I like to know where glimmertwi81 gets the figure of a million dollers a day from to run the tour, more like half million a week when the tour is up n running.I would say on the biggerbang tour the stones walked away with about 30 million each.And im sure they will only stay in the states on tour for 87 days, then leave, so they dont have to pay tax on there earnings.And reading rolling stones mag a few years back about touring, the first 20 shows they do pay the bills and bring them even, then the rest is profit, i think gazza talks alot of sense about the true cost of a tour, but i reckon the stones hide alot of what they earn, so its hard to find the true figure, but its interesting stuff.And theres no way that cohl calls the shots, jaggers the boss.

I don't buy any of the estimates. Fortune magazine hasn't the slightest what they are worth, personally. They are simply guessing. Furthermore, as Evander Holyfield has shown us, it is possible to make 250 000 000 USD in 20 years and now have zero net worth. Based on what I have heard about Woodie's spending ways,I'd be amazed if he is worth 40 000 000 pounds. I'll bet 4 000 000 is closer to the truth.

Also, I defer to those on the board who state that the boys make the same on tour. But I can't for the life of me figure out Why Jagger would make the same as Wood or Watts. He wrote the songs with Keith. He fronts the band. I can't imaging why he wouldn't get paid the lion's share. Are we sure he went to the London School of Economics?

Quote
terry
i reckon the stones hide alot of what they earn,

They certainly do, going by all those press stories of overseas tax-free companies etc.

Although to be fair, theyre hardly alone in that regard.

How come Mick & Keith are worth the most yet lately have the worst shoes of The Stones gang...



ROCKMAN

Quote
glimmertwin81
well if it is the way you say I wonder why they just dont have
way more money?????
where is it
jaggers income would have increased at least 50 million in the past 2 years then
but it has not
so I dont think you are right

taxes:
the stones do not pay taxes
they have an income tax of about 1.25 % cause their companies are located in holland
like ikea
and dont forget the wonderful way of transcription !

The $550 million figure would certainly be subject to taxation, I would think, if its (as youve stated previously) not all the Stones' money.

I'm unaware what they were worth in 2006 - are you? The estimated figure was a £10 million ($20 million) increase for 2007/2008...a year in which he barely worked.

I'm sure 2005 and 2006 showed large increases on the years before.

Why dont they just have way more money? Is that possible? LOL

The Stones bring along 250 or so people. Transportation, rooms, insurance, hall rental. They pay makeup people techs, grips. A truck driver from Truck and Roll was kind enough to take my wife and I back stage before the last Columbus show. It was like a small city. Like Keith once said, HIRING Cole is to take care of all the attacks by air land and sea. Something like that. Cole guarentees them a certain amount of money now it's his JOB to get the money for them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-06-09 03:26 by More Hot Rocks.

Lol rockman, yeah you have a point about there shoes, im a bit concerned about the stones wealth, and mabe we could start a collection for them, i cant have them going short.I start the collection, i throw in a few jagger solo albums for sale, say 50 pence each.If mick reads this im dead lol.

Quote
More Hot Rocks
The Stones bring along 250 or so people. Transportation, rooms, insurance, hall rental. They pay makeup people techs, grips. A truck driver from Truck and Roll was kind enough to take my wife and I back stage before the last Columbus show. It was like a small city.

Not all of those people travel the world with them, though, but youre correct in that it really is a huge operation when they are on the road.

Personally, I wish theyd downscale the whole friggin' thing, but thats another debate.

Yes i heard Jagger Richards were a million a night. But i think that is totally incorrect,they way they like to live on tour so i think they cut a big portion out do to staying at the Four season's etc... and everthing else. I can't believe you Gazza, i would think and put my credence behind your observation on this one. I know Slash and Axl Rose got 100,00 k a night in there hey day.

Taxation works like this: You are taxed beased where you reside. It isn't as simple as corporation in a haven that offers minimal income tax rates. If was that simple, we'd all set up corporations in the Cayamns and pay no tax.

