Just caught this in the news...

[uk.news.launch.yahoo.com]

yep - thats why Eavis told Bono and his crew to f-off, a couple of
years ago.
They apparently, made equally ridiculous financial demands,
and wanted complete control over the televison rights of their set.

A real shame cause it would have been great exposure over here......

Surely they're not getting that for the Isle Of Wight? I know it has a lesser profile but still...

Dosn't sound like a lot to me, lets face it they are the greatest rock and roll band in the world,

How much do you think they should charge?

I am new to the whole stones thing but am slowly getting into them since they were anounced for the iow festival, but one thing i know if that the stones are rich and thats down to hard work since they first began, so why oh why are they still asking for stupid fees to appear its not like thay need the money, its just such a shame that people wint be able to see them because they are greedy and want more money.

As I keep on saying, The Stones don't give two f.ucks about their fans, about going that extra mile to reach new people. It's all about the money with them now, pure and simple.

The Who are playing Glastonbury this year.

I think, for a festival event, a fair fee would be a fixed percentage of profits for acts appearing, proportionate to their importance on the bill.

SD

Read in a recent article that Stones charge up to 5 million US$ to play at private functions - bar mitzwahs and what have we *lol*

So - 1 million GBP to play Glastonbury?? Doesn't seem to unreasonable for me.

I don't know why people think they should be playing for free just because they have a "little money" tucked away - I mean, I did not hear to much about say Michael Schumacher earning in the region of 45-50 million GBP a year??

How much does the great soccerplayers rake in? The great tennis players? I could not give a f*ck ...but I do want to be on that payroll!! ;-)

You take what you can get...besides, one should not trust everything on the internet ;-)

Not sure what the truth is here. I heard Jagger on the radio recently saying they would have loved to play Glastonbury but were not approached.

Glastonbury is all about the festival as a whole. for any band to think they can ask for such a fee shows how ridiculous they are

i'm not surprised they were told to @#$%& off

mofur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read in a recent article that Stones charge up to
> 5 million US$ to play at private functions - bar
> mitzwahs and what have we *lol*


They got $7 million to play that Texan billionaire's 60th birthday party at the Joint in Las vegas in November 2002

1st rule of being self employed.

You figure what you are worth and you stick to your guns.

Unless an idiot Texan billonaire comes along, then you add $$$$$$$$ to the asking price.


I think a Million for Glastonbury was a gift, more fool them.

I dont think IOW paid a Million but I think they have better connections and also asked at the right time.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> They got $7 million to play that Texan
> billionaire's 60th birthday party at the Joint in
> Las vegas in November 2002


I'd pay that if I could afford it ;-)

I'm still not sure what they were "paid" to come to Toronto in July '03 for the SARS concert - there is still a difference of opinion, and not a lot of information about it. Apparently they were not paid, but their expenses had to be covered, which included a ton of dough to ship the stage and set it up, and the cost of flying them over from Europe, where they were in mid-tour. But seeing the amount of equipment that they had, I can see that it would easily have cost millions to bring it in, set it up, take it back and cover the cost of the concert(s) they had to reschedule to be here. That one was really nice gesture. At least some of the time, it isn't all about the money.

I heard they were paid around $10 million for that gig. Whether its true, I dont know.

Yep - that's the number that is tossed around - likely because that is what the provincial (or Federal, or combined) government contributed. But seeing the amount of equipment there, and everything else that went into staging this, including the (**shudder**) porta-potties, it looked like some money was definitely poured into it... I like to think it went to infrastructure and transportation, rather than The Stones...

In the entertainment business it has always been true that a headline act always wants to command top dollar and stay on top as long as they wish. The world is full of lounge acts who once seemed like stars.

Whether it's been Ray Charles, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley Clint Eastwood, Johnny Depp, Tom Hanks or the Rolling Stones, how much you're paid counts dramatically in staying on top. Same is true of major athletes.

The charities and good causes who get handsome donations from individual members of the Rolling Stones and have done for years aren't complaining. Very seldom have the Stones felt they needed to be publicly recognized for donations as "private people."

Too bad they didn't play Glastonbury but we really don't know all the facts.

Nikolai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I keep on saying, The Stones don't give two
> f.ucks about their fans


With fans like you, why should they?

JumpingKentFlash

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I heard they were paid around $10 million for that
> gig. Whether its true, I dont know.


that is amazing....and disgraceful...and certainly not surprising !!

Always the same old thing...

This is basic economy: if the people are willing to pay you a lot of $$$$$$$ or €€€€€€€ to see you, why would you ask less? Go for the jackpot!

As long as they do the effort to bring us concerts, DVD's, etc, I'm willing to pay for that.

I know most of you guys (and girls of course) do

Thomas - tables turning now, her time to cry -

Berten001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Always the same old thing...
>
> This is basic economy: if the people are willing
> to pay you a lot of $$$$$$$ or €€€€€€€ to see you,
> why would you ask less? Go for the jackpot!
>

well the basic counter argument to that is that when you have a collective worth conservatively estimated at $1.3 BILLION, there's not really much point in being bound by this "ask as much money as possible" nonsense. Seriously - how much money does someone need before the accumulation of it for its own sake just becomes pointless? How about being principally motivated to do something because its fun instead of for how much dosh you can accumulate?

