PatrickS77

13 minutes ago, jamillos said:

They did make quite some money, but their managers pissed it away without the boys realizing, and all the late-start charges weren't insignificant either. 

So they shouldn't say "we didn't make any money", they should say "we were too stupid to keep all the money we made".

11 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Oh, they were probably blowing out cash left right and centre! I think it's highly likely they were spending more than they were earning. This was the era before ticket prices went bonkers. 

Yeah. We are way to late to go to so many concerts. I could have seen half of the tour with the money I spent on this tour.

3 minutes ago, GNR_RNR said:

Very true.

Nu-GNR wasn't a instant venue sell out act but they toured arenas pretty comfortably in most of the  world. Especially impressive considering that (to this day) GNR seem to hate committing to bringing along good support acts for a tour.

They must've made a fortune on album sales though.

Well, the one arena I saw in Basel in 2012, the upper level was quite empty. Mönchengladbach didn't fare much better, I was told. And the Oslo show I saw in 2010 also wasn't close to a sell out.

Yeah. The albums saved them back in the day.

2 minutes ago, StayofExecution2020 said:

91/92

That's why they added another cycle in 93 without the big band so they can make some money

Exactly. Even though I tend to take that with a bit of grain of salt. I can't really believe that they didn't make any money in '91/'92. But then again, compared to now, tickets back then cost nothing (even though people were still complaining about ticket prices), so maybe it is true.

41 minutes ago, GNR_RNR said:

What tour is this referring to? the UYI tour?

Yes.

4 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Yeah of course. I'm talking 150-750 capacity here really. Even at 1500 I would imagine it is difficult to make viable. I wonder how many people they were allowed in? 

Way less than the 1500, I guess.  They say groups can stay together, but should keep a distance to other groups. Not really sure how that works, as I wasn't there, but so far didn't hear that there was a problem and they had a concert every week since June 20th with the scheduled last one on July 25th, before continuing with regular scheduled shows from September 12th. Wonder how that will go then. 

5 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

How can a small venue open and only allow 10-20 people in? It isn't financially viable. As all the venues are saying. Whether audiences want to return or not, they won't be able to in sufficient numbers. I'm not too sure what I can add to this - there are reports and this information is all out there to be read, should you wish, and if you don't want to take my word for things. Small venues won't reopen with social distancing simply because they can't make it work. 

A change in the social distancing rules will have to happen before they can make it financially viable. There is not really a way to adapt when you're operating in such small venues (other than to charge insanely high ticket prices to the few people that can attend.....) 

I guess it depends on what you classify as small. In Switzerland there is a smallish venue, called Z-7, which holds about up to 1500 people (even though usually there are way fewer people there) and they also did some social distancing concerts in june and july. Of course, a pub won't be able to do anything. ;-)

1 minute ago, allwaystired said:

They seem to do lower-level festivals in the UK, rather than their own shows, so it could be the same here! Shame, as you say the Jacksons are a classic act. 

Yeah. They probably would fare the same if they would try to do their own concerts, I'm sure though they would do better than in Germany. But either way, they do get a crowd going at those festivals. I saw them in Blackpool some years ago and there was a good crowd. And they were the only act with a name on that day.

4 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Wow, I'd have thought they would be a decent draw without MJ. Credit to them for going out and doing the show anyway! 

Sadly, they are only in certain countries. They are a good draw in the UK, the Netherlands, parts of the USA and some other countries, that don't get many international acts. Apparently they are not a good draw in Germany and Austria. Michael Jackson fans sadly are not really Jackson 5/Jacksons fans and especially when he's not there, as many really only became fans when he went solo. It's a damn shame, because the Jackson 5/Jacksons have a great catalog. Yeah. Credit definitely goes to them. Janet would just have cancelled. 

1 minute ago, allwaystired said:

Haha- was that a 'poor ticket sales' situation? if so, I'm amazed they didn't pull the plug on that one, or at least downgrade the venue! 

That's true - if the Arena has agreed sponsorship for a concert 'series' that might make things easier. Must be quite a weird experience for fans though! 

Yeah. It was. I guess it was purely to save face. They had about 8 concerts scheduled throughout Germany and one after the other got cancelled. It was sad to watch. Well, it also was sad to watch them at a "private" show in such a big place, but we had an awesome time. The show was seated, but everyone could just come down to the stage. The concert was great. A shame that people didn't give them a chance without Michael. But I'm sure though there wasn't any money made that night. 

