Quote
stoned in washington dc
I say its all or nothing.. big tour or nothing


these guys don't think in terms of a few shows...if they gear up the machine it will be a major tour..

Its not as simple as that, though.

A big tour with millions of dollars in corporate sponsorship underwriting it requires a lot of insurance.

And the older these guys get, the more infirm they become, and the more risk there is of a tour being de-railed for medical reasons the longer they stay on the road.

In the last few years, its quite evident that they've all had health issues which could potentially impact on their ability to tour for long periods.

A Stones tour in 2012 is a big financial risk for anyone who happens to be paying for it. Especially a long one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-24 17:23 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza
A big tour with millions of dollars in corporate sponsorship underwriting it requires a lot of insurance.

Well then,

If you were to leave me baby.
Say you won't be back.
That would be the end of me.
'Cause I'd have a heart attack.

You better get some insurance on me, baby.
Take out some insurance on me, baby.
'Cause if ya ever, ever, said goodbye.
I'm gonna haul right off and die.

Darlin' an I will I love you.
Long as I got breath.
If we part I know sweetheart.
It would worry me ta death.

You better get some insurance on me, baby.
Take out some insurance on me, baby.
But if you ever, ever said goodbye.
I'm gonna haul right off and die.

Don't get no sick, an accident.
'Cause I'm healthy as can be.
Now if ya got any sense.
You'd take the hint.
And get a 'paid life', on me.

You don't know me, baby.
Like I know myself.
I couldn't live if you should give.
All your love ta someone else.

Ya better get some insurance on me, baby.
Take out some insurance on me, baby.
'Cause if ya ever, ever say goodbye.
I'm gonna haul right off an die.

Short residencies at selected Arenas over a period of months might be the way to go..with the odd stadium or festival show thrown in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-25 16:03 by Spud.

Quote
Gazza

Its not as simple as that, though.

A big tour with millions of dollars in corporate sponsorship underwriting it requires a lot of insurance.

And the older these guys get, the more infirm they become, and the more risk there is of a tour being de-railed for medical reasons the longer they stay on the road.

In the last few years, its quite evident that they've all had health issues which could potentially impact on their ability to tour for long periods.

A Stones tour in 2012 is a big financial risk for anyone who happens to be paying for it. Especially a long one.

Agree on both points.

If they do go on tour, I'd wager a 6 month tour at the most. I'd also bet the house they would not promote it as The Last Tour unless they want to see if tickets can sell out in 2 hours at all venues.

I'd say over a year.

Keith might need to sit down during some songs, which is fine.

Don't give them any ideas Sam Spade, a lot of us won't get in if the tourist and scalpers hoard all the tickets. Come to think of it that's probably what will happen, considering how the club shows went.

Quote
frankotero
Don't give them any ideas Sam Spade, a lot of us won't get in if the tourist and scalpers hoard all the tickets. Come to think of it that's probably what will happen, considering how the club shows went.

LOL I'm the last one to give them any ideas, I doubt they would listen. Depending on how they promote it, they have the ability to make it the "hottest" ticket in any city.

I am not saying they will tour for 2 years.. but they're not going to do less than 50 dates that I am sure of..

The idea they are going to get together, practice, bury the hatchets, design sets to play 2 or 3 shows for a few dollars for the 50th is a non starter.


As far as underwriting the risk: if they are in good health I don't see why it would be a problem.. and if they're not they won't tour period

Live Nation will be more than glad to have a Stones tour to kickstart their saggin' business as of late.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-24 18:57 by stoned in washington dc.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did a bunch of shows in major markets and simulcast them to movie theatres.

OLDKR

Quote
oldkr
I wouldn't be surprised if they did a bunch of shows in major markets and simulcast them to movie theatres.

