[www.telegraph.co.uk]

Generally interesting - but a very interesting Stones snippet:
"One of the brokers even heard that the mighty Stones chose not to take out full non-appearance insurance on their most recent tour. “There was a market rumour that the last time they just opted not to go with insurance because it just didn’t make sense. And Jagger is a very financially astute man,” he says. A Stones spokesman declined to comment."

syrel

So they have no worry for him is the gist?

Quote
syrel
[www.telegraph.co.uk]

Generally interesting - but a very interesting Stones snippet:
"One of the brokers even heard that the mighty Stones chose not to take out full non-appearance insurance on their most recent tour. “There was a market rumour that the last time they just opted not to go with insurance because it just didn’t make sense. And Jagger is a very financially astute man,” he says. A Stones spokesman declined to comment."

syrel

No surprises there !

But I can well imagine that insurance premiums must be staggering, as these guys get older ....

"A performer’s age has a material impact on what it costs to buy so-called “non-appearance” cover, a category of insurance that guarantees their fee if they can’t do a show due to illness or injury. The numbers are stark, according to insurance insiders. A young-ish DJ – a genre of musician usually cheap to insure as they don’t sing – might be charged 1.5 per cent of their promised fee by an insurance company for non-appearance cover.

So if the fee for performing is £100,000, then the DJ pays £1,500 for the policy. This rises to around 3 per cent for a band with multiple members. But for older artists in their seventies and above, the insurance can cost between 10 and 15 per cent of their performance fee, meaning up to £15,000 of their £100,000 income. For a big band earning £3 million for a stadium show, that’s an eye-watering £450,000 spent on insurance.

...
Then there are onerous “deductible” clauses on big tours. These mean that insurance companies don’t pay out until the second cancelled show (or third, fourth or fifth depending on the policy and star’s age). For the first cancelled show, the artist takes the financial hit."

I understand that the Stones have decided to self-insure for recent tours.

That would explain why in the US last year they carried on even when Keith and then Mick were clearly suffering from illnesses. It also explains why there are more, longer gaps, in touring schedule - the extra cost of keeping the whole touring team on the road is clearly assessed to be less than the cost of losing one or two shows.

Quote
thecitadel
I understand that the Stones have decided to self-insure for recent tours.

That would explain why in the US last year they carried on even when Keith and then Mick were clearly suffering from illnesses. It also explains why there are more, longer gaps, in touring schedule - the extra cost of keeping the whole touring team on the road is clearly assessed to be less than the cost of losing one or two shows.

That's interesting - because it would remove 'insurance check spotted a medical issue' as an explanation for the 2025 tour not going ahead.

syrel

Quote
syrel

Quote
thecitadel
I understand that the Stones have decided to self-insure for recent tours.

That would explain why in the US last year they carried on even when Keith and then Mick were clearly suffering from illnesses. It also explains why there are more, longer gaps, in touring schedule - the extra cost of keeping the whole touring team on the road is clearly assessed to be less than the cost of losing one or two shows.

That's interesting - because it would remove 'insurance check spotted a medical issue' as an explanation for the 2025 tour not going ahead.

syrel

That was always just baseless speculation thankfully

Quote
thecitadel
I understand that the Stones have decided to self-insure for recent tours.

That would explain why in the US last year they carried on even when Keith and then Mick were clearly suffering from illnesses. It also explains why there are more, longer gaps, in touring schedule - the extra cost of keeping the whole touring team on the road is clearly assessed to be less than the cost of losing one or two shows.

That's the first thing that came to mind as well. 5 days seems a lot of time to "recover" but taken in the context of insurance, it totally makes sense minimizing the impact of a short illness on forthcoming concert dates.

Quote
syrel

Quote
thecitadel
I understand that the Stones have decided to self-insure for recent tours.

That would explain why in the US last year they carried on even when Keith and then Mick were clearly suffering from illnesses. It also explains why there are more, longer gaps, in touring schedule - the extra cost of keeping the whole touring team on the road is clearly assessed to be less than the cost of losing one or two shows.

That's interesting - because it would remove 'insurance check spotted a medical issue' as an explanation for the 2025 tour not going ahead.

syrel

It's hard to imagine an "insurance check" not throwing up a medical issue at their age.

