Talk:Live Nation (events promoter)/Archives/2013

Untitled

• Good job on creating the entry. My questions (also posted on the CCC page) are:

1. Should it be Live Nation or CCE Spinco? The ticker shows live nation, but the SEC documents provided as sources show CCE Spinco.
2. We need to look at the majority stakeholder info for this company. I'm willing to be that CCC is still a large stakeholder, so saying there is now ownership or they are seperate is probably not correct.

Wikibofh_(talk) 14:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Copying my response from the Clear Channel Communications edit page:

• Live Nation announcement: "As of December 21, 2005, the newly independent company will be known as Live Nation." [1]
• In case the "newly independent" phrase doesn't convince you that it is a 100% spin-off, the SEC documents make clear that Clear Channel retains no ownership - note that "Company" = CCE SpinCo = Live Nation: "NOTE M — SUBSEQUENT EVENTS On April 29, 2005, Clear Channel Communications announced a plan to strategically realign the Clear Channel Communication businesses. The plan includes a 100% spin-off of the Company. Following the spin-off, the Company will be a separate, publicly-traded company in which Clear Channel Communications will not retain any ownership interest." [2]

Jvandyke 20:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'd like to clear (no pun intended ;-) )this up. I run the Download Festival (one of Live Nation's festivals) MySpace and as such I have regular contact with employees at Live Nation/CCE. I emailed them this morning to ask about this and received the response that "Live Nation is just the new name for Clear Channel Entertainment - nothing has changed expect for the name!"

So, as such, Clear Channel DOES still own Live Nation and it is NOT an independent body in itself. BenjMartin 10.45, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Are you sure that they don't mean "As far as the customer is concerned, blah blah". Because I'm more inclined to believe the SEC filing! After the distribution, Clear Channel Communications will not own any shares of our common stock and we will not own any shares of Clear Channel Communications common stock. Three of our directors will also be directors of Clear Channel Communications, and our chairman will continue to serve as chief financial officer of Clear Channel Communications. In addition, in connection with the distribution, we and Clear Channel Communications are entering into a number of agreements that will govern our spin-off from Clear Channel Communications and our future relationship. We cannot assure you that these agreements will be on terms as favorable to us as agreements with other third parties. See "Our Relationship with Clear Channel Communications After the Distribution." In addition, if Clear Channel Communications acquires knowledge of a potential transaction or matter which may be a corporate opportunity for both us and Clear Channel Communications, our certificate of incorporation provides that we will generally renounce our interest in the corporate opportunity. See “Description of Capital Stock — Provisions of our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation Relating to Related-Party Transactions and Corporate Opportunities. (page 6,7 from URL above). That seems to me to be a good reason to revert your edit. Unless you can find more definite information, like specific people or consortial have a controlling interest in both corporations. --Concrete Cowboy 17:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Maybe so to the customer, but my relationship with Live Nation is not that of a customer, it is of a partner in the promoting of a festival that they organise. I asked my "contact" at LN: "are Live Nation still in part owned by Clear Channel or are you a completely independent company now?"

They replied with: "Live Nation is just the new name for Clear Channel Entertainment - nothing has changed expect for the name!"

So my response was:"So the company is still owned by the Clear Channel Group?"

To which their response was: "Yep!"

In my eyes, that's pretty plain to see that CC still own Live Nation. Plus it's from a very reliable source, an employee, but I wont edit it again until I have agreement with someone else on this Talk page. I have a meeting with them later this month. I'll ask them myself if anyone is still unsure. --BenjMartin 22:16, 6 April 2006

= Removal of Famous people managed by Live Nation or subsidiaries

I removed this section with the following text: Sports: David Beckham, Michael Jordan, Andre Agassi, Brandi Chastain, Pedro Martinez, Prince Naseem Hamed, Jason Giambi, Gary Lineker, Miguel Tejada, Roger Clemens, Greg Norman, Nomar Garciaparra, Jerry Rice, Kobe Bryant, Warrick Dunn, Al Michaels, Trent Green, Dick Vermeil, Gail Devers, Michael Owen, Nasser Hussain, Michael Atherton, and Alan Shearer. because the management of Sports was sold as detailed in the following articles:[3][4]Jvandyke 00:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Domestic?

