1. same... they have been to my COUNTRY once... 21 yrs ago...
  2. As far as I know your city is not the capital of the 5th most populated country in Europe
  3. Is the bernabeu not available for concerts? I notice with previous Madrid dates it’s been the Vicente Calderon they’ve chosen, you’d think playing the bernabeu would be incredible. Edit: I notice they have played the bernabeu on the original JT tour but that was over 30 years ago, strange stadium to omit from big tours.
  4. Originally posted by deanallison:Is the bernabeu not available for concerts? I notice with previous Madrid dates it’s been the Vicente Calderon they’ve chosen, you’d think playing the bernabeu would be incredible. Edit: I notice they have played the bernabeu on the original JT tour but that was over 30 years ago, strange stadium to omit from big tours.
    And Calderon doesn't exist anymore now so that won't be an option going forward
  5. I didn’t know that, maybe they’ll fancy atletico’s new stadium in the future then and still ditch the bernabeu.
  6. Originally posted by deanallison:Is the bernabeu not available for concerts? I notice with previous Madrid dates it’s been the Vicente Calderon they’ve chosen, you’d think playing the bernabeu would be incredible. Edit: I notice they have played the bernabeu on the original JT tour but that was over 30 years ago, strange stadium to omit from big tours.
    Santiago Bernabeu has always been an unpopular choice for concerts. In fact, after U2 totally destroyed the grass with their 1987 shows (which had the 'biggest attendance ever' title for a decade, until Reggio Emilia took it) there weren't any more shows until 2008, when The Boss rocked it again. I was there, 18 years old, exactly 2 decades later to the day when my 16 years old father saw U2 there

    Anyway, long story short: Bernabeu doesn't sound well, is a bit messy to organize (it lies literally behind Madrid's biggest avenue, so imagine 80K people collapsing the very center of the city) and is more expensive to rent than Vicente Calderón - that's the reason why most stadium concerts in my city (including U2 in 1993, 1997 and 2005) have been traditionally hosted at Calderón instead. Now Atleti doesn't play the Calderón anymore, indeed, and they've moved to the impressive and modern Wanda Metropolitano, which is a far better stadium than Bernabeu. I will be seeing Bruno Mars there this summer in the very 1st concert ever held at it, will report back (would kill to see U2 there!)

    @Remy Calderón is still holding, not been demolished yet. And it won't be for a long time, probably not until mid 2019!
  7. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]
    Santiago Bernabeu has always been an unpopular choice for concerts. In fact, after U2 totally destroyed the grass with their 1987 shows (which had the 'biggest attendance ever' title for a decade, until Reggio Emilia took it) there weren't any more shows until 2008, when The Boss rocked it again. I was there, 18 years old, exactly 2 decades later to the day when my 16 years old father saw U2 there

    Anyway, long story short: Bernabeu doesn't sound well, is a bit messy to organize (it lies literally behind Madrid's biggest avenue, so imagine 80K people collapsing the very center of the city) and is more expensive to rent than Vicente Calderón - that's the reason why most stadium concerts in my city (including U2 in 1993, 1997 and 2005) have been traditionally hosted at Calderón instead. Now Atleti doesn't play the Calderón anymore, indeed, and they've moved to the impressive and modern Wanda Metropolitano, which is a far better stadium than Bernabeu. I will be seeing Bruno Mars there this summer in the very 1st concert ever held at it, will report back (would kill to see U2 there!)

    @Remy Calderón is still holding, not been demolished yet. And it won't be for a long time, probably not until mid 2019!
    Thanks for the info, I thought there has to be some pretty good reasons for them not to play it and what you’ve explained makes total sense. Would have been amazing seeing Springsteen there though. I reckon u2 might just show up at Wanda Metropolitano in future, looks incredible from the pictures I’ve just looked at.
  8. But my city actually lies far nearer to the geographical center of Germany. Just calling a random fact as important.


    I guess, U2 gives a shit if they play a capital or "big city" or a place that before their show never existed on a map (Moncton).
  9. Originally posted by sparko:[..]
    But my city actually lies far nearer to the geographical center of Germany. Just calling a random fact as important.


    I guess, U2 gives a shit if they play a capital or "big city" or a place that before their show never existed on a map (Moncton).
    There is no rhyme or reason to tour logistics these days... They have skipped Atlanta on the last 2 tours... we have the busiest airport in the States and an international terminal to receive direct flights from around the world...
  10. Originally posted by sparko:[..]
    But my city actually lies far nearer to the geographical center of Germany. Just calling a random fact as important.


    I guess, U2 gives a shit if they play a capital or "big city" or a place that before their show never existed on a map (Moncton).
    Agreed about the latter, disagree about the former Oh anyway!
  11. Originally posted by blueeyedboy:[..]
    There is no rhyme or reason to tour logistics these days... They have skipped Atlanta on the last 2 tours... we have the busiest airport in the States and an international terminal to receive direct flights from around the world...
    But they play Tulsa! Why do you complain?