OLDKR

I would be... think about how little money is involved in the simulcasts! its a pittance... who would go? just us pretty much. i say no way
and if by bunch of shows you mean less than 50 i say forget about it..

now if they can do a 25 night stand at MSG and and a 15 night stand at the O2 and another 15 night stand in Tokyo.. well, then maybe .. but I don't see them being able to pull off 25 nights at MSG do you?


again, they are not going to gear the machinery for a few shows and chump change...if they cant do a major affair they won't do anything

Quote
Send It To me

Quote
Long John Stoner
I believe him. They're done. They haven't written or recorded together for 6-7 years now. The last live show was over four years ago. Jagger turns 69 halfway through 2012, Richards 69 at the end of 2012, Watts will be 71 halfway through, Wood will be 65 halfway through, Wyman, if he were to participate, would be 76 in late 2012. Come on, already. They're mining the past for product to sell. What have any of them done lately to even remotely suggest even a few shows just to commemorate the 50th, much less a tour, is going to happen?

Let the group known as the Rolling Stones go gently into the good night. It's what most of them seem to want to do.

Keith and Ronnie clearly want to keep going. Charlie clearly won't be the one who ruins it for everyone else. We're just waiting for Mick...

Basicly,yeah that's it in a nutshell.

Quote
oldkr
I wouldn't be surprised if they did a bunch of shows in major markets and simulcast them to movie theatres.

OLDKR

They can barely get in a crowd to see classic older concerts. Seriously doubt many would flock to a movie theatre to see a new show. PPV,in the comfort of your home? Maybe.

Quote
DragonSky

Quote
mickscarey
Done deal

Correct - the vaults are open. Glad you were finally right about something.

Thanks! Will keep you posted

Quote
stoned in washington dc
I am not saying they will tour for 2 years.. but they're not going to do less than 50 dates that I am sure of..

The idea they are going to get together, practice, bury the hatchets, design sets to play 2 or 3 shows for a few dollars for the 50th is a non starter.

Never suggested it would be to that extreme either. Not a prayer of THAT happening!

Quote
stoned in washington dc

As far as underwriting the risk: if they are in good health I don't see why it would be a problem.. and if they're not they won't tour period

Live Nation will be more than glad to have a Stones tour to kickstart their saggin' business as of late.

They're in 'good health' at the start of every tour. They have to be as they have to get medical clearance for the money to be put upfront.

The issue is how reliable the health of a group of 70-ish year old men with a history of medical problems is likely to be over a very long period.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
stoned in washington dc
I am not saying they will tour for 2 years.. but they're not going to do less than 50 dates that I am sure of..

The idea they are going to get together, practice, bury the hatchets, design sets to play 2 or 3 shows for a few dollars for the 50th is a non starter.

Never suggested it would be to that extreme either. Not a prayer of THAT happening!

Quote
stoned in washington dc

As far as underwriting the risk: if they are in good health I don't see why it would be a problem.. and if they're not they won't tour period

Live Nation will be more than glad to have a Stones tour to kickstart their saggin' business as of late.

They're in 'good health' at the start of every tour. They have to be as they have to get medical clearance for the money to be put upfront.

The issue is how reliable the health of a group of 70-ish year old men with a history of medical problems is likely to be over a very long period.

ok I never suggested you suggested. .I was talking broadly not as much as responding to any particular post.

In the name of money insurance will not be a problem.. there's plenty of geriatric rockers - I understand not bands of geriatrics but someone will undewrite the risk for a live Nation.. there's alot of money at stake.. some way will be found..hey if Michael Jackson could be insured why not the Stones?

"... there is nothing on the table ... " ..., ok, there is nothing served on the table for the 50th candlelight dinner, and there is nothing on the counter yet.

But for sure there will be some conceptions on the writing desk and they do some working on different planings ...