Sure, people open offshore corps. and funnel money through them. But if they are audited they get caught and they are subject to fines and often free room and board at the local hoosegow.

In addition, they would be subject to taxes based on where the money is earned. Lets say they do a show in London. 40 000 people at 100 quid a head. That's 4 million. Then we take off the cost of putting on the show. Then we take off local taxes. Then we take off personal tax based on where the boys reside. Do they make insanely huge amounts of money for strumming a guitar? Yes. Bit it is much less than we think it is.

Quote
Mathijs
Bill Graham's book has some nice chapters on this wheeling and dealing.Mathijs

Bill Graham was part of another generation of promoters - there probably was a reason why he did not get to promote the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle Tour.

Actually, I think that particular tour changed the whole concept of touring for everybody.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-06-09 05:14 by mofur.

Re: Bill Graham

There is a book out there (I think) it's called Rock & Rage. There was a part that discussed the 1981/82 Tour and Bill Wyman mentions that they caught Bill Graham's organization playing games with the ticket counts and turnstyles not activated to keep count of how many people were in attendance. There was an internal audit and found that Bill Graham Presents were not paying according to the terms.

One way to do an audit is to have some of a bands crew use hand number clickers. They used them on one gate and then later compared their count to the turnstyle counts. Remember, this is light years before bar codes, ticketmaster counts, etc.

That is one of the reasons why Bill Graham was not part of the Stones 89.

Again, I think the book was called "Rock & Rage". I read it years back after a music journalist told me about it.

OK - that puts another spin on it - the reason I heard was simply, that Michael Cohl offered the Stones a lot more money than Bill Graham - and that he took the news less than gracefully And would love to read that book

To avoid Income tax earned in the US there are certain rules, off the top of my head I can tell you that income earned in the US is subject to Income tax.....then come all the exceptions. the biggest one, perhaps is that if a non-resident alien spends more than 182 days in the US he is considered to be a resident alien and thus all worldwide income is taxable. It doesn't matter what kind of corporation is set up outside the USA. Assuming that criteia is not met, then the money earned in the US might be taxable with certain limitations....If I remember, I will look it up at work tomorrow.

So Keith has to make sure he spends more than than six months outside the USA ?
LOL, The more things change, the more they stay the same.
They were after all pretty much the first Rock N Roll tax exiles.

These tax rules regarding international issues have changed quite a bit over the last 20 years in the States, and continue to change with off-shore tax avoidance schemes on the rise.

>> Why Jagger would would make the same as Wood or Watts. He wrote the songs with Keith. <<

songwriting royalties are a totally different question. of course Keith and Mick make a lot off those,
but that has nothing to do with what they're paid per performance.

all i know is that in 75 Ronnie wasn't paid as much per performance as the others,
but Bill Graham said the bandmembers each get the same money for performing in 81,
and that's what i've read elsewhere too about how it works, and i see no reason whatsoever
why any of the Stones would get more or less than any other Stone.

but i love these discussions where everybody's just guessing! carry on :E

>> I think when they hooked up with Cohl for the Steel Wheels tour,
they were guaranteed a minimum of about $75 million or something. <<

40 million is the figure i recall ... and who pays for the stages etc?
remember the scene in the Four Flicks documentary where they're looking at the stage
and Mick says (obviously being humourous!) "it's very good of you to buy this for us";
Cohl replies "wait until you get the bill" or something like that ...

in short i honestly don't think many of us know beans about how it all works -
but it can be amusing to speculate, as long as we bear in mind that most of it is only speculation



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-06-09 13:06 by with sssoul.

Quote
BluzDude
To avoid Income tax earned in the US there are certain rules, off the top of my head I can tell you that income earned in the US is subject to Income tax.....then come all the exceptions. the biggest one, perhaps is that if a non-resident alien spends more than 182 days in the US he is considered to be a resident alien and thus all worldwide income is taxable. It doesn't matter what kind of corporation is set up outside the USA. Assuming that criteia is not met, then the money earned in the US might be taxable with certain limitations....If I remember, I will look it up at work tomorrow.

