Here's something I've long wondered about. In early 1970 (or thereabouts) Jagger and Co. learned that the Stones were effectively broke, and what little money they did have was going to be swallowed up by Her Majesty if they didn't leave the country soon. All they netted from the '69 American tour was close to $100,000 split five ways. Touring in Europe cost almost as much money as it brought in. So my question is - when they moved to France, and Keith rented a seaside villa for $2,700 a month, and all the others essentially followed suit and lived just as palatially or nearly so, where did they get the money to do this? Who footed the bill? Ahmet Ertegun? Allen Klein? These are things I wonder about when I should be doing work.
Tommy

.... that's what I want



ROCKMAN

It's simple. Their version of being broke and mine are a little different.

Credit, based on future income.

The one who'll know is Bill Wyman.

He should have been their financial advisor or CFO.

When they split from Klein...they got a Million dollar advance from Atlantic on
the licensing deal...it's all in the Exile documentary.

And like Bashlets said...their version of being broke and having no money is much different than most people.

PECMAN

Quote
duke richardson
The one who'll know is Bill Wyman.

He should have been their financial advisor or CFO.

he is the guy that was crying a few years ago that he had to sell one of his homes because he was broke.

Being 'broke' didnt stop them (even Brian, who had no song writing income) from acquiring some very desirable properties. Or cars etc.
They knew they would have a lucrative US tour coming up.
Also, a lawsuit against Klein, running into millions of dollars (even though they settled for much less).
What is often overlooked is, that even allowing for the tax rates at the time, in order to accrue their tax debt they had to have EARNED a considerable amount.
As Directors of RS Ltd they were duty bound to pay their tax on a yearly basis, it appears that by 1970 they hadn't paid anything significant for FIVE years.
If Prince Rupert had been around in 1965 the situation would not have arisen.
Its like politicians who blame their Advisers for their expenses fiddles.
No one ,not even Bill seemed to take personal responsibility.

gimmie some

Quote
jlowe
As Directors of RS Ltd they were duty bound to pay their tax on a yearly basis,
it appears that by 1970 they hadn't paid anything significant for FIVE years.
If Prince Rupert had been around in 1965 the situation would not have arisen.
Its like politicians who blame their Advisers for their expenses fiddles.
No one ,not even Bill seemed to take personal responsibility.

?! What "RS Ltd" are you referring to? In that period, they were not "directors" of anything.
They were 20-something musicians hot on the trail of a huge career and they had no idea Allen Klein wasn't paying their taxes.
Klein was handling (add quote marks as necessary) their money and it was his job to make sure the taxes owed on it were paid.

Allen Klein was an expert at stuffing his pockets full of other peoples money .

Also, from what I've read the others weren't living in anywhere near as grand residences as Nellcote.
Charlie and Bill found places in the countryside, didn't they? Which wouldn't cost nearly as much as the coast.

Another factor to consider is that Keith and Mick had income from royalties, so they were in a better position than the others,
while poor Mick T had just joined the band when they made the move and had had very little time to benefit from any wealth being generated
(but by the same token wasn't affected by the tax problem anywhere near as direly as the others).
So there were sort of three levels of "no money" to consider, when you're pondering these things instead of working. :E

I believe Bill bought the place he stayed in...

Or one nearby, in Vence..

But... They were using Keith's house as a recording studio, so they did not have the expensive of renting an actual recording studio (what did the Rolling Stones Mobile cost them?). So I assume that some of the $2700/month cost came from their record company - "Rolling Stones Records" they formed in 1970...

I also think that Keith was charging some members of the group rent for staying at Nellcote which they did not like (I think this was in Tony Sanchez's book)!

General Question: Who/how does any group pay for making a record at an actual recording studio? Does each member chip in or does the Record company foot the bill?

I need some

It's a gas

Quote
2000 LYFH
But... They were using Keith's house as a recording studio, so they did not have the expensive of renting an actual recording studio (what did the Rolling Stones Mobile cost them?). So I assume that some of the $2700/month cost came from their record company - "Rolling Stones Records" they formed in 1970...

I also think that Keith was charging some members of the group rent for staying at Nellcote which they did not like (I think this was in Tony Sanchez's book)!

General Question: Who/how does any group pay for making a record at an actual recording studio? Does each member chip in or does the Record company foot the bill?

Depends. There are big acts and long running acts that are signed to record labels to various degree but the labels probably still don't pay for everything (except for some of the Nashville based labels considering the crap that comes out of Nashville).

These days a majority of album sessions are paid for by the artist - it's too expensive to let a record label pay for sessions, and since a lot of artists are on their own label strictly by name for having something to call a record label, those record labels don't pay for recording sessions, the artists do.

As an example, the Drive-By Truckers are currently signed to ATO Records but I doubt ATO pays for their recording sessions - that's really just distribution and some hype. That costs ATO Records money and certainly they make it back but it's not gazillions of thousands of dollars compared to recording sessions.

But to your wonderment about the rent and not having to pay for an "actual" recording studio... they needed quite a few feet of a lot of things, especially mic cables. They needed tape. They needed people that knew what they were doing. Then of course there's food and drugs and booze. Don't be under the impression that it was all handed to them. The deal with record labels up until the mid-1990s was the advance; they weren't concerned about making money from record sales - only the record label was concerned about that. And all a record label is is a bank that hands out loans to bands/musicians/artists.

The labels get their money back (unless you're Sony). Once they get their money back the bands/musicians/artists start to make a little bit of money.

Tony's book is hilarious fiction.

