So your sayin' life savers get paid cash ? ....



ROCKMAN

Probably should start by defining what Bill means by "small nest egg". 1,000? 10,000? 1,000,000? I doubt the royalties total a great deal of money but he probably lives a life style a little above ours!

Quote
Rockman
So your sayin' life savers get paid cash ? ....

Last I checked, they were about a dollar a roll...

He would get about 3 cents every time "In Another Land" is played on US radio, and 3 cents divided by 5 for any Nanker-Phelge compositions.

If Bill was paid a lump sum with no further royalties from record sales it doesnt make sense when he is quoted as saying he cant manage on Stones income alone.
It would not be sensible to be paid a lump sum either from a tax liability perspective either.

Quote
jlowe
If Bill was paid a lump sum with no further royalties from record sales it doesnt make sense when he is quoted as saying he cant manage on Stones income alone.
It would not be sensible to be paid a lump sum either from a tax liability perspective either.

Who knows what the deal entailed. Bills primary Stones income was probably from his direct cut of record sales profits, as I posted earlier, the Stones own their product so profits are high and split evenly once expenses are covered. Not to mention merchandise and touring which were also significant. His publishing and other royalty money never compared to those sources. This is probably what he retained and partly explains the comment about not being able to live of the income.

I imagine if he sold out, it was only his share of the sales and merchandising profits. As far as tax liability, I believe the companies are based in the Netherlands and possibly even the Bahamas and no doubt they have found ways to pay very little taxes on their earning like every other corporation has.

Not wanting to drone about this too much, but......the Stones dont of course own their pre 1971 catalogue and I would have thought in terms of ongoing sales this period far exceeeds the period which follows.
Having said that their royalty rates from Jody Klein and Co may not be exactly generous!

Quote
jlowe
Not wanting to drone about this too much, but......the Stones dont of course own their pre 1971 catalogue and I would have thought in terms of ongoing sales this period far exceeeds the period which follows.
Having said that their royalty rates from Jody Klein and Co may not be exactly generous!

Some Girls is their best selling album.

Quote
Pecman
It's very simple...

When he split the Stones...he got a flat buyout from the group...


PECMAN

Please cite your source for that. I've never, ever, heard that before.

Thanks

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Quote
Come On
He wrote 'In Another land' soooooooo....yes...for each and every sold copy of 'Their Satanic...'

Thats about 10 bucks a year

Quote
CaptainCorella

Quote
Pecman
It's very simple...

When he split the Stones...he got a flat buyout from the group...

PECMAN

Please cite your source for that. I've never, ever, heard that before.

Thanks

There is a good reason for that. It is simply not true.
I don't know why people make stuff like this up.

Guys...when Bill was in the group Ronnie was a salaried employee...when Bill left the group in 1993...they bought him out and gave his share to Ronnie Wood and made Wood a profit participant...this all happened at the end of 1993 and before the Voodoo Lounge Tour...don't you remember Wood saying at the time "it's a nice club to be a member now".

Secondly...they couldn't keep Wyman as a profit participant because that would
mean they would have to consult with him over things if it affected his income...and there was no way in hell Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were going
to be running things by Bill who left the band.

Think about it logically...if Bill continued to be paid...he would have to be consulted on catalog deals, re-releases, all that Vault stuff etc.

Do you honestly think they were going to keep him involved on these matters?

PECMAN

Bill mentioned himself in an interview some years ago that Stones royalties were not enough to sustain his life. That's why he went on the road touring.
He left Stones right when the big "touring-money" started in 1989/90.

"Wyman formed his current band in the early 1990's as a deliberate antidote to the one he left after the Steel Wheels tour. From a financial standpoint, the timing of his departure was not auspicious.
"The big money wasn't there yet. I had a small nest egg and I can live nicely but I can't rely on Stones royalties to support me. I have to work and I'm not in the same league as the boys who stayed on. But I wanted to have fun."

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

BILL was quoted in The Guardian (UK newspaper) as saying his 3 properties cost him around £500,000 per year to run. This was in 2006.
He had a few million in the bank....so he had to keep working.
Can't imagine his books, other projects or The Rythmn Kings earn him anything like the above figure.

