just read the review from the rome show and it said that the stadium was mostly empty and they had to push the stage up to cover the empty seats..... are they really not selling out the stadiums in europe? any thoughts on why it is so tough for them to sell out?

here we go again! try this thread: [www.iorr.org]

Empty stadiums on current tour indicates that they have to do another tour (arena, my guess) to compensate for the loss of income.

Not again!! Everything has been said...aint no way!! Have a party just like the folks in Rome...and they had a party!! So do i!

And when did 40.000 people in a stadium classify fr the use of @empty stadium@?

gstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And when did 40.000 people in a stadium classify
> fr the use of @empty stadium@?


Agree.....what an ugly untrue thread...tiresome also.

But what you can do is edit''right''.Cheers

rooster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gstone Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And when did 40.000 people in a stadium
> classify
> > fr the use of @empty stadium@?
>
>
> Agree.....what an ugly untrue thread...tiresome
> also.



It depends also on which side you look at things : half bottle full , half bottle empty.

Depends on the day too....a Monday thread and i dont like Mondays!

"half empty" isn't what it says, though
and anyway how many threads about it do we need?

gstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And when did 40.000 people in a stadium classify
> fr the use of @empty stadium@?

Well if the stadium can hold 70.000 like in Rome, 40.000 is rather disappointing and does look empty.

Wilco

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "half empty" isn't what it says, though
> and anyway how many threads about it do we need?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-07 19:59 by rooster.

so which venue in Rome is the right size for 40 thousand people, Wilco?
you got one show date for Rome, and you got 40 thousand people who want to be there -
where do you suggest they play?

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so which venue in Rome is the right size for 40
> thousand people, Wilco?
> you got one show date for Rome, and you got 40
> thousand people who want to be there -
> where do you suggest they play?

Good point, with sssoul. I was going to say that Stones management has been misjudging venue size for their market, but if there's no other place in Rome for 40K people, then I applaud the Stones willingness to play to a half full/half empty (whatever) venue.

Only problem I would have had, if I had been there, was the report I hear of people from the back rushing the stage. I'm the kind of guy who (almost) does not mind paying a lot for premium seats to see the Stones, so I would have been highly pissed if I had done that only to have to deal with a crush of people who did not pay to be up front.

Was this allowed to happen, and if so, was it a local organizer's decision to permit it? Regardless, it seems like something the Stones management needs to work on.

Brings you back to the sixties..doesnt it??

Empty Stadiums??
Whos selling more tickets then the Stones?? Who??
The Stones still the biggest rock act in the world, and is no band out there selling more then them. except for festivals , but that includes soemtimes more then 20 bands not only one.

Like a glass of beer...one drink...one cheers....but still full so..thats not empty!

In order to keep some people on this forum satisfied - Let's just say the stadium in Rome was really crowded and everybody lived happily ever after...

s-asla Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Empty stadiums on current tour indicates that they
> have to do another tour (arena, my guess) to
> compensate for the loss of income.


there is no "loss of income". The Stones get a guaranteed amount regardless of how many turn up.

yeah but it still helps the old ego to see as many people as possible right?

Edith Grove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Good point, with sssoul. I was going to say that
> Stones management has been misjudging venue size
> for their market, but if there's no other place in
> Rome for 40K people, then I applaud the Stones
> willingness to play to a half full/half empty
> (whatever) venue.

You can't be serious about that. How more obvious could it be the Stones management has been misjudging ticket prices they can charge? I'm 100 percent sure they though they can sell out (or at least almost sell out) this venues at this prices. Do you still don't see the seated shows with the higher prices sell far worse then the other shows?
And regarding the "willingness to play to a half full/half empty (whatever) venue" i ask you what choices did they have? Thats canceling or playing, right?
No personal attack here, believe me please, but this post is really ridiculous.

>> helps the old ego to see as many people as possible <<

not sure whose ego you mean - ours?
if that were the Stones' aim, a lot of things would be done differently, i'm sure.
i don't see any reason to think Stones Inc is aiming at sell-outs on this tour.
and again: where should they play, when 40 000 people in town want to see them -
a half-full stadium, or an arena where something like 3/4ths of the fans wouldn't be able to get in?

i wish the Rolling Stones were my local pub band. but they aren't.

hey all i know is i have seen charlie in more than one interview say we have to be able to fill a bloody football stadium almost every nite, so it must mean something to them right?

>> I'm 100 percent sure they though they can sell out (or at least almost sell out) this venues at this prices. <<

i grant that that's an easy assumption to make, but if you can let go of it for a minute ...
what signs do you see that they were aiming to sell out all these shows?
you seen a lot of hyping of this leg of the tour? they timed the announcement just perfect to ensure maximum attendance?
the ticket prices quite obviously haven't been aimed at selling out, or at attracting too many recidivists.
this is the last leg of a very very long tour and not like they had nothing to base expectations on.

try imagining for a minute that they were aiming at a lower-key tour this time.
there's another thread around here somewhere where people are speculating about
whether the Stones can/would/should downscale a bit. maybe this is a step toward that.
maybe next time they'll have it down to where only 10 000 per city want to see them,
(or can afford to!) and they can sell out arenas without leaving 30 000 people out in the cold.
meanwhile ... i wish the Rolling Stones were my local pub band. but they aren't.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-07 16:50 by with sssoul.

Of course, sold-out shows don't mean anything to them. And of course, they could not care less about half-empty stadiums because their income is guaranteed.

I mean....really? Think twice....

then why would charlie be worried about it then?

who said he's worried about it?

he did

You know everybody knows there name!!!.....the greatest....but some of us do not have so much money remember!

>> he did <<

... if you've got links to these interviews i'd love to see them.
and if he was ever literally *worried* about it, he's had nigh on two years to get used to to the fact
that they aren't selling out stadiums night after night on this tour. and they've been doing fine anyway.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-07-07 16:52 by with sssoul.