So, I do believe him ...

and thats another reasons- just thought of it- that a US tour of only like MSG will not happen: Live Nation needs acts to fill its venues.. it owns many and controls many others.. it needs to find acts to fill them.. these acts are in short supply past 2-3 years... Rod Stewart in this area two years ago was about 25% full.. they can't keep going to Journey and Kid Rock... they need a Stones


My guess is Mick is just biding his time and driving the price up... its all about the money... they're not going to play one show or do a stand because they want the fans to get closure or something. Again not responding to anyone in particular.

...I'm pretty sure they don't go on tour the last 2 times unless a good part/most money is guaranteed. It's up front. Then they work backwards to get everyone paid off and/if additional monies are left over...merchandise, pay per views, get paid more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-10-24 19:33 by Rip This.

Quote
stoned in washington dc
ok I never suggested you suggested. .I was talking broadly not as much as responding to any particular post.

In the name of money insurance will not be a problem.. there's plenty of geriatric rockers - I understand not bands of geriatrics but someone will undewrite the risk for a live Nation.. there's alot of money at stake.. some way will be found..hey if Michael Jackson could be insured why not the Stones?

Jacko was only 50! I get what youre saying and I'm not suggesting they wouldnt get insurance (although when Ronnie was falling apart 2-3 years ago, it may have been more an issue), but just emphasising that its not a case of just announcing a tour and having no external issues when it comes to finance. Its also more of a risk the longer a tour goes on.

Additionally, lots of 'geriatric rockers' dont have the same problem because they choose to tour on a smaller scale and without corporate sponsorship - Dylan or Neil Young, for example.

Here's something to ponder. 50 shows with an average ticket price of $500 USD (they want to cash in BIG for 50) at venues able to seat 17,000 comes to a cool $425 mllion gross, that doesn't include merchandising. Not too shabby for 4 months work.(ok 6 months if they need 2 days off between shows) I think that would make them the highest grossing tour in the shortest amount of time.

Quote
Sam Spade
Here's something to ponder. 50 shows with an average ticket price of $500 USD (they want to cash in BIG for 50) at venues able to seat 17,000 comes to a cool $425 mllion gross, that doesn't include merchandising. Not too shabby for 4 months work.(ok 6 months if they need 2 days off between shows) I think that would make them the highest grossing tour in the shortest amount of time.

500 average ticket is high but 17,000 venue capacity is low..


its definitely a lot of money at play


and at this point they almost dont' have to say its their final tour.... there would be a lot of "need to see them one last time" and "need to see them one time" action


there is so much gold to be made it will be a wonder if they don't tour!

Quote
stoned in washington dc

Quote
Sam Spade
Here's something to ponder. 50 shows with an average ticket price of $500 USD (they want to cash in BIG for 50) at venues able to seat 17,000 comes to a cool $425 mllion gross, that doesn't include merchandising. Not too shabby for 4 months work.(ok 6 months if they need 2 days off between shows) I think that would make them the highest grossing tour in the shortest amount of time.

500 average ticket is high but 17,000 venue capacity is low..


its definitely a lot of money at play


and at this point they almost dont' have to say its their final tour.... there would be a lot of "need to see them one last time" and "need to see them one time" action


there is so much gold to be made it will be a wonder if they don't tour!

As I said "just something to ponder".

A high price ticket with low seating capacity increases the demand.

A 6 month tour for them would be like a half day of work considering they are used to 2 years on the road.

The major problem with the possibility of a new tour is that Mick Jagger isn't into it at all. He seems to dread 2012 when he envisions the fans to be "sick of the Stones". Mick is now on Charlie's side; he doesn't want to do it and if he does it, it's gonna be a drag whereas Ron and keith will do it even for free (so he once said).
Rock and Roll,
Mops

I think Mick will do it, even for 50 shows because he is well aware his counterpart Tina Turner did it for her 50th.
[en.wikipedia.org]

Mick isn't about to turn his back on a BIG payday.

Quote
Sam Spade
Here's something to ponder. 50 shows with an average ticket price of $500 USD (they want to cash in BIG for 50) at venues able to seat 17,000 comes to a cool $425 mllion gross, that doesn't include merchandising. Not too shabby for 4 months work.(ok 6 months if they need 2 days off between shows) I think that would make them the highest grossing tour in the shortest amount of time.

