Eagles, Pearl Jam, Guns N’ Roses Among Groups Receiving PPP Loans for Postponed Tours

igotid88 · July 2020

WesC said:

Terrible look fellas. Wonder what old Ed would have said about this 25 years ago? It seems everyday lately some weird shit happens in this world that makes me ask my wife, "did you put acid in my coffee this morning?"
This was today's

They have employees. They are technically a small business

WesC · July 2020

elvistheking44 said:

WesC said:

Terrible look fellas. Wonder what old Ed would have said about this 25 years ago? It seems everyday lately some weird shit happens in this world that makes me ask my wife, "did you put acid in my coffee this morning?"
This was today's

The money was for small business, Pearl Jam is a small business with employees. What should they have done

I fully understand how it works. The breakdown, the 75% spent on payroll to get the whole thing forgiven, the keeping it and it turns into a 1% loan on a 2 year note. And yes, PJ is a small business and they are 100% entitled to apply for and receive the money to pay their employees or contracted help.

My original post said it was a bad look. That's all. I think it is. It's like hearing Kanye West's Yeezy brand received over a million. A week after he was bragging about his wife becoming a billionaire. It's a bad look.
That's all & just my opinion.

pearljammr78 · July 2020

WesC said:

elvistheking44 said:

WesC said:

Terrible look fellas. Wonder what old Ed would have said about this 25 years ago? It seems everyday lately some weird shit happens in this world that makes me ask my wife, "did you put acid in my coffee this morning?"
This was today's

The money was for small business, Pearl Jam is a small business with employees. What should they have done
I fully understand how it works. The breakdown, the 75% spent on payroll to get the whole thing forgiven, the keeping it and it turns into a 1% loan on a 2 year note. And yes, PJ is a small business and they are 100% entitled to apply for and receive the money to pay their employees or contracted help.

My original post said it was a bad look. That's all. I think it is. It's like hearing Kanye West's Yeezy brand received over a million. A week after he was bragging about his wife becoming a billionaire. It's a bad look.
That's all & just my opinion.

What is the good option for the band to keep their employees paid during this nonsense in your opinion? I know it looks bad at first but the bottom line is their employees are not rich rockstars and Pearl Jam the business did what it thought was best for the well being of their employees. I see it as nothing but a good thing. But I do respect your opinion and was wondering what their other solution should have been. Maybe I’m looking at it wrong.

Thierry Henry · July 2020

Post deleted. Please see the Posting Guidelines

demetrios · July 2020

Post deleted

hedonist · July 2020

Go Beavers said:

If you wanna bitch, then bitch about the Church of Scientology getting a loan.

Yeah!

pearljammr78 · July 2020

How about any faith based organization getting a loan or tax free status. Let’s give tax breaks to doctors and those doing proven science the tax breaks. Last time I looked, my faith in Santa Claus doesn’t get me shit.

Josh10376 · July 2020

This feels icky.

JimmyV · July 2020

This feels like responsible business management. They got their road crew paid this year when all shows are postponed, and they got their warehouse crew paid for the lean months when everything was closed.

pjl44 · July 2020

Man, people will take any opportunity to crowbar in their pet grievances.

On topic, with the current state of the music industry I don't know how you begrudge any entity (including huge touring bands) taking advantage of any relief they qualify for. Live music is likely one of the last things that comes back in any recognizable form. Cut these people all the slack.

AmishGuy91 · July 2020

Yeah it's a horrible look. Just like when the Lakers took the loan, but they repaid it back.

NSL · July 2020

I have friends that work for some of the bands on the list. It's been very helpful for them.

It seems like a bad look reading it in a post but it's perfectly logical since these bands are also a business.

Zod · July 2020

pjl44 said:

Man, people will take any opportunity to crowbar in their pet grievances.

On topic, with the current state of the music industry I don't know how you begrudge any entity (including huge touring bands) taking advantage of any relief they qualify for. Live music is likely one of the last things that comes back in any recognizable form. Cut these people all the slack.

