Well it seems the Stones are still pretty popular someone said the other day that this will be the end of them. Well lets see 98% of all shows in the US. sold out and they are selling good in Europe now. I mean gee had to add a 2nd show for Wembley and now Ampsterdam and thoes are some big stadiums. Just goes to show there are alot of false fans on here.

StonesTod is a phoney fan

Rickster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well it seems the Stones are still pretty popular
> someone said the other day that this will be the
> end of them. Well lets see 98% of all shows in the
> US. sold out and they are selling good in Europe
> now. I mean gee had to add a 2nd show for Wembley
> and now Ampsterdam and thoes are some big
> stadiums. Just goes to show there are alot of
> false fans on here.



but in the netherlands they played only in amsterdam.

and the second show for wembley. because the new stadium.

and i'm sure that the german gigs wouldn't be sold out.

one reason for me is, that they will play in munich, nuremberg and stuttgart. and it's a quite close geographic area.

Eight years ago, they announced one Amsterdam show and eventually added four more, selling 250,000 for all five shows in three hours

By all accounts it was quite easy to get tickets for the 1st Amsterdam show this time, even though its traditionally the country where the Stones sell more tickets than anywhere else per head of population.

Re; Wembley. There are 8 million people living in London and its located in the south of England which is probably the most prosperous region in Europe. If they couldnt sell that show out, there would be something seriously wrong. The appeal of the new stadium is certainly a factor for many - myself included, as I'm skipping the rest of the overpriced UK shows

Take a look at ticket sales for the other UK shows and you may think different about what a success this is. Those shows will not sell out and in some cities, presales were sluggish. Glasgow especially will be a disaster.

I dont buy this "98% sell out" figure for the US. Its interesting that nowadays Cohl's people only publish concert grosses as opposed to number of tickets actually sold. It hides a lot of important info.

By anyones standards, they sell a shitload of tickets, but there will be some markets where sales will be slower than others. There have been European tours before where shows were cancelled due to poor ticket sales (1990 and 1998, both tours which, like 2006, coincided with World Cup finals being held in Europe). I doubt that'll happen this time but tickets will be pretty easy to find for practically every show and few will genuinely sell out.

There is an overkill factor, saturation point,
what with all the live touring they've been doing.
Enjoy while you can, it may behoove them to give it
a rest for a bit after the ABB tour, for a few years
anyway, or just do select gigs......................

<<<<<There are 8 million people living in London and its located in the south of England which is probably the most prosperous region in Europe.>>>>>>>

Wrong. this is my area of study, and despite the fact that the south of the UK is prosperous, the most prosperous areas in the EU are Ireland and Luxembourg.

great, there are 4 million people in Eire and about five people living in Luxembourg. Hardly comparing like with like with a densely populated area like the south of England.

Dont tell the Stones about Luxembourg, or their next European tour will consist solely of concerts there and in Monaco.

The 98% figure being talk about as shows sold out is just B.S from rs.com.
Just about all the shows have some tickets available the day of the concert.

mttlacroix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong. this is my area of study, and despite the
> fact that the south of the UK is prosperous, the
> most prosperous areas in the EU are Ireland and
> Luxembourg.

I find it hard to believe that Ireland is more prosperous than southern England. Any facts to back that claim up?

[www.finfacts.com]

Ireland is #1 as I understand it - the lack of EU restrictions is key.

amongst other things.

mttlacroix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

As I expected, the website only gives GDP per capita numbers for the whole UK, whereas Gazza was talking about the south of England. So it's not quite fair to say, "Wrong," mttlacroix. And it looks like Norway's ahead of Ireland, too, by the way.

Gazza wrote

"I dont buy this "98% sell out" figure for the US."

I think the picture coming from the reviews, articles and posts justifies this "98%". With a few exceptions (Anaheim for example) the venues were full packed, weren't they?.

"Its interesting that nowadays Cohl's people only publish concert grosses as opposed to number of tickets actually sold. It hides a lot of important info."

Since 2002 Cohl publishes nothing (no grosses, no number of tickets) after every concert, but everything be published as total number on Billboard at the end of the tour. As Billboard once wrote, in every case these are numbers confirmed by executives of the music industry. I don't think they are idiots. I remind you of the numbers of Licks Tour: Stones 3,470,945 tickets sold (98.6%). Second came Bruce (2.8 million tickets, 97%).
BTW maybe i'm wrong but in my opinion the Cohl's line of action about the timing has something to do with taxis tricks. Just a suspicion...

Gazza, think about the frequency of the tours. This is the fourth big tour in the last 11 years. How many acts are able to attract 4 million people in 2005-06, after having play to 3.5 million in 2002-03 and 5.6 million in 1997-99?? Noone! During the 70s the Stones did tours for 400,000, 500,000, or 800,000 people only, because they were "on the road" very often. In 1981/82 the Stones attracted 3.5 million people because the tour was the first after three years! The people still want to see them once again or -in other cases- for first time, despite the high ticket prices which sometimes are annoying expensive ($450). Their popularity, as a live act, is incredible. It's a HUGE MARVEL!!!

Treesnake2000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mttlacroix Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> As I expected, the website only gives GDP per
> capita numbers for the whole UK, whereas Gazza was
> talking about the south of England. So it's not
> quite fair to say, "Wrong," mttlacroix. And it
> looks like Norway's ahead of Ireland, too, by the
> way.

the GDP stands for Gross Domestic Product.

Gross = average.

It is impossible to tell whether one area of a country is richer than another unless it is blatantly obvious (ex: north of UK vs. south of UK, north Italy vs. South Italy etc...). It is just an average.

