What we know about Paul McCartney says NOTHING about Bono.

Moreso since Macca is considerably wealthier.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

They weren't millionaires by 1987 because most money went into making Rattle and Hum. Famously the T-shirt and merchandise sales were what kept Zoo TV from going bankrupt.


I don't believe a word of that



You don't have to. The band has often stated they invested most of the money they made with JT into Rattle and Hum, and McGuiness has stated several times merchandise and T-shirt sales were why they weren't "screwed" by the end of Zoo TV.

It may be true, or then again it might not be.  I don't really care, but I take whatever the band or their manager says about financial matters with a pinch of salt.  U2 have always jealously guarded their financial affairs from public scrutiny, and probably rightly so.


Offline Tumbling Dice

  • Drowning Man/Woman
  • ***
  • Posts: 22462
  • I won't pay the usual fee
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #238 on: December 07, 2012, 02:52:34 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
On the other hand, with Popmart they got payed in advance 100 million dollars from their promotor regardless of the money they made and indeed Popmart and onwards were very lucrative tours.

And we know this how?


Offline StickOnTattoos

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Thats all there is/leaves thatr green turn t brown
Re: U2 is done
« Reply #239 on: December 07, 2012, 04:17:16 PM »
run: rename thread>Crappy Barf-fest.exe