In general, when people of importance...stock holders, executives, partners etc...leave an ongoing continuing profitable entity...the general practice is their shares of the organization are sold back to the organization for a multiple of profits. The profits are the profits...it is the multiple that is negotiated...and they are bought out.

Let me give some perspective as to why Bill was bought out.

1. "Songwriting"..Bill wrote 1 song in the entire Stones catalog "In Another Land" which got on TSMR because Mick and Keith were so @#$%& up they couldn't come up with material...He also gets a 1/5th share of a handful of tunes credited to Nanker Phledge. This income is not paid to Bill from The Stones organziation...it is generated out of the New York offices of ABKCO who owns these copyrights...probably barely a thousand or two a year.
So he gets no radio play, no mechanicals, no sync..and nothing on all the other Stones songwriting royalties.

2. Merchandise...All the merchandise that he was to participate in was manufactured and sold while he was in the band. Why would he participate in all the new merchandise like the Voodoo Tour, B2B tour and all the tours afterward if he is not on the albums and not playing the concerts?...so that is
another zero...Mick, Keith, Charlie & Ronnie...did the hard work of writing, recording, planning, rehearsing and touring...your going to send a check to Bill for sitting on the couch?...I don't think so.

3. Concert Revenue...do you think Charlie Watts who is playing his ass off and flying around the world for the last 22 years against his will is going to fork over any new concert revenue to Bill Wyman who is sitting on his couch because he used to be in the band...another zero.


4. Catalog sales of records Wyman played on: this is the arguable point on this thread. This is why he was bought out. Up until the last day he was in the band...all the tours and promotion were already done while he was in the band...and anybody who wanted those records that he played on already bought them...So going forward...the guys continue to record albums...do tours...work their asses off zipping across the globe promoting the catalog to new audiences and new generations of fans keeping the catalog alive with new sales
every time they release a new record and do a new tour...do you think Mick, Keith, and Charlie would be happy giving Bill his 1/4th for those new sales post 1993 when Wyman did absolutely nothing to gain those new sales?...no way in hell.

Simple math and I'm pulling a number just for example.
Say the 4 remaining original Stones made 2 million a year each from catalog sales...They probably went to Bill and said we'll give you a multiple of 10 and
buy your ownership out...Here's your $20 Million...we all had a great time.

The Music Business is super complicated...You can't keep an Ex band mate involved in your Business if they have an interest in the income...it just doesn't work...

PECMAN

Quote
Somethinelse

Quote
Naturalust

I've also always suspected the timing of the Stones cutting off Mick Taylor from his share of the pie about the same time the new CD format was becoming the standard product was no coincidence.

I can't see any link between the two events.
Leaving Hot Rocks CDs (issued by ABKCO) aside, wasn't Flashpoint (1991) the first record released by the Stones as a compact disc ? Not sure, but that is what I seem to recall.

The first Rolling Stones compilation issued in the compact disc era was Jump Back (1993), and that would be the first time recordings from the Taylor era were 'repackaged' by the Stones.
(Like I said, leaving ABKCO releases aside).

Apart from the fact that 11-12 years passed between the two events, I already pointed out earlier that there is a mechanical license needed to reproduce recorded works. And as mentioned, whether you release in LP or CD format doesn't change that legal requirement.

The first Rolling Stones CD was "Rewind" in 1984, the first release under their new contract with CBS. After that the whole RSR back catalogue was issued on CD by CBS. The first new album on CD was "Dirty Work" in 1986.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-06 02:27 by Deltics.

The first CD I ever seen that was The Stones was Still Life...and yes...the first back catalog CD was Rewind..Jump Back was another 10 years later.

Pecman

You all forget he Downtown Suzie. Ive bought 3 versions of Metamorphosis and swear I heard the song ONCE on a Satellite radio. That s gotta be worth a few shekels



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-06 05:44 by DrPete.

Quote
Somethinelse

Quote
Naturalust

I've also always suspected the timing of the Stones cutting off Mick Taylor from his share of the pie about the same time the new CD format was becoming the standard product was no coincidence.

I can't see any link between the two events.
Leaving Hot Rocks CDs (issued by ABKCO) aside, wasn't Flashpoint (1991) the first record released by the Stones as a compact disc ? Not sure, but that is what I seem to recall.

The first Rolling Stones compilation issued in the compact disc era was Jump Back (1993), and that would be the first time recordings from the Taylor era were 'repackaged' by the Stones.
(Like I said, leaving ABKCO releases aside).

