Fight Over a Potential Rolling Stones Tour Reveals Promoters’ Backbiting Ways
By BEN SISARIO



At the very top of the music industry, everybody seems to be friends. And also enemies. Oh, and then friends again.

That was evident in Senate hearings last week about the Universal Music Group’s proposed deal to take over EMI’s record labels. Executives like Lucian Grainge of Universal, Edgar M. Bronfman Jr. of Warner Music and Irving Azoff of Live Nation Entertainment spoke of how long they had known and respected each other, while also hurling accusations of duplicity and dissembling.

This pattern also emerges in a newly settled federal lawsuit in which two of the biggest players in the concert industry — Live Nation and the promoter Michael Cohl, the company’s former chairman — wrestled over the rights to promote future Rolling Stones tours. Once working in tandem, they fought bitterly in the court case, each accusing the other of unfair tactics in pursuing one of the most lucrative contracts in the business. Now they are friends again.

To make a long legal story short: When Mr. Cohl, the Stones’ promoter for the last 25 years, stepped down as Live Nation’s chairman in 2008, the company agreed to work with him on any future Stones tours, with Mr. Cohl making two-thirds of the profits.

But Live Nation sued in late 2010 in Federal District Court in Miami, saying that Mr. Cohl had failed to pay $5 million in promised fees; Mr. Cohl countersued, alleging that Live Nation was trying to wedge him out of Stones negotiations. They settled this week — “amicably,” according to a brief joint statement on Wednesday — and now appear ready to work together, whenever that occasional and unpredictable celestial event of a Rolling Stones tour comes around again.

On its surface, the case would seem a dry affair about contract terms. But court papers reveal the cutthroat competition and gossipy finger-pointing at play at the very top of the industry, and some eye-opening statements about how communication at that level really works.

The case hinged on events in late 2009 and early 2010, when there was a flurry of communication about a possible Rolling Stones tour. That means big money: the band has three of the top 10 highest-grossing tours of all time, according to the trade publication Pollstar. Joyce Smyth, who is Mick Jagger’s lawyer, was starting to negotiate with Mr. Cohl. Unbeknownst to him, she was also talking to Live Nation executives, as well as to Mr. Azoff, who was courting the band in his capacity as a manager. (Mr. Azoff was then also running Ticketmaster, which merged with Live Nation in January 2010.)
But before long the situation headed into “Mean Girls” territory, with conflicting accounts of what Ms. Smyth said. Live Nation’s version was that she said the Stones were displeased with Mr. Cohl. (They pointed to high ticket prices on their last tour — a strange complaint, if true, since the Stones have been a major force in rising prices.) Mr. Cohl said Live Nation executives were conspiring against him, telling each other to “think about RS revenge.”

It all might come across as petty, especially when the suit turned to the dictionary definition of “unable.” (According to Mr. Cohl’s exit deal, he would take the lead role in negotiating with the Stones unless Live Nation found him to be unable to do so.) The case also revealed how some of the biggest deals in the industry hinge on the feelings and the gossip of just a few people. According to Live Nation, it was prompted to act in part because of “disturbing industry rumors” that a competing company, A.E.G. Live, had offered the Stones a $100 million touring deal.

“Industry rumors,” Live Nation said in one of its filings, “are a major means of communication in the concert industry. Live Nation, like all other companies in the concert industry, receives and relies upon industry rumors in making business decisions.”

The Rolling Stones, for their part, distanced themselves from Mr. Cohl in a public statement in February 2011, saying that after their 2007 tour they “became free from any contractual arrangements or agreements with Michael Cohl. He is neither their representative nor their tour promoter.”

But now Live Nation and Mr. Cohl have mended their fences. In an e-mail message, Michael Rapino, Live Nation’s chief executive, said that Mr. Cohl had paid the disputed fees, and that if they won a bid for a Stones tour, they would work together on it. (A.E.G. or another company could still outbid them.)

When that might happen is unclear. For several years now, the Stones have been said to be thinking about a tour to celebrate its founding in 1962, although nothing concrete has been announced and it is most likely too late to plan a tour for the anniversary year. A band spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment.

In a recent interview in Rolling Stone, Keith Richards suggested that a tour might happen next year. “I have a feeling that’s more realistic,” he said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/fight-over-a-potential-rolling-...

I still think that lawsuit had more to do with the Stones not touring in 2010 than any other factor.

Now we can move on. 

In the end the only losers will be us again..........course we are all waiting and hoping for another good tour screwing.....

AngieBlue wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 9:40am:


Hardly. They could merely sidestep Live Nation and Cohl if they were serious about touring in 2010. I think the two parties actually settling their differences is more indicative of possible dates in the near future though.

They could blanket most of the US playing just AEG buildings. AEG has exclusively handled major tours by Britney Spears, Bon Jovi, country artists etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschutz_Entertainment_Group

AEG also owns Staples Center, if the Stones did in fact look to set up shop there. MSG entertainment just bought the Forum, so the LA/NYC residencies could bypass the major promoters altogether.

