I doubt it very much. For the arena tour, they were averaging $1m (£500k) per week in costs, which would give them a pretty healthy bottom line given that the figures are from November to May and factoring in the first month being static at one venue.

I'd say it's more to do with sheer volume of gigs. The Spice Girls tickets were more expensive that Bon Jovi and I wouldn't imagine that Bruce's were too much different.

Yes they were bloody expencive but then alot of the bigger groups tickets were expencive too. So it must be due to the fact they did 99 shows.

These figures don't include any shows after the middle of May, so I would imagine their total tour gross is significantly higher, including the stadium leg in Europe.

I agree they've also played more shows that The Spice Girls but given stadium capacity in Europe and the duplicate leg in North America I don't see how those tours can really be compared anyway.

What you can compare is the face value ticket price. In the USA it doubled from last tour and in the UK the price of Gold Standing for all shows was at the highest level throughout rather then regional like the previous two tours. Don't tell me this had no impact on them being the highest grossing tour. In 06 the Rolling Stones kicked Jovi's ass on tour grosses but their prices were astronomical. Bon Jovi just followed suit.

I'd love to compare a Bon Jovi tour with a U2 tour in the same economic climate, so it would need to be at the same time. Seeing as Jon refuses to go head to head with U2 on a live basis and actively avoids touring at the same time, I guess I'll never be able to.

This only goes as far as the beginning of May, so the majority of the stadium shows aren't included.

I think that's a bit mean myself.
All they could off done was said "Hi"
Bit mean i think...

Yeah I know they wouldn't actually lose money on the tour, the 56m costs were merely a example.
Nevertheless, Gross amounts don't say anything, a average cost of 1m per week also not. Are those actual invoiced costs, or the real total costs divided by weeks toured. Surely lots of costs are being made before start started, are they included?
It would be interesting to see the actual P&L accounts....which will never happen..

They were averaging $1m a week for the arena shows and $2m a week for the stadium shows. That came from the interview Jon did with 60 Minutes a while back. Dissect it all you wish, they're certainly the biggest, and in all likelihood the most profitable, tour this year. You won't see a P&L no, because they have no requirement to produce one.

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. Even if it were on average as some weeks they did more gigs then other It doesn't makes sence and doesn't say anything.
In the end its all a bit geuss anyway.