DarkAcrobat
The Fly
mamoggio, you write in a blue and ugly font, you write absurd predictions, you disqualify any positive comment, you seems to hate u2 nowadays, what are you doing here then ?, what you want to show ? How retard a troll can be ?
U2 360 TOUR: Sellouts, Attendance, other statistics
- Thread starter hedge
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
I would say The Eagles are also up there at least the size of U2 AC/DC id argue is a bigger world wide seller of albums then U2 and are comparable in touring although their ticket prices are lower, Queen id also say is a huge band. Metallica probably around the same area as U2 as far as overall history. Other bands that could be considered to be as popular although they didnt last as long would be The Police, Guns and Roses, The Who, Dire Straits. Right now id probably agree with you that U2 are the biggest band out there but that was not always the case, and as I have said music is severly watered down right now.
I would say this would be my current list:
1. The Beatles
2. Rolling Stones
3. Led Zeppelin
4. Pink Floyd
5. AC/DC
6. The Eagles
7. Queen
8. U2
9. Metallica
10. Guns and Roses
This obviously doesnt include solo artists either or U2 would be further down the list then that. This is not a slight against them. They are popular and have been for over 25 years. But I would say their are far too many people that hate U2 and specifically Bono for them to ever make the top 4. They are a well loved band yes but they are also a hated band as well. If you go to any movie theatre right now that is playing the Blackberry ad there is undoubedly people there that talk about how much they hate Bono/U2.
If I was to include solo artists on the list U2 would probably be in the top 15 but no higher then that. U2 were considered to be the Alternative band in the 80s and even in the 90s, it wasnt till this decade that they started to be considered Pop/Adult Alternative.
U2 have made a great career for themselves but I wouldnt call them untouchable.
Could U2 have sold out 50 shows in 2 hours at the O2 arena like Michael Jackson did, I doubt it.
Beatles
Michael Jackson
Elvis
Those are the top 3 artists in music history and I dont see them being beat.
I would say this would be my current list:
1. The Beatles
2. Rolling Stones
3. Led Zeppelin
4. Pink Floyd
5. AC/DC
6. The Eagles
7. Queen
8. U2
9. Metallica
10. Guns and Roses
This obviously doesnt include solo artists either or U2 would be further down the list then that. This is not a slight against them. They are popular and have been for over 25 years. But I would say their are far too many people that hate U2 and specifically Bono for them to ever make the top 4. They are a well loved band yes but they are also a hated band as well. If you go to any movie theatre right now that is playing the Blackberry ad there is undoubedly people there that talk about how much they hate Bono/U2.
If I was to include solo artists on the list U2 would probably be in the top 15 but no higher then that. U2 were considered to be the Alternative band in the 80s and even in the 90s, it wasnt till this decade that they started to be considered Pop/Adult Alternative.
U2 have made a great career for themselves but I wouldnt call them untouchable.
Could U2 have sold out 50 shows in 2 hours at the O2 arena like Michael Jackson did, I doubt it.
Beatles
Michael Jackson
Elvis
Those are the top 3 artists in music history and I dont see them being beat.
fedeu2
War Child
From your list (regardless of U2´s position which I don´t agree) I would take out The Eagles and Guns n` roses and replace them by Bruce Springsteen and the E street band and Black Sabbath. I am aware both of them sold less records than Eagles and Guns n´roses but hey it´s not only a matter of albums. Otherwise, we should place ABBA right there at the top below The Beatles. Didn´t Genesys sold an awful lot quantity of records too?
As for U2 being unable to sold out all those shows that Jacko did, I don´t know, maybe you´re right. We should have them split or go inactive for a decade and then reunite and see what would happen
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
Actually its not that simple. Lets consider a few key facts.
1. Vertigo Tour Europe had 32 shows total, POPMART had 31 shows, while just the first leg of U2 360 Europe has 24 shows. So even if your only going to compare just the European 1st leg to the entire Vertigo tour, your only looking at 25% less shows.
2. Next consider that the average attendance for each of those 24 shows is larger than the average attendance for each of the Vertigo shows do to the brand new stage design that allows full 360 seating in the venue. Its the first time any tour has done this in stadiums. Average attendance for Vertigo Europe was about 62,000 per show. Average attendance for U2 360 Europe after the first 6 shows is over 87,000 per show! So while the number of shows is 25% less, attendance per show is 40% higher.