Quote
jlowe
Ive read in a number of journals that the Estate of Brian Jones only generates an income of around £20k per annum. When you think that his period of 1963/69 has generated the most in terms of back royalties this seems very small.
Of course it could be that the Estates "cut" is less than, for example Bill's. Maybe different terms were/have been agreed by the various parties.
One can only speculate what royalty rate the group get. For the ABKCO period, I guess the record company have the complete upper hand. For the post 1971 period the group can renegotiate and if necessary take the product elsewhere...has has happened of course over the years. Universal distribute ALL their work now, but whether that helps matters, not sure.
I'm sure Bill will have been very methodical in whatever arrangements were made when he made his exit. I recall he had his own individual book- keeper in the old days, hence his familiarity with bank balances, as shown in Stone Alone.

Brian Jones played on fewer tracks than Bill Wyman did, so this would be reflected in the royalty cheques due to each party.

In addition, Brian Jones was not part of the more lucrative business arrangements made later on. Things changed a lot when the Stones took control of their own business by forming a label and a number of other companies under the Promogroup umbrella (1970). By doing so, they ensured they were not limited to receiving a regular 'royalty' rate from the recordcompany (usually in the 8- 15 % range) but instead were able to put 100 % of the profit from the sales of the albums released on Rolling Stones Records in their own pocket. Every bandmember had equal rights in this, in other words a 1/5 share of the income.

The deals they signed since then are merely distribution deals, which means they only sell the right to make the record available to retailers (for a limited amount of time) to a third party while the band retains the copyright in the recordings.

Quote
jlowe
BILL was quoted in The Guardian (UK newspaper) as saying his 3 properties cost him around £500,000 per year to run. This was in 2006.
He had a few million in the bank....so he had to keep working.
Can't imagine his books, other projects or The Rythmn Kings earn him anything like the above figure.

3 luxury properties could easily cost that much.

Property tax, insurance, groundskeeping, and housekeeping alone would be $100,000-$200,000 per property. On top of that add security, someone to take care of the equipment and cars, interior design/decoration, basic building maintenance, etc.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
jlowe
BILL was quoted in The Guardian (UK newspaper) as saying his 3 properties cost him around £500,000 per year to run. This was in 2006.
He had a few million in the bank....so he had to keep working.
Can't imagine his books, other projects or The Rythmn Kings earn him anything like the above figure.

3 luxury properties could easily cost that much.

Property tax, insurance, groundskeeping, and housekeeping alone would be $100,000-$200,000 per property. On top of that add security, someone to take care of the equipment and cars, interior design/decoration, basic building maintenance, etc.

When he talks about having to be careful with money and not being as wealthy as he should be, he sounds like a pensioned-off Spinal Tapper. You must be worth around £30m, I say. "Are you serious?" he asks. "Whatcha talking about? With properties and everything? Nah. Maybe £20m. But cash in hand is the problem and I've got very little of that. So I've got to work. I can't stop." He has always voted Tory, "because they are the ones that looked after me. Labour? Come on. We had to leave the country didn't we? It was 93% tax. After paying millions into the Inland Revenue, you know what they gave me for a pension?" He pauses dramatically. "£34 a week." And he sniffs his contempt. The country's going to the dogs, he says.

At times, when he talks about the Stones, he sounds like somebody who has escaped an abusive relationship. He was not allowed to write songs for the band ("Sorry mate, we write the songs for this band," he was told) and received no publishing royalties for the music. (The Beatles split royalties despite Lennon and McCartney writing most of the songs.) Today, Wyman still resents the fact that he was treated as a hired hand.

[www.theguardian.com]

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Turner68

Quote
jlowe
BILL was quoted in The Guardian (UK newspaper) as saying his 3 properties cost him around £500,000 per year to run. This was in 2006.
He had a few million in the bank....so he had to keep working.
Can't imagine his books, other projects or The Rythmn Kings earn him anything like the above figure.

3 luxury properties could easily cost that much.

Property tax, insurance, groundskeeping, and housekeeping alone would be $100,000-$200,000 per property. On top of that add security, someone to take care of the equipment and cars, interior design/decoration, basic building maintenance, etc.

