Biggest Grossing Tours Of All Time

[Maoilbheannacht]

I've already presented compelling evidence. You, on the other hand, CANNOT PROVE they're wrong.



...".[/COLOR][/FONT]

Do you really think that an unsourced number posted on a fan link constitutes "compelling evidence"? Do you think that would pass for evidence in any court of law?



Any John Doe can launch a website and type in some numbers. Without siting a source for the numbers, there is nothing credible or factual about them.

If the person that runs this GNR site decides to post tomorrow that MOGGIO is "gay and has sex with bears", are you going to claim that it is compelling evidence that you in fact engage in that sort of activity?

I certainly would not believe that. If you present something as being fact then you need to have a source that shows that is indeed so.

There were 97,014 tickets sold to the U2 concert at the Rose Bowl. How do you we know that is a fact? Billboard Boxscore has the official attendance!

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

I need to correct the averages for A Bigger Bang Tour that I listed before. There were actually only 143 shows on the A Bigger Bang tour:

3. Lets take a look at the averages.

U2 360 TOUR: TOTAL STATS TO DATE

GROSS: $519,599,484
ATTENDANCE: 5,051,275
Average Gross: $6,661,532
Average Attendance: 64,760
Average Ticket Price: $102.87
Shows: 78
Sellouts: 78


ROLLING STONES A BIGGER BANG TOUR STATS

GROSS: $558,255,524
ATTENDANCE: 4,680,000
Average Gross: $3,903,885
Average Attendance: 32,727
Average Ticket Price: $119.29
Shows: 143
Sellouts: 81

Also, here are the figures for the Rolling Stones 40 Licks Tour:

ROLLING STONES 40 LICKS TOUR 2002-2003

GROSS: $311,215,801
ATTENDANCE: 3,556,586
Average Gross: $2,706,224
Average Attendance: 30,927
Average Ticket Price: $87.50
Shows: 115
Sellouts: 109

Notice the decline in the number of sellouts from the Licks tour to A Bigger Bang. This shows the Stones pushed themselves like never before in trying to play to as many people as possible and meet as much demand as possible even if it meant playing to half empty stadiums, on the A BIGGER BANG TOUR.

One perfect example of this is their show in Chicago on the last North American leg:

October 11, 2006
Chicago Illinois
Soldier Field
GROSS: $4,020,721
ATTENDANCE: 33,296
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 1
Average Ticket Price: $120.76
SUPPORT: Elvis Costello

Only 33,296 people in a stadium that can fit over 60,000 people, in the 3rd largest city in the United States. There were no other shows in the Chicago area on that leg and no other nearby shows in Wisconsin, Indiana or other parts of Illinois that would have hampered sales.

They even had Elvis Costello in support.


Number of shows on each Rolling Stones Tour:

A BIGGER BANG TOUR - 143
40 LICKS TOUR - 115
Bridges To Babylon/No Security - 142
Voodoo Lounge - 127
Steel Wheels - 112

The 40 LICKS tour certainly was not significantly low on shows. It actually had a few more than Steel Wheels.

 

[spookyz]

ROLLING STONES 40 LICKS TOUR 2002-2003

GROSS: $311,215,801
ATTENDANCE: 3,556,586
Average Gross: $2,706,224
Average Attendance: 30,927
Average Ticket Price: $87.50
Shows: 115
Sellouts: 109

Where do you have these figures from?
Here's what Billboard reported in their 2003 year end special:

GROSS: $299,520,230
ATTENDANCE: 3,470,945
Average Gross: $2,604,524
Average Attendance: 30,182
Average Ticket Price: $86.29
Shows: 115
Sellouts: 69

 

[U2FanPeter]

yeah on smithstix you can actually punch in the highest number of tickets available for each section and figure out how many tickets are left for each one. last year i noticed they opened up the rest of the sections closer to the date of the concert and most were behind the stage and some were in the corners of the stadium..probably had waited for visibility purposes, so I am assuming they are all open now because tickets were returned sporatically for a lot of sections so I think every section is probably open since tickets were bought in every possible section of the stadium.

yep i just checked and there are 96 GA tickets left. there were around 1500 available after the show was reschduled when people had returned tickets. there were roughly 9-10 thousand tickets returned to this show last year. they've sold back about half that many as of now.

as of two weeks ago with the exception of salt lake there are 24 shows with....

119 sections left with single tickets only.
96 completely sold out sections.
59 sections with multiple tickets left.

ill post results in another week or so to see how well they are selling

This work is appreciated. I'm just wondering how you know they've actually made available every possible seat they could sell beore the stage placement in up.

Also, does 10k returned tickets sound like a lot?

I said because U2 had restricted themselves only to large 360 shows in Stadiums, that there was still demand left for shows in much smaller arena's and theaters.

They've only "restricted" themselves to venues over 35,000. Many of the venues chosen are not the biggest in the area, nor do u2 have any problem with roping off an entire balcony.

Well, they only added 6 shows and they are not going to be 100,000 people at any of those 6 shows:

Nashville 45,000
Winnipeg 45,000
Pittsburgh 55,000
Baltimore 70,000
St. Louis 45,000
Mocton 100,000

TOTAL: 360,000

These shows were not booked in 2010 because there was not room in the schedule. If there had been, they would have sold a minimum of 288,000 tickets at these shows, about 80% by my estimates. The delay because of Bono's injury helps to add about 72,000 tickets for these shows maximum.

Popmart started 6 weeks earlier than original 360 North American dates in 2010. I also think 2-3 shows could have been added without adding "weeks" to that leg. This makes me wonder if they wanted to keep those 7 months off for working on the album.

