Tell Me :
Talk
I already did tell you why its all bollocks.
Mathijs
Dont waste your time with this guy. he has more BS than anybody on this board
I know nothing! But I must say, what Mathijs says seems to make a lot of sense. It seems he is saying that all his possessions are accounted for, including chain of command up to them being sold etc. So basically the theories of looting, thievery etc. comes from those looking to start stories/conspiracies/etc.
And looking at history of any famous death, even obvious ones like, for example, the killing of Robert Kennedy (i.e. perpetrator was caught red-handed at the scene) where people completely ignore facts and start endless tales of conspiracies involving government, mob, and so forth -- I tend to always look at "conspiracies" with a grain of salt
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-13 19:14 by LeonidP.
Here is some FACTUAL information.
1. Brian's Estate was finally valued at £160k in debt with around £35k in assets. This was around May 1970. Ten months is not unusual for an Estate of this complexity. It also confirms an earlier comment by Paul S regarding the UK Accountants role. The Asset figure would probably be a valuation on Cotchford (less any mortgage). Add on any income from royalties in the period from July 1969. I believe Brian paid about £35k for the property (in 1968).
2. Using an Inflation calculator (UK) the debt figure quoted above would equal £2,512,000. So a lot of dosh/ debt by anyone's standards.
3. As Rocky says, the majority of debt would be tax and the realisation of this was one of the many factors in Klein getting the heave-ho mid 1970. Nonetheless, the individuals have some responsibility to chase their Business Manager re tax. This is covered in Bill's book of course. I suspect that 'boring Bill ' was the only one concerned about this and that actually Klein's rather cavalier attitude to such matters was one of his attractions, certainly to Mick and Keith in 1965. Eric Easton their first and much derided Manager was actually putting money away for them for future tax bill's into a UK Building Society!
3. In Prince Rupert's rather disappointing book he says he settled the tax issue with the UK authorities in 1977 for ' a sum substantially less than was originally demanded'. This doesnt surprise me. The likes of us pay our dues, the rich and very rich can just "negotiate" a figure.
4. Rocky sums up Klein's role very succinctly. As Manager he was concerned about the life of the band, probably with some justification. 5 years at best? Most bands break up anyway before then due to fall outs, never mind popularity or creative issues. So he concocted his 20 year payment plan. This gave him a substantial benefit of course (he got the record company advance to spend/ invest as he wished) whilst his clients were given less monies per annum than annual sales figures suggested they should receive. He wasnt completely short changing them, but assumed that even if they were outof the picture by 1970, earnings for past sales would continue till 1990 at least as per their contract. Also, and I find this somewhat ironic, the arrangement was meant to reduce individual tax liabilities. Of course, as pointed out, Klein was still obliged to find the monies for his clients major purchases, for example country and town houses (and some very impressive properties they were/are). It was their pocket money which was low, in relative terms
To summarise: Brian died in debt. A substantial amount. Took over 10 years to pay off (through continued earnings /settlements ) Professional fees would eat into that of course.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-13 20:45 by jlowe.
Off course he was. The other members of the band were similarly in big trouble financially. Prince Rupert knew what he was talking about. His "merciless act" of sending them to France in 1971 was to work out a solution on how to deal with the huge amounts of tax they (and also late Brian) still had to pay.
Aparently part of the 1971 Goodbye Britain tour revenue was used to please Mr. Taxman.
Mathijs, perhaps you misunderstand. Paul is asking you to meet him in order to test his theory (Paul is a man of many theories…) that you would display a lot more politesse if faced with the prospect of an imminent thrashing. In short, he thinks you’re a punk and longs to beat the crap out of you.
I must say I never suspected he had such a violent streak but at the same time his approach is refreshingly unpretentious and manly. The question now is do you have the cajones or background in martial arts to defend your slanderous remarks. One hopes you at least give him the satisfaction of a phone call…but if he suggests going for a swim I’d hang up.
And what kind of freak would want to buy/wear BJ's purple trousers?
I've done boxing for 15 years, and have taken it up last year again. Perhaps we could do 8 rounds!
Mathijs
Oh no! Terry's been watching WOMEN IN LOVE again!