When he talks about having to be careful with money and not being as wealthy as he should be, he sounds like a pensioned-off Spinal Tapper. You must be worth around £30m, I say. "Are you serious?" he asks. "Whatcha talking about? With properties and everything? Nah. Maybe £20m. But cash in hand is the problem and I've got very little of that. So I've got to work. I can't stop." He has always voted Tory, "because they are the ones that looked after me. Labour? Come on. We had to leave the country didn't we? It was 93% tax. After paying millions into the Inland Revenue, you know what they gave me for a pension?" He pauses dramatically. "£34 a week." And he sniffs his contempt. The country's going to the dogs, he says.

At times, when he talks about the Stones, he sounds like somebody who has escaped an abusive relationship. He was not allowed to write songs for the band ("Sorry mate, we write the songs for this band," he was told) and received no publishing royalties for the music. (The Beatles split royalties despite Lennon and McCartney writing most of the songs.) Today, Wyman still resents the fact that he was treated as a hired hand.

[www.theguardian.com]

Wow, I'd never heard that the Beatles split the publishing royalties. Is that really true? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding different types of royalties, as I believe that McCartney/Lennon didn't own the rights to their Northern Songs?

Quote
Pecman
Guys...when Bill was in the group Ronnie was a salaried employee...when Bill left the group in 1993...they bought him out and gave his share to Ronnie Wood and made Wood a profit participant...this all happened at the end of 1993 and before the Voodoo Lounge Tour...don't you remember Wood saying at the time "it's a nice club to be a member now".

From that point onwards, Ronnie was getting a share in the profit from touring. Which he had not been given before. The same does not apply to him receiving a share from all recordings. When it comes to the very complex legal structures that govern the Stones' business, Ronnie is not a part of them.
Nor does he get paid a share from the records that Bill played on between 1962 and 1975.
In other words: It is not possible to transfer Bill's entitlement to Ronnie.

Quote
Pecman
Secondly...they couldn't keep Wyman as a profit participant because that would
mean they would have to consult with him over things if it affected his income...and there was no way in hell Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were going
to be running things by Bill who left the band.

Think about it logically...if Bill continued to be paid...he would have to be consulted on catalog deals, re-releases, all that Vault stuff etc.

Yes, they do have to consult him - but only where it concerns re-releases (compilations) of recordings he was a part of. It is of course not Jagger & Richards that contact Bill in person to discuss the terms. It's more like their lawyers would send an e-mail to Bill's office.

Quote
Pecman
Do you honestly think they were going to keep him involved on these matters?

They don't really have much of a choice. They were in a band together for about 30 years. When a decision needs to be made regarding the catalogue which is the result of that collaboration, the parties involved will have to iron out an agreement.

Quote
Somethinelse

Quote
Pecman
Guys...when Bill was in the group Ronnie was a salaried employee...when Bill left the group in 1993...they bought him out and gave his share to Ronnie Wood and made Wood a profit participant...this all happened at the end of 1993 and before the Voodoo Lounge Tour...don't you remember Wood saying at the time "it's a nice club to be a member now".

From that point onwards, Ronnie was getting a share in the profit from touring. Which he had not been given before. The same does not apply to him receiving a share from all recordings. When it comes to the very complex legal structures that govern the Stones' business, Ronnie is not a part of them.
Nor does he get paid a share from the records that Bill played on between 1962 and 1975.
In other words: It is not possible to transfer Bill's entitlement to Ronnie.

Quote
Pecman
Secondly...they couldn't keep Wyman as a profit participant because that would
mean they would have to consult with him over things if it affected his income...and there was no way in hell Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were going
to be running things by Bill who left the band.

Think about it logically...if Bill continued to be paid...he would have to be consulted on catalog deals, re-releases, all that Vault stuff etc.

Yes, they do have to consult him - but only where it concerns re-releases (compilations) of recordings he was a part of. It is of course not Jagger & Richards that contact Bill in person to discuss the terms. It's more like their lawyers would send an e-mail to Bill's office.

Quote
Pecman
Do you honestly think they were going to keep him involved on these matters?

They don't really have much of a choice. They were in a band together for about 30 years. When a decision needs to be made regarding the catalogue which is the result of that collaboration, the parties involved will have to iron out an agreement.