HAving said that, the GDP is also used to determine the average standard of living/income. if the GDP in ireland is higher than that of the UK, the average citizen in ireland has more to spend on their desires.

and just for the record, where do you see norway ahead of ireland please?

mttlacroix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is impossible to tell whether one area of a
> country is richer than another unless it is
> blatantly obvious (ex: north of UK vs. south of
> UK, north Italy vs. South Italy etc...). It is
> just an average.

Then why did you say Gazza was wrong to claim that the south of England was probably the most prosperous region in Europe? In the first place, you admit that you cannot prove him wrong. Moreover, you appear to concede yourself that there is a significant difference in prosperity in the "north of UK vs. south of UK," so that the overal UK GDP per capita figure may be below that for southern England.

> and just for the record, where do you see norway
> ahead of ireland please?

On the website you provided, there is a chart halfway down the page providing 2003 GDP per capita (expressed in terms of purchasing power standards) for countries in Europe as compared with the EU average. The numbers are: Luxembourg 208; Norway 149; Ireland 131; and UK 119.

<On the website you provided, there is a chart halfway down the page providing 2003 <GDP per capita (expressed in terms of purchasing power standards) for countries in <Europe as compared with the EU average. The numbers are: Luxembourg 208; Norway 149; <Ireland 131; and UK 119.

I concede that I was wrong with Norway, and all apologies for that. I could have used Norway as an example just as I had Ireland and Luxembourg. I tried to state some facts concerning a statement made by Gazza and youre going to pieces over a small error.

But for north versus south, I stand by my statement.

Since there are more people in the south (the invisible line being approx. between Liverpool and birmingham), and since the GDP is an average, wouldnt it make more sense that the south is more represented by default?

mttlacroix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But for north versus south, I stand by my
> statement.
>
> Since there are more people in the south (the
> invisible line being approx. between Liverpool and
> birmingham), and since the GDP is an average,
> wouldnt it make more sense that the south is more
> represented by default?

Not sure how this is standing by your statement.

And I would argue that, given that the GDP per capita figures are 131 for Ireland and 119 for the UK, even employing your rationale "that the south is more represented by default," the figures are too close to support the claim that Ireland must be more prosperous than southern England.

Also, "the invisible line . . . beteween Liverpool and birmingham" as a dividing line between southern England and the rest of the UK? Consult an atlas, mate! Good thing this is your area of study!

Good night.

As far as my "going to pieces over a small error," I admit that I find it extremely irritating when people post dismissive, authoritative statements like, "Wrong. this is my area of study, and . . ." when they don't have the facts to back up their claims.

< Also, "the invisible line . . . beteween Liverpool and birmingham" as a dividing
< line between southern England and the rest of the UK

fine whatever, obviously neither one of us will solve this by bickering. If there are any economists or people in that field in our feud that can help us out?

thanks.

mttlacroix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> < Also, "the invisible line . . . beteween
> Liverpool and birmingham" as a dividing
> < line between southern England and the rest of
> the UK
>
> fine whatever, obviously neither one of us will
> solve this by bickering.

TAKE A LOOK AT A MAP! IF YOU DRAW A LINE BETWEEN LIVERPOOL AND BIRMINGHAM, DOES IT DIVIDE THE ISLAND BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH? This is not a matter of opinion!

Gazza wrote: "Eight years ago, they announced one Amsterdam show and eventually added four more, selling 250,000 for all five shows in three hours"

Yes, they sold 261,277 tickets + 86,000 in Hague, later. But if i remember correctly in 1998 they played only these two cities in Netherlands. (Groningen was in 1999). On this tour they will play Rotterdam, Groningen, Arnem and Amsterdam. It's about 250,000 in the Netherlands, 40,000 - 50,000 more than during Licks Tour. No bad at all, i think...

"Glasgow especially will be a disaster"

Maybe you 're right, but this forecast reminds me of another recent forecast coming from american fans: "Detroit will be a disaster". But Detroit was full-packet! Let's see.

Gazza, i think you underrate two factors:

(á) the frequency of the tours.
(b) the fact that nowadays fans and scalpers are playing their game with time.

Treesnake2000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mttlacroix Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > < Also, "the invisible line . . .
> beteween
> > Liverpool and birmingham" as a dividing
> > < line between southern England and the
> rest of
> > the UK
> >
> > fine whatever, obviously neither one of us
> will
> > solve this by bickering.
>
> TAKE A LOOK AT A MAP! IF YOU DRAW A LINE BETWEEN
> LIVERPOOL AND BIRMINGHAM, DOES IT DIVIDE THE
> ISLAND BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH? This is not a
> matter of opinion!


cool it buddy, it divides it ECONOMICALLY, not GEOGRAPHICALLY.


Treesnake2000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As far as my "going to pieces over a small error,"
> I admit that I find it extremely irritating when
> people post dismissive, authoritative statements
> like, "Wrong. this is my area of study, and . . ."
> when they don't have the facts to back up their
> claims.

I also find it quite irritating when people lose their cool over something this small. but hey, thats just me.

Fine, this will be my last post in this thread. But, for the record, this is what you first wrote:

"Since there are more people in the south (the invisible line being approx. between Liverpool and birmingham) . . ."

Now you claim that you meant:

> it divides it ECONOMICALLY, not
> GEOGRAPHICALLY.

I'm sorry, but that is bullsh*t, and you should be embarrassed to have written it. But then, you made your first appearance in this thread in an attempt to throw your intellectual weight around, so I should not be surprised that it's too late for you to bow out gracefully now.

Best of luck with your studies.

ok fine. youve proven me wrong. whatever. although i should say, you should not lose your temper that quickly. thats just sad that you can start yelling over a debate of UK economics. im sorry if ive offended anyone.