22 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

That's an idea that I haven't heard played with in the UK actually - that of booking a small act into a much larger venue in order to be able to balance the books. Yeah, I'm not sure how that works with the cost of actually hiring or opening an Arena sized building though. Perhaps as you say, with it being a series of concerts the venue has been generous, or feels they can reduce the overheads sufficiently to make it worthwhile. As a one-off I can't think that it would be viable to use an Arena. 

Hmmm.....they've removed the date then about Dublin! I'd say if America gets the dates on the 27th, Europe would too. 

I guess it's all about making the best out of the situation and come up with ideas that work for everybody. Even if it means, making less money than they used to. I saw the Jacksons once playing in front of 1,000 people in an arena that holds 15,000. And I would have bet that that one gets cancelled too, like all the other shows. If there is a will, there is a way. If you can find sponsors to chip in, as mostly there are radio stations involved, also in the aforementioned drive-in shows, it might be worthwhile. It certainly isn't easy though.

1 minute ago, GNR_RNR said:

The band get a fraction of that. 

None of them will be hard up in any capacity but that's been true since the 80's.

Not if you listened to Axl and Duff, who claim their previous mega tour lost them money and touring with Nu-Guns in part was to get out of debt. And even a fraction of 500 mio. divided by 3 is a high 2 digit fraction.

9 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Get ready for being told how he did sell out and how the Arenas were packed.......

I'm of this view for sure. He's got a sweet deal, as long as he doesn't rock the boat......which he isn't! 

Yeah. It's that poster again.

Slash would be stupid to fuck that up. He's having the best of both worlds right now, after seeing strangers ride his legacy for 2 decades.

1 minute ago, GNR_RNR said:

Didn't know you were his accountant. 

Don't need to be. Just have to look at what this tour made.

31 minutes ago, GNR_RNR said:

I think Slash leaving again would be hugely damaging to GNR as a brand. It'd set GNR back to a worse footing than 2014 but I think Axl would keep chugging along even if only for financial reasons.

Except, finanically he doesn't need to. He is better off than ever. Set for this life and the next one. Financially there is absolutely no reason for him to carry on.

12 minutes ago, dando said:

Axl would carry on, There's easy options for him... Fans opinions dont matter at all, he's Finck, Ashba, even fortus could go to lead, I know none are ideal but it's easy 

Fans opinions matter, if he doesn't get asses in seats. And now he knows he has Slash carrying the biggest load of the show. He has Duff carrying another load of the show. It's not all him. With all the clowns back in the band, it's back to all focus on him and him having to carry the show, with a voice that gets worse instead of better. And I do not believe that he would be content going from playing in stadiums back to playing in front of a couple of hundreds in theaters.

14 minutes ago, dando said:

It's all hypothetical but, If he left again, Duff is still around.. Axl would still fill arena's definitely in Europe, no idea about the U.S having only been to one there, Slash & Myles wouldn't fill the arena's that Guns minus slash would... Lets hope he stays, absolutely nothing suggests he's off

Axl wasn't filling arenas anymore in Europe in 2012. He had good sized crowds, but far from being close to sold out. By now everyone and their mama had the chance to see the real deal. A bucket list item. Why settle for Axl and the aliens?

19 minutes ago, allwaystired said:

Again, with the drive-in gigs, I've been told it was an insurance issue- because of the higher risk of cancellation, the rates they were being quoted were exorbitant and they couldn't make the money-side work. Obviously the fact that they could be cancelled at any moment was the main reason for this. 

My (entirely speculative) guess is that we will start to see larger gigs, both outside and indoors, around May of next year. Before that I think we'll see a sprinkling of 'experimental' type shows, such as the drive-in shows were attempting. 

 

Good stuff. As a note of caution though, the Dublin show did tell people that rescheduling information would be coming on July 6th and it didn't.......just to be prepared! 

In Germany they are currently doing quite a lot of drive-In shows. Acts like Doro Pesch or Nena have/had a couple scheduled. Also the biggest indoor arena in Germany, Cologne's Lanxess arena is doing social distancing shows. That place is big enough, so they have smaller acts with quite a crowd, as they wouldn't fill up the place anyone. Not sure how that works though in terms of having to pay the rent for the place. But then again, it's a series of concerts in that arena, so probably different rules apply.

As for the Dublin anouncement, it now says on Ticketmaster: A note from event organisers: “We are still working on European 2021 dates. It will be another week before finalising. We appreciate your patience & apologies for any inconvenience caused - hold on to your tickets and thank you for your support. Best wishes, MCD Productions.

1 hour ago, chinese stew said:

I've asked many times for my Lisbon show refund, still getting same answer. They are wanting for new date to be announced.