3. The total Gross of Vertigo Europe was $155 million from 32 shows. The first 6 shows of the 1st leg of U2 360 Europe have already grossed 36% of that total figure.
4. What you fail to mention is that the current structure in terms of scheduling the tour is not something new. U2 did multiple legs of Europe back on ZOO TV, and have always done multiple legs of North America. The latest tours by the Rolling Stones and Madonna each did multiple legs of Europe, spaced out with other places visited in between those legs. Markets not visited on the 1st legs of the Rolling Stones and Madonna's previous tours were visited on the 2nd leg. So really, there is NO need to mention it.
Your alleged claim for top concert draw in the world, Madonna, tours exactly the same way, as do the Rolling Stones and many other artist.
Each stadium show has seats that are not used because there are certain parts of the production that do block seats out. The number of seat kills you have in any particular stadium will vary because of the differences in size and shape of the structure. In addition, there are different laws in each venue governing the number of people that are actually allowed to be in the whole venue, as well as certain area's within the venue that impact what the maximum capacity for the show can be. Since these variables in each case are unknown, no one can say whether the maximum technical capacity was used or whether a reduced capacity was used. What is known is that Paris 1&2 soldout within hours of going on sale. Milan 1 soldout with hours as did Barcelona 1. Milan 2 was soldout after one week. Barcelona 2 soldout 48 hours before show time.
Regardless, U2 have set the attendance and gross records for all 3 venues with these performances and will likely be setting records in almost every venue the tour visits through 2010!
You are joking arnt you?
Its laughable that i can see AC/DC & The Eagles above U2 in your list!
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
What a Idiot! all these shows were completely sold out! the attendence is not going to be exactly 90,000 or whatever because cetain seats are not useable because of the stage set up and local laws stating the Max number of people allowed in the stadium.
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
Actually, current projected cost for the 18 month 100 date tour are only $150 million to $200 million based on figures reported by the Irish Times. But the tour is projected to gross $600 million to $750 million!
Starting with POPMART, the band has walked away with more than half the gross total after cost are taken out.
[QUOTEStill it doesnt seem to be helping Horizon sales on a global scale.][/QUOTE]
Best Selling Albums in 2009 WORLDWIDE as of WEEK 28
1. U2 No Line On The Horizon 3,043,000
2. Lady Gaga The Fame 2,703,000
3. Eminem Relapse 2,182,000
4. Kings Of Leon Only By The Night 2,015,000
5. Taylor Swift Fearless 1,972,000
6. Beyoncé I Am... Sasha Fierce 1,946,000
7. Soundtrack Twilight 1,850,000
8. Soundtrack Hannah Montana: The Movie 1,808,000
9. Green Day 21st Century Breakdown 1,696,000
10. Pink Funhouse 1,577,000
U2 have the biggest selling album around the world so far in 2009, just like they did back in 1987 with the Joshua Tree.
They would be in the top 5 easily, but more importanly, they are still going and setting brand new records currently!
The last time they were the biggest little cult band was back in 1985 during the Unforgettable Fire Tour. They have consistently overall been the biggest band worldwide since the summer of 1987. Not always the top album or concert ticket seller, but still having the best average of both when it comes to the latest album and tour sales.
phommel
Refugee
Well, the 50 shows of MJ are 1 million tickets.
If U2 would have started selling their concert tickets all at teh same day, they would definitely sell many more than 1 million tickets..
But you cannot compare this. MJ hadn't been touring since 1998?
And imagine Bono announcing a U2 This is it Tour....how many tickets would they sell?
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
Maybe in the United States, but not worldwide. The Eagles popularity is at a lower level when you leave the United States.
AC/DC for most of their career have stuck to arena's, while U2 has been a stadium band since 1987. None of AC/DC's tours are in the top 20 tours of all time in terms of gross, but the Black Ice tour will make it in to that group and will be AC/DC's first to rank so high. But the results of the tour will seem small compared to U2 360.