I simply can't see Bono/McG/Fogul leaving 300,000 tickets on the table.

I would say that is still questionable in terms of revelance and its doubtful that any of it was by design. Again this is a massive production that moves across the country. There are too many things that would take priority or be a forced reality before one could consider such things.

"Last show..." was definitely a selling point this tour in Pittsburgh, Moncton and Cardiff. Possibly Salt Lake being first up in 2010.

Well, why waste time playing Radio City Music Hall or the Beacon Theater if that time could be used playing another show or two at Madison Square Garden?

Maybe because Jagger wanted to try a show with good sound, not worrying about skipping major songs, being less than 30 feet from the crowd.

Having been to multiple shows on the tour, I don't know anyone that got a ticket discount. I certainly did not get a discount, nor did anyone I know. The average ticket price for this tour is over $102 dollars and that is the only thing you need to know as far as prices are concerned.

10,000 tickets were "discounted". IE: they lowered prices to put bums in the worst seats compared to past tours when they sold some of those same seats for more money(inflation adjusted)

Except if the artist doing the tour is U2! The tour is making massive amounts of money for the band and Live Nation is not going to walk away from a tour that is about to be the most successful in history.

Thing is for a tour of this scale, you have to gross $300 million to $400 million just to break even, which means only the Stones and U2 can make a profit from a tour of this scale.

1. The Rolling Stones were not playing in 360 in the worst recession since the 1930s. Think about it.

Wasn't the 2 year tour agreement and possible some venue bookings made well BEFORE the economic crash in late 2008? Bono said they were building the claw 12 months before Barcelona on the Rose Bowl DVD. U2 only had to show up and they would get their guarantee.

I actually wonder how willing LN would be to gamble another $300-400m on any single future tour, Stones or U2 included. Look at what happened with Bono nd his back with insurance or look at how much money AEG lost when MJ kicked it.

By the way, Bill Wyman is not in the Rolling Stones and hasn't been for 20 years!

He quit in 1993 and played on all the hits that sell those tickets and is still a distant possibility for 2012. I'm saying that a group with members are 70 years need some kind of gimmick to hit trou gross totls they've been hitting for the past 15 years.

Notice the decline in the number of sellouts from the Licks tour to A Bigger Bang.

The "sell out" game is a ridiculous argument. Half of the "sold out" 360 shows would have kept selling tickets if there was thousands of people waiting outside the venue box office.

 

[Moggio]

I feel sorry for you because now you don't understand your own quote

I STILL feel sorry for you because you STILL can't read properly.

When you wrote that U2 couldnt fill those various markets you were CLEARLY talking about the CURRENT tour. When you mentioned Michigan, you were talking about their NEXT tour

Come on man, it's not like you made this statement 2 years ago, you made it last fall. I mean you wrote "These are all markets where U2 wouldn't have a hope in hell filling stadiums at the prices they're charging. And that's why they're skipping them on the 360 tour." I didnt see anything in there reading " the only way" when referring to the 360 tour. You were without a doubt referring to their NEXT tour when talking about Michigan/Ohio!

Now you're lying about your lies!!!!!

As far as a rebuttal on your other statements, I have already shown that you are a liar and that you continue to change your stories. I mean youre lying about your own quote that I just posted!!!!

And U2 STILL couldn't fill stadiums in those markets, WITHOUT STRATEGIC SCHEDULING. And if you read that ENTIRE thread on the UK Mix forum (as well as the other threads that discuss the 360 tour) that you quoted from (all several dozen pages worth), you'd see that. Get it? Again, are you REALLY this thick?

And you haven't done SHIT to show ANYONE ANYTHING regarding ANY argument we've been involved in because you're so incredibly ignorant regarding this subject, it's beyond laughable.

Keep tryin', smartass!

 

[Moggio]

The Netherlands was not played by Madonna on her Drowned World Tour! There are only 10 markets, that Madonna played on all four tours from 2001 to 2009.

Here are the European tour dates for the Drowned World Tour:

June 9, 2001 Barcelona Spain Palau Sant Jordi
June 10, 2001
June 13, 2001 Milan Italy Fila Forum
June 14, 2001
June 15, 2001
June 19, 2001 Berlin Germany Max-Schmeling-Halle
June 20, 2001
June 22, 2001
June 23, 2001
June 26, 2001 Paris France Palais Omnisports de Paris-Bercy
June 27, 2001
June 29, 2001
June 30, 2001
July 4, 2001 London United Kingdom Earls Court Exhibition Centre
July 6, 2001
July 7, 2001
July 9, 2001
July 10, 2001
July 12, 2001

No Netherlands at all.

Playing the 10 major markets that she does each tour is called playing it safe. Those are markets that can be counted on, especially when there will be an influx of fans from all the markets she skips or never plays.

But NONE of that really matters because we are comparing all four tours to JUST ONE U2 tour. Just comparing two tours to one, would typically be overkill, but FOUR to ONE! LOL The only way you could stack the odds in Madonna's favor more, would be to compare her ENTIRE touring career to the 360 tour.

The fact is, even if you took Madonna's ENTIRE 30 year gross on the road, it would not be much more than the 360 tour, and would lose out to the Vertigo Tour and 360 tour combined. If she tried to do what U2 do, and play a 360 tour of 110 dates in Stadiums she would get CREAMED by U2.

Remember, when you skip so many markets and only regularly play just 10 markets each tour, it boost the number of people from markets not play flooding into those ten markets to see Madonna.

Its ok to admit you were wrong about Madonna in this respect. Your on much more solid ground with your arguments about the Stones.

