X



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-08-15 15:09 by UrbanSteel.

Yikes. Wonder of the effects of this.....

Mick and Keith will never more log there anymore

[www.rupertloewenstein.com]

I feel sorrow

wow - 37 years, isn't it? or 36

Here some more

Stones part company with Prince


Phillip Inman
Friday May 25, 2007
Guardian Unlimited


The Rolling Stones have waved goodbye, not to Ruby Tuesday, but Prince Rupert Loewenstein, their long standing business manager who rescued them from financial oblivion in the 1970s.

The band, currently rehearsing for a European tour starting next month, said they parted with the banker turned financial adviser on good terms after 37 years together. In a statement the four band members said: "Prince Rupert Loewenstein is no longer taking care of The Rolling Stones day to day business but is currently retained on some aspects of their career.'

It is understood his position will not be replaced and band members will look after their own finances, though he will continue to advise on some of their investments.

The significance of the move will not be lost on those who compile rich lists, in which the Rolling Stones have regularly featured since the Loewenstein took control of their finances. Lead singer Mick Jagger features at number eight in the Sunday Times list of rich musicians with a fortune worth £215m behind Sir Paul McCartney, Madonna and Sir Elton John. Paul McCartney is reputedly worth £725m.


Unlike McCartney, the Stones rely for much of their income from touring, which they have turned into the most spectacular travellling show since PT Barnum's globetrotting circus.

The emphasis on touring dates back to the early 1970s and a disastrous decision to sell their catalogue of 1960s hits, including (Can't Get No) Satisfaction, Paint it Black and Get off My Cloud. The quickie sale was handled by then manager Allen Klein. Band members received £162,000 for rights to their songs.

The writing partnership of Jagger and guitarist Keith Richards were believed to have received more, but not much. In 1971 the Stones sued unsuccessfully to regain control.


In despair they turned to Loewenstein who was working in London under the exotic title inherited from his Bavarian aristocratic family.


A year later he set up a company, Promogroup, in Amsterdam where he sent all the band's royalty income from records, radio, TV airplay and song publishing. Not all the £700m estimated touring income between 1986 and 2006 was channelled through Holland. But the tax avoidance scheme played a key role in their financial recovery. The company gave them the satisfaction of paying just £4m tax on earnings of £240m.


The Dutch accountant who runs Promogroup set up two private foundations to transfer assets tax-free to the heirs of Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and drummer Charlie Watts.


Last year U2 shifted ownership of the band's song catalogue to Promogroup. At the time frontman Bono came under fire for undermining his credentials as a global anti-poverty campaigner. He said he was being tax efficient, like other businesses.

It actually could mean that the Stones are finishing and closing up their businesses, as they most probably do not expect to do extensive tours or lucrative record deals. It was expected for a long time they would part with Loewenstein (he reaches 85 or something), but the fact that they do not name a succesor coudl mean they're closing down.

Mathijs

That's what I'm thinking, too.

I thought Cohl add replaced Lowenstein in some aspects of Stones management already, around the time