Just read on www.shattered.nl that Charlie hasn't signed anything yet for 2007.
Don't you think it would be A BETTER BANG when Charlie refuses to TOUR next
year and subsequently THE ROLLING STONES call it quits and only play special
occasions. I hope so! NO CHARLIE=NO STONES.

Dont worry He will .

To quote Charlie after every tour...

No F****** more.....

Marv Peck

Y'all remember that rubber legged boy

your title is misleading - he doesnt have a "contract" with an end date like a footballer has.

whether he wishes to commit yet to a tour next year is another argument, though. I'm sure he will.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-29 00:35 by Gazza.

DE VULLUSBAND!

is an anagram for:

Luvs de Band

or

Luvs de nads

I like the second one, personally

What do you mean Madmaxx? He will sign up for 2007 or He will call it quits at the end of this year?
Nice you adress Charlie with a capital H in he. Just like You Know Who I Mean.
I hope Charlie calls it quits and shows everybody there is no REAL Rolling Stones without him.

what's very interesting according to the Times article from Sunday is that only Mick and Keith are actually signed contractually to EMI/Virgin...........so Charlie could in effect "retire" and the "Stones" still technically would stay in tact..........but that's not gonna happen........so........

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> your title is misleading - he doesnt have a
> "contract" with an end date like a footballer
> has.
>
> whether he wishes to commit yet to a tour next
> year is another argument, though. I'm sure he
> will.

You are right Gazza but there must be a VERBAL AGREEMENT: No Charlie=No Stones

charlie doesn't have a contract after 2006 because he does not want it... its up to him to decide to tour again next year or not.... he's not a slave.. he's earned his stripes and respect..

"I hope Charlie calls it quits and shows everybody there is no REAL Rolling Stones without him."

I fail to see the logic with this statement. And there are so many successful scab bands on tour right now I really doubt it would make all that much of a difference.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-29 01:00 by Dan.

DE VULLUSBAND Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you mean Madmaxx? He will sign up for 2007
> or He will call it quits at the end of this year?
> Nice you adress Charlie with a capital H in he.
> Just like You Know Who I Mean.
> I hope Charlie calls it quits and shows everybody
> there is no REAL Rolling Stones without him.


He will be with them in 2007

Even if He did not want to Keith would pull the old well what else you going to do routine.

Personaly I think he have to stop, 65 man !! do you know how many young drummers are unemployed ? And if they not want a replacement they always can take a electronic drum kit they are improved these days you know.

Hope I didn't hurt anybodies feeling, (as this is a joke)

__________________________




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-30 01:41 by NICOS.

Rip This Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what's very interesting according to the Times
> article from Sunday is that only Mick and Keith
> are actually signed contractually to
> EMI/Virgin...........

thats not correct. The whole band signed the Virgin contract. Only Wyman (who was still with them at the time) declined

They won't stop next year. But they probably won't last another 45 years. (Some people claim they might be getting too old, and I can't imagine Mick doing Satisfaction when he's 102)

According to the Timesonline.co.uk article on 8-27-06:

The man who guaranteed their continuation in the 1990s was not the same person who rescued them in the 1970s. By now, all of Prince Rupert’s arrangements were in place and doing a fine job at protecting the Stones’ income from predatory tax authorities. In 1972, he had set up a company based in Amsterdam, Promogroup, into which all their royalties from record sales, airplay and song publishing would from now on be paid.

Although Holland is hardly known as a tax haven, Loewenstein had discovered that it is unusually lenient on royalties. Accounts made public this month revealed that the Stones paid less than £4m on income of £240m received via Promogroup since 1986. The lion’s share went to Jagger and Richards, the men credited with writing all of the group’s songs and the only two who are actually contracted to the Stones’ record company, Virgin/EMI. Ronnie Wood is technically an employee, not a band member. Following years of lobbying by his mate Keith, Ronnie is now said to get the same whack from their concert revenues as the others.


.......the direct link to the article is: [www.timesonline.co.uk]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-29 01:40 by Rip This.

Britney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They won't stop next year. But they probably won't
> last another 45 years. (Some people claim they
> might be getting too old, and I can't imagine Mick
> doing Satisfaction when he's 102)

Did we ever tought he would sing Satisfaction when he is 62 ? when they had ask me the question in 1972, would you go and see him I probaly would say no.

__________________________

Thats what it may say, but I distinctly remember seeing a photo of the band with Richard Branson at the time that contract was signed. Odd that it mentions Mick and keith, then says Ronnie is an employee - but doesnt mention what they reckon Charlie is. Some band members may have different levels of 'power' and earning ability (although Im sure like me, youve read many times in recent years that Ronnie finally became a fully fledged 'member' after Bill's departure) but I find it inconceivable and illogical that when the Rolling Stones were offered the world's biggest ever recording contract, worth in excess of £100 million or whatever it was, that Charlie wouldnt sign it yet is still a band member.

There always seems to be much confusion, secrecy and conflicting info about what theyre signed to and the exact definition of some bandmembers 'board' status.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-08-29 01:45 by Gazza.

Gee, Nikos, maybe they should have ASKED YOU that question FIRST! No need for any other posts!!!

I did give you a wink (hope you don't take me too seriously Debra)

__________________________

No Nicos, just affectionately yanking your chain right back!! I love a bit of cheekiness!

Gazza Wrote:
I find it
> inconceivable and illogical that when the Rolling
> Stones were offered the world's biggest ever
> recording contract, worth in excess of £100
> million or whatever it was, that Charlie wouldnt
> sign it yet is still a band member.
>
> There always seems to be much confusion, secrecy
> and conflicting info about what theyre signed to
> and the exact definition of some bandmembers
> 'board' status.


Recent news coming out because of Dutch laws regarding the Stones wills are obviously laying to waste myths and perceptions about the band. It's safe to say that Mick and Keith control a lot more than previous thought.

"Vullus" translates to "garbage".

Charlie Watts brings high voltage to the Stones!

summer tour is definitely on in Europe!!!! heard it from reliable sources last week in London!!!

"Charlie's good EVERY night, ain't he?"--what Mick meant to say on Ya-Yas!

the juf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> summer tour is definitely on in Europe!!!! heard
> it from reliable sources last week in London!!!

Okay there will be a Tour, but can they call it a Stones Tour without Charlie and another drummer replacing him?
Remember when John Entwistle of the Who died 24 hours before a show in Las Vegas and the "rest of" the Who flew in a replacement and played the gig.
Rock n Roll?

Charlie's really gonna stop this time. He won't tour after his operations and he wants to stay close to his family...And Mick has said that the Stones WON'T tour without Charlie....so no more touring

DE VULLUSBAND Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay there will be a Tour, but can they call it a
> Stones Tour without Charlie and another drummer
> replacing him?

they'll be touring next year and he'll be with them. They will not be changing drummers mid-tour. Christ.


> Remember when John Entwistle of the Who died 24
> hours before a show in Las Vegas and the "rest of"
> the Who flew in a replacement and played the gig.
> Rock n Roll?


actually they didnt. They cancelled the show and restarted their tour at the Hollywood Bowl four days later. Plus, its a different band with their own standards. They also had commitments to play shows. The Stones - as yet - havent.

the juf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> summer tour is definitely on in Europe!!!! heard
> it from reliable sources last week in London!!!


Pauline - werent you at the Cabbage Patch last week? Was sorry I missed you

gazza, you have got email!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!