You're STILL not getting it. When I say Madonna is a larger draw than U2, I'm talking about NOW. So adding up all of U2 and Madonna's previous tour totals doesn't do shit to detract from what I'm saying. I brought up the repeat markets that she has overplayed for the past ten years because you damn well know that if she hadn't played those ten markets almost every other year (or The Netherlands three times in five years), her Sticky & Sweet tour gross sales of nearly $408 million would've been closer to $500 million. And then if strategic scheduling had been applied to all of the markets, it would've been closer to $600 million - which would've been HIGHER than what has U2 grossed on the 360 tour, considering the amount of shows Madonna usually plays per tour. Also, those ten markets had virtually no strategic scheduling involved. And there is PLENTY of demand for Madonna in other markets. AND YOU KNOW IT.

We already been over this countless times.

MOGGIO

You stated the following:



THEN wbarenno wrote:



MOGGIO writes:



Notice the word NEXT refers to a tour AFTER 360 and not the 360 tour. Understand?

You were FLAT OUT WRONG in your list when it came to Tennessee, Western Pennsylvania, and Manitoba! Just two months after you claimed U2 were not playing stadium shows in these area's BECAUSE they "Could not", U2 added three stadium shows on your list of NO GO AREA'S FOR U2 360!

You already KNEW U2 were not playing certain areas, but despite that said Tennessee, Western Pennsylvania, and Manitoba were NO GO areas for U2 360. Whether U2 plays Michigan or Ohio on the NEXT tour after 360 is irrelevant.

And U2 STILL couldn't fill stadiums in those markets, WITHOUT STRATEGIC SCHEDULING. And if you read that ENTIRE thread on the UK Mix forum (as well as the other threads that discuss the 360 tour) that you quoted from (all several dozen pages worth), you'd see that. YOU were a part of these discussions.

I said because U2 had restricted themselves only to large 360 shows in Stadiums, that there was still demand left for shows in much smaller arena's and theaters.

You then said:



Then I simply asked, if U2 were to add a fall 2011 leg of arena's and theaters

What Arena's would U2 NOT be able to fill in fall 2011?

What theaters would U2 NOT be able to fill in fall 2011?

Its your claim that after July 30, 2011 show, that there would not be demand to see U2 in much smaller arena's. So I'm asking you to tell us which arena's U2 would not be able to play in fall 2011 if they decided to do add an arena leg to the tour. Understand?

It's NOT my claim that after the July 30, 2011, that there would not be demand to see U2 in much smaller arena's. You're putting words in my mouth. I meant that the demand wouldn't be as high as you think, especially since the 360 tour has TENS OF THOUSANDS of tickets left to be sold.

Do you really think that an unsourced number posted on a fan link constitutes "compelling evidence"? Do you think that would pass for evidence in any court of law?

You don't know it's unsourced. At this point in time, that's the best we've got. Again, I've already presented compelling evidence. You, on the other hand, CANNOT PROVE they're wrong. So PROVE IT.

If the person that runs this GNR site decides to post tomorrow that MOGGIO is "gay and has sex with bears", are you going to claim that it is compelling evidence that you in fact engage in that sort of activity?

I think at this point, that would probably be more fun than discussing ANYTHING with you.

 

[CosmoKramer]

I STILL feel sorry for you because you STILL can't read properly.



And U2 STILL couldn't fill stadiums in those markets, WITHOUT STRATEGIC SCHEDULING. And if you read that ENTIRE thread on the UK Mix forum (as well as the other threads that discuss the 360 tour) that you quoted from (all several dozen pages worth), you'd see that. Get it? Again, are you REALLY this thick?

And you haven't done SHIT to show ANYONE ANYTHING regarding ANY argument we've been involved in because you're so incredibly ignorant regarding this subject, it's beyond laughable.

Keep tryin', smartass!

Once again you get proven wrong so you do what you do best, which is lie and change the rules of the game. So you accused Maoil of mid QUOTING you and told him to list the entire POST. So I, provide the entire POST and you get caught in a lie....again

So you now are saying that it's not the POST that matters but the entire THREAD!!!

You keep getting caught in lies and because your dislike for U2 causes you to write foolish things that are proven wrong again and again and you feel you need to lie. You don't need to lie, we get it, you were wrong on most of your initial predictions and most of your more recent predictions. I mean you better hope that U2 doesnt play another Euro leg because then youll look like an even bigger fool. I never once claimed to be an expert on the matter but you need to stop lying and just admit you've been wrong for the most part and that your "formulas" when it comes to U2 are more or less a joke.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Have you ever wondered what the Rolling Stones A Bigger Bang Tour would look like statistically if you only used the stadium figures and excluded the Arena's, music halls and theaters?

Well here you go.

THE ROLLING STONES A BIGGER BANG TOUR STADIUMS ONLY

GROSS: $406,665,964
ATTENDANCE: 3,904,606
Average Gross: $4,569,281
Average Attendance: 43,872
Average Ticket Price: $104.15
Shows: 89
Sellouts: 36


U2 360 TOUR: TOTAL STATS TO DATE ALL STADIUMS

GROSS: $519,599,484
ATTENDANCE: 5,051,275
Average Gross: $6,661,532
Average Attendance: 64,760
Average Ticket Price: $102.87
Shows: 78
Sellouts: 78


How many people here think the Stones could do a 360 stadium tour like U2 is doing?

As MOGGIO always said, playing arena's instead of Stadiums means there is a weakness there when it comes to filling the stadiums. The Rolling Stones NEEDED to play smaller venues to reach the GROSS and ATTENDANCE levels that they got on A Bigger Bang.