Apart from the fact that 11-12 years passed between the two events, I already pointed out earlier that there is a mechanical license needed to reproduce recorded works. And as mentioned, whether you release in LP or CD format doesn't change that legal requirement.

Sales profits from the Rolling Stones records after 1970 are not technically considered "royalties" since they are all owned by the band. They are not paid out in the traditional sense like artists who may own their publishing but not the actually product being manufactured by their record company. The Stones didn't agree to pay each member of the band a mechanical royalty for each record sale, they agreed to split all the after costs profits evenly as I understand it.

What I am of course referring to with the Mick Taylor issue is that in the early 80's all the old records such as Sticky Fingers were reissued in a new format, Many new sales were generated as people replaced their collection on the new format and it was a convenient time to cut Taylor out of the additional profits.

So yes you are right about mechanical license being required to reproduce recorded works but I assure you mechanical royalties include both publisher (writer) royalties AND recording artist royalties. The latter is a highly negotiated rate and varies greatly from artist to artist (something like 5% to 25%). And theses rates paid for each individual sale of a record was indeed renegotiated by many, many artists since things like packaging costs, additional marketing and great number of other issues changed when CD's became the standard format. The new format issue wasn't specifically dealt with in the early contracts so the door was open for newly negotiated rates. But like I said, this wasn't an issue for the Stones because they owned their product and kept ALL the money once the relatively fixed costs of manufacturing, marketing and distribution were covered.

Quote
Pecman
In general, when people of importance...stock holders, executives, partners etc...leave an ongoing continuing profitable entity...the general practice is their shares of the organization are sold back to the organization for a multiple of profits. The profits are the profits...it is the multiple that is negotiated...and they are bought out.

Let me give some perspective as to why Bill was bought out.



PECMAN

I'll take that (last) sentence as a misprint... the possible correction is in bold.

"Let me give some perspective as to why I think that Bill was bought out."


Unless and until you can cite a source for your assertions, then we all have to treat them with a large pinch of salt.

Again, please cite real proof for what you are saying - and that's not the same for a well argued series of points that say it would make sense.

TIA.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

The Stones should perform DOWNTOWN SUZIE on the Olé tour.

Quote
Title5Take1
The Stones should perform DOWNTOWN SUZIE on the Olé tour.

I agree. It's a great tune that sadly was written a year too late. This song could've saved Their Satanic Majesties Request. Gomper need never have been part of the Stones' vernacular.

Regarding the lack of Best of Compilaions/ repackages: I suspect that Mick was initially not a fan of these. The Decca and ABKCO releases he probably had little control over. Post 1971 they were releasing NEW material on a regular basis. Remember, the first Beatles compilation came out three years after they split.

On the subject of Billy boy's finances, as I read it:
1. Bill will get his share of record royalties from ABKCO for their controlled product, like the other band members. This income won't go via the Netherlands. Paid direct from Jody Klein and Co.
2. Bill MAY have got some sort of severance payment when he quit, on the basis of an Accountant's calculation on what 20% share of The Rolling Stones Group of Companies was valued at, at the time.
3. He MAY still receive record royalties ...20% of sales profits if Ronnie is on the same.Or some other proportion. For compliationds also. I cannot see why he would have traded off this income for life, for a higher lump sum

RE The Beatles and publishing royalties..
As with The Stones, The Beatles never owned their song copyights in the early days. These were owned by Dick James,Charles Silver (I think) and run through Northern Songs music publishing. John and Paulie owned 10% of this company in the form of shares. Early on George and Ringo had very small shareholdings.
(nb am writing this from memory, so forgive any factual errors).
In 1969 NS was sold...the rest of the saga is well known.

What The Beatles did do however was form two companies, Lenmac Enterprises and then Maclen publishing to which songwriting royalties for the composers were paid. Presumably there were tax advantages in this arrangement.
From what I can remember, Maclen was/is owned 40% each to John and Paulie, 20% to Apple.
As Apple was/is owned 25% to each individual, both George and Ringo were getting a smaller but no doubt welcome income stream from their colleagues efforts.
Not certain if this is the current state of play.

In StonesWorld the position was different. In the early days "group"compositions were published by Nanker Phelge publishing, then for Mick and Keith's efforts, Mirage publishing was formed. Ownership of the companies was with Mick, Keith and ALO. Both companies were disolved in 1993. ALO seems to have been the copyright owner until Allen Klein came on the scene and in time bought out his interests.

So to a degree, you could say there was more democracy in Beatles World.