I guess I was fortunate to get away with a knee in the crotch in the past then!
Seriously, I don't recall Paul slapping you with his glove and telling you to meet him at dawn with pistols drawn. He asked you to call to take it offline so it didn't continue you to be an otherwise very intelligent man demonstrating distemperment. I get your point. I think you should post your arguments against the theories. That doesn't mean Paul should go away and not post his theories, though. There is room for more than one view. Good Lord, I haven't called a mob hit on Hairball despite the noise of his hitting a wall every day. The least you can do is let Paul ply his trade.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Or the Dirty Work promo film...
Even dirtier work...
Well I'm still naive enough to romanticize you as a Ken Russell fan.
Assuming your facts are true, this is a sober addition to this conversation. No one cares any longer about the theories around Brian's death. Thank you.
As it turned out, it was a complete failure. The legal fees consumed whatever had been saved from being tax exiles in France.
I'm not so sure. As has been said by many who knew him, he was a narcissist so I would imagine that he would be quite happy that people are pouring over the minutiae of his life.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
paulspendel
()
Date: January 13, 2020 15:52
Hi Mathijs, why don't you call me and tell me in person why everything I write is bollocks? 06 518 44 396.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: January 13, 2020 16:56
Quote
paulspendel
Hi Mathijs, why don't you call me and tell me in person why everything I write is bollocks? 06 518 44 396.
I already did tell you why its all bollocks.
Mathijs
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Cooltoplady
()
Date: January 13, 2020 17:37
Quote
paulspendel
Hi Mathijs, why don't you call me and tell me in person why everything I write is bollocks? 06 518 44 396.
Dont waste your time with this guy. he has more BS than anybody on this board
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: January 13, 2020 17:54
Can someone call time before the thread is closed?
Maybe that's the goal. I don't want that to happen. If you're not interested in a thread, then ignore it.
Paul writes interesting stuff whether he's right or wrong. Mathijs writes interesting stuff whether he's right or wrong. Communicate your information without picking fights with each other.
Was Brian just an unlucky sod who drowned when he should have been on top of the world for a few more decades? Probably, but it is interesting to read what others have to say about the people around him in his last months.
If you don't like conspiracy theories, then state the argument against without calling anyone out in the process. It's all good reading. Don't make Bjornulf play God and destroy our little slice of Sodom and Gomorrah here. Some of us enjoy that sort of thing.
Maybe that's the goal. I don't want that to happen. If you're not interested in a thread, then ignore it.
Paul writes interesting stuff whether he's right or wrong. Mathijs writes interesting stuff whether he's right or wrong. Communicate your information without picking fights with each other.
Was Brian just an unlucky sod who drowned when he should have been on top of the world for a few more decades? Probably, but it is interesting to read what others have to say about the people around him in his last months.
If you don't like conspiracy theories, then state the argument against without calling anyone out in the process. It's all good reading. Don't make Bjornulf play God and destroy our little slice of Sodom and Gomorrah here. Some of us enjoy that sort of thing.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: January 13, 2020 19:11
Quote
CooltopladyQuote
paulspendel
Hi Mathijs, why don't you call me and tell me in person why everything I write is bollocks? 06 518 44 396.
Dont waste your time with this guy. he has more BS than anybody on this board
I know nothing! But I must say, what Mathijs says seems to make a lot of sense. It seems he is saying that all his possessions are accounted for, including chain of command up to them being sold etc. So basically the theories of looting, thievery etc. comes from those looking to start stories/conspiracies/etc.
And looking at history of any famous death, even obvious ones like, for example, the killing of Robert Kennedy (i.e. perpetrator was caught red-handed at the scene) where people completely ignore facts and start endless tales of conspiracies involving government, mob, and so forth -- I tend to always look at "conspiracies" with a grain of salt
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-13 19:14 by LeonidP.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
jlowe
()
Date: January 13, 2020 20:40
Quote
MathijsQuote
jloweQuote
paulspendel
It's legally impossible Brian's parents sold Brian's belongings in the nineties, as claimed by Mathijs. You need to understand UK law. Brian died in debth. His fater was very strict and took care that the lawyer of the estate (Clive Berger) paid everyone when the estate became positive in the early eigthies.So they couldn't keep any of Brian's belongings because they had to be sold directly after his death to try and clear his debts.Electrician Dave Hills told me he went to the official clearing of Cotchford in May 1970 in order to get his bills paid. However, the Taxman came first.
