Bump into this on Wikipedia - financially, it makes sense - maybe it has been much discussed earier, but I didn't know this "vacant seat" scheme

After thirty years with the band, the 55-year-old Wyman decided that he had other interests he wanted to pursue and felt that the size of the Steel Wheels project and tour was fitting to bow out with. Although he would not officially announce his departure until January 1993 during which time the rest of the band repeatedly asked him to reconsider—he had talked about leaving the band for at least ten years. After his departure, Ronnie Wood was finally taken off salary and made a full member of the Rolling Stones partnership, 18 years after he joined the band.

I do not see how Wyman's leaving would be a requirement for making Wood a "full member."

This must be pure speculation by whoever wrote this.

Pretty much true.

Woody wasnt a fully fledged member in business terms until the early 90s.

They only brought him on board after they signed the Virgin contract, and Wyman didn't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-11 19:37 by Gazza.

I know that Wyman insisted Ronnie be a "full member" (book: According to the Rolling Stones)
but did not know it was coincided with Wyman's departure. Had Wyman not left...Woody
would not have gotten "full membership" at that time?


IORR............but I like it!

Quote
Edith Grove
I do not see how Wyman's leaving would be a requirement for making Wood a "full member."

This must be pure speculation by whoever wrote this.

Well, the article doesn't say that Woody was made a member because Wyman left, it only says that it was after he left. And that is true.

It is funny to picture that they had a deal: You will become a member when one of the members is gone :-) We all know that Rolling Stones is a bussines label and it can work like that in companies, but with a rock band...funny.

Anyway, it is logical that when The Stones became 3 member band it was somehow obvious that someone should fill the hole. Or one half of it.

My opinion is that Ronnie should have been a Rolling Stone much much earlier. For me he is since 74 (I wasn't even born then ). But that doesn't help him much, does it? At least it doesn't pay him the difference in his income.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-11 16:13 by Happy24.

If you check the Metallica film (sorry for forgetting the name) you´ll find out that Rob Trujillo is not financially really a member of the band. Similar arrangements are very common among rock bands and their new members. Also "old members" of bands make different amount of money, because some of them are songwriters and some are not. Very often bands get problems because of this. "A bunch of guys" make it big and suddenly the singer makes 1000 x more money than the bassplayer and also gets all the media attention.

According to the register of Promopub in The Netherlands the three directors are Jagger, Richards and Watts. Wood is mentioned as an employee only.

Mathijs

Not sure about the structure, but is Promopub the Holding company for all the seperate Stones companies?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-09-11 17:48 by Lorenz.

I thought he was made a full member just before the Steel Wheels tour.
This was apprently due to Wymans request.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-09 19:59 by vudicus.

Mathis is right. When Stones made a deal with Virgin only Mick, Keith and Charlie signed the contract. But Ronnie is not getting salary, he gets a share of the income or something like that... Complicated :-)

Regardless of whatever actually took place, I think what the article is trying to say is, after Bill left there was a financial hole, or vacancy if you will, that allowed Ronnie to finally become a full member without costing those cheapskates Jagger and Richards any extra money. They were used to a four-way split already, so they had less of a problem with keeping it that way then they would of having a five way split with Ronnie while Bill was still a member. Of course, a five way split could have meant less money for everyone besides Jagger and Richards, so maybe that's why it didn't happen until Bill left- meaning its possible that Bill and/or Charlie wanted Ronnie to be a full member, but not at the expense of their shares only, without Jagger and Richards taking a cut out of their percentage too. Who knows what actually happened, it's all just speculation, but I think that's what the article is saying. I'm curious why Ronnie put up with this bullshit to begin with. I can't imagine him agreeing to be just a hired hand indefinitely. It wouldn't surprise me if Jagger promised him full membership within a couple of years, but then led him along for the next two decades. I think he's that kind of a greedy prick.

I don't think Woody had much choice but to accept the large salary he was given. Rod Stewart left The Faces so what could Ronnie do? His solo albums hardly set the commercial world on fire. His booze and drug problems didn't leave him the most buisness organised of people so Jagger does it for him. The Stones had no shortage of potential guitarists.

Quote

I don't think Woody had much choice but to accept the large salary he was given. Rod Stewart left The Faces so what could Ronnie do? His solo albums hardly set the commercial world on fire. His booze and drug problems didn't leave him the most buisness organised of people so Jagger does it for him. The Stones had no shortage of potential guitarists.

