U2 will still make a fortune on this tour without working a day since the barcelona rehearsals.  2 hours a night playing the same show is not work.  challenging themselves by exploring their whole catalog and changing things up each night takes work.  swapping out 1-2 songs a night is not work.

How do they 'earn' every penny? A know of cleaners that work 15 hour days just to make ends meet. U2 are no different from any other huge corporation that is motivated by profit. Their wealth is vulgar and unnecessary.

They might be paid it but I wouldn't say they necessarily 'earned' it anymore than a banker 'earns' his outrageous bonus. Difference being everyone hates bankers and thinks the sun shines out of bono and co because they make music.

Banks, Exxon, McDonalds, U2 - they are no different.

Selling records and concert tickets is just like sub-prime loans?

The 2 things are commodities - U2 sell a product (music). People in the financial sector sell a product (a financial product).

There is no difference at all between the 2 ideas - both parties sell product to make as much money as possible. I don't think we should have any romantic thoughts about U2 or the music business here.

And remember it is a music BUSINESS.

well, $300 million minus operating costs. then again, I don't think the merch $$$ are counted in that $300 million, just ticket sales.

#@!

good point...

still though, if they can sell 300 million worth of tickets for the second half, they still will be getting a lot

And compare that to say a high paid actor that gets 20 MIL gross for a few months work on a film. 

That'd be gross profit less  operating costs as noted - the $750K (daily?) costs of the each show. 
12 concerts in the 3rd leg X 750 = 12.75M in operating costs = 17.25M net profit before taxes. 
Divided by 5 = $3.45 MIL each net profits BEFORE Corporate and/or Personal TAX)

That's alot for any one of us but definitely a pittance compared to what the tour is costing them to deliver it. 
I'd think the merch is not included also - but they're not selling out by any means, seeing past leg merch is on Fanfire at discount. 

Wow.

So let's just say that after taxes, U2 went on a world tour and each member gets 2.5 to 3 million, for a tour that could last close to two years.

Compare that with a top paid actor like Cruise or Julia Roberts 20 Mil for a few months work on a film. 

You knew exactly where I was going with that.  I think U2 earns every penny, and so does Paul McGuinness.

How do they 'earn' every penny? A know of cleaners that work 15 hour days just to make ends meet.

You don't think U2 has played 15 hours a day in a studio? You don't think they spend large amounts of time practicing and rehearsing a stage show? Someone earns money based on what someone else thinks they are worth.  In this case, U2's fans think they are worth the money they spend.

I'm sure they have spent many hours in a studio. Wether someone 'earns' what they are paid is abstract. I would consider u2's wealth to be vulgar and completely unnecessary.

Wether they 'deserve' or have 'earned' that money any more or less than a cleaner who earns £4 an hour for working just as hard is a difficult question to answer.

One thing is for sure - just because u2 make music it doesn't elevate them beyond a cleaner. It just means they earn more.

We'll never know the accounting, but my guess is U2 pays themselves some salary/stipend/bonus, buried somewhere in the fixed costs side of the G&A, from the gross revenue receipts.

U2 aren't stupid - they will make a massive profit from this tour. The media reports the tour was losing money, is now breaking even and will make a profit during 2010.

It never ceases to amaze me how people put this band on a pedestal. U2 are a business pure and simple. They exist to make money from their product (music).

They were clear about this from the start. Making lots of money is fine but I don't think fans should be under any misconception about the band. They're a corporation who sometimes make excellent music. They could be selling soap for all the difference it makes.

Oh yeah they know they'll make bucketloads from the tour. To be honest though; if I had a talent that could make me millions of pounds, I'd milk it  . I see no reason to feel guilty about it; if people want your product they'll buy it and you'll get rich. You're not stealing from anyone.

No, they shouldn't feel guilty - and I'd do the same. Although you could argue that no one needs the ridiculous amount of money that U2 have.

But no one should see them as anything other than a vast corporation selling a product - they're not saviours of the world!

Just like Radiohead, Pearl Jam, and Pink Floyd.

That's true - exactly like Radiohead, Pearl Jam etc - your point being? 

The 2 things are commodities - U2 sell a product (music). People in the financial sector sell a product (a financial product).

There is no difference at all between the 2 ideas - both parties sell product to make as much money as possible. I don't think we should have any romantic thoughts about U2 or the music business here.

And remember it is a music BUSINESS.

What? do you know what commodities are? Because concert tickets/albums and sub-prime loans ARE NOT commodities.

I think his point is that they don't get crucified for it the way U2 does.

I think his point is that they don't get crucified for it the way U2 does.

I can't make sense of any of his ramblings.

We'll never know the accounting, but my guess is U2 pays themselves some salary/stipend/bonus, buried somewhere in the fixed costs side of the G&A, from the gross revenue receipts.

U2 aren't stupid - they will make a massive profit from this tour. The media reports the tour was losing money, is now breaking even and will make a profit during 2010.

It never ceases to amaze me how people put this band on a pedestal. U2 are a business pure and simple. They exist to make money from their product (music).

They were clear about this from the start. Making lots of money is fine but I don't think fans should be under any misconception about the band. They're a corporation who sometimes make excellent music. They could be selling soap for all the difference it makes.

Oh yeah they know they'll make bucketloads from the tour. To be honest though; if I had a talent that could make me millions of pounds, I'd milk it  . I see no reason to feel guilty about it; if people want your product they'll buy it and you'll get rich. You're not stealing from anyone.