AC/DC is currently unable to sellout a single stadium show in the United States. They have lowered the ticket prices in Boston and New York City, but are still unable to sellout.
They have been a bigger catalog album seller, but they have never achieved the level of popularity that U2 has experienced in any single year with a new album. They are also not really on U2's level when it comes to touring.
Not really at all. U2 have stronger album sales worldwide, and when it comes to touring, there is no contest. In fact, Coldplay are a better match for Metallica right now when it comes to touring. Metallica have never done a stadium tour independent of having multiple popular opening acts in the United States.
The more popular you are, the more that certain segments of the population dislike you. So thats actually evidence to support them being near the top of the list.
Since 1987, U2 have always been considered to be rock, alternative, pop, mainstream, and everything in between.
Only the Beatles are untouchable.
I believe they added shows after the first day of sale. Michael Jackson was going to play the O2 arena in LONDON to a reduced capacity of roughly 15,000 people per night, no behind the stage seating was to be used. The average ticket price was less than what U2 is currently charging in stadiums.
But more importantly, Michael Jackson announced these shows as being the last ones he would perform. If U2, The Rolling Stones, or Madonna announced that 50 arena shows in one of the largest cities in the world would be their last shows ever, I think they would sellout to, especially at those ticket prices.
Also consider the fact that Michael Jackson had not toured anywhere in 12 years, and had not played any shows in North America since 1988. That, and announcing that these were the last shows he would perform certainly drives up demand.
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
Actually it was the summer of 1997 for area's outside North America. He had not actually toured North America since 1988! His 1988 North American tour was officially the only solo tour of North America he ever did, although the Jacksons Victory tour 1984 was really more of a Michael Jackson solo tour for Thriller.
phommel
Refugee
This means that about 1/3 of the costs of this years Tour has already be earned back.....
mikeuk
War Child
I read recently that they had sold 94% of all the tickets that had been put on sale so far Mike
DontExpect
Acrobat
All very true.
However.
Michael Jackson could probably sell out 100,000 venues (if they existed) in Cambodia, Khazakstan, Namibia, Uraguay...his music/dance/name is known around the world in places that U2 simply isnt.
Not a knock on U2 by any means, but I've spent the past year teaching English throughout South Africa, Lesotho, and Swaziland, and the moonwalk and Billie Jean draw reactions from 5 year olds. Meanwhile, Vertigo, With or Without You, and Bono don't.
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
Thats correct, which makes Moggio's predictions seem even more off the mark.
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
Not a knock on U2 by any means, but I've spent the past year teaching English throughout South Africa, Lesotho, and Swaziland, and the moonwalk and Billie Jean draw reactions from 5 year olds. Meanwhile, Vertigo, With or Without You, and Bono don't.
Think Again:
U2 POPMART TOUR:
March 16, 1998
Cape Town, South Africa
Green Point Stadium
GROSS: $1,339,233
ATTENDANCE: 30,362
March 21, 1998
Johannesburg, South Africa
Athletic Park
GROSS: $2,467,843
ATTENDANCE: 64,320
The Johannesburg show was the 9th highest attended show of the entire 93 show POPMART tour! U2 actually has a large number of fans in South Africa.
U2 is known around the world as well and has successfully soldout stadium shows in Africa, Asia, and South America. Michael Jackson on the other hand has avoided playing in the biggest market on the planet since 1988, the United States.
No, please. There is no way that The Eagles should be ahead of U2. While those acts are big in USA (slightly better album sellers), the key thing here is the Irish group outsold in most markets we can know about, including UK, Japan, Germany, Italy.
U2 also beat AC/DC in plenty of markets of the world and have overall better sales in both albums and singles. Add that to the fact that they are larger draw and I think that there is no possible discussion.
My list (although mainly based on records sales):
1) The Beatles
2) The Rolling Stones
3) Queen
4) U2
5) Pink Floyd
6) Bee Gees
7) Led Zeppelin
8) Abba
9) AC/DC
10) The Eagles
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
That is an interesting question.
The Rolling Stones "A Bigger Bang Tour" played to 4,680,000 people around the world with 143 shows from August 2005 to August 2007 and grossed $558,255,524. The average ticket price was almost $120. The inflation adjusted ticket price in 2010 would be about $140 which if the Stones were able to attract the same amount of people would bring in a gross of $655 million. But $655 million could be nearly $100 million dollars below the highest projections for what U2 360 may do.