It certainly depends on what agreements they ironed out ahead of time. It's entirely possible and highly probably that clauses to cover future releases and in whatever new format were well covered with Bill when he left. When CD's became the new format and everyone was able to renegotiate the terms of their deals it opened everybody's eyes to the importance of dealing with future releases and other formats. And no doubt Mick was very aware of the probability of many future releases with material that included Bill. I doubt he would have left such a thing open ended to a point of having to get Bill's approval for whatever they did. Possibly they left out the part about using Bill's image and this is why we see so little of it on post Bill product.

Agreed Naturalist. Anything can be negotiated or agreed to. It's not possible to say "they have to consult him" or "they don't have to consult him" unless you have knowledge of all their contracts with one another.

I have shared in the past the story of the Stones trying to sell Microsoft a version of "Start Me Up" that didn't have Wyman on it - it's unclear if it was for financial reasons, or legal, or both.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-06 01:09 by Turner68.

Quote
Pecman
Do you honestly think they were going to keep him involved on these matters?

Quote
Somethinelse
They don't really have much of a choice. They were in a band together for about 30 years. When a decision needs to be made regarding the catalogue which is the result of that collaboration, the parties involved will have to iron out an agreement.

Quote
Naturalust
It certainly depends on what agreements they ironed out ahead of time. It's entirely possible and highly probably that clauses to cover future releases and in whatever new format were well covered with Bill when he left.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Bill didn't need permission from anyone to leave the band. The way you phrase it, implies that the rest of the band was in a position to make him sign a contract or something when he decided to move on. The reality is that they didn't have that sort of leverage and Bill's rights were already documented in the agreements drawn up in 1970.
The thing about the Stones' business arrangements is that each bandmember signed their own (separate but identical) agreement detailing their entitlement to a share of the profit (royalties, for lack of a better word) as one of the directors in each of the companies they founded together.

Quote
Naturalust
When CD's became the new format and everyone was able to renegotiate the terms of their deals it opened everybody's eyes to the importance of dealing with future releases and other formats. And no doubt Mick was very aware of the probability of many future releases with material that included Bill.

I doubt he would have left such a thing open ended to a point of having to get Bill's approval for whatever they did. Possibly they left out the part about using Bill's image and this is why we see so little of it on post Bill product.

In the case of the Stones, the arrival of the CD format didn't really change the principle as the copyright in the original recordings was retained by the bandmembers anyway (since 1970). And Bill's departure from the band didn't affect that situation as the contracts signed between them stated he is a co-owner of the works produced.
Every time they did a new deal with a label that took on the role of distributor, it had to cover the right to use (for the duration of the agreement) the physical likeness, the name as well as the playing incorporated in the tracks - for each of the bandmembers.
There would be no logical reason for Bill to hand over those rights.

Quote
Somethinelse

There would be no logical reason for Bill to hand over those rights.

There's been an assertion that there was - that he was bought out. This happens very often. I have no idea if it happened in this case, but it certainly isn't illogical prima facie.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Somethinelse

There would be no logical reason for Bill to hand over those rights.

There's been an assertion that there was - that he was bought out. This happens very often. I have no idea if it happened in this case, but it certainly isn't illogical prima facie.

It looks to me that person that alleged this, is plucking things out of thin air. (And has not been able to cite a single verifiable source).
Bill has actually stated in interviews that he didn't sell his rights to receive royalties.

Quote
Somethinelse

Quote
Pecman
Do you honestly think they were going to keep him involved on these matters?

Quote
Somethinelse
They don't really have much of a choice. They were in a band together for about 30 years. When a decision needs to be made regarding the catalogue which is the result of that collaboration, the parties involved will have to iron out an agreement.

Quote
Naturalust
It certainly depends on what agreements they ironed out ahead of time. It's entirely possible and highly probably that clauses to cover future releases and in whatever new format were well covered with Bill when he left.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Bill didn't need permission from anyone to leave the band. The way you phrase it, implies that the rest of the band was in a position to make him sign a contract or something when he decided to move on. The reality is that they didn't have that sort of leverage and Bill's rights were already documented in the agreements drawn up in 1970.
The thing about the Stones' business arrangements is that each bandmember signed their own (separate but identical) agreement detailing their entitlement to a share of the profit (royalties, for lack of a better word) as one of the directors in each of the companies they founded together.

Quote
Naturalust
When CD's became the new format and everyone was able to renegotiate the terms of their deals it opened everybody's eyes to the importance of dealing with future releases and other formats. And no doubt Mick was very aware of the probability of many future releases with material that included Bill.