U2 because of the THEME of the 360 tour won't be doing any arena's or theaters like the Stones did, so they won't get to add another $50 million, $100 million or $150 million like the Stones did on A Bigger Bang.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

They've only "restricted" themselves to venues over 35,000. Many of the venues chosen are not the biggest in the area, nor do u2 have any problem with roping off an entire balcony.

You don't need to put restricted in qoutes since its fairly obvious that the only shows U2 are doing are in stadiums. There are no arena's, music halls, or theaters scheduled. When your free to play such places, you get to soak up the extra demand that is out there.

35,000 is nearly twice the capacity of most arena's and ten times that of most theaters. I remind you that the current per show average on this tour is 64,000.

Popmart started 6 weeks earlier than original 360 North American dates in 2010. I also think 2-3 shows could have been added without adding "weeks" to that leg. This makes me wonder if they wanted to keep those 7 months off for working on the album.

I simply can't see Bono/McG/Fogul leaving 300,000 tickets on the table.

Let me remind that this is a BUSINESS and the band only wants to play shows that are likely to sellout. At 288,000, none of those shows would be soldout. A year later at 360,000, they would be. Then of course there are the scheduling issues. The band picks the markets and venues first that can fit a schedule and where there is the greatest demand. Once you start with those shows, your overall schedule tightens up and there is less flexibility to get to the more minor markets.

Maybe because Jagger wanted to try a show with good sound, not worrying about skipping major songs, being less than 30 feet from the crowd.

Well, thats a non-business response. Madison Square Garden has good sound, and your not 30 feet from the crowd in an arena show.

10,000 tickets were "discounted". IE: they lowered prices to put bums in the worst seats compared to past tours when they sold some of those same seats for more money(inflation adjusted)

Thats irrelevant because they also had the $250 ticket price level which was an increase to compensate for the lower priced tickets.

Whats important here is average ticket price. U2 has a $102 dollar average ticket price which is essentially equal to the Stones $104 dollar average for STADIUMS on A Bigger Bang.

Wasn't the 2 year tour agreement and possible some venue bookings made well BEFORE the economic crash in late 2008? Bono said they were building the claw 12 months before Barcelona on the Rose Bowl DVD. U2 only had to show up and they would get their guarantee.

I actually wonder how willing LN would be to gamble another $300-400m on any single future tour, Stones or U2 included. Look at what happened with Bono nd his back with insurance or look at how much money AEG lost when MJ kicked it.

The 360 tour is the most successful tour of all time! Thats not a gamble, that is your sure thing, your ace in the hole. Live Nation can't depend on much of the industry, but they can always depend on U2 even in a recession based on the current results!

The tour delay for North America cost several million dollars which is pocket change on a tour that is grossing close to A Billion dollars when merchandise and other sales are included.

The "sell out" game is a ridiculous argument. Half of the "sold out" 360 shows would have kept selling tickets if there was thousands of people waiting outside the venue box office.

Thats NOT the POINT! Were looking at what the artist intended to play to and the Stones came up short often on A Bigger Bang compared to the Licks tour.

U2 succeeded in selling out the tickets they released, while the Stones on a Bigger Bang missed many of their initial targets by thousands.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

I STILL feel sorry for you because you STILL can't read properly.



And U2 STILL couldn't fill stadiums in those markets, WITHOUT STRATEGIC SCHEDULING. And if you read that ENTIRE thread on the UK Mix forum (as well as the other threads that discuss the 360 tour) that you quoted from (all several dozen pages worth), you'd see that. Get it? Again, are you REALLY this thick?

And you haven't done SHIT to show ANYONE ANYTHING regarding ANY argument we've been involved in because you're so incredibly ignorant regarding this subject, it's beyond laughable.

Keep tryin', smartass!

Again, you made that list up knowing that U2 was strategically scheduling this tour as well as knowing the majority of U2's concert dates at that point. You already knew virtually the entire NORTH AMERICAN TOUR from shows played to shows on sale for the second leg, and thats when you made the list of markets that U2 would be UNABLE to fill a stadium in.

You got Nashville and Manitoba wrong. They were on your list which means there shouldn't be any U2 shows in those area's, but there are in fact TWO soldout or nearly soldout shows.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

You're STILL not getting it. When I say Madonna is a larger draw than U2, I'm talking about NOW. So adding up all of U2 and Madonna's previous tour totals doesn't do shit to detract from what I'm saying. I brought up the repeat markets that she has overplayed for the past ten years because you damn well know that if she hadn't played those ten markets almost every other year (or The Netherlands three times in five years), her Sticky & Sweet tour gross sales of nearly $408 million would've been closer to $500 million. And then if strategic scheduling had been applied to all of the markets, it would've been closer to $600 million - which would've been HIGHER than what has U2 grossed on the 360 tour, considering the amount of shows Madonna usually plays per tour. Also, those ten markets had virtually no strategic scheduling involved. And there is PLENTY of demand for Madonna in other markets. AND YOU KNOW IT.

I understand your talking about "NOW". You claim that she is more popular now, but we can't see in the stats for the Sticky and Sweet Tour because she tour 3 times in the 7 years prior to the start of the Sticky and Sweet Tour.

To compensate for that factor, simply add all of those tour dates to the Sticky And Sweet Tour. GROSS comes out to $804 million with 6.3 million in attendance from 248 shows.

That is a MORE than fair comparison since U2 only has their 110 date tour to consider.

As far as Strategically scheduling goes, Madonna is ahead of U2 in that catagory. Not playing the Pacific Northwest or TEXAS for nearly two decades has a far more profound impact than anything U2 has ever done. There are multiple other examples besides just those markets.

She played South America for the first time since 1993!!!! Only the second time in her career. That creates demand that U2 can't take advantage of because they tour the market more regularly.