Thanks Paul for the clarification. Whilst Brian obviously left significant debts it seems strange that it took till the 80s for his debts to be cleared. You had his share of the significant record sales from the ABKCO years; the Estate's share of the 1972 settlement (I think Bill, Charlie and the BJ estate got equal amounts)and of course any recognition of his 20% stake in RS Ltd.
Oh, not forgetting (presumably) some income from the Moroccan album. Which I must listen to one of these days.
I do not understand the 'obviously'.
He was not in debt when he died. There was bills to be paid (he spend a 1000 pound a month on heating the pool), but he did not die in debt. His income was low in 1968 and 1969 due to not touring, as it was for Charlie and Bill. But all had sufficient funds to buy huge mansions and pay for it in cash.
Mathijs
Mathijs
Here is some FACTUAL information.
1. Brian's Estate was finally valued at £160k in debt with around £35k in assets. This was around May 1970. Ten months is not unusual for an Estate of this complexity. It also confirms an earlier comment by Paul S regarding the UK Accountants role. The Asset figure would probably be a valuation on Cotchford (less any mortgage). Add on any income from royalties in the period from July 1969. I believe Brian paid about £35k for the property (in 1968).
2. Using an Inflation calculator (UK) the debt figure quoted above would equal £2,512,000. So a lot of dosh/ debt by anyone's standards.
3. As Rocky says, the majority of debt would be tax and the realisation of this was one of the many factors in Klein getting the heave-ho mid 1970. Nonetheless, the individuals have some responsibility to chase their Business Manager re tax. This is covered in Bill's book of course. I suspect that 'boring Bill ' was the only one concerned about this and that actually Klein's rather cavalier attitude to such matters was one of his attractions, certainly to Mick and Keith in 1965. Eric Easton their first and much derided Manager was actually putting money away for them for future tax bill's into a UK Building Society!
3. In Prince Rupert's rather disappointing book he says he settled the tax issue with the UK authorities in 1977 for ' a sum substantially less than was originally demanded'. This doesnt surprise me. The likes of us pay our dues, the rich and very rich can just "negotiate" a figure.
4. Rocky sums up Klein's role very succinctly. As Manager he was concerned about the life of the band, probably with some justification. 5 years at best? Most bands break up anyway before then due to fall outs, never mind popularity or creative issues. So he concocted his 20 year payment plan. This gave him a substantial benefit of course (he got the record company advance to spend/ invest as he wished) whilst his clients were given less monies per annum than annual sales figures suggested they should receive. He wasnt completely short changing them, but assumed that even if they were outof the picture by 1970, earnings for past sales would continue till 1990 at least as per their contract. Also, and I find this somewhat ironic, the arrangement was meant to reduce individual tax liabilities. Of course, as pointed out, Klein was still obliged to find the monies for his clients major purchases, for example country and town houses (and some very impressive properties they were/are). It was their pocket money which was low, in relative terms
To summarise: Brian died in debt. A substantial amount. Took over 10 years to pay off (through continued earnings /settlements ) Professional fees would eat into that of course.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-13 20:45 by jlowe.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
georgie48
()
Date: January 13, 2020 21:34
Quote
jlowe
To summarise: Brian died in debt. A substantial amount. Took over 10 years to pay off (through continued earnings /settlements ) Professional fees would eat into that of course.
Off course he was. The other members of the band were similarly in big trouble financially. Prince Rupert knew what he was talking about. His "merciless act" of sending them to France in 1971 was to work out a solution on how to deal with the huge amounts of tax they (and also late Brian) still had to pay.