The Rolling Stones "A Bigger Bang Tour" played all around the world, but a large number of concerts failed to sellout. The last 30 shows of the tour in Europe in 2007 were in stadiums and average attendance per show was only 35,218. Essentially, most shows were only half full. This shows that the Stones completely exhausted all demand to see them at the time, on this tour.
Increasing the average ticket price beyond inflation on the next tour, would likely lead to a decrease in overall attendance given that the Stones exhausted demand at that price level on the last tour. Decreasing the price of tickets would likely increase attendance, but then your not making as much money per ticket.
This is why it will be difficult for the Stones to top U2 in concert gross on the next tour. The Stones will probably have to think of a way to take advantage of the more inelastic demand among their fanbase in order to increase their gross. The more inelastic demand is among a certain group, the less effected by increases in price that group will be. But the Rolling Stones already did this to some degree on the last tour playing reduced capacity arena shows to 15,000 people but with an average ticket price of over $200 dollars. The most glarring example though was playing Radio City Music Hall, capacity 6,500, but charging $1,000 dollars per ticket! Those 6,500 fans spent nearly as much money on the Stones as did the 59,000 people who saw their first show at Giants Stadium! Those 6,500 fans are indeed apart of the inelastic club in the Stones fanbase.
So it is a big question. For the Stones next tour to gross what "A Bigger Bang" did as ratio to what Vertigo did, the Stones would likely have to gross $1 Billion dollars on the next tour. Another option would be for the Stones to announce the next tour as their final tour. By announcing it as the final tour, that would a massive amount of demand that could put them over the top. But you only get to use that marketing tool effectively once and since the Stones may keep playing well into their 70s, they may not want to roll out that tool just yet.
Some Rolling Stones figures from the "A Bigger Bang Tour Aug 2005-Aug 2007":
(inside USA/Canada)
GROSS: $292,574,732
ATTENDANCE: 2,142,903
Shows: 79
Average Gross: $3,703,478
Average Attendance: 27,125
Average Ticket Price: $136.53
(outside USA/Canada)
GROSS: $265,680,792
ATTENDANCE: 2,537,097
Shows: 64
Average Gross: $4,151,262
Average Attendance: 39,642
Average Ticket Price: $104.72
Europe 1st leg 2006 + 2nd leg 2007
GROSS: $213,070,760
ATTENDANCE: 1,965,779
Shows: 49
Average Gross: $4,348,383
Average Attendance: 40,118
Average Ticket Price: $108.39
Europe 1st leg 2006 ONLY
GROSS: $95,797,952
ATTENDANCE: 909,229
Shows: 19
Average Gross: $5,041,998
Average Attendance: 47,854
Average Ticket Price: $105.36
Europe 2nd leg 2007 ONLY
GROSS: $117,272,808
ATTENDANCE: 1,056,550
Shows: 30
Average Gross: $3,909,094
Average Attendance: 35,218
Average Ticket Price: $111
AC/DC?!?!?
I'm going to assume that you're just trolling, but on the off chance that you're not, I'll point out that there's a real easy comparison since both U2 and AC/DC are playing Giants Stadium this fall on their current tour.
U2 sold out both shows at Giants Stadium right away, while AC/DC still has lots of lower level seats available for their one show, and it looks like they've lowered the price of their $65 seats down to $21.75 if you buy 4 of them.
I think it's safe to say that AC/DC isn't even in the same league as U2.
Ive been off and on this forum since it has existed and a fan of U2 since 1987 so no im not just trolling but what I am saying is U2 is not untouchible.
If you are looking just at album sales alone AC/DC has sold more albums world wide then U2 and also Black Ice has sold more then No Line On the Horizon. Also to be fair U2 is a Pop act AC/DC has done this while being popular among hard rock and metal fans which is a lot harder to do and sell mass record amounts.
I would consider them to be about an equal draw in most parts of the world. The 360 Tour will be the biggest grossing tour ever I am not disputing that. U2 is the biggest band in the world at this moment in time however I dont believe that this is U2s biggest moment in their history by a long shot.