In fact, when you really look at the whole planet, U2 for the most part has been consistently hitting the same markets and touring consistently every 4 or 5 years for their entire career.

Madonna has not done that. In fact, she took a FULL eight years off from touring from 1993 to 2001. NO SHOWS AT ALL. That drives up demand.



But lets get you on the record here. If Madonna does not tour again until 2013, it will be four years since the end of the Sticky And Sweet Tour and 5 years since that tour began. What will Madonna gross from a 110 date tour that is strategically scheduled?

In this example there should not be any bullshit exceptions for anything.

By the way, Live Nation works just as hard to bring in the largest GROSS possible for Madonna as they do with U2, so you can knock off the Bullshit about Sticky And Sweet not being as strategically scheduled as what U2 have done on 360!

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

gif[/IMG]



It's NOT my claim that after the July 30, 2011, that there would not be demand to see U2 in much smaller arena's. You're putting words in my mouth. I meant that the demand wouldn't be as high as you think, especially since the 360 tour has TENS OF THOUSANDS of tickets left to be sold.

.

I never stated any sort of a figure, I just said that this fall U2 could play arena's and theaters which would add a lot of money to the tour. Thats all. The fact of the matter is, through out the 360 tour, we have not considered this even though it is a factor when assessing U2's full concert drawing power.

Take a look at A BIGGER BANG TOUR without the Arena's, Music Halls and Theaters:

THE ROLLING STONES A BIGGER BANG TOUR STADIUMS ONLY

GROSS: $406,665,964
ATTENDANCE: 3,904,606
Average Gross: $4,569,281
Average Attendance: 43,872
Average Ticket Price: $104.15
Shows: 89
Sellouts: 36


U2 360 TOUR: TOTAL STATS TO DATE ALL STADIUMS

GROSS: $519,599,484
ATTENDANCE: 5,051,275
Average Gross: $6,661,532
Average Attendance: 64,760
Average Ticket Price: $102.87
Shows: 78
Sellouts: 78



Now just think if U2 were to pad their numbers after July 30 with shows in 60 arena's and maybe a few theaters this fall.

 

[U2FanPeter]

What city have the Stones played, post-Wyman, where they couldn't play a stadium and HAD to do an arena?

MAYBE Salt Lake, but even then I think they could fill the stadium with strategic routing and cheap nosebleeds.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

What city have the Stones played, post-Wyman, where they couldn't play a stadium and HAD to do an arena?

MAYBE Salt Lake, but even then I think they could fill the stadium with strategic routing and cheap nosebleeds.

Well, there will certainly always be markets that are typically to small for a stadium show like Idaho.

The No Security part of the Bridges To Babylon tour had 34 arena shows, which was essentially the Stones going back to the markets where they had played stadiums on the tour and finishing the little let over demand with Arena's probably because there was not enough demand to support shows in stadiums by then.

They only played arena's in Australia on the Licks tour and only on arena and one stadium on A Bigger Bang which certainly raises questions. No show in Chile raises questions.

But then again, the Stones did not mind playing Soldier Field to just 33,000 people in 2006, so if the threshhold for playing a stadium is just 30,000 in attendance, then that makes it easy.

No stadiums in Florida or Georgia on A Bigger Bang, although I cannot imagine the Stones not being able to play to at least 40,000 people in the Miami area.

There is Dallas and Houston in 2005, but they came back in 2006 with stadium shows in Austin and El Paso.

But they are all debatable. I lean to them being able to do stadiums in most of these areas, at least with a low attended 30,000 show.

Then again, maybe its a strategy of underplaying some of the markets to make them stadium worthy by the next tour.

There were only two shows that were really shocking on a A Bigger Bang in the United States:

November 22, 2005
Salt Lake City Utah
Delta Center
GROSS: $1,854,465
ATTENDANCE: 13,897
CAPACITY: 14,731
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 0
Average Ticket Price: $133.44

November 24, 2005
Denver Colorado
Pepsi Center
GROSS: $2,707,590
ATTENDANCE: 15,091
CAPACITY: 15,385
SHOWS: 1
SELLOUTS: 0
Average Ticket Price: $179.42

Not being able to sell out an arena in a 270 configeration is not a good sign.


But my point has been not that the Stones are unable to play stadiums in certain area's but that they needed the arena shows to help pad their GROSS and ATTENDANCE on a Bigger Bang.

There is certainly demand left for U2 to play Arena's this fall, but thats not going to happen since it does not fit the theme of the tour.

Allowing yourself to play smaller venues helps in adding gross and attendance to the total figures.



Finally, U2's average attendance on this tour has been 64,760. The Stones average on A Bigger Bang was 43,872. There were only 6 shows on the Rolling Stones A Bigger Bang Tour where they were able to reach or exceed 64,760 in attendance.

 

[U2FanPeter]

Not being able to sell out an arena in a 270 configeration is not a good sign.

But my point has been not that the Stones are unable to play stadiums in certain area's but that they needed the arena shows to help pad their GROSS and ATTENDANCE on a Bigger Bang.

Weren't U2 2k short in an arena in 2001 and a decade later they will officially sell out a St. Louis Stadium in the same city? There's a couple other US arena shows from 2001 or 2005 that were a couple thou short, but I can't remember any are played on the 360 tour.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Weren't U2 2k short in an arena in 2001 and a decade later they will officially sell out a St. Louis Stadium in the same city? There's a couple other US arena shows from 2001 or 2005 that were a couple thou short, but I can't remember any are played on the 360 tour.

I don't remember exactly, but in any event U2 are more popular now than they were in 2001. Their average attendance per show has been rising since 2001.