Aparently part of the 1971 Goodbye Britain tour revenue was used to please Mr. Taxman.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
wonderboy
()
Date: January 14, 2020 02:16
It's likely true that even if his estate owed money to the taxman, that wouldn't mean the family couldn't sell or give away his purple trousers (or whatever paulsplendel is alleging here). The government knew it was getting its money from future payouts. The person administering the estate still had lots of freedom.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-14 14:11 by wonderboy.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-14 14:11 by wonderboy.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: January 14, 2020 10:33
All I am saying is: just about all conspiracy theories about Brian being killed, robbed, looted, and bonfires in the garden and whatever more have been refuted by simple, factual events. It is a simple fact that an awful lot of Brian's possessions have turned up since the 90's, through official means like Brian's estate and Suki potiers family. Possessions going from very simple stuff from the house (candles, painting, pictures etc) to jewelry to clothing to instruments.
It's very interesting to counter this by statements like 'but he was in debt which wasn't handled until the 80's' -but that does not take away from any of the above factual events.
And when you ask me for prove: it is very easy to name the couple of (wealthy) collectors who own this kind of stuff. The Exhibitionism event is a good place to start.
Mathijs
It's very interesting to counter this by statements like 'but he was in debt which wasn't handled until the 80's' -but that does not take away from any of the above factual events.
And when you ask me for prove: it is very easy to name the couple of (wealthy) collectors who own this kind of stuff. The Exhibitionism event is a good place to start.
Mathijs
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Swayed1967
()
Date: January 14, 2020 10:38
Quote
MathijsQuote
paulspendel
Hi Mathijs, why don't you call me and tell me in person why everything I write is bollocks? 06 518 44 396.
I already did tell you why its all bollocks.
Mathijs
Mathijs, perhaps you misunderstand. Paul is asking you to meet him in order to test his theory (Paul is a man of many theories…) that you would display a lot more politesse if faced with the prospect of an imminent thrashing. In short, he thinks you’re a punk and longs to beat the crap out of you.
I must say I never suspected he had such a violent streak but at the same time his approach is refreshingly unpretentious and manly. The question now is do you have the cajones or background in martial arts to defend your slanderous remarks. One hopes you at least give him the satisfaction of a phone call…but if he suggests going for a swim I’d hang up.
And what kind of freak would want to buy/wear BJ's purple trousers?
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Mathijs
()
Date: January 14, 2020 11:40
Quote
Swayed1967Quote
MathijsQuote
paulspendel
Hi Mathijs, why don't you call me and tell me in person why everything I write is bollocks? 06 518 44 396.
I already did tell you why its all bollocks.
Mathijs
Mathijs, perhaps you misunderstand. Paul is asking you to meet him in order to test his theory (Paul is a man of many theories…) that you would display a lot more politesse if faced with the prospect of an imminent thrashing. In short, he thinks you’re a punk and longs to beat the crap out of you.
I must say I never suspected he had such a violent streak but at the same time his approach is refreshingly unpretentious and manly. The question now is do you have the cajones or background in martial arts to defend your slanderous remarks. One hopes you at least give him the satisfaction of a phone call…but if he suggests going for a swim I’d hang up.
And what kind of freak would want to buy/wear BJ's purple trousers?
I've done boxing for 15 years, and have taken it up last year again. Perhaps we could do 8 rounds!
Mathijs
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: January 14, 2020 12:17
….nude mud wrestling
would be more fun for us all …
ROCKMAN
would be more fun for us all …
ROCKMAN
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: January 14, 2020 13:30
Maybe not ...
It's nice to know that folks have the cajones...
...but we don't need to see them.
It's nice to know that folks have the cajones...
...but we don't need to see them.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: January 14, 2020 17:09
Quote
Rockman
….nude mud wrestling
would be more fun for us all …
Oh no! Terry's been watching WOMEN IN LOVE again!
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: January 14, 2020 17:15
Quote
Mathijs
I've done boxing for 15 years, and have taken it up last year again. Perhaps we could do 8 rounds!
Mathijs
I guess I was fortunate to get away with a knee in the crotch in the past then!
Seriously, I don't recall Paul slapping you with his glove and telling you to meet him at dawn with pistols drawn. He asked you to call to take it offline so it didn't continue you to be an otherwise very intelligent man demonstrating distemperment. I get your point. I think you should post your arguments against the theories. That doesn't mean Paul should go away and not post his theories, though. There is room for more than one view. Good Lord, I haven't called a mob hit on Hairball despite the noise of his hitting a wall every day. The least you can do is let Paul ply his trade.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 14, 2020 17:17
Quote
Rocky DijonQuote
Rockman
….nude mud wrestling
would be more fun for us all …
Oh no! Terry's been watching WOMEN IN LOVE again!