I don't doubt that, that is the obvious logic, and everything you say is true. I was just thinking along the lines of Ronnie, at that time, having a bit more going on, some other options, maybe even continuing on with Rod outside of/after the Faces. It's also possible his boozing and drugging wasn't the liability then that it became later. I obviously don't know what happened, and I'm not saying he could have gone anywhere and written his own paycheck, he wasn't that big of a star. And he wasn't a lock either, he did have to try out and all, it wasn't a given. But I can't help but think that he had enough of a professional standing at that time to cause him to at least say something along the lines of "Ok, that's a fair salary for this tour, and I understand I can't just step into this and suddenly get an equal share, but down the road, what are we looking at?" To which, I could see Jagger, mainly, telling him not to worry, he'd be given his fair share as a member at some point, if things worked out, within a couple of years or so, and then just leaving it open for the next 20 years. I could very well be wrong, but I just don't think Woody would have agreed, in the beginning, to be salary only for as long he was. I can't help but think that Jagger and his silver tongue promised him more, sooner.

Quote
boogie69
Regardless of whatever actually took place, I think what the article is trying to say is, after Bill left there was a financial hole, or vacancy if you will, that allowed Ronnie to finally become a full member without costing those cheapskates Jagger and Richards any extra money. They were used to a four-way split already, so they had less of a problem with keeping it that way then they would of having a five way split with Ronnie while Bill was still a member. Of course, a five way split could have meant less money for everyone besides Jagger and Richards, so maybe that's why it didn't happen until Bill left- meaning its possible that Bill and/or Charlie wanted Ronnie to be a full member, but not at the expense of their shares only, without Jagger and Richards taking a cut out of their percentage too. Who knows what actually happened, it's all just speculation, but I think that's what the article is saying. I'm curious why Ronnie put up with this bullshit to begin with. I can't imagine him agreeing to be just a hired hand indefinitely. It wouldn't surprise me if Jagger promised him full membership within a couple of years, but then led him along for the next two decades. I think he's that kind of a greedy prick.

Woody explained this a few years ago. Dont recall the exact details, but when he 'joined' in 1976, he was given two choices. One was to be paid as a salaried employee for an indefinite period, the other was to get a percentage for as long as the band stayed together. At that stage, the band had already been together longer than pretty much any rock band in history, so he chose the 'salary' option because it seemed a more sensible option with regard to his long-term financial security.

Bad call, and it almost bankrupted him by the late 80s, but who in 1976 would have envisaged the Stones being less than a third of the way through their lifespan as a band?

From what all I've read it happened right before the Japan leg of the 1990 Steel Wheels tour that he finally was paid the same is Bill and Charlie.

Quote

Woody explained this a few years ago. Don't recall the exact details, but when he 'joined' in 1976, he was given two choices. One was to be paid as a salaried employee for an indefinite period, the other was to get a percentage for as long as the band stayed together. At that stage, the band had already been together longer than pretty much any rock band in history, so he chose the 'salary' option because it seemed a more sensible option with regard to his long-term financial security.

Bad call, and it almost bankrupted him by the late 80s, but who in 1976 would have envisaged the Stones being less than a third of the way through their lifespan as a band?

I knew there had to be more to it then him just taking a salary indefinitely. And too right him making the wrong choice, but hindsight-foresight you know. I still don't think it's quite right the way they've treated him, but if they gave him that option, then its partly on him and Jagger isn't as much to blame as I thought. Thanks for the info.

Ron Wood was not a so-called equal partner in Rolling Stones profit sharing until 1997, just before they started The Bridges To Babylon Tour.

No wonder Mr. Wood has doused himself in chemicals. His songwriting and pure talent has largely been ignored by the Glimmer Twins.

"keep on rollin"
Milo NYC

Quote
MILO NYC
Ron Wood was not a so-called equal partner in Rolling Stones profit sharing until 1997, just before they started The Bridges To Babylon Tour.

No wonder Mr. Wood has doused himself in chemicals. His songwriting and pure talent has largely been ignored by the Glimmer Twins.

"keep on rollin"
Milo NYC

Unbiased Question: Even if he were not paid from a profit sharing standpoint, didn't he make a lucrative salary/contract?

There is an interview with Ronnie from 94 where he actually mentions this, It might have been with Ed Bradley cant remember exactly. I do remember him saying

(paraphrasing)

" I did not know what real money was until I was made a full partner 19 years after joining the Band"

I thought I remember reading somewhere, that at Wyman and Watt's urging, he was made a member rather than a salaried employee around the time Dirty Work came out. But Watts, Jagger, and Richards are the only ones who have decision making power.