The Rolling Stones average attendance per show has been consistently declining or stagnating since 1989

Average Attendance On Rolling Stones Tours:

Steel Wheels: 56,000
Voodoo Lounge: 51,103
Bridges To Babylon/No Security: 40,115
Licks Tour: 30,927
A Bigger Bang Tour: 32,727


By contrast, U2's average attendance has been on the rise and now they have the highest average attendance of any tour in history at 64,760 !

While it is true that a big reason for the decline in average attendance for the Stones are the increasing ticket prices, U2's ticket prices have also been increasing as well and instead of negatively impacting average attendance, average attendance for U2 has continued to rise.

 

[robbrecon72]

260,000 for Sao Paulo! give or take some because it's an article of course..

Google Translate


and roughly 60,000 for la plata 2. 58,000 reported for la plata 1 and 80,000 for santiago.

we are looking at roughly 518,000 for south america in only 7 shows!

 

[Moggio]

Once again you get proven wrong so you do what you do best, which is lie and change the rules of the game. So you accused Maoil of mid QUOTING you and told him to list the entire POST. So I, provide the entire POST and you get caught in a lie....again

So you now are saying that it's not the POST that matters but the entire THREAD!!!

You keep getting caught in lies and because your dislike for U2 causes you to write foolish things that are proven wrong again and again and you feel you need to lie. You don't need to lie, we get it, you were wrong on most of your initial predictions and most of your more recent predictions.

You can't be serious. Let's go over this AGAIN: you cherry-picked a quote of mine from a thread on the UK Mix forum, where we were ALREADY discussing the 360 tour and strategic scheduling for MONTHS. But this particular quote of mine was slightly off topic. And yet you try to claim I'm lying about something that I was ALREADY discussing for MONTHS? GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK.

I mean you better hope that U2 doesnt play another Euro leg because then youll look like an even bigger fool.

How so? My initial tour predictions weren't based on more than 90-100 shows.

I never once claimed to be an expert on the matter but you need to stop lying and just admit you've been wrong for the most part and that your "formulas" when it comes to U2 are more or less a joke.

You're simply delusional if you believe that.

You see, that's why I love it here. It's comprised of mostly bias U2 fans trying to cut down the truth whenever ANYONE shows U2 aren't as popular as they think they are.

Comedy gold, I tell ya...comedy gold!

 

[Moggio]

Again, you made that list up knowing that U2 was strategically scheduling this tour as well as knowing the majority of U2's concert dates at that point. You already knew virtually the entire NORTH AMERICAN TOUR from shows played to shows on sale for the second leg, and thats when you made the list of markets that U2 would be UNABLE to fill a stadium in.

No, not at all. The list was made before the entire second North American leg schedule was announced. Only part of it was announced at that point. YOU KNOW THAT.

You got Nashville and Manitoba wrong. They were on your list which means there shouldn't be any U2 shows in those area's, but there are in fact TWO soldout or nearly soldout shows.

No, I only got the Winnipeg show wrong. Secondly, the Nashville show is heavily strategically scheduled because there are no shows in nearby Georgia, Kentucky, Alabama or even the Carolinas. YOU KNOW THAT.

 

[Moggio]

I understand your talking about "NOW". You claim that she is more popular now, but we can't see in the stats for the Sticky and Sweet Tour because she tour 3 times in the 7 years prior to the start of the Sticky and Sweet Tour.

Yes, YOU AND I both can see in the stats because I just laid it out for you. You're full of it, as usual.

To compensate for that factor, simply add all of those tour dates to the Sticky And Sweet Tour. GROSS comes out to $804 million with 6.3 million in attendance from 248 shows.

That is a MORE than fair comparison since U2 only has their 110 date tour to consider.

No, it's not. And for reasons already stated.

As far as Strategically scheduling goes, Madonna is ahead of U2 in that catagory. Not playing the Pacific Northwest or TEXAS for nearly two decades has a far more profound impact than anything U2 has ever done. There are multiple other examples besides just those markets.

Almost every single date on the 360 tour is strategically scheduled. And while Madonna has used it, she hasn't utilized it ANYWHERE NEAR as much as U2 has. YOU KNOW THAT.

She played South America for the first time since 1993!!!! Only the second time in her career. That creates demand that U2 can't take advantage of because they tour the market more regularly.

That's not necessarily true. And U2 have only toured South America THREE times.

We've been over this countless times.

In fact, when you really look at the whole planet, U2 for the most part has been consistently hitting the same markets and touring consistently every 4 or 5 years for their entire career.

Madonna has not done that. In fact, she took a FULL eight years off from touring from 1993 to 2001. NO SHOWS AT ALL. That drives up demand.

And U2 took 13 years to return to Perth, 13 years to return to South Africa, 8 years to return to South America after their first visit, etc., etc., etc., where demand was driven up.

Your point?

But lets get you on the record here. If Madonna does not tour again until 2013, it will be four years since the end of the Sticky And Sweet Tour and 5 years since that tour began. What will Madonna gross from a 110 date tour that is strategically scheduled?

In this example there should not be any bullshit exceptions for anything.

Once a schedule is announced, I'll be glad to give you that projected figure. And there hasn't been ANY "bullshit exceptions for anything" on my part.

By the way, Live Nation works just as hard to bring in the largest GROSS possible for Madonna as they do with U2, so you can knock off the Bullshit about Sticky And Sweet not being as strategically scheduled as what U2 have done on 360!

Once AGAIN, almost every single date on the 360 tour is strategically scheduled. And while Madonna has used it, she hasn't utilized it ANYWHERE NEAR as much as U2 has. YOU KNOW THAT.

