New U2 Studios Disgrace

Dustaz

Originally posted by Cork

Why? Are U2 above criticisim? U2 are a band, In my openion - Coldplay will be a bigger & better band than U2.

U2 are certainly not above criticism, its just that this does not warrant criticism except from backwater bumkins that think a 2 year old band with 2 albums are somehow "bigger" than a band who have been on the go for over 20 years, touring the world more times than the other band have toured england, won more grammys than they care to remember and re-defined the live show experience.

"better" is a topic for the music board, go discuss it there.




Cork has done much for the Irish music industry -

Unfortunatly, none of the bands you mentioned have done anything to put ireland on the map worldwide apart from the indisputible genius of Gallagher. U2 continue to use Irish talent and expertise in many facets of thier business. Recording, Touring, Videos, Films.... nearly everything they do is driven by a largely Irish base of talent.
This is far more than can be said of Louis Walsh's bands who run off to England the first chance they get to record and make videos. THIS is why U2 must be recognised as making a sizable contribution to this country and worth almost every penny (imo) of thier tax relief.


How much public money is going into the the new recording studio?
none

I thought the band were pushing their greatest hits cd?
I surpose, next year - The Very Best of U2 1980-2000 will come out?

Actually The Best of U2 1990-2000 is out now. The Best...1980-1990 came out 2 years ago.


Why do they need a recording studio for anyway?
If your going to troll, at least troll well

Cork

IThis is not a Cork Vs Dublin thing. The Frank And Walters are one of the best pop/rock bands to come out of Ireland. But -

U2 continue to use Irish talent and expertise in many facets of thier business. Recording, Touring, Videos, Films.... nearly everything they do is driven by a largely Irish base of talent.

But what effective tax do they pay?
Say - Less or more than the effective rate somebody in McDolands is paying?

Their current studio with its docklands setting is worth lots. I see nothing wrong with holding out for an acceptable deal on it.

What is the exact deal they are getting?

I not saying that U2 are doing anything wrong - They are clearly not.

.

My local pub continue to use Irish talent and expertise in many facets of thier business.
But - they don't avail of Artiests exemption.

The playing pitch needs to be levelled. The whole tax treatment of bands needs to change. And we'll see - how many bands will stay in Ireland or flee abroad?

Pigman

Originally posted by Dustaz
Unfortunatly, none of the bands you mentioned have done anything to put ireland on the map worldwide apart from the indisputible genius of Gallagher.

In an attempt to redeem his good name, Gallagher wasn't actually born in Cork and only had the misfortune of growning up there. That the local population didn't stifle his talent and turn him into a gombeen just like the rest of Corks population is testiment to the great man in itself.

But to get back to the topic. I don't like Boner, U2 or the vast majority of their music but at least, unlike most Irish people, I don't begrudge them their success, which to my mind is what this thread really seems to be about.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
But what effective tax do they pay?
Say - Less or more than the effective rate somebody in McDolands is paying?

OK, first of all, you missed the whole "givernment partially acting as patron for the arts" argument, havent you. The "somebody in McDonalds" is not considered an artist. This is they there's a difference.

On the other hand, neither are all the people who U2 have given work to....you know...the people making their videos, running their sound studio, etc. In fact, the businesses themselves are still considered businesses and pay taxes.

Finally, if you want to bitch about people not paying taxes, why dont you bitch about all those companies the government gave tax amnesties and tax breaks to in order to lure them into the country as well. By your logic....whats the point????? Surely they, combined, are costing us far more in lost taxation than the relatively few financially successful artists to come out of this country.

As for Frank and Waters....dont make me laugh. We're not talking about ability, or your taste. We are talking about financial success, and in that respect, they are (at best) second-rate. Who cares if someone is the greatest <insert artist-type here> in the world and living in Ireland. We are talking about whether or not their tax is due or not.

Personally , I think artists should be given some benefits from the government, but if an artist is earning over the average wage, then its hard to argue that they are somehow "needy" and entitled to more than the rest of us. Financially successful art is its own reward. The government should be helping those who are not financially successful.

Having said all that, it has nothing to do with anything relevant to the original issue. The govt. want to buy land owned by someone else. They are paying to replace the facilities that they want to remove. They would have to do this for any business.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
But this is what I've been saying. I don't believe that it is an equal replacement. I bet the guy next door doesn't get a 3million studio on top of a 60metre tower!

Whatever way you look at it, it's special treatment because of who the people involved are.

Em, sorry for being picky....but its only special treatment because "you dont believe" it was fair....and you havent offered a shred of evidence other than your belief to back that up.

For example - how much was the studio that was given up worth? Its not in the article, and I'm not interested in "I cant imagine it was...."

At the end of the day, if you havent got any proof other than your belief that they got special treatment, then to be honest, you sound like just another bemoaner.

As Bono once said...the American looks at the man at the top of the hill, and says "one day, I will live there". The Irish (whom Bono was lambasting as begrudgers at the time) would say "one day, you'll get whats coming to you, ya bastid".

Either show that U2 got preferential treatment, or admit that this is nothing but baseless speculation.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Cork

Now so this should mean that the band should be compensated with money. Not a new building. Even if they were to be compensated some other way I still contest they were over compensated.

I agree. I also contend that tax breaks like the Artiests exemption & for the bloodstock industry are unfair. People should pay tax on what they earn. Charlie McCreevy should stamp favourable treatment of certain Sertors out.

It is about time - complete equity is brought into our tax system.

If you earn income - You pay tax.

Dustaz

Hey Cork, do you live in the same universe as the word "Topic"?

spongebob

yeah, Rory Gallagher was A Donegalman

M