The average price on the last tour was $169.

Its fantasy to suggest they'd be able to get away with TREBLING that.

And they'd need strung up if they even thought about it.

Quote
rollmops
The major problem with the possibility of a new tour is that Mick Jagger isn't into it at all. He seems to dread 2012 when he envisions the fans to be "sick of the Stones". Mick is now on Charlie's side; he doesn't want to do it and if he does it, it's gonna be a drag whereas Ron and keith will do it even for free (so he once said).
Rock and Roll,
Mops

er, no...thats not what he meant.

He meant that the Stones will be so high profile in 2012, you'll be sick hearing about them by the end of it.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Sam Spade
Here's something to ponder. 50 shows with an average ticket price of $500 USD (they want to cash in BIG for 50) at venues able to seat 17,000 comes to a cool $425 mllion gross, that doesn't include merchandising. Not too shabby for 4 months work.(ok 6 months if they need 2 days off between shows) I think that would make them the highest grossing tour in the shortest amount of time.

The average price on the last tour was $169.

Its fantasy to suggest they'd be able to get away with TREBLING that.

And they'd need strung up if they even thought about it.

Yes, it's absurd, like I said "it's something to ponder".

I can see them raising the average price to $212.00 (that's a little bit more than 25% over last tour).

The 17000 capacity would be for arenas only. Naturally, stadiums would maximize their profit margin,assuming they can still sellout stadiums, based on the economy here in the USA.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
rollmops
The major problem with the possibility of a new tour is that Mick Jagger isn't into it at all. He seems to dread 2012 when he envisions the fans to be "sick of the Stones". Mick is now on Charlie's side; he doesn't want to do it and if he does it, it's gonna be a drag whereas Ron and keith will do it even for free (so he once said).
Rock and Roll,
Mops

er, no...thats not what he meant.

He meant that the Stones will be so high profile in 2012, you'll be sick hearing about them by the end of it.

Yes my friend,I understood that but it's me interpreting Mick's negative feeling over something that others would call success. If you do business and you reach out to million of persons and go with the fear of having done too much, it means that your heart isn't into it, I believe.

Rock and Roll,
Mops

Quote
Sam Spade

Quote
Gazza

Quote
Sam Spade
Here's something to ponder. 50 shows with an average ticket price of $500 USD (they want to cash in BIG for 50) at venues able to seat 17,000 comes to a cool $425 mllion gross, that doesn't include merchandising. Not too shabby for 4 months work.(ok 6 months if they need 2 days off between shows) I think that would make them the highest grossing tour in the shortest amount of time.

The average price on the last tour was $169.

Its fantasy to suggest they'd be able to get away with TREBLING that.

And they'd need strung up if they even thought about it.

Yes, it's absurd, like I said "it's something to ponder".

I can see them raising the average price to $212.00 (that's a little bit more than 25% over last tour).

The 17000 capacity would be for arenas only. Naturally, stadiums would maximize their profit margin,assuming they can still sellout stadiums, based on the economy here in the USA.

The entire world's economy is in the toilet, mate. And as bad as it is in the US, the standard of living is still higher than in most of the rest of the planet.

The Stones could sell out any stadium or arena on the planet, and do so every year.

....but ONLY if they price it properly.

And, as the last tour proved, selling somewhere out isnt the be-all and end-all.

It's a sad state of affairs that with the world being in the state its in at the moment that we're actually pondering whether a band who earned an average gross of $4 million in ticket sales alone per show on their last tour can be bothered working for 2 hours at a time if they dont make more than that...

Quote
TeddyB1018

Quote
Gazza
I personally dont think a long tour is likely either. Certainly not of the length we've been used to.

More for reasons of age than the economy.

I agree.

I agree too!