I doubt he would have left such a thing open ended to a point of having to get Bill's approval for whatever they did. Possibly they left out the part about using Bill's image and this is why we see so little of it on post Bill product.

In the case of the Stones, the arrival of the CD format didn't really change the principle as the copyright in the original recordings was retained by the bandmembers anyway (since 1970). And Bill's departure from the band didn't affect that situation as the contracts signed between them stated he is a co-owner of the works produced.
Every time they did a new deal with a label that took on the role of distributor, it had to cover the right to use (for the duration of the agreement) the physical likeness, the name as well as the playing incorporated in the tracks - for each of the bandmembers.
There would be no logical reason for Bill to hand over those rights.

Yes in principle the matters of publishing royalties didn't change and the Stones were a bit of a special case in terms of "income" since they owned their product in terms of sales. My point was that the CD format indeed opened the door for many renegotiations in the industry that were somewhat unexpected at the time of the original deals and that Mick was likely well aware of the ramifications. I also suspect millions of dollars might have been a pretty good reason for Bill to hand over rights to his previous performances.

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.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-06 01:24 by Naturalust.

Quote
Pecman
Guys...when Bill was in the group Ronnie was a salaried employee...when Bill left the group in 1993...they bought him out and gave his share to Ronnie Wood and made Wood a profit participant...this all happened at the end of 1993 and before the Voodoo Lounge Tour...don't you remember Wood saying at the time "it's a nice club to be a member now".

Secondly...they couldn't keep Wyman as a profit participant because that would
mean they would have to consult with him over things if it affected his income...and there was no way in hell Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were going
to be running things by Bill who left the band.

Think about it logically...if Bill continued to be paid...he would have to be consulted on catalog deals, re-releases, all that Vault stuff etc.

Do you honestly think they were going to keep him involved on these matters?

PECMAN

Why can't you cite the source of your previous claim?

Anyway, your first point above is known to be totally wrong. History records in several places that Ronnie was made a member (not an employee) of The Rolling Stones long before Bill left the band. It was at Bill's urging, and Ronnie was more than grateful.

I do agree that it makes little sense to keep someone as a member of Rollin Stones Inc if they have left the band, but this thread's all about ongoing royalties for work done while he was a full member.

The deal with ABKCO only covered the mechanical rights - ie playing the recordings. So Bill ought to be due his royalties for "In Another Land", in exactly the same way that Chuck Berry ought to be getting his for "Little Queenie", etc.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
Somethinelse

In the case of the Stones, the arrival of the CD format didn't really change the principle as the copyright in the original recordings was retained by the bandmembers anyway (since 1970). And Bill's departure from the band didn't affect that situation as the contracts signed between them stated he is a co-owner of the works produced.
Every time they did a new deal with a label that took on the role of distributor, it had to cover the right to use (for the duration of the agreement) the physical likeness, the name as well as the playing incorporated in the tracks - for each of the bandmembers.
There would be no logical reason for Bill to hand over those rights.

Yes in principle the matters of publishing royalties didn't change and the Stones were a bit of a special case in terms of "income" since they owned their product in terms of sales. My point was that the CD format indeed opened the door for many renegotiations in the industry that were somewhat unexpected at the time of the original deals and that Mick was likely well aware of the ramifications. I also suspect millions of dollars might have been a pretty good reason for Bill to hand over rights to his previous performances.

Publishing royalties ? Publishing money is paid to songwriters, i.c. the authors of the composition. I was talking about artist royalties and the way they are divided between the Stones bandmembers (before Ronnie joined, everyone had a 20 % share).

Whether you release a number of tracks as an LP or a CD, you can't legally do so without a mechanical licence to reproduce a copyrighted recorded work.
It is not just the songwriters that get a say in any new releases such as compilation records. When a band records a song and all the bandmembers are contracted by the recordlabel then that means each of them have to sign off on any new deals pertaining to the material they were involved with.

Most reasonably intelligent musicians would have noticed that with the arrival of CDs, there was an increased interest in compilation records. I'm sure Bill was clued in to this as well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-06 01:41 by 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.

it's hard to believe they didn't reissue any of the 70s and 80s titles as CDs prior to 91. the beatles albums were all issued as CDs in 1987.