Or the Dirty Work promo film...
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: January 14, 2020 17:19
Nah, Terry's more of an Oliver Reed-Alan Bates man. Otherwise I would have suggested ALL THE MARBLES. One's art whereas the other is Peter Falk ogling women with one eye. Rockman has too much class.
Now if it was Laraine Wickens mud wrestling Michele Breton, then you might have something...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-14 17:22 by Rocky Dijon.
Now if it was Laraine Wickens mud wrestling Michele Breton, then you might have something...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-01-14 17:22 by Rocky Dijon.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: January 14, 2020 17:56
Not hard to deduce that most of we around here are lads of a certain age is it.
Misogynistic old geezers ? Us ? No , surely not.
Misogynistic old geezers ? Us ? No , surely not.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: January 14, 2020 18:14
Misanthropic, yes. Misogynist, no. They are merely cultural signposts of our past.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: January 14, 2020 19:51
… I was finking more along da lines
of da nude mud stuff I watch on PornHub ……
ROCKMAN
of da nude mud stuff I watch on PornHub ……
ROCKMAN
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: January 14, 2020 19:53
Quote
Rockman
… I was finking more along da lines
of da nude mud stuff I watch on PornHub ……
Even dirtier work...
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: January 14, 2020 20:05
Quote
Rockman
… I was finking more along da lines
of da nude mud stuff I watch on PornHub ……
Well I'm still naive enough to romanticize you as a Ken Russell fan.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: January 14, 2020 20:29
Quote
jloweQuote
MathijsQuote
jloweQuote
paulspendel
It's legally impossible Brian's parents sold Brian's belongings in the nineties, as claimed by Mathijs. You need to understand UK law. Brian died in debth. His fater was very strict and took care that the lawyer of the estate (Clive Berger) paid everyone when the estate became positive in the early eigthies.So they couldn't keep any of Brian's belongings because they had to be sold directly after his death to try and clear his debts.Electrician Dave Hills told me he went to the official clearing of Cotchford in May 1970 in order to get his bills paid. However, the Taxman came first.
Thanks Paul for the clarification. Whilst Brian obviously left significant debts it seems strange that it took till the 80s for his debts to be cleared. You had his share of the significant record sales from the ABKCO years; the Estate's share of the 1972 settlement (I think Bill, Charlie and the BJ estate got equal amounts)and of course any recognition of his 20% stake in RS Ltd.
Oh, not forgetting (presumably) some income from the Moroccan album. Which I must listen to one of these days.
I do not understand the 'obviously'.
He was not in debt when he died. There was bills to be paid (he spend a 1000 pound a month on heating the pool), but he did not die in debt. His income was low in 1968 and 1969 due to not touring, as it was for Charlie and Bill. But all had sufficient funds to buy huge mansions and pay for it in cash.
Mathijs
Mathijs
Here is some FACTUAL information.
1. Brian's Estate was finally valued at £160k in debt with around £35k in assets. This was around May 1970. Ten months is not unusual for an Estate of this complexity. It also confirms an earlier comment by Paul S regarding the UK Accountants role. The Asset figure would probably be a valuation on Cotchford (less any mortgage). Add on any income from royalties in the period from July 1969. I believe Brian paid about £35k for the property (in 1968).
2. Using an Inflation calculator (UK) the debt figure quoted above would equal £2,512,000. So a lot of dosh/ debt by anyone's standards.
3. As Rocky says, the majority of debt would be tax and the realisation of this was one of the many factors in Klein getting the heave-ho mid 1970. Nonetheless, the individuals have some responsibility to chase their Business Manager re tax. This is covered in Bill's book of course. I suspect that 'boring Bill ' was the only one concerned about this and that actually Klein's rather cavalier attitude to such matters was one of his attractions, certainly to Mick and Keith in 1965. Eric Easton their first and much derided Manager was actually putting money away for them for future tax bill's into a UK Building Society!
