GEN
Active topics
  1. and You have to allow for the three year goodbye tour.

  2. Sounds like you need to walk away and make life easier on the fans. This is a U2 site. Why come here if you no longer like the band?

    I have had no problem getting tickets since Popmart. (Zoo TV was tough, but still got them) So I could care less about the Live Nation part of it. If they want to play most venues in the N. America Live Nation is almost a necessary evil. You can get a cheap ticket (by todays standards) for most U2 shows if you want.

    I liked SOI and SOE. So I guess it is about individual taste and perspective. I'm looking forward to another album or two and a few more tours. Sign me up!
  3. Originally posted by Remy:I guess this warrants its own thread, as this means a lot more than just the fact that U2 is not going to leave shitty LiveNation anytime soon. It means our band will be around much longer

    It's not official, but it might be, I quote Matt McGee:

    ==

    For the past couple months, I've been chasing down a tip that came in from a longtime, usually reliable source: U2 recently signed a new 10-year deal with Live Nation. I pestered our contacts with the band's PR team. I pestered Live Nation's PR. I even got some of the @U2 crew to help with pestering other contacts we have that are close to the band, Live Nation and/or Maverick.

    None of the people we contacted denied the story, but neither did anyone provide the second confirmation that I'd require in order to report this as a news story on our home page. One person we asked said we were safe to report the story because, in essence, why would U2 shut down anytime soon? The closest thing we got to an official response was a Live Nation PR person saying, "I don't have anything to share on this."

    I have no reason to believe the tip is wrong. The source has been reliable with us over the years, and I think if it was inaccurate, someone we asked would've said so. But without that second confirmation, I'm sharing it here via OTR, a column that we launched in 2001 for this exact purpose: "...to share news, rumors, thoughts, comments, and ideas that just don't seem to fit anywhere else" on @U2.

    So, officially we'll call it a rumor. But I believe it's true. What's it mean?

    1) I didn't get any detail on timing other than "recently," but let's assume the new deal was signed sometime after the end of last year's Joshua Tree tour and before the start of the Experience + Innocence tour. That means the contract would run til sometime around late 2027/early 2028.

    2) It seems safe to report that there won't be a U2 farewell tour anytime soon. I'm betting money that the next U2 tour happens in 2021 and is a celebration of Achtung Baby's 30th anniversary. Depending on how long that runs, it could leave U2 enough time for two more tours ... maybe 2024/25 and 2027/28? All of that likely depends on what they do where new albums are concerned.

    3) Finally, if it's true and accurate, the band members would be in their late 60s when the contract ends. That seems to this almost-50-year-old fan like a good age to call it a career. But let's not be surprised if they get close to the end of that contract and decide they want to continue for another year or three. Who knows?

    In any case, we'll keep working on this story and try to get a second confirmation. Until then, we're operating on the assumption it's true.
    ==

    https://www.atu2.com/news/column-off-the-record--vol-18-774.html

    Thoughts?


    Curious. Current contract is through 2020, so is the 10 years extended from that to 2030, or is the extension immediate and only through 2028? Either way, it signals there is definitely no farewell, which bodes well for us... It is just interesting they would be in talks to renew with 2 years still to go on current deal... No?
  4. Originally posted by deanallison:I don’t want to knock anyone’s opinion but aren’t livenation involved with just about all the big artists in one way or another? Sure it’s not going to fill us all with optimism but it doesn’t really change anything in the direction the band will go. Its like people are waiting for the next reason to criticise the band yet they are in the middle of a tour where they are heavily promoting new material and now look to be planning for future tours and albums into there late 50’s/early 60’s. It’s like the more this band gives the more people want from them.


    while most of us loathe live nation (not without good reason), it makes sense for them. it's kind of like your company outsourcing one company to handle all payroll/benefits/human resources for them, rather than three different entities dealing with each... or handling them in-house. less stress, more focus on business. we may not like it from our POV, but if we were in the other shoes, it would seem like the most desirable (and logical) choice...
  5. Originally posted by siblis:Some people on here eat, drink and shit U2 as they can do no wrong. You don't see an aging rock band before ur eyes trying to cash in and phone it in?


    Have you taken a look at the forum categories and topic headings? It is very diverse indeed. It is predominantly a U2 site which brings us all here but has branched out into so many strands and interests that sometimes it is not recognisable from the source.

    i have found good links to great music thanks to people on here and know I have done likewise for others due to a diverse interest and collection of music. Others talk about things that have played no interest to me (namely football) and yet I see communion.

    To agree and maybe disagree on some topics makes a good place for the forum to exist too.

    You will find all sorts of opinions here, many humorous, about the band. But after all it IS a site dedicated to U2 on many levels aside from the aspect of acquiring recordings.

    What I see before my eyes is evolution playing out with the band. Natural progression in an environment they have managed to steer pretty well to date. We can moan about ticket costs and how LiveNation operate that aspect, and rightly so for we are the bands audience.

    I stated previously... Is this a compromise that we get to see the band stay around well past the present or that U2 will continue to be a corporation (plc)?. Clearly they have made a choice for many reasons, chiefly is the fiscal side of the operation which will hopefully secure them into the future but also brings with it a lot of what people discuss here about integrity, ticket pricing, creative freedom etc.

    To conclude, my point being is this is a very big place and very diverse. You analyse your statement in comparison and take the time to do some research and you too will find this out for yourself. Test the model I propose here and watch your findings change.
  6. Gives them 10 more years to play Grace.
  8. From the band's perspective, that would seem to indicate a strong commitment to making music for another 10 years. I can't imagine they would sign to such a long contract if they were ambivalent or had any plans to give it away. They start turning 60 this year so a 10 year contract says 'I'm willing to still make music and tour until I'm almost 70'; that's a pretty big commitment. I'm 55 this year and I can tell you there is no way I'm making any promise to still be working in 10 years time.