Quote:
Originally Posted by TheseDays2005
I wasn't diseccting the turn-over part really. Surely they keep some sort of P&L even having no requirement - if only for internal use.
Anyhow, they were the biggest in turn-over but a band as BJ surely have a totally different cost-range then a 'smaller' band - just look at the crew. Therefore being the most profitable I really wouldn't assume especcialy considiring it as % on the gross amount.
All I wanted to say even with Jon saying 1m and 2m costs, no-one has any idea what included in that. You can't just say 55m -/- (1m . x weeks) = profit and from that make the assumption profit-wise.
And in such way, if the costs were avering 1m per week it means they were only doing break-even on the arena shows as Jon said they were making 1m per week (= costs per week) during that period. It doesn't makes sence and doesn't say anything.
In the end its all a bit geuss anyway.
|
I'm not stupid enough to think that Billboard figures - something Jon said on TV = profit, but in the absence of any other information, it's as good as you'll get. And yeh, the tour accountant will probably produce daily, if not weekly, P&Ls but there is no requirement for them to be filed as I would imagine it all goes through AEG's books. I'm a bit unfamiliar with touring and how it all filters through, but there'll be some sort of public trail somewhere.
You're getting mixed up here with your currencies. Cost were $1m a week, not £1m. Even at a conservative estimate of 50,000 seats per week at an average of $50 a ticket (which is not representative at all), they were doing far better than breaking even. Jon's a decent businessman with a good, knowledgeable team around him; if they didn't think they could make substantial returns on this tour as opposed to flogging something else, they wouldn't have done it.