No, they shouldn't feel guilty - and I'd do the same. Although you could argue that no one needs the ridiculous amount of money that U2 have.

But no one should see them as anything other than a vast corporation selling a product - they're not saviours of the world!

Just like Radiohead, Pearl Jam, and Pink Floyd.

That's true - exactly like Radiohead, Pearl Jam etc - your point being? 

That's my point.  All bands exist or form to make money and be famous and make music get the girl. It makes no sense to single out U2 over any of these other bands in this regard.

You play a 135 minute show to 50,000 people, and fly several hours a day, and tell me that's not "work". It's hard work. Ever played a gig?

I would seriously doubt any of the claims by the author of the No Money article. He/she made a giant blunder stating that many tours lost money just supporting record sales where the "real money" is made. The opposite has been true for decades. Artist reap very little from the sale of their music, that's why they tour, to make money. Whoever wrote that article is way off base.

You play a 135 minute show to 50,000 people, and fly several hours a day, and tell me that's not "work". It's hard work. Ever played a gig?

Hear, hear! And they play with the same intensity to a record-breaking sold-out house at Giant's Stadium and a 3/4 sold show in Norman, Oklahoma (I was at both so I speak with experience on this).

I know they'll make money - plenty of mine, and I am happy to give it to them. Worth every penny.

I would seriously doubt any of the claims by the author of the No Money article. He/she made a giant blunder stating that many tours lost money just supporting record sales where the "real money" is made. The opposite has been true for decades. Artist reap very little from the sale of their music, that's why they tour, to make money. Whoever wrote that article is way off base.

Actually the full paragraph read like this:
"In the past, it wasn't unusual for a band to lose money touring because the shows would help boost record sales, where the real money was made.  But these days, with music sales a digital catastrophe, the reverse often is true: You put out CDs that won't make money so that you can earn your living on the road. "

The 2 things are commodities - U2 sell a product (music). People in the financial sector sell a product (a financial product).

There is no difference at all between the 2 ideas - both parties sell product to make as much money as possible. I don't think we should have any romantic thoughts about U2 or the music business here.

And remember it is a music BUSINESS.

What? do you know what commodities are? Because concert tickets/albums and sub-prime loans ARE NOT commodities.

Mr T.

Please read this dictionary definition which can apply to cd's, tickets, cars, trains, loans - in fact anything that has a value - a loan has a value like anything else that involves trading.

com⋅mod⋅i⋅ty  [kuh-mod-i-tee]  Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.

1.   an article of trade or commerce, esp. a product as distinguished from a service.
2.   something of use, advantage, or value.

No the ramblings of me - just the finest minds that created the English language.

Or maybe you know something they don't?

We'll never know the accounting, but my guess is U2 pays themselves some salary/stipend/bonus, buried somewhere in the fixed costs side of the G&A, from the gross revenue receipts.

U2 aren't stupid - they will make a massive profit from this tour. The media reports the tour was losing money, is now breaking even and will make a profit during 2010.

It never ceases to amaze me how people put this band on a pedestal. U2 are a business pure and simple. They exist to make money from their product (music).

They were clear about this from the start. Making lots of money is fine but I don't think fans should be under any misconception about the band. They're a corporation who sometimes make excellent music. They could be selling soap for all the difference it makes.

Oh yeah they know they'll make bucketloads from the tour. To be honest though; if I had a talent that could make me millions of pounds, I'd milk it  . I see no reason to feel guilty about it; if people want your product they'll buy it and you'll get rich. You're not stealing from anyone.

No, they shouldn't feel guilty - and I'd do the same. Although you could argue that no one needs the ridiculous amount of money that U2 have.

But no one should see them as anything other than a vast corporation selling a product - they're not saviours of the world!

Just like Radiohead, Pearl Jam, and Pink Floyd.

That's true - exactly like Radiohead, Pearl Jam etc - your point being? 

That's my point.  All bands exist or form to make money and be famous and make music get the girl. It makes no sense to single out U2 over any of these other bands in this regard.

I know - but this is a U2 forum so obviously they will be in the spotlight...

We'll never know the accounting, but my guess is U2 pays themselves some salary/stipend/bonus, buried somewhere in the fixed costs side of the G&A, from the gross revenue receipts.

U2 aren't stupid - they will make a massive profit from this tour. The media reports the tour was losing money, is now breaking even and will make a profit during 2010.

It never ceases to amaze me how people put this band on a pedestal. U2 are a business pure and simple. They exist to make money from their product (music).

They were clear about this from the start. Making lots of money is fine but I don't think fans should be under any misconception about the band. They're a corporation who sometimes make excellent music. They could be selling soap for all the difference it makes.

Oh yeah they know they'll make bucketloads from the tour. To be honest though; if I had a talent that could make me millions of pounds, I'd milk it  . I see no reason to feel guilty about it; if people want your product they'll buy it and you'll get rich. You're not stealing from anyone.

No, they shouldn't feel guilty - and I'd do the same. Although you could argue that no one needs the ridiculous amount of money that U2 have.

But no one should see them as anything other than a vast corporation selling a product - they're not saviours of the world!

Just like Radiohead, Pearl Jam, and Pink Floyd.

That's true - exactly like Radiohead, Pearl Jam etc - your point being? 

That's my point.  All bands exist or form to make money and be famous and make music get the girl. It makes no sense to single out U2 over any of these other bands in this regard.

I know - but this is a U2 forum so obviously they will be in the spotlight...

Do you go to other bands' forums and remind the visitors and members that "no one should see them as anything other than a vast corporation selling a product?"