refused to have been on the same bill

[joham]

Anyway, we would have refused to have been on the same bill as Sting.

This sentence is taken from BRITISH OR AMERICAN ENGLISH. My questions:
1. Can we use 'refused to be' in place of 'refused to have been' without changing the meaning?
2. What does 'on the bill' mean? Does it mean 'having to pay'?

Many thanks in advance for your help.

 

[Barb_D]

In this case, it means refused to have been a performer in the same concert.

The bold part is the definition of being on the same bill.

 

[JTRiff]

we would have refused to share the stage with Sting

Where isthis from? Somebody doesn't like the Police, or Sting.

 

[joham]

Many thanks, Barb and JTRiff.
The source of the sentence: 1989 Sept. 4 Evening Standard 30/3.

 

[5jj]

1. Can we use 'refused to be' in place of 'refused to have been' without changing the meaning?

Your version is better. The original version actually makes no sense - you cannot refuse to do something that has already happened. However, this construction is commonly heard and seen.

 

[Tdol]

If they were asked what they thought after a concert they hadn't been invited to play at, it makes sense IMO. And I warm to them for not wanting to share a stage with Sting. ;-)

 

[5jj]

If they were asked what they thought after a concert they hadn't been invited to play at, it makes sense IMO.

These are all fine:

We are glad [now] (not) to have been [then] on the same bill...
We would (not) like [now] to have been [then] on the same bill...
We would (not) have liked [then] to be [then, or subsequently] on the same bill...
We would have refused [then] to be [then, or subsequently] on the same bill.

But not this:

We would have refused [then] to have been [previously] on the same bill.

In my opinion.

 

[Tdol]

No, but it is the sort of structure that people use in speech, and I presume this is from an interview. It looks odd in writing, and maybe the paper could have tidied it up.