3. In Prince Rupert's rather disappointing book he says he settled the tax issue with the UK authorities in 1977 for ' a sum substantially less than was originally demanded'. This doesnt surprise me. The likes of us pay our dues, the rich and very rich can just "negotiate" a figure.
4. Rocky sums up Klein's role very succinctly. As Manager he was concerned about the life of the band, probably with some justification. 5 years at best? Most bands break up anyway before then due to fall outs, never mind popularity or creative issues. So he concocted his 20 year payment plan. This gave him a substantial benefit of course (he got the record company advance to spend/ invest as he wished) whilst his clients were given less monies per annum than annual sales figures suggested they should receive. He wasnt completely short changing them, but assumed that even if they were outof the picture by 1970, earnings for past sales would continue till 1990 at least as per their contract. Also, and I find this somewhat ironic, the arrangement was meant to reduce individual tax liabilities. Of course, as pointed out, Klein was still obliged to find the monies for his clients major purchases, for example country and town houses (and some very impressive properties they were/are). It was their pocket money which was low, in relative terms
To summarise: Brian died in debt. A substantial amount. Took over 10 years to pay off (through continued earnings /settlements ) Professional fees would eat into that of course.
Assuming your facts are true, this is a sober addition to this conversation. No one cares any longer about the theories around Brian's death. Thank you.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Rocky Dijon
()
Date: January 14, 2020 22:15
No one cares and Brian's a cult figure. Understood. Thanks.
Bjornulf, please close this thread. No one cares, apparently.
In fact, you might as well close the entire site. It just doesn't matter any more. It's just a place for clowns and thought police.
It isn't only rock 'n' roll and you might not be allowed to like it.
Bjornulf, please close this thread. No one cares, apparently.
In fact, you might as well close the entire site. It just doesn't matter any more. It's just a place for clowns and thought police.
It isn't only rock 'n' roll and you might not be allowed to like it.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Rockman
()
Date: January 14, 2020 22:22
…. wish you lived closer Bill …
I'd bring over some beers...eat some chips
have a look at a nude chick..spin some Charlie Feathers and have a laugh ….
ROCKMAN
I'd bring over some beers...eat some chips
have a look at a nude chick..spin some Charlie Feathers and have a laugh ….
ROCKMAN
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
swimtothemoon
()
Date: January 14, 2020 23:25
If Brian came back to life and took a peek at this thread....I think he get back
in the pool.
in the pool.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: January 15, 2020 01:03
Quote
swimtothemoon
If Brian came back to life and took a peek at this thread....I think he get back
in the pool.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: January 15, 2020 01:06
Quote
Rocky Dijon
No one cares and Brian's a cult figure. Understood. Thanks.
Bjornulf, please close this thread. No one cares, apparently.
In fact, you might as well close the entire site. It just doesn't matter any more. It's just a place for clowns and thought police.
It isn't only rock 'n' roll and you might not be allowed to like it.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
Bliss
()
Date: January 15, 2020 20:12
Quote
georgie48Quote
jlowe
To summarise: Brian died in debt. A substantial amount. Took over 10 years to pay off (through continued earnings /settlements ) Professional fees would eat into that of course.
Off course he was. The other members of the band were similarly in big trouble financially. Prince Rupert knew what he was talking about. His "merciless act" of sending them to France in 1971 was to work out a solution on how to deal with the huge amounts of tax they (and also late Brian) still had to pay.
As it turned out, it was a complete failure. The legal fees consumed whatever had been saved from being tax exiles in France.
Re: Tom Keylock and Brian Jones' belongings
Posted by:
jlowe
()
Date: January 16, 2020 12:39
Quote
swimtothemoon
If Brian came back to life and took a peek at this thread....I think he get back
in the pool.
I'm not so sure. As has been said by many who knew him, he was a narcissist so I would imagine that he would be quite happy that people are pouring over the minutiae of his life.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
5strings , Christiaan , cowboytoast , Dan , drwatts , georgelicks , Handova , imthemastah , KeithNacho , ladinsky14 , LeonidP , More Hot Rocks , Purplevienna1 , syrel , THE DON
Guests:
1051
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10