Don't I recall that Keith's semi-auto biography also mentioned that when people were staying for long periods
he did start charging them rent? At least the ones who could in his view afford it?

I would gladly trade the Stones' version of "broke" for my own situation any day!

"Gonna find my way to heaven ..."

Quote
Cooltoplady

Quote
duke richardson
The one who'll know is Bill Wyman.

He should have been their financial advisor or CFO.

he is the guy that was crying a few years ago that he had to sell one of his homes because he was broke.

Hope he did not have to sell this one! Bill purchased Gedding Hall in 1968, so he must not have been that broke back then and this was not even his main home!

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
jlowe
As Directors of RS Ltd they were duty bound to pay their tax on a yearly basis,
it appears that by 1970 they hadn't paid anything significant for FIVE years.
If Prince Rupert had been around in 1965 the situation would not have arisen.
Its like politicians who blame their Advisers for their expenses fiddles.
No one ,not even Bill seemed to take personal responsibility.

?! What "RS Ltd" are you referring to? In that period, they were not "directors" of anything.
They were 20-something musicians hot on the trail of a huge career and they had no idea Allen Klein wasn't paying their taxes.
Klein was handling (add quote marks as necessary) their money and it was his job to make sure the taxes owed on it were paid.

Rolling Stones Limited was a limited company with the 5 Stones as Directors. UK based. Registered in London. Formed 1964. Dissolved 1993.
Bill makes reference to it in his Stone Alone book. Charlie is named as Company Secretary, Mick is Chairman (no surprise there then).
As Directors they certainly had a responsibility to make sure individual and company tax was paid.
Klein obviously was no help in this regard but they should also have had British Advisers looking after their finances.
Many "stars' of the period were earning at the same level (or more) than the individual Stones eg Macca, George Harrison, Pete Townshend, dear old Cliff Richard and didnt need to escape the UK to evade paying tax.
According to the new(ish) Klein biography, Allen was not a fan of off shore tax havens, something Prince Rupert clearly was!

Thanks for the correction about RS Ltd, jlowe, but still: Their job was not directing a company;
their job was the heated pursuit of a music career as it led them to uncharted heights, and it kept them mighty busy.
It's only with hindsight that you can say things like "they should've had British advisors too".
They had a business manager. They were paying him to do a job. They had a right to expect that he was doing it.
It's like saying "they should've had a lawyer look over their contract with Klein before signing it" -
sure, that's obvious now; and they learned it the hard way.

Hail hail Rolling Stones, for not letting that stop them

Quote
jlowe

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
jlowe
As Directors of RS Ltd they were duty bound to pay their tax on a yearly basis,
it appears that by 1970 they hadn't paid anything significant for FIVE years.
If Prince Rupert had been around in 1965 the situation would not have arisen.
Its like politicians who blame their Advisers for their expenses fiddles.
No one ,not even Bill seemed to take personal responsibility.

?! What "RS Ltd" are you referring to? In that period, they were not "directors" of anything.
They were 20-something musicians hot on the trail of a huge career and they had no idea Allen Klein wasn't paying their taxes.
Klein was handling (add quote marks as necessary) their money and it was his job to make sure the taxes owed on it were paid.

Rolling Stones Limited was a limited company with the 5 Stones as Directors. UK based. Registered in London. Formed 1964. Dissolved 1993.
Bill makes reference to it in his Stone Alone book. Charlie is named as Company Secretary, Mick is Chairman (no surprise there then).
As Directors they certainly had a responsibility to make sure individual and company tax was paid.
Klein obviously was no help in this regard but they should also have had British Advisers looking after their finances.
Many "stars' of the period were earning at the same level (or more) than the individual Stones eg Macca, George Harrison, Pete Townshend, dear old Cliff Richard and didnt need to escape the UK to evade paying tax.
According to the new(ish) Klein biography, Allen was not a fan of off shore tax havens, something Prince Rupert clearly was!

in the band there were two business-minded individuals, Mick, and Bill...

despite Keith's work ethic, he left the business side to others, as did (apparently) Mick..but time has shown Mick to be a very accomplished businessman and deal maker

with a few notable missteps..which he no doubt learned from..

now Bill, on the other hand...there you have a natural born accountant.

in that Stone Alone book its there for all to see.. a record-keeping real-deal entrepreneur businessman who happened to be a great bass player.

Quote
2000 LYFH

Quote
Cooltoplady

Quote
duke richardson
The one who'll know is Bill Wyman.

He should have been their financial advisor or CFO.

he is the guy that was crying a few years ago that he had to sell one of his homes because he was broke.

Hope he did not have to sell this one! Bill purchased Gedding Hall in 1968, so he must not have been that broke back then and this was not even his main home!

Man, that house seems to have worse basement flooding issues than mine right now

that was re-moatly hilarious

duke!!

Which house did Bill have to sell?

He's owned Gedding Hall since 1968.
He's got a very splendid Grade listed property in London.
Finally, a house in the south of France (but not the one he had built in the 70's).

Not heard of any others?

A broke Stone is still almost King Midas...

I´d love to be a Stone broke

Quote
Bashlets
It's simple. Their version of being broke and mine are a little different.

Winning answer! Such as Jagger would call himself broke when he could not afford to buy Marianne Faithful the latest fashions and two new Jaguar XKEs

Quote
Cooltoplady

Quote
duke richardson
The one who'll know is Bill Wyman.

He should have been their financial advisor or CFO.

he is the guy that was crying a few years ago that he had to sell one of his homes because he was broke.

Plus, he has to scour the beaches for coins. His financial situation is clearly dire.