Pet Shop Boys Community

jamie1978 wrote:yes, these days they have plenty of money

the Take That stadium tour netted them £2m+ alone

source ?

StevePSB wrote:

jasonjohn wrote:...might of...

'might HAVE' or 'might'VE'.

I might add this to the word censor to auto correct it, as this one burns me up like no other!


StevePSB

Now if you could write up a context-aware there/their/they're and your/you're auto-correction logic I would love you forever.

Bjossi wrote:

StevePSB wrote:

jasonjohn wrote:...might of...

'might HAVE' or 'might'VE'.

I might add this to the word censor to auto correct it, as this one burns me up like no other!


StevePSB

Now if you could write up a context-aware there/their/they're and your/you're auto-correction logic I would love you forever.

Flaffer wrote:

jamie1978 wrote:yes, these days they have plenty of money

the Take That stadium tour netted them £2m+ alone

source ?

Try using your brain.

They charge £100k for a festival appearance, and it was well documented that they refused to do the shows several times until eventually they were offered a deal which was essentially too good to refuse.

Take the number of dates and then multiply it by their fee. It was probably well over £2m in total, that is a conservative estimate. Hiring the Pet Shop Boys for a month does not come cheap.

The last time they played The Roskilde festival it was reported that they recieved 1 million Danish kr.(£115,000) for their performance.

They started playing festivals in the Summer of 97 to make-up their losses on the Savoy shows (so said Literally at the time). My guess would be they learned to pay their touring/production costs by doing the festival shows and selling merch as the regular shows depend on ticket sales. The festivals are the guaranteed income. Subsequent to the Nightlife tour they seemed to have cracked the financial code when it comes to managing their costs so I would imagine every tour from Release forward has been very profitable. The Pandemonium tour went on for three years because they hit their costs early on and the rest was all money in the bank so why not?

Around the time of the 97 Summer festival shows Peter Hook of New Order (and I'm paraphrasing, but not much) made the comment that he always thought PSB were fabulously wealthy then found out they had to play festivals to pay their taxes, so they're basically as broke as New Order. He was being somewhat facetious, but his basic point is well taken.

I have no desire to discuss what anyone earns in public, let alone N&C, but if you think what they get paid for an event is just for them you'd be shocked! Their shows are a good demonstration of putting artistic creation before profit.

True, most of their earnings over the years have been reinvested into their work, which is really the only reason they're not fabulously wealthy!

They no longer lose money from their shows - Fundamental Tours Ltd, for example, had well over 700k in cash by the end of the tour, which is pure profit after expenses... they have more complex arrangements than that of course, but in their Ltd Co's there is over 3m in cash alone

Danimal wrote:Around the time of the 97 Summer festival shows Peter Hook of New Order (and I'm paraphrasing, but not much) made the comment that he always thought PSB were fabulously wealthy then found out they had to play festivals to pay their taxes, so they're basically as broke as New Order. He was being somewhat facetious, but his basic point is well taken.

It might have been to pay for their taxis!

Who really cares I'm skint regardless !

What about their impressive backcatalogue? At least 20 albums, 5 or 6 DVDs etc. Neither item is out of stock (well except maybe the Relentless) and when a new fan is introduced to their music, it sort of becomes addiction to buy everything they have released, and let me tell you, they come not that cheap. You have to pay a small fortune to collect all their output. Besides even in Turkey, where international record sales are laughable, you can find the majority of their catalogue at the full price.

Doesn't that huge backcatalogue bring in some considerable trickle of income, even if it is not flooding?

Danimal wrote:Around the time of the 97 Summer festival shows Peter Hook of New Order (and I'm paraphrasing, but not much) made the comment that he always thought PSB were fabulously wealthy then found out they had to play festivals to pay their taxes, so they're basically as broke as New Order. He was being somewhat facetious, but his basic point is well taken.

Inneresting. Of course, I'd say that PSB have been twenty times more productive and hard-working in the past two decades than New Order have been. They've never stopped recording and touring, they've worked hard. New Order takes lots of times off (Not always their fault; family illness, discord, etc.). I suspect New Order signed a crap record contract in the 80's when they were doing their best work. Which had to be split four ways. And they never really had a monster international hit- "Bizarre Love Triangle" came close, at least on dance floors in 1985. But that was what was cool about New Order. That they weren't mainstream, they were slightly mysterious. Special.

So i was surprised reading an article in The Face I believe in 1986 how they were saying they could at least buy a Volkswagen, even though their parents were all bugging them to get a "real" job. This article blew my teen mind- how could geniuses like this be broke? I thought pop stars went about in limousines, were millionaires. Youthful fantasy! But it opened my eyes to the economics of pop music- that artists get screwed, and the pressure is to go mega radio-friendly pop, or go home. It was an education.

As for PSB, I'm not sure what Neil said to Hooky was necessarily true. N&C have bought and sold London property since they began, I imagine Neil has been wise with his investments, and despite very high taxes, his Chelsea townhouse is probably worth ten times what he paid for it , now. They're recording and touring now while they can. I think their profits are decent on these tours, expensive as they are to produce. But I think N&C both have decent capital they are protecting, even though yeah, they are probably taxed to the teeth.

I'd estimate they're each worth US$ 10 million each. Not counting investments or real estate. I think Neil was just being nice to Hooky there. I could easily be very wrong. Even if it's half that, they are doing okay. So writes this broke-ass loser here.

Taxes on wealth in the UK are non-existent, Deschanel. So the 10x increase in value in his Georgian townhouse on a Chelsea square will have cost him nothing. If he sells he will not have to pay any tax whatsoever on the gain in value provided it is his main home. For second/third homes onward you pay 28% capital gains on the profit you make, which isn't exactly onerous.

And the upper tax rate on income was 40% between 1988 and 2009, which again is not particularly high.