I think the argument is, "Do people with Net Worth's varying between 75m and 100m really need to use to government funds to float the boat?".

Our governments are going knee deep in debt trying to keep everything afloat. You would hope, to reduce it's scope, it would go to the people/entities that need it most. Not people/entities with fairly large cash reserves.

I understand why they did it, and I think it's great they're looking after their employees. I do them see them being a little different than the average small business that might be just getting buy, or only make a little money to bank.

I do think it's great they're looking after their employees. In all fairness they probably pay a shittonne of tax. What they got is probably a fraction of what they contribute. Meh.

pjl44 · July 2020

Zod said:

pjl44 said:

Man, people will take any opportunity to crowbar in their pet grievances.

On topic, with the current state of the music industry I don't know how you begrudge any entity (including huge touring bands) taking advantage of any relief they qualify for. Live music is likely one of the last things that comes back in any recognizable form. Cut these people all the slack.

I think the argument is, "Do people with Net Worth's varying between 75m and 100m really need to use to government funds to float the boat?".

Our governments are going knee deep in debt trying to keep everything afloat. You would hope, to reduce it's scope, it would go to the people/entities that need it most. Not people/entities with fairly large cash reserves.

I understand why they did it, and I think it's great they're looking after their employees. I do them see them being a little different than the average small business that might be just getting buy, or only make a little money to bank.

I do think it's great they're looking after their employees. In all fairness they probably pay a shittonne of tax. What they got is probably a fraction of what they contribute. Meh.

I don't know. I can't pretend to know anyone's financial situation. I assume they're all rolling in it, but that doesn't mean they're liquid enough to keep payroll going. With the state of the music industry, it feels shitty to wag my finger at someone for how they're keeping their crew whole. If they're eligible for a program like this, they should absolutely take advantage of it.

100 Pacer · July 2020

JimmyV said:

This feels like responsible business management. They got their road crew paid this year when all shows are postponed, and they got their warehouse crew paid for the lean months when everything was closed.

Exactly. People speculating on the band’s specific finances or decisions or net worth is amusing. It has nothing to do with their overhead - the tour insurance policy doesn’t cover a pandemic so when everything is cancelled someone has to cover the costs.

Zod · July 2020

pjl44 said:

Zod said:

pjl44 said:

Man, people will take any opportunity to crowbar in their pet grievances.

On topic, with the current state of the music industry I don't know how you begrudge any entity (including huge touring bands) taking advantage of any relief they qualify for. Live music is likely one of the last things that comes back in any recognizable form. Cut these people all the slack.

I think the argument is, "Do people with Net Worth's varying between 75m and 100m really need to use to government funds to float the boat?".

Our governments are going knee deep in debt trying to keep everything afloat. You would hope, to reduce it's scope, it would go to the people/entities that need it most. Not people/entities with fairly large cash reserves.

I understand why they did it, and I think it's great they're looking after their employees. I do them see them being a little different than the average small business that might be just getting buy, or only make a little money to bank.

I do think it's great they're looking after their employees. In all fairness they probably pay a shittonne of tax. What they got is probably a fraction of what they contribute. Meh.

I don't know. I can't pretend to know anyone's financial situation. I assume they're all rolling in it, but that doesn't mean they're liquid enough to keep payroll going. With the state of the music industry, it feels shitty to wag my finger at someone for how they're keeping their crew whole. If they're eligible for a program like this, they should absolutely take advantage of it.

definitely. I was trying to flush out the opposite argument because it seemed like some people didn't quite understand why other people took issue with it.

I think both sides of the argument have merit

pjl44 · July 2020

Zod said:

pjl44 said:

Zod said:

pjl44 said:

Man, people will take any opportunity to crowbar in their pet grievances.

On topic, with the current state of the music industry I don't know how you begrudge any entity (including huge touring bands) taking advantage of any relief they qualify for. Live music is likely one of the last things that comes back in any recognizable form. Cut these people all the slack.

