19 years ago today

That's a good argument for the bitterness and not for the finances. In spite of the royalties deal the concerts slowly increased from zero to a couple.
 
Black Wizard said:
They seemed to extend that "punishment" all the way to 2014 then. One show at Twickenham for Somewhere Back in Time and four shows (two festivals, two London) for Maiden England. The first leg of The Book of Souls world tour was a different case as Bruce had cancer the year before of course. It was only for the second leg that they finally acknowledged they'd been ignoring the UK so much.
Click to expand...

They have played the UK quite extensively since 2000, with some special intimate gigs thrown in for good measure. Their biggest UK tours ever in terms of ticket sales have been the 2017 one, followed by the 2011 tour.

On a related note, the 2017 arena UK tour should have taken place in 2015 and we all know why they couldn't tour that year.
 
if maiden, and Steve in particular, were bitter about there treatment in the U.K. during 1999 they were punishing a lot of fans who actually had supported them throughout the 90’s and not just the blaze years. If they really didn’t want to tour the U.K. because they had the hump that’s very petty in my book.
 
Wayne Bond said:
If they really didn’t want to tour the U.K. because they had the hump that’s very petty in my book.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but as I mentioned previously, someone in the Maiden camp let slip once that they did not tour the UK that year for tax reasons, which seems plausible considering the tax implications of a significant increase in their personal fortunes following this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/275760.stm

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/focus-stars-mine-gold-from-rock-of-wages-1100346.html
 
Last edited:
Maiden are going to play places where they make money. Whenever they skip the UK it's probably because they decided it isn't financially beneficial. Missing out on profits to "punish" certain fans is stupid and petty. Besides, if that was true they would've never toured the USA again.
 
That's black and white. Overlooking the fact that Maiden was more popular in other European countries in the difficult years and that it hurts more to do bad in your own country, in contrast. They were used to bad American support since 1988 already. UK in the Blaze years was from a new and different order. I'll see if I can find interviews from the band about this.
 
Last edited:
Do not overlook tour logistics. I guess it might not be viable to implement a tour somewhere if all parameters aren't met. Availability of venues on certain dates and many more things like that. Sorry for vagueness, but we don't know all variables that make up a tour, so...

I think Forostar is correct on never fading popularity in Europe. West and North Europe are Maiden's home ground too, since the early days. From there Maiden went to tour other continents and other European countries such as ones behind the Iron Curtain. While the popularity that Maiden built with Killers/TNOTB tours in America faded away by 1988, it never did in those "other" European countries. Nowadays being in some Balkan backwater might mean you have better chances of catching the best metal band nearby, than being in an U.S. megalopolis. That's called loyalty - rather opposite of financial greed - playing songs you wish to play for a loyal audience that pays $40 a ticket.
 
There is no denying that Iron Maiden were still popular enough in some countries when Blaze was in the band to play relatively big venues. However, in some places they went to B markets, i.e. those outside the usual touring routing like Pamplona in Spain in 1995, or even C markets, where an international act had never played before. The first time I saw Maiden live was in 1996 in Miajadas, a small town in the south of Spain. The audience were a funny mix of rock fans who have travelled to see Maiden and elderly couples from the town. :D

To sum up, Maiden were still popular in Spain with Blaze, but they became significantly more popular once Bruce and Adrian rejoined, packing bigger venues too (tickets also went from 2500 pesetas to 4000 pesetas).

Regarding them skipping the UK in 1999, as I previously mentioned, someone really close to the band and in the know let slip that it was due to tax reasons. The Iron Maiden bond was probably secured in late 1998, before the reunion (it is no coincidence that all the back catalogue was released as enhanced CDs in December 1998). The bond meant all band members with songwriting input in those albums suddenly found themselves with a significant amount of money. Had they stayed in the UK for a significant amount of time during the following tax year (from 6th April 1999 to 5th April 2000) involved in professional activities like playing gigs, I believe a huge portion of that would have gone to the taxman...

 
Not staying in the UK (as in living), can we distinguish that from playing one gig in th UK?

One lousy gig would have been a huge cost? It was not a huge production either.

The other 1999 gigs were very successful. I assume a lot sold out. If Maiden truly wanted to play their home very much, then they either would have done it either admit the tax reasons openly. They did none of the two. Why did they not come up with a good excuse then and/or show their good will? Because they were not eager to do that; not eager to play there. It is probably a story to feed the British so they would ot be hurt too much.

I believe the tax thing. I do not believe that this was enough to skip the UK entirely.
 
Last edited:
The tax bill might have been. If you're in the country, especially if you're actively working in the country, for too many days, you'd be classed as a resident and suddenly get hit with a high tax rate.
 
Forostar said:
Not staying in the UK (as in loving), can we distinguish that from playing one gig?

One lousy gig would have been a huge cost? It was not a huge production either.
Click to expand...

I will try and explain myself, as it seems the tax implications of the Iron Maiden bond were not clear in my previous message. It is not that playing a gig would have been a huge cost, but that by doing so they would have been faced with an enormous tax bill. This is what I think happened:

- Andy Taylor secures a lucrative deal (Iron Maiden bond) in late 1998 based on the royalties of the back catalogue (the bond paid 7.4 per cent fixed over 18 years to the investors).
- Iron Maiden back catalogue is released on enhanced CD that same year. Coincidence? Probably not.
- Iron Maiden members with songwriting credits get a load of cash as a result of the bond. The way to pay less tax on that amount of money is by staying away from the UK for over half a year and not doing professional activities (i.e. playing gigs) in the country.
- Iron Maiden reunite with Adrian Smith and Bruce Dickinson. They cannot play a gig in the UK for tax reasons and mention that they are planning something big for 2000.

Does that make sense?
 
Forostar said:
It is probably a story to feed the British so they would ot be hurt too much.
Click to expand...

As far as I remember, the only official comments were about doing something big in 2000 (which is what they did, playing one at the 16,000 capacity Earls Court in June 2000, with a short run of arena shows later in the year) and therefore skipping the UK in 1999. That did not go down well with those who supported the band in the UK during the Blaze years, although many had the opportunity to travel to Paris in 1999 thanks to the Fan Club.

Anyway, telling their audience that they have to wait until 2000 to see the band on home turf, although upsetting that might have been to some, was probably a better PR move from Rod than saying "We have made a significant amount of money thanks to this bond and even though we have always said that we play for our fans, this time we have to skip the UK because otherwise most of that money would disappear". :D
 
I was 20 in 2000 and it feels like it happened 3 months ago. Time has flown by these past two decades and I feel no older. Granted, I’m a superior physical specimen so it makes sense that I should be eternal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top