They won't get you a refund. When they can put on a new show within a year of the original date, they don't have to refund you. That's Portugal's great new law.

46 minutes ago, dando said:

Axl will carry on forever with Guns, Slash left before, nobody knows he's off again.. Its easy money playing with Guns so why would he go?  Guns carried on before and would if it happened again 

Slash left before. Axl felt he had something to prove. There was fire. That fire is gone. Slash leaves. Axl closes up shop. It's not 25 years ago.

32 minutes ago, jamillos said:

Slash leaving would probably mean the end of GNR, because the casuals wouldn't buy tickets if they knew he was gone - and the only option for Axl would be getting back to Up Close and Personal stuff and the likes. Even if he hired someone like Zakk Wylde, they'd never get the numbers again, not to mention that Slash is essential for the sound and spirit of a real GNR record. So unless we're talking about getting back to ChinDem era and releasing CD II / leftovers, there's no way Guns could continue - at least not on this scale - without the top hat man, especially with Axl's worsening form...

That. And I doubt that Axl has the passion, for lack of better word, to build it up again and carrying it on with him and his worsening voice being the only focal point of the show. If Slash leaves, Axl will pack it in.

Enjoying my free 2 months Sky subsription and starting it off with The Goldbergs Season 7, for light entertainment.

33 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

You have “somewhat” valid concerns.
 

 The vast majority of drugs (including “natural” supplements and illegal ones) that you’ve taken in your lifetime have “risks”, “side effects” or possible “long term” side effects associated with them.

 It’s whether you believe the “benefits” outweigh the “risks”.

If the vaccine shows to be effective for 90% of people and studies show that if everyone takes it, it will basically “end” the pandemic...will you be man enough to take the 10% chance risk of it being harmful to you? ....so that  you have a 90% chance of being “saved” and for the betterment of society? 

Yes. But those side effects are known (they even give you the likelihood of the side effects happening), because these drugs have been used for years. This vaccine is new. Nobody knows if it has any side effects/long term side effects. Those will become known only long term.

Will I take it? Well, I guess that depends on how they sell/explain it (whether/if there are side effects). Also, if it will be mandatory to do certain things/travel to certain countries. Like I said, I usually don't doubt vaccines. I don't have a problem with a shot. But something new and relatively untested is a different story.

1 hour ago, janrichmond said:

I have removed a bunch of posts with insults to other users, If you quoted any of those then your post will have been removed too.

Please don't insult other users if they have differing opinions to your own. It's childish. 

Shame. Maybe we could have thrown some of that dude's words in his face next year. 

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

As I said, I don't think the process is rushed in terms of lessing the demands for demonstrating efficacy and safety. The companies developing therapies for Covid-19 have to go through the ordinary clinical trials as any other drug. Which is why it will still be a while before a newly developed Covid-19 vaccine is approved for use. 

In other words, you don't need to have any more fear for long-term effects from this vaccine than any other recently approved novel drug. 

But the thing is, I'm not using any other novel drug.  I just wanna remind you at Contergan/Thalidomide which in the 50's was given to pregnant women to deal with morning sickness and stuff and the women were fine/better. Except for many of the babies, who came out disfigured and it took some years to find out that this drug was responsible.

It really seems to be a choice of taking a chance of contracting Corona or dealing with a new and relatively untested (at least for longterm effects) vaccine.

On 16.7.2020 at 7:36 PM, SoulMonster said:

Have you guys heard of clinical trials? It is a process where an experimental drug is tested on thousands of humans to verify that it is safe and efficient. The people in the clinical trial are guinea pigs, not those who get it after it has been approved for the market. Don't get me wrong, a marketed drug is still monitored because the ultimate test of a drug's efficacy and safety can only be assessed when it has been used on hundreds of thousands of patients, but when it is approved it is most likely entirely safe for most people and hence referring to taking a newly approved drug as being a "guinea pig" is very misleading and suggests ignorance to he drug development process.

And what about long term effects? How can you know about those when you rush to have a vaccination approved within a couple of months? Usually I also wouldn't give a vaccination a second thought and trust that they work and are safe, but those are established and experienced vaccinations, not one that just has been invented. So I'm not quite positive I would get one right away.

11 hours ago, allwaystired said:

I have him/her on block now but this is pretty much a clone of the 'debate' I had on the NITL selects thread. Just rude aggression all the way seems to be the standard. You might as well talk to the wall. It's fairly draining and I got called every name under the sun for trying to explain something I actually knew about. 

Yeah. I get you. But I'm not in the business of blocking obnoxious people, who twist the words coming out your mouth and having a different opinion... maybe I should though...