The old excuse that its 'basic economics' and the "would you turn down a big pay rise" question isnt really valid because most of the rest of us dont have an alternative. Its an ENTIRELY different scenario. Plus we pay taxes - the Stones for the most part, manage to avoid doing so.

Gazza my dear, where are you getting 1.3 billion from, please and thank you?
and: the report that they were paid 10 million for the Toronto thing is only one version.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza my dear, where are you getting 1.3 billion
> from, please and thank you?

Collective estimated wealth of the 4 band members in last month's Sunday Times Rich List. Might have only been $1.03 or $1.13 billion in retrospect.

> and: the report that they were paid 10 million for
> the Toronto thing is only one version.

Like I said earlier, I dont know if thats true, so I'm not passing judgement on it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-19 18:17 by Gazza.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Berten001 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Always the same old thing...
> >
> > This is basic economy: if the people are
> willing
> > to pay you a lot of $$$$$$$ or €€€€€€€ to see
> you,
> > why would you ask less? Go for the jackpot!
> >
>
> well the basic counter argument to that is that
> when you have a collective worth conservatively
> estimated at $1.3 BILLION, there's not really much
> point in being bound by this "ask as much money as
> possible" nonsense. Seriously - how much money
> does someone need before the accumulation of it
> for its own sake just becomes pointless? How about
> being principally motivated to do something
> because its fun instead of for how much dosh you
> can accumulate?
>
> The old excuse that its 'basic economics' and the
> "would you turn down a big pay rise" question isnt
> really valid because most of the rest of us dont
> have an alternative. Its an ENTIRELY different
> scenario. Plus we pay taxes - the Stones for the
> most part, manage to avoid doing so.


I get your point Gazza, but I think that's the way it goes: they just can't do it for free, can they?

Now, imagine the Stones organise a new world tour( something like the wooden wheels tour or the cheap lounge world tour ), where the prices are break-even (where the price of the tickets cover all the costs)... I'm sure, for a 100% , that even then, a lot of people would complain: too much warhorses to satisfy "the tourists", the places are too crowded, too fast sold out, too much "Vegas-style",etc

And for the taxes: back in the early years, I'm sure everybody said that it was cool that they avoided taxes, because they were rebels!

Thomas - tables turning now, her time to cry -

>> last month's Sunday Times Rich List <<

right, thanks Gazza! here's where it can be accessed: [business.timesonline.co.uk]

Sir Mick Jagger £215m
Keith Richards £190m
Charlie Watts £90m
Ronnie Wood £75m

570 million GBP is currently about 1.14 billion USD - not bad for a handful of scruffy wastrels :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-19 18:34 by with sssoul.

I think they ovecharge, why not go for half of that and make many fans happy! Jagger is now more into money, but hasn't he got enough, there was a article on him a few days ago in the newspaper and they quoted that he sits on 470 million.

Nikolai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I keep on saying, The Stones don't give two
> f.ucks about their fans, about going that extra
> mile to reach new people. It's all about the money
> with them now, pure and simple.
>
> The Who are playing Glastonbury this year.


I don't think anybody are staying away from a Stones concert because of the ticket prices. The only ones who have that problem are us - we who want to see them lot's of times on the same tour. If the tickets cost 50$, 150$ or 300$, everybody could afford it if the really want to go. The fill up almost every stadium anywhere around the globe, to me that is one kind of proof that the ticket price are correct. (As most people I could WISH for cheaper tickets, but that's another discussion)

Regarding the Who - do you think they charge less money just to be kind, or could it be that they charge as much as promotors are willing to pay? The Who are not even close to the Stones' popularity and greatness.

Berten001 Wrote:
>
> I get your point Gazza, but I think that's the way
> it goes: they just can't do it for free, can they?


who said they should? with respect, thats an absurd argument. Why does it always have to be so black and white? Of course they should be well paid, no ones expecting anything different.
>
>
> Now, imagine the Stones organise a new world tour(
> something like the wooden wheels tour or the cheap
> lounge world tour ), where the prices are
> break-even (where the price of the tickets cover
> all the costs)...

A Stones tour will never just 'break even'. So many of the overheads are covered by corporate sponsorship. Come on, in 1998 they were charging $65 a ticket for stadium shows and every tour was the biggest grossing tour of all time. Theyre hardly going to not generate hundreds of millions of dollars by charging less money. This 'poor Stones' argument is just daft.


I'm sure, for a 100% , that even
> then, a lot of people would complain: too much
> warhorses to satisfy "the tourists",

No, thats the complaint NOW - because the prices are geared to attract the more affluent and corporate fan - and therefore more 'warhorses' are played to cater for such an audience


the places
> are too crowded, too fast sold out, too much
> "Vegas-style",etc

people are going to complain about too many people going to a show or sellingout too fast? Thats a phenomenon I must admit I've never heard of...
>
> And for the taxes: back in the early years, I'm
> sure everybody said that it was cool that they
> avoided taxes, because they were rebels!


Avoiding taxes if you can do so legally is perfectly OK in my book. No ones suggesting theyre doing so illegally. However, point being its not like they have these crippling tax bills to pay is it? Therefore, as they have fewer overheads percentage wise, its less excuse to overcharge.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-19 20:15 by Gazza.

>> people are going to complain about too many people going to a show or sellingout too fast?
Thats a phenomenon I must admit I've never heard of... <<

ask anyone who's ever experienced not getting tickets to a show they wanted to be at