Re: U2 lost $10 million

Robbie Robinson ([email protected])
Thu, 16 Jul 1998 22:32:47 -0700

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Hullo all! Did you hear about U2 losing $10 million dollars? Here is an
> article on it.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> 7.14.98 12:00 EDT U2 Fails To Perform In Business
>
>
>
> U2 apparently performs better musically than they do financially.
>
> "The London Times" reports that the Irish pop stars are restructuring their
> business affairs after a decade of bad investments and poor financial
> planning. The paper says the group has lost money on a number of ventures
> including millions in a string of combined bowling and laser tag facilities.
> Six sites had been planned for Germany in the early '90s, but $13 million
> later, the investment was shot down when they discovered that war games using
> simulated weapons were illegal in that country.
>
> The last U2 world tour was thought to have been a break-even endeavor at best.
> Although they used the same promoter, the same venues and played for roughly
> the same sized crowds as the Rolling Stones, sources close to both bands have
> told MTV News that the U2 tour most likely only broke even while the Stones
> tour made money. The difference was attributed to costs and the structure of
> their deals.
>
> According to "The Times," U2 manager Paul McGuinness has replaced the band's
> main financial advisor, Ossie Kilkenny, who is also employed by the Verve and
> Oasis, with American entertainment lawyer Alan Grubman. Kilkenny will still
> audit U2's accounts and handle investments for individual bandmembers.
>
> "The Times" reports that the band is not broke, but they quote management
> sources as saying the members are not as rich as they should be. "They have
> nice houses and that is about it," said the source.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> I feel sorry for them! poor U2 : (
> *I Can't Change The World,But I Can Change The World In Me*
> Katelyn

Oh, really! What short memories everybody has.
Let's see, who want's to go back to the beginning of the
tour last year and the big fuss over the fact that they
sold all the promotion of the Popmart Tour to a well known
(but less than liked;) promoter named Chole, or Cohle or
something like that. The millions he and his backers had
to pay to U2 up-front more than covered the cost of the tour.
If I remember correctly, U2 even started to recieve 20% of the
money he made over a certain amount. (They'll probably have
to drag him through court to get all of that part, knowing him)
Over and above that, I believe they were still raking it in on
the merchandise.
Bono himself said that this was the most profitable tour
they'd ever done.
Good ol' Paul McGuinness made sure that the tour would make
a profit from the very beginning.
Now, the band did end up hating that Colh guy before the tour
was over due to his cutthroat tatics, and the way he tended to
rip off the promoters he sub-contracted the work to, but they made
a bundle. If U2 was really obsessed with making a lot off the
tour, they'd have taken sponsors even if they did have to kiss
too much ass - Bono's explanation of why they didn't take a
sponsor this time. There have always been ways for U2 to make more
money off of touring than they have. They just don't want to
do them. Of course, the Stones made more money. You'll notice that
they used the same promoter, but they were also making a fortune
from tons of sponsors. This is a case of the press writing articles
about things they don't really have all the facts about. All the
financial dealing that was going on was way beyond the I.Q.
ability of the writers at most of those rags and definately MTV's
VJ's. hahaha
I'm too lazy to go into Darci's archive and pull the old posts
about it out, but anyone not as lazy is welcome to.
I think they were just before and after the K-Mart
press conference.
Of course, we have to remember that these articles are just
guessing on all of these numbers. U2 doesn't release regular
financial statments to the press. It's all conjecture, like
Michael Jackson's financial situation that somebody mentioned
in another post.
MTV has never been a source of accurate news.
I thought you all knew that by now.
By the way, is The London Times a reputable paper or is it one
of those countless British tabloids we hear about over here?
Something on the lever of the USA's National Enquirer?

Robbie

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Thu Jul 16 1998 - 22:38:47 PDT