If you are looking just at album sales alone AC/DC has sold more albums world wide then U2 and also Black Ice has sold more then No Line On the Horizon. Also to be fair U2 is a Pop act AC/DC has done this while being popular among hard rock and metal fans which is a lot harder to do and sell mass record amounts.
I would consider them to be about an equal draw in most parts of the world. The 360 Tour will be the biggest grossing tour ever I am not disputing that. U2 is the biggest band in the world at this moment in time however I dont believe that this is U2s biggest moment in their history by a long shot.
AC/DC haven't sold more albums than U2. AC/DC has done roughly 150 million, overall, with about half of that coming from USA. U2, on the other hand, managed to sell at least 160 million, overall, with about 60 million coming from USA.
So not just are U2 a bigger album seller, but their sales are more "spread" al over the world. U2 also released plenty of singles, which some hurts or cut some album sales off. Overall, in terms of records sales, U2 are bigger sellers.
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
In the long run when it comes to album sales, no one is claiming that either. You could only argue that about the Beatles.
But when it comes to touring, U2 are way out in front of most artist except the Rolling Stones.
AC/DC has sold more albums than U2 in the United States, but outside of the United States, if they are ahead, it is by a much smaller margin. In terms of new material released since 1990, U2 has easily outsold AC/DC. AC/DC has also been around longer than U2.
Most of AC/DC's album sales have come years after their albums were released. AC/DC actually benefit from being a hard rock band because that type of music gets more airplay on classic rock radio stations. More airplay equals more sales. So in this respect, its actually EASIER for AC/DC to sell more records.
They are not even close. U2 360 will come close to grossing nearly double of what AC/DC Black Ice will do. AC/DC can't even sellout a single stadium show in the USA.
As far as the tour goes it is not only going to be the biggest in U2's history, its going to be the biggest ever in history by anyone.
Its not possible to compare album sales in the same way because most people obtain their music for free these days. But, NLOTH is the biggest selling album of 2009 so far, just as the Joshua Tree was back in 1987.
fedeu2
War Child
Sí, llego. Te contesto en privado!Fedeu2, ¿Te llegó mi mensaje privado?
Por favor, si es así, respóndeme. Yo soy argentino, es decir, tu hermano.
At least 1/4th of U2s total sales have came from Best Of/Greatest Hits albums of which AC/DC does not have any. When Pop was released 12 years ago the total certified album sales for U2 were 72 million, this was before any Best Ofs were put out so that shows how much they helped U2s career in selling albums. Also Bono distictly said in an interview back in the early 90s that U2 would never put out a Greatest Hits or Best of album, that also showed how their priorities have changed over time.
AC/DC has been around 8 years longer then U2 in total.
I am not arguing that U2 arent one of the biggest bands around they are. They have been very creative over the last many years after the "failure" of POP, which they have done.
AC/DC has sold 200 million albums U2 hasnt made it there yet and may not ever make it there.
AC/DC has put out a total of 17 albums non of which being a Greatest hits album.
U2 has put out 16 albums 3 of which are Greatest Hits albums.
U2 have put out 9 albums since 1990 3 of which are Greatest Hits albums
AC/DC have put out only 4 since that time.
I know AC/DC isnt too popular in this forum but I am stating facts. Do I think AC/DC is a better band then U2 no, bigger that would be arguable for me.
AC/DC has been around 8 years longer then U2 in total.
I am not arguing that U2 arent one of the biggest bands around they are. They have been very creative over the last many years after the "failure" of POP, which they have done.
AC/DC has sold 200 million albums U2 hasnt made it there yet and may not ever make it there.
AC/DC has put out a total of 17 albums non of which being a Greatest hits album.
U2 has put out 16 albums 3 of which are Greatest Hits albums.
U2 have put out 9 albums since 1990 3 of which are Greatest Hits albums
AC/DC have put out only 4 since that time.
I know AC/DC isnt too popular in this forum but I am stating facts. Do I think AC/DC is a better band then U2 no, bigger that would be arguable for me.
fedeu2
War Child
Wait. U2 has released three greatest hits/best of albums which have sold:
-Best of 1980-1990: 16 M
-Best of 1990-2000: 6 M
-U2 18: 5 M
Total: 27 M
Now, that´s not over 25% of total U2 album sales (150 M) but less than 20%.
