Serious Numbers ? Queen`s subvention payments for Touring

[QUOTE] [b]mooghead wrote:[/b]

Pretty sure Brian said it once...[/QUOTE]

He also said 'Love of My Life' was on SHA and ADATR, he also said they'd never performed IL and IAHL on stage, he also said Fred hadn't played Steinway pianos, he also said he (Brian) hadn't played a Gibson Flying V on stage, he also said (more than once) MFK was on the second album...

We can all agree that it's a nice quote for an interview, but it's not the absolute truth.
It's more likely that the truth is something like:

[i]"We didn't make any money on the smaller tours because we used to have an expensive production and all the rest was spent on parties. This time we had so much money coming in through the windows that we just couldn't spend it all even when we tried!"[/i]

[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]

We can all agree that it's a nice quote for an interview, but it's not the absolute truth.
It's more likely that the truth is something like:

[i]"We didn't make any money on the smaller tours because we used to have an expensive production and all the rest was spent on parties. This time we had so much money coming in through the windows that we just couldn't spend it all even when we tried!"[/i][/QUOTE]

^ Fair point...but talking about variables...as for Mannheim 86 we had another one. It was officially a Festival by a broadcaster "SWF 3"....would be interesting how such events were financially calculated...

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]

Read some stuff about how big companies hide profits through various accounting scams and you will probably conclude that Queen's official statements about how little they earned are likely less than truthful. The only thing you know about what they earned is what they've told you, and they are hardly likely to crow about massive profits when the taxman is listening. Remember when Brian moaned about having to live abroad because he paid 95% (?) tax to the British govt? Well of course he didn't tell you that was only on income over a certain amount, and in any event, any good accountant will ensure most profits are hidden in various off shore accounts and in a variety of shell companies.[/QUOTE]


i somehow don't think brian was saying they made no money because maybe a tax man would be listening. i mean is a tax man really going to arrive back in the office on a monday morning and say lets go back to 1979 and check if queen made money on a tour.

Even if they did I'm sure they would find no sign of illegal activity, they were far too astute for that..... ;-)

[QUOTE] [b]una999 wrote:[/b]

i somehow don't think brian was saying they made no money because maybe a tax man would be listening. i mean is a tax man really going to arrive back in the office on a monday morning and say lets go back to 1979 and check if queen made money on a tour. [/QUOTE]

Of course the tax man could be listening, and might want to audit them at any time.

The whole concept of "losing money on tours" and the founding of the Queen Touring company was to make any financial activities in the UK (such as touring) seem like an unprofitable venture, and to avoid as much taxes as possible. Instead they would be spending that money on parties etc.

It's not a surprise that after "losing money on all tours" it suddenly became profitable once Margaret Thatcher started cutting down the tax rates in the mid 80's.

It's the exact same way and reason why Hollywood productions do not turn profit, even if they gross in the zillions. Why share with the greedy politicians? It's better to spend it all on coke and hookers than on some greedy bastard who will use the money to buy votes from the ignorant plebs or round some poor bastards in the 3rd world country in the field to bomb them.

Pretty sure this quote applies to any business with any good accountant:

"Anyone who quotes profits of a baseball club is missing the point. Under generally accepted accounting principles, I can turn a $4 million profit into a $2 million loss and I could get every national accounting firm to agree with me." — Paul Beeston, then a Toronto Blue Jays vice president, now baseball's chief operating officer, 1979

[QUOTE] [b]Sheer Brass Neck wrote:[/b]

Pretty sure this quote applies to any business with any good accountant:

"Anyone who quotes profits of a baseball club is missing the point. Under generally accepted accounting principles, I can turn a $4 million profit into a $2 million loss and I could get every national accounting firm to agree with me." — Paul Beeston, then a Toronto Blue Jays vice president, now baseball's chief operating officer, 1979[/QUOTE]

^ bingo.

Queen pumped a ton of money into their shows, and they partied hard. Possibly harder than any other band in their time. We can only wonder how much money went up the noses of certain band member(s) and entourage... but what happens in the band stays in the band.

Many excellent points in this thread, especially the Thatcher one.

I would love a link to the infamous "Thatcher Set To Ignore Queen" headline photo with Brian. :-)

But back to the money thing. Van Halen pumped a comparable amount of money into their show too, as evidenced between the lines of the classic brown M&M's tale told inimitably by the one and only Diamond Dave:

[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]Mr.QueenFan wrote:[/b]

I remember an article about a tour the Rolling Stones did in the nineties - i believe it was their "Bridges to Babylon" tour. It mentioned that they have played about 100+ stadiums and they only broke even at their 33 concert of that tour. After that it was all profit - 70+ stadiums. Lots of costs to cover!

Queen only did 26 dates on their massive production "The Magic Tour", so i´m predicting that even the profit wasn´t that big of a deal. For a show like that to be huge profitable Queen had to play the world. The good part of it is that they have capitalized on those two hours they did at Wembley like no other band. Probably, the Wembley merchandise alone payed them more that any tour they have ever made.
And that´s the beauty of the "Magic Tour". It still sells today.

[/QUOTE]


You're conveniently forgetting that the costs of a stadium tour in 1986 also were a fraction of the costs in 1997. The production was much simpler, the crew was much smaller, the local authorities didn't have as many demands... Not to mention that the production costs are also relative to the profits, and Queen would have been making profit by the 10th concert on their tour.

That's also what confuses a lot of people with the profits of these tours. The earlier tours had a LOT less material and people to haul around, which made it a lot cheaper.

.[/QUOTE]

But not on this tour. They had the biggest stage in the world - too big for Wembley! Their stage at Knebworth is huge even for todays standards - they had three of them!. Their lighting rig was at the time one of the most complex in the world. You can read down below from Queenconcerts. At best, i would say that it´s cheaper today - because of efficiency - to produce the same show than it was back then (of course, converting the money to today´s value).

http://www.queenconcerts.com/lighting-rigs/1986-magic.html

"It took up to 20 tractor-trailers to transport one stage. Queen in this tour had three stages "leapfroging" - one is doing a show, one is being built and one is being taken down. That is approx 60 trucks for the entire Magic tour.

This rig is the last of the stadium rigs Queen will have with Freddie Mercury. The amount of lights used is an unsure value, it depends on the size of the venue and whether to use 4 folding light units or 6; to whether use a TV screen or not. Or to use one back wall panel or three. It would take two days to construct a stage for Wembley Stadium. Therefore siz of rigs would vary as shown. "

I´m only talking about the magic tour here, and i also find it hard to believe that they didn´t have profit on any other tour. One thing i believe is that their tour in South America was the one where they´ve lost more money.

[/QUOTE]

^^^^^ i posted a long detailed reply which just vanished, at the moment i dont have time to re type if

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]

^^^^^ i posted a long detailed reply which just vanished, at the moment i dont have time to re type if[/QUOTE]

This has happened to me before and I understand why it happened. I think if we take too long to type the reply, the system imposes a time out and nothing gets recorded.

Edit: If I am composing a long reply, I usually use the email system to create a draft and then copy and paste the reply here.

[QUOTE] [b]Vocal harmony wrote:[/b]

^^^^^ i posted a long detailed reply which just vanished, at the moment i dont have time to re type if[/QUOTE]

When that happens, just click on "back", then copy, go to your post, edit, and paste. Voila.