ADMIN POST:

There's way too much off-topic garbage and too many personal attacks in this thread to try to clean the whole thing up, so I'll just say this:

If you don't know how to disagree with each other in a mature, intelligent way without resorting to childish name-calling and immature quips at one another, we'll remove the thread in its entirety and close your accounts on the forum.

You don't have to like each other. You don't have to agree with each other. But if you choose to participate in the forum you do have to go along with the rules you agreed to when you joined. They're pretty basic, and if you need a refresher, read them here:

http://forum.atu2.com/index.php/topic,45.0.html

The most germane part is:

By registering, you agree that you will not post any message that is obscene, vulgar, hateful, threatening, inflammatory, disrespectful, or otherwise violates any laws. In other words: Be nice. Respect other users, respect the moderators, and respect the Forum system. Personal attacks and flaming will not be tolerated.

We're all adults. Let's act like it.

Thx,
Matt

Several posts have been deleted. Last call to get this back on topic without the name-calling and immature arguing.

How does the deal with Live Nation work? Does U2 get their money regardless of whether or not the tour sells well or poorly?

U2 got an upfront payment from Live Nation - no doubt a very healthy upfront payment. Wasn't it in the millions of dollars? Believe so.

U2 makes money no matter how well the tour sells. I would assume, though, that the contract also calls for revenue splitting among all parties, so it's in everyone's best interest for the tour to do well.

It's a 12 year deal; although I can't find particulars on the dollar amount.

seems like U2 must be a pour band, i mean if they keep up the way they have, they will only get 300,000,000  i mean how could they live off that

It's a 12 year deal; although I can't find particulars on the dollar amount.

Part of it is a load of Live Nation stock options of 1.6 million shares of stock at a guaranteed price of 25 million.

I don't think u2 is a poor band but J ave always thought that individually and collectively they are not as cash wealthy as some people think. so IMO the deal with  live Nation and the 360 tour doing well is paramount to their fortunes

It's a 12 year deal; although I can't find particulars on the dollar amount.

Part of it is a load of Live Nation stock options of 1.6 million shares of stock at a guaranteed price of 25 million.

Yeah, that's right! I think U2 has already sold the stock portion of that deal, even though the stocks were only worth something like 6 million at the time. They got 25 mil from Live Nation.  I wonder what Live Nation's stock is worth today....

I don't think u2 is a poor band but J ave always thought that individually and collectively they are not as cash wealthy as some people think. so IMO the deal with  live Nation and the 360 tour doing well is paramount to their fortunes

I read a list which places U2 as the richest band, and almost doubly wealthy as no.2 , the Rolling Stones.

It's a 12 year deal; although I can't find particulars on the dollar amount.

Part of it is a load of Live Nation stock options of 1.6 million shares of stock at a guaranteed price of 25 million.

Yeah, that's right! I think U2 has already sold the stock portion of that deal, even though the stocks were only worth something like 6 million at the time. They got 25 mil from Live Nation.  I wonder what Live Nation's stock is worth today....

U2's deal with Live nation guaranteed them a specific dollar amount for the stock, regardless of the stock's price on the market.

Gotta love McGuiness

U2 got an upfront payment from Live Nation - no doubt a very healthy upfront payment. Wasn't it in the millions of dollars? Believe so.

U2 makes money no matter how well the tour sells. I would assume, though, that the contract also calls for revenue splitting among all parties, so it's in everyone's best interest for the tour to do well.

You're mistaking revenue for profits. The band doesn't make money until expenses are covered. The 360 Tour is costing $750,000 a day and Paul McGuinness said they would not break even in 2009. So, they did not make money this year on the tour itself. The basic arrangement is a five-way cut between the band and McG that starts with the first dollar of profits. It's quite possible the group of five will be in the red for 2009, although the Live Nation deal plus record sales plus licensing income may keep them afloat.

I don't think the band was doing this tour to make money. I look at it as a gift to the fans-- reasonable ticket prices (for the most part) and playing to huge crowds. The band has learned from some of their past mistakes and by now know how to tour to make a profit and how not to. This tour will probably break even at best. The U2 machine knew that fans wanted/needed a tour. If U2 wants to tour at a loss and make profit somewhere else, I am fine with it. Especiallt since most of the tickets I purchased were under $65, including fees.

I don't think the band was doing this tour to make money. I look at it as a gift to the fans-- reasonable ticket prices (for the most part) and playing to huge crowds. The band has learned from some of their past mistakes and by now know how to tour to make a profit and how not to. This tour will probably break even at best. The U2 machine knew that fans wanted/needed a tour. If U2 wants to tour at a loss and make profit somewhere else, I am fine with it. Especiallt since most of the tickets I purchased were under $65, including fees.

U2 and their management have said it will start making a profit in 2010.

It's not like U2 not to run after the money and make a vast profit you know

Let's stop with the name calling and snipes already! And the big fonts don't help either.   

U2 will make money in 2010 as projected and they are a business.  What they're making from ticket sales vs. the costs is not just "strictly business" however, and I agree that its both trying to stretch the boundaries of their show and staging elements as well as satisfy both casual and longtime fans.  If it were strictly business, they'd keep a more keen eye on the margins and bottom line to profit more, and have more of a stripped down show, even if performing in stadiums.  The pricing is for fans and also given the recession, with lower prices up to high for those who can afford it.  One thing mentioned previously by a poster is that they will make money on merch which is not included in these figures discussed.  The sales for merch may be down from indications and a recessionary standpoint but I'm sure that it will add to the profits in 2010.