And last time I checked AC-DC hadn´t come close to sell 200 M worldwide.
Still if we were to compare the two bands only by the number of records sold, it´s true, AC-DC is the winner. But when taking into account the whole picture, i.e. albums sales + tours, U2 win by a landslide margin.
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Why the competition? 
The market always expands to accommodate what audiences want. Several big movies can succeed simultaneously. Several hit albums can occur at the same time. Several successful plays or concerts can run together. And the market needs this diversity. It's little wonder why Elvis, Beatles, Stones, Eagles, AC/DC, U2, Garth Brooks, Bon Jovi, Michael Jackson, Eminem, etc. can all succeed. There are similarities, of course, but it's their differences that have allowed all to flourish.
It's difficult to quantitate any one artist. Eagles really were successful in the 70's. Stones and Beatles enjoyed the 60's. Elvis dominated the 50's. Jackson really dominated the 80's. U2 had the 80's, but they also had success in the 90's and 00's. Each era is different. In the 50's and 60's, singles were more important than albums. Later, albums dominated. But now we are back to an era of singles. Concerts change - technology has increased, thus lowering prices allowing more people to see and experience events not possible before. In other words, arguing who is best of all time is irrelevant.
Right now, U2 has the upper hand. Their concerts sold out in most cities long before the tour started - and these were for stadium shows across the world (not a successful run in one city, like London, New York or Vegas). Their album, at present, is the top selling album worldwide released this year. Therefore, U2 clearly is big now. But biggest ever? Too many factors to consider and arguments, like in this thread, could go on forever. Which weighs more - the boatload of singles sold in the 60's or the albums sold in the 80's? As people readily get illegal free music now, can one compare 2009 to 2004, let alone 1994? Too many factors.
So I'd say enjoy U2's success. And enjoy the success of other artists too.
The market always expands to accommodate what audiences want. Several big movies can succeed simultaneously. Several hit albums can occur at the same time. Several successful plays or concerts can run together. And the market needs this diversity. It's little wonder why Elvis, Beatles, Stones, Eagles, AC/DC, U2, Garth Brooks, Bon Jovi, Michael Jackson, Eminem, etc. can all succeed. There are similarities, of course, but it's their differences that have allowed all to flourish.
It's difficult to quantitate any one artist. Eagles really were successful in the 70's. Stones and Beatles enjoyed the 60's. Elvis dominated the 50's. Jackson really dominated the 80's. U2 had the 80's, but they also had success in the 90's and 00's. Each era is different. In the 50's and 60's, singles were more important than albums. Later, albums dominated. But now we are back to an era of singles. Concerts change - technology has increased, thus lowering prices allowing more people to see and experience events not possible before. In other words, arguing who is best of all time is irrelevant.
Right now, U2 has the upper hand. Their concerts sold out in most cities long before the tour started - and these were for stadium shows across the world (not a successful run in one city, like London, New York or Vegas). Their album, at present, is the top selling album worldwide released this year. Therefore, U2 clearly is big now. But biggest ever? Too many factors to consider and arguments, like in this thread, could go on forever. Which weighs more - the boatload of singles sold in the 60's or the albums sold in the 80's? As people readily get illegal free music now, can one compare 2009 to 2004, let alone 1994? Too many factors.
So I'd say enjoy U2's success. And enjoy the success of other artists too.
Where did you get 200 million from? last time i checked it was 160 million almost identical to U2 i must of been living on another planet but ACDC are not even in the same league as U2 here in the UK
CosmoKramer
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,325
Actually, because I can read is why I make that statement. Many of your posts in 360 tour forum stated that U2 could not sell out many dates in the US(Maoilbheannacht feel free to repost his predictions) You have made claims that they would draw roughly 28-31k in several stadiums this year, which if true would be roughly 50-60% capacity. So, by default when you say that U2 are going to play to 50% capacity on several dates in the US you are saying that they are not a huge draw. Your envy towards this band is very courious, just give in and go to one of their concerts, you'll love it!
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