As MOGGIO always said, playing arena's instead of Stadiums means there is a weakness there when it comes to filling the stadiums.

I didn't say that as a general comment. However, it can be true depending on the factors.

The Rolling Stones NEEDED to play smaller venues to reach the GROSS and ATTENDANCE levels that they got on A Bigger Bang.

That's only partly true.

 

[Moggio]

Weren't U2 2k short in an arena in 2001 and a decade later they will officially sell out a St. Louis Stadium in the same city? There's a couple other US arena shows from 2001 or 2005 that were a couple thou short, but I can't remember any are played on the 360 tour.

Here's many, if not all of the arena shows on the Elevation tour that U2 failed to sell out:

Portland April 15, 2001 Rose Garden GROSS: $1,276,120 ATTENDANCE: 16,653
Cleveland May 3, 2001 Gund Arena GROSS: $1,492,460 ATTENDANCE: 18,763
Lexington May 4, 2001 Rupp Arena GROSS: $1,143,878 ATTENDANCE: 16,642
Pittsburgh May 6, 2001 Mellon Arena GROSS: $1,225,160 ATTENDANCE: 14,863
Columbus May 7, 2001 Nationwide Arena GROSS: $1,284,930 ATTENDANCE: 15,495
Sacramento November 20, 2001 Arco Arena GROSS: $1,139,145 ATTENDANCE: 13,789
Kansas City November 27, 2001 Kemper Arena GROSS: $1,106,456 ATTENDANCE: 13,456
St. Louis November 28, 2001 Savvis Center GROSS: $1,269,365 ATTENDANCE: 16,051


This year on the 360 tour, apart from the Nashville show, which has already been discussed to death, the Pittsburgh show will only be full because there's no shows in Ohio. And the St. Louis show will only be full because there's no shows in Kansas, Iowa or Nebraska, etc.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

No, not at all. The list was made before the entire second North American leg schedule was announced. Only part of it was announced at that point. YOU KNOW THAT.



:

MOGGIO,

look at the date that you posted the following list of places where U2 could NOT fill a stadium:

September 22, 2010

Well, for starters, in North America:

~ Oregon
~ New Mexico
~ Louisiana
~ Alabama
~ South Carolina
~ Missouri
~ Kansas
~ Nebraska
~ Iowa
~ Wisconsin
~ Indiana
~ Ohio
~ Western Pennsylvania
~ Upstate New York
~ Kentucky
~ Tennessee
~ Manitoba

These are all markets where U2 wouldn't have a hope in hell filling stadiums at the prices they're charging. And that's why they're skipping them on the 360 tour.

At that point in time, U2 had already sold most of the tickets available for the following shows on the 2nd LEG:

Denver
Salt Lake City
Edmonton
Seattle
Oakland
Anaheim
Anaheim
East Lansing
Miami
Chicago
Montreal
Montreal
Toronto
Philadelphia
East Rutherford
Minneapolis

All of these shows went on sale in late 2009. Your list was posted September 22, 2010 ALMOST A YEAR after tickets for this leg went on sale.

So that list was made with the perfect knowledge of what U2 had done on the majority of the tour so far. Only 6 more shows would be added after you posted your list of places where U2 could not play a stadium show.

The only shows we did not know would happen at that time were
Pittsburgh
Nashville
Moncton
Winnipeg
St. Louis
Baltimore

As it turns out, you got FOUR WRONG. You stated U2 would not be able to play stadiums in Missouri, Western Pennsylvania, Manitoba, and Tennessee!

Secondly, the Nashville show is heavily strategically scheduled because there are no shows in nearby Georgia, Kentucky, Alabama or even the Carolinas. YOU KNOW THAT. oh

Your list already states that U2 could not play a show in South Carolina, Alabama or Kentucky as well as Tennessee. It does not matter that U2 did not schedule a show on the 2nd leg in Kentucky, Alabama or South Carolina because the list already states that a show in Tennessee, along with those areas, is NOT POSSIBLE!

Its the same with Pittsburgh as well. It does not matter that U2 did not put a show in Ohio, because you said WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO are places where U2 do not have a hope in hell of putting on a stadium show!

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Here's many, if not all of the arena shows on the Elevation tour that U2 failed to sell out:

Portland April 15, 2001 Rose Garden GROSS: $1,276,120 ATTENDANCE: 16,653
Cleveland May 3, 2001 Gund Arena GROSS: $1,492,460 ATTENDANCE: 18,763
Lexington May 4, 2001 Rupp Arena GROSS: $1,143,878 ATTENDANCE: 16,642
Pittsburgh May 6, 2001 Mellon Arena GROSS: $1,225,160 ATTENDANCE: 14,863
Columbus May 7, 2001 Nationwide Arena GROSS: $1,284,930 ATTENDANCE: 15,495
Sacramento November 20, 2001 Arco Arena GROSS: $1,139,145 ATTENDANCE: 13,789
Kansas City November 27, 2001 Kemper Arena GROSS: $1,106,456 ATTENDANCE: 13,456
St. Louis November 28, 2001 Savvis Center GROSS: $1,269,365 ATTENDANCE: 16,051


This year on the 360 tour, apart from the Nashville show, which has already been discussed to death, the Pittsburgh show will only be full because there's no shows in Ohio. And the St. Louis show will only be full because there's no shows in Kansas, Iowa or Nebraska, etc.