It looks like the Stones were putting out possible feelers for a 2010, 2011, 2012 tour etc and if they decided to tour it absolutely would have been possible without Cohl or Live Nation. There are loads of options available, though not too many are willing to overpay and risk operating at a loss like Live Nation.

Pdog wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 1:15pm:



So true!!

Sioux wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 6:32pm:


Mick seems to disagree.  

Ian

The reason why the Stones didnt tour in 2011 - and it was never even rumoured that they would - was because it would lessen the impact of a 50th anniversary tour for 2012.

The reason theyre not touring in 2012 is because of a combination of a) Keith not yet being deemed to be up to it b) uncertainty over what they want to do and c) Mick stringing Keith along as a bit of payback for humiliating him.

It had nothing to do with waiting for a legal wrangle over promoters to sort itself out. What if this had taken three, four of five years? Do you seriously think they'd sit around waiting? They have no contractual ties with Cohl - whilst its possible they may use his services again in the future, there was nothing to stop them using Live Nation, AEG or anyone else if they had wanted to tour.

AEG got the Michael Jackson 'This is it' tour, dont forget. Had THAT come off as it should have done, it probably would have been bigger than any Stones tour. Smaller promoters MAKE themselves number 1 by taking big chances on a major tour. Thats how Cohl did it in 1989 - he came from nowhere and made the Stones an offer that absolutely blew all competitors out of the water.

Gazza wrote on Jun 29^th, 2012 at 6:51am:



___________________________________


Yeah... I know how Cohl did it. He took all the financial risk in guaranteeing The Stones a huge payday. Nobody eles "guaranteed it"/. If 89 would of lost money.... (which it did for the first segment of the tour ... as was expected by Cohl) over all... Cohl would of never been heard from again. It was a make or career break move for him and his company. The rest is history.

That was then... this is now. I cant see a promter taking those risks in todays day and age. AEG wouldnt have the balls...not many major companies would in todays market. 89 Still had people flocking to see concerts in stadiums. Today... stadium tours are much more risky.

As far as their decision to not tour... well...isnt it rather strange that as SOON as...infact to the very week almost an agreement was finalized The Stones are to "officially" go to London to talk about a tour and their plans. The timing is far too coincidental. I think the Cohl /  Live Nation battle affected their reluctance to get the ball rolling.

Think about it Gazza...the very instant an agreement was finalized The Stones fly to London to officially discuss their future touring (and recording) plans (basically within a week or two). Come on now - Again, not saying it 100% hinged on that, but I think it played a big part.

I mean out of a 4 year span of no official band meeting to discuss a tour suddenly within a two week time frame of the settled court case The Stones officially are set to go to London to do exactly that. 


Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 11:35pm:

Ian,I believe the London meeting has been planned for some time. Before the lawsuit was settled.

Ian Billen wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 11:35pm:



No they're not. Unless the acts are exceptionally greedy. Springsteen's managing to sell out stadiums across Europe this summer without any problem. Without any tour sponsorship either.
Cohl lost a fortune on that Broadway show he did. He's not exactly a sure thing as a promoter these days. AEG wouldnt 'have the balls'? You're in a position to state that?  You're also assuming the next Stones tour will be of the length and scale of previous tours. It almost certainly will not be. I'd doubt it will have even half of the amount of shows (147) that their last tour had.

Ian Billen wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 11:35pm:



No. It's bollocks. See the three reasons I gave you above. Most of the ifs and buts surrounding the future performing plans of the band are centred around the band themselves.


Ian Billen wrote on Jun 30^th, 2012 at 11:35pm:


They didnt have a meeting for four years? Eh?

They met in December 2010 (a very stormy meeting, at that). They met again in September 2011 (there were press photos to prove it) and decided (in principle) that they would tour. They met again (and played) in December 2011. They met again (and played) in May 2012. All of which I reported here (and all of which you probably commented on). They had planned MONTHS ago to get together in July 2012. Its an ongoing thing. NOT dependent on a business agreement between two parties, neither of whom are able to prevent them from working.


Are you seriously suggesting that had this thing dragged on for a couple of years (or longer), the Stones would NOT have toured pending it being resolved? Really?

I am ready for something.

Pdog wrote on Jun 28^th, 2012 at 1:15pm:
Right.That's what Neil Young said in a recent interview." Money and rockn'roll do not mix " ....

Bon Jovi, Madonna, Metallica, Coldplay and Radiohead are also capable of doing stadium shows in the U.S, if not coast to coast. And numerous country acts. There is some Country stadium tour going on but I am too lazy to look up who it is.

Here is a list of tours that AEG did "have the balls" to promote.

http://aegworldwide.com/music/tours/tours

Also, Live Nation didn't even exist the last time a Stones tour was being planned.