Never use the word 'domestic' in an English language article. Especially when you - without further clues to the reader - so arrogantly assume every reader will assume all references are to the US. It's this stupidity and arrogance that are part of the errors on this site and the hatred of people of the US worldwide.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.30.251.46 (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2007

"Domestic" can be used to refer to the same country as that of company. And everyone is welcome to edit the article. -Verdatum (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ticketmaster Merger

I think that Ticketmaster and Live Nation are thinking about a merger. It says so on Ticketmaster's page. Some newspapers say so too. 67.171.172.44 (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think so too. But there's nothing in this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That's when you Be Bold and add it. I'll take care of it. -Verdatum (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Live Nation Entertainment was just created. Since it seems like this entity will be closer to the surviving name after the corporate merger I am wondering if we should merge the corporate merger information into here, and then have this be the surviving article after the new merger under the new corporate name.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep Separate: I don't think that it should merge with Live Nation since Live Nation Entertainment will be the new owner as described in the article. B64 (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The merger has been announced but it still needs to get approved by the Department of Justice. Tryptek (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge. Because there's nothing in this article about Ticketmaster. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there's plenty of precedent for dealing with merged companies with Wikipedia. I'd investigate that and seek out help from wikiproject corporations. I think the easiest thing to do at the moment is wait for the DOJ ruling. -Verdatum (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge. The DOJ approved the merger, and Live Nation has the same stock ticker as the merged company. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Small Corrections

Changed Madonna contract amount back to what it should be. Incorrect: 320 million. Correct: 120 million. You can see the single change here that was made to make it incorrect. The edit I made here fixes it again. Also, why is there a WikiProject Trucks label on this talk page? What does Live Nation have to do with trucking? 216.103.134.130 (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Live Nation used to be a Monster Trucking event promoter. They divested this in 2008. Since I can't imagine much content regarding those past operations will go here, I'm removing the project from this page. -Verdatum (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Should Live Nation Artists have its own article?

Live Nation Artists has built up an artist roster and has already started to release albums. Seems to me that just the mention of the recording label on the main Live Nation article isn't thorough enough. Take for instance Sony Music; it has a main article, but it's subsidiary brands like Columbia and Epic Records also have their own respective articles that detail their specific history. Opinions? — The Real One Returns 04:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding information on this topic. Live Nation appears to hold it's organization tightly enough that separate articles aren't really warranted at this time. If it acted more like it was a separate entity, that could be more appropriate. If I'm pointed to sources, I could be proven wrong. -Verdatum (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thunder Bay

Why isn’t it mentioned that Michael Rapino was born and raised in Thunder Bay? The son of Jim Rapino, who was a senior executive at the City of Thunder Bay? And that Live Nation took over the House of Blues, an entertainment company that itself was founded, in part, by Paul Shaffer, who was also born and raised in Thunder Bay? That both Michael Rapino and Paul Shaffer got their musical starts in Thunder Bay?
Thanks. And have a great day.
--Atikokan (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed

No sources are listed for Shakira info.

"In 2008, Live Nation signed Colombian singer Shakira and Canadian band Nickelback." I've seen an article about this in the past, but it should be sourced here.

"In July 2008, Shakira decided not to sign a contract with Live Nation. The singer would have to fulfill two more albums and a greatest hits album under her old contract with Sony BMG, but all touring and other aspects of the singers musical career would be in effect with the Live Nation contract." Where did this come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.187.119 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

They are no reliable sources. Perhaps some Shakira fan wrote this as a wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.112.73 (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources for it. Here's a basic search. tedder (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)