You're on the right track. If the Stones work a certain length of time in any country theyre liable for tax. This has affected several business decisions, including their decision to rehearse in Canada prior to opening each world tour in the US.

bianca is incorrect. its not simply a matter of where you live. When they played the UC in Chicago in spring 1998, they even cut the show slightly short to ensure they were in Canada before midnight as staying one minute over would have seen them cross a threshold resulting in a hefty income tax bill.

Quote
terry
I like to know where glimmertwi81 gets the figure of a million dollers a day from to run the tour, more like half million a week when the tour is up n running.I would say on the biggerbang tour the stones walked away with about 30 million each.And im sure they will only stay in the states on tour for 87 days, then leave, so they dont have to pay tax on there earnings.And reading rolling stones mag a few years back about touring, the first 20 shows they do pay the bills and bring them even, then the rest is profit, i think gazza talks alot of sense about the true cost of a tour, but i reckon the stones hide alot of what they earn, so its hard to find the true figure, but its interesting stuff.And theres no way that cohl calls the shots, jaggers the boss.

well, the u2 vertigo tour has been way cheaper than the abb tour ( way more indoor shows, the stadium stage was cheesy and cheaper too) and even that tour had costs of nearly a million dollar a day - you can read that in the official u2 biography

for sure the abb tour didnt cost a million dollar in march 07 for example - because they havent been on the road then
but when on the road it costs an enormous amount of money
the stages, the hotels, the airplanes, the people, the insurance and so on

mick jaggers assets are today nearly the same like in 1999
if he would make 50 million a tour he would be twice as rich as in 1999
he is not
so ......

the richest musicians arent the ones that tour a lot
david bowie is nearly a billionair, has nearly 10 times more money than mick
I havent seen him a on the road a lot in the past 20 years

|> mick jaggers assets are today nearly the same like in 1999

Says who? And how does a $20 million a year increase this year ( a quiet year workwise) equate to 'nearly the same'? Everything is guesswork anyway and a lot of those rich lists are subject to revisions of old amounts when the people asessing them gain access to new information.



>if he would make 50 million a tour he would be twice as rich as in 1999
he is not
so ......

maybe he spends the occasional bit of money? Maybe he had a divorce which saw a reduction in his assets? Theres no question hes far far richer than he was 10 years ago. The Stones have grossed about $1 BILLION in touring since 2002. Do you seriously believe that the band arent making a shitload from that? Jagger wouldnt get out of bed, let alone go on the road and play 250 concerts in five years if it wasnt financially worth his while.

>the richest musicians arent the ones that tour a lot
david bowie is nearly a billionair, has nearly 10 times more money than mick
I havent seen him a on the road a lot in the past 20 years

Nonsense. Bowie last toured in 2004, only stopping when he had his heart trouble. He toured extensively for years prior to that. In the decade before that he had toured every bit as much as the Stones had, and even more so in the preceding decade compared to the Stones.

Bowie's estimated wealth (per the Sunday Times) is £120 million. Half of Jagger's - not ten times as much. Plus Bowie isnt splitting his band income four ways and his publishing royalties two ways like Mick is.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-06-09 15:19 by Gazza.

THE WISDOM OF GLIMMER IS A SIGHT TO BEHOLD!

BOWIES NOT TOURED IN 20 YEARS AND THE STONES TOUR FOR FREE!

DING BLOOMIN DONG.....

Indeed

$ 1 billion of tour grosses in five years, probably in excess of 30 million albums sold and paying very little tax - but their wealth has hardly changed in a decade?

Cohl must have uncompromising pictures of the Stones with sheep somewhere if theyre signing up for a raw deal like that.