I think the argument is, "Do people with Net Worth's varying between 75m and 100m really need to use to government funds to float the boat?".

Our governments are going knee deep in debt trying to keep everything afloat. You would hope, to reduce it's scope, it would go to the people/entities that need it most. Not people/entities with fairly large cash reserves.

I understand why they did it, and I think it's great they're looking after their employees. I do them see them being a little different than the average small business that might be just getting buy, or only make a little money to bank.

I do think it's great they're looking after their employees. In all fairness they probably pay a shittonne of tax. What they got is probably a fraction of what they contribute. Meh.

I don't know. I can't pretend to know anyone's financial situation. I assume they're all rolling in it, but that doesn't mean they're liquid enough to keep payroll going. With the state of the music industry, it feels shitty to wag my finger at someone for how they're keeping their crew whole. If they're eligible for a program like this, they should absolutely take advantage of it.

definitely. I was trying to flush out the opposite argument because it seemed like some people didn't quite understand why other people took issue with it.

I think both sides of the argument have merit

I get the impulse. There's a bit of a reap-what-you-sow element to it. I saw Bad Religion a few years ago and at one point Greg asked the audience "are there any rich people here tonight?" Some guy yelled "yeah, on the stage." I think about that often.

Gern Blansten · July 2020

Zod said:

pjl44 said:

Man, people will take any opportunity to crowbar in their pet grievances.

On topic, with the current state of the music industry I don't know how you begrudge any entity (including huge touring bands) taking advantage of any relief they qualify for. Live music is likely one of the last things that comes back in any recognizable form. Cut these people all the slack.

I think the argument is, "Do people with Net Worth's varying between 75m and 100m really need to use to government funds to float the boat?".

Our governments are going knee deep in debt trying to keep everything afloat. You would hope, to reduce it's scope, it would go to the people/entities that need it most. Not people/entities with fairly large cash reserves.

I understand why they did it, and I think it's great they're looking after their employees. I do them see them being a little different than the average small business that might be just getting buy, or only make a little money to bank.

I do think it's great they're looking after their employees. In all fairness they probably pay a shittonne of tax. What they got is probably a fraction of what they contribute. Meh.

The max loan per employee is $20,833 ($100K / 12 x 2.5) since the maximum compensation that goes into the loan calculation is $100K/year.

So a large PPP loan reflects the number of employees involved.

It does seem odd given that maybe some of these businesses would have opted to pay their employees anyway.

JOEJOEJOE · July 2020

Gern Blansten said:

Zod said:

pjl44 said:

Man, people will take any opportunity to crowbar in their pet grievances.

On topic, with the current state of the music industry I don't know how you begrudge any entity (including huge touring bands) taking advantage of any relief they qualify for. Live music is likely one of the last things that comes back in any recognizable form. Cut these people all the slack.

I think the argument is, "Do people with Net Worth's varying between 75m and 100m really need to use to government funds to float the boat?".

Our governments are going knee deep in debt trying to keep everything afloat.   You would hope, to reduce it's scope, it would go to the people/entities that need it most. Not people/entities with fairly large cash reserves.

I understand why they did it, and I think it's great they're looking after their employees. I do them see them being a little different than the average small business that might be just getting buy, or only make a little money to bank.

I do think it's great they're looking after their employees. In all fairness they probably pay a shittonne of tax.   What they got is probably a fraction of what they contribute.   Meh.

The max loan per employee is $20,833 ($100K / 12 x 2.5) since the maximum compensation that goes into the loan calculation is $100K/year.

So a large PPP loan reflects the number of employees involved.

It does seem odd given that maybe some of these businesses would have opted to pay their employees anyway.

$20,833 ($100K / 12 x 2.5)

I've applied for so many loans for clients so that equation will forever be instilled in my brain!

bobby dazzlers · July 2020

Why you done know bitchin'?!

Eagles, Pearl Jam, Guns N’ Roses Among Groups Receiving PPP Loans for Postponed Tours

Comments

Categories