But your list of no go area's for a U2 stadium show included the following:

~ Oregon
~ New Mexico
~ Louisiana
~ Alabama
~ South Carolina
~ Missouri
~ Kansas
~ Nebraska
~ Iowa
~ Wisconsin
~ Indiana
~ Ohio
~ Western Pennsylvania
~ Upstate New York
~ Kentucky
~ Tennessee
~ Manitoba

You said there could be no shows in either Western Pennsylvania OR Ohio! All of the places on the list are no go areas, no exceptions.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

No, it's not. And for reasons already stated.



Almost every single date on the 360 tour is strategically scheduled. And while Madonna has used it, she hasn't utilized it ANYWHERE NEAR as much as U2 has. YOU KNOW THAT.


.[/COLOR][/FONT]

If you think that Sticky And Sweet is weakened by tours in years prior to its start, the more than fair way to compensate is to simply add the GROSS from those shows to the Sticky and Sweet tour. IF ANYTHING THAT OVERSTATES MADONNA'S DRAWING POWER! Yes, its logical to conclude that Sticky And Sweet may have been slightly weakened by Confessions in 2006 or the earlier tours in 2001 and 2004 but adding all of the GROSS from those tours to Sticky and Sweet more than makes up for that.

Lets say the confessions tour had not happened in 2006 and Madonna tried to launch her own 360 stadium tour in 2008, strategically scheduled with essentially the same dates as U2's tour. Do you really think she would GROSS over $700 million dollars?

Remember, no confessions tour. This tour would have started FOUR YEARS after the 2004 tour. Same difference as U2 VERTIGO and U2 360.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

[/COLOR][/FONT][/B]

Once a schedule is announced, I'll be glad to give you that projected figure.



.[/COLOR][/FONT]

I just gave you the schedule, Madonna in 2013, 110 shows, strategically schedule to produce the maximum gross possible in 110 dates.

You've already told us what a band thats been gone since 1994 could do in the future, tell us what you think Madonna could do on 110 dates starting in 2013. Should be a lot easier to estimate Madonna since you have information that is a lot more current. Let us know what the total gross and attendance would be.

Were waiting.

 

[CosmoKramer]

No, not at all. The list was made before the entire second North American leg schedule was announced. Only part of it was announced at that point. YOU KNOW THAT.

Another lie! The only part of the NA schedule that wasn't announced were 8 dates of which 4 of those dates were on your "no chance in hell" list.

 

[robbrecon72]

180,000 to 185,000 attendance from the 3 La Plata shows! much higher than that first article I found that stated 120,000.

Google Translate

Google Translate

Google Translate


by judging videos and photos each night were completely packed! I also noticed each show pretty much sold out at the last minute too. in my opinion they could have sold out 2 more stadiums in Brazil too.

they could end up having an average attendance of over 70,000 for the south american leg.

 

[Moggio]

Either Maoil and CosmoKramer are desperately trying to spin the shit out of the facts here or they're completely retarded. Which is it? Because almost everything they've said does nothing to detract from my previous responses.

Here, I'll post it them again:

1. You two cherry-picked a quote of mine from a thread on the UK Mix forum, where we were ALREADY discussing the 360 tour and STRATEGIC SCHEDULING for MONTHS. But this particular quote of mine was slightly off topic. And yet you try to claim I'm lying about something that I was ALREADY discussing for MONTHS? GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK.

Which directly relates to...

2. The list was made before the entire second North American leg schedule was announced. Only part of it was announced at that point (AND THIS LIST DID NOT APPLY TO MARKETS THAT WERE GOING TO BE AND/OR ARE STRATEGICALLY SCHEDULED). YOU KNOW THAT.


The ONLY thing I was wrong about here was the Winnipeg show.

Holy shit, you guys are hilarious!

 

[Moggio]

If you think that Sticky And Sweet is weakened by tours in years prior to its start...

I don't think it was, it was. AND YOU KNOW IT.

...the more than fair way to compensate is to simply add the GROSS from those shows to the Sticky and Sweet tour. IF ANYTHING THAT OVERSTATES MADONNA'S DRAWING POWER! Yes, its logical to conclude that Sticky And Sweet may have been slightly weakened by Confessions in 2006 or the earlier tours in 2001 and 2004 but adding all of the GROSS from those tours to Sticky and Sweet more than makes up for that.

Slightly weakened? Those eleven markets would've added nearly $100 million to her Sticky & Sweet tour total, which is not even including strategically scheduling them (or very little at most). So, that's HARDLY considered "slightly."

And no, adding Madonna's previous tour totals does not make for a fair comparison. And the fact you think that is astonishing, since I'm talking about Madonna's CURRENT draw, not combined tour totals or the comparison of them, which is another topic.

Lets say the confessions tour had not happened in 2006 and Madonna tried to launch her own 360 stadium tour in 2008, strategically scheduled with essentially the same dates as U2's tour. Do you really think she would GROSS over $700 million dollars?

Remember, no confessions tour. This tour would have started FOUR YEARS after the 2004 tour. Same difference as U2 VERTIGO and U2 360.

It depends on too many factors to consider. I'd need a concrete schedule.

I just gave you the schedule, Madonna in 2013, 110 shows, strategically schedule to produce the maximum gross possible in 110 dates.

That's not really a schedule, it's a summary.

You've already told us what a band thats been gone since 1994 could do in the future, tell us what you think Madonna could do on 110 dates starting in 2013. Should be a lot easier to estimate Madonna since you have information that is a lot more current. Let us know what the total gross and attendance would be.

Were waiting.

If you're referring to Pink Floyd, then yes, they along with Madonna, The Stones, Led Zeppelin and The Beatles are also larger draws than U2.

 

[spookyz]

Aren't we talking about facts and current statistics? That's what you've been stating concerning Madonna. And now you come up with three long ago dead bands that are supposed to be bigger draws than U2?!?