I don't see how you can ever trust those published estimations of wealth anyway.
It's at best educated guesswork, made without detailed or specific knowledge of many "offshore" assetts or holdings.
You might be able to tell what somebody is worth in any given single country...but that's about it.

Quote
Gazza
Personally, I wish theyd downscale the whole friggin' thing, but thats another debate.

Don't expect lower ticket prices though.

JumpingKentFlash

I just hope they don't bump prices even higher for the smaler venues of any "scaled down tour" .
Any higher and it won't be a case of paying up grudgingly for many of us.
We simply won't be able to afford them...period !

Trouble is, unless they and the promotors ae prepare to make less money, the ticket prices will have to bare the load :^(

gazza you are wrong again

from 1997 to 2003 bowie didnt tour at all
except for 6 shows to promote hours and heathen
and on reality tour bowie did not play stadiums
he played small arenas in the us and europe
with low tix prices

and everybody knows since he brought himself to stock market he is a billionaire

and gazza you totally ignore the costs of a tour
the rolling stones need 40 to 50 rooms in luxury hotels when on tour
they have massive stages that have to go around the world
( 4 stages abb )
they need to pay the police to escort them, they need a lot of cars to move to the airports to the hotels to the venues
they have a huge backstage area
they have a lot of people that work for them ( which is the main part of the costs
try to hire 100 people that work for you every day, you will have a big bill gazza)

they have massive insurance costs for themselves and for the roadies and the audience
they use a boing 737 sometimes a 757 or an airbus a 319 to get from venue to venue

have you ever parked your plane on an airport for 2 days gazza?
I dont think so , otherwise you would know how much money that takes

but you were wrong in your first statement here too
its not the stones that hire cohl
it is also not the other way round
for sure without the stones he couldnt go on tour
but its him who gets the money from the local promoters and its him who pays the bills
and not the stones
they dont run any risk here, but they also dont see the 550 million dollar from abb tour

you can be sure that the costs of that tour are near 400 million dollar



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-06-09 16:09 by glimmertwin81.

Quote
Spud
I just hope they don't bump prices even higher for the smaler venues of any "scaled down tour" .
Any higher and it won't be a case of paying up grudgingly for many of us.
We simply won't be able to afford them...period !

Trouble is, unless they and the promotors ae prepare to make less money, the ticket prices will have to bare the load :^(

A smaller tour would probably provide them with a reason to up the prices. Less people will be at the concerts, given the smaller scale. If they're set on making that much money as on ABB, you'll have to pony up quite a lot I should think.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
glimmertwin81
gazza you are wrong again

from 1997 to 2003 bowie didnt tour at all
except for 6 shows to promote hours and heathen
and on reality tour bowie did not play stadiums
he played small arenas in the us and europe
with low tix prices

what have the sizes of the venues and the ticket prices got to do with the fact that he toured regularly?
and since when has 1997-2003 equated to "20 years" ?

Outside Tour 1995 - 68 shows - [en.wikipedia.org]
Outside Tour 1996 - 27 shows - [en.wikipedia.org]
Earthling tour 1997 - 83 shows - [en.wikipedia.org]
Hours' tour 1999 - 8 shows - [en.wikipedia.org]
Mini tour 2000 - 4 shows - [en.wikipedia.org]
heathen Tour 2002 - 36 shows - [en.wikipedia.org]
Reality tour 2003-2004 - 113 shows - [en.wikipedia.org]

thats 339 shows from 1995 until his enforced end to touring in 2004. Not bad for a guy who according to you hasnt toured for 20 years. Roughly the same as the amount of shows the Stones played in that time frame.

Just as well the Stones started charging $300 a ticket in 1999 instead of $65, then. They'd be eating in soup kitchens by now otherwise.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-06-09 17:06 by Gazza.

"for sure without the stones he couldnt go on tour"

Cohl now goes on tour! Solo spot maybe?

Glimmer don't half make you chuckle!