Insurance is just like any other kind of gambling in terms of weighing up the odds and cost, regardless of who's underwriting it.

In the USA...Medicare and an A+ supplemental insurance plan pays for everything....its pretty easy.

We are talking about insurance of a tour - of USD 10 million ticket sales per show, multiplied by 14 or 20, i.e. total og 140 - 200 million US dollar. Not really a regular car or personal insurance.

Bjornulf



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-02-13 15:09 by bv.

In short, it's a hell of a lot of money...and it's a real issue

Quote
Spud
In short, it's a hell of a lot of money...and it's a real issue

I guess it's the bullet that has to be bitten, if, at 80 years' old, you insist on continuing to tour.

Quote
bv
We are talking about insurance of a tour - of USD 10 million ticket sales per show, multiplied by 14 or 20, i.e. total og 1.4 - 2 billion US dollar. Not really a regular car or personal insurance.

I think its $140-200M, not in the billions. But the point is well made - the chances of one show being cancelled, let alone a whole tour, means the premium must be more than the revenue from 1 show.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-02-13 15:00 by NashvilleBlues.

Quote
thecitadel

Quote
bv
We are talking about insurance of a tour - of USD 10 million ticket sales per show, multiplied by 14 or 20, i.e. total og 1.4 - 2 billion US dollar. Not really a regular car or personal insurance.

I think its $140-200M, not in the billions. But the point is well made - the chances of one show being cancelled, let alone a whole tour, means the premium must be more than the revenue from 1 show.

I was thinking NOK totals, Norwegian curreny... Basic math error fixed.

They will still need breakpoints of touring, like before announcement, and before start of rehearsals, as these breakpoints mark point in time when the cost is ramping up a lot. Whether they do self insurance or pay a company, it is still risk points in the calendar.

Bjornulf

I think if it's all about the money at this stage in their musical journey, then it's probably time to call it a day.
When you have the personal fortunes the remaining Stones have at their advancing years it becomes sad if a tour is determined by how many tens of millions they can profit.
What can they possibly do with the profits from a tour that they can't already do.

I still feel the world and ever change
World made this tour difficult.
For us it hard to insure our home and cars.it hard to pay for basic items
What will May look like.

Quote
syrel

Quote
thecitadel
I understand that the Stones have decided to self-insure for recent tours.

That would explain why in the US last year they carried on even when Keith and then Mick were clearly suffering from illnesses. It also explains why there are more, longer gaps, in touring schedule - the extra cost of keeping the whole touring team on the road is clearly assessed to be less than the cost of losing one or two shows.

That's interesting - because it would remove 'insurance check spotted a medical issue' as an explanation for the 2025 tour not going ahead.

syrel

Pretty sure it was authoritatively stated here that it was venue logistics which called off this summer’s plans, nothing health wise.

The more time that goes by the more unlikely a tour becomes. I'm not happy to say this but that's how it is looking to me.

...how about using the sponsors money to pay the insurance, even better, have an insurance company sponsor them!

...they already had AARP sponsor them, and their were very little jokes about it!

A very niche part of the insurance industry, Body Part Insurance is popular with Dentists after been popularized by Hollywood Stars & Singers, Players, Performers etc

On a simple model you'll pay $200 per yr for every $10k of cover, so $100k cover $2000, so it's not cheap if you are insuring a career ending injury.


and from Syrel

"A performer’s age has a material impact on what it costs to buy so-called “non-appearance” cover, a category of insurance that guarantees their fee if they can’t do a show due to illness or injury. The numbers are stark, according to insurance insiders. A young-ish DJ – a genre of musician usually cheap to insure as they don’t sing – might be charged 1.5 per cent of their promised fee by an insurance company for non-appearance cover.

So if the fee for performing is £100,000, then the DJ pays £1,500 for the policy. This rises to around 3 per cent for a band with multiple members. But for older artists in their seventies and above, the insurance can cost between 10 and 15 per cent of their performance fee, meaning up to £15,000 of their £100,000 income. For a big band earning £3 million for a stadium show, that’s an eye-watering £450,000 spent on insurance.

...
Then there are onerous “deductible” clauses on big tours. These mean that insurance companies don’t pay out until the second cancelled show (or third, fourth or fifth depending on the policy and star’s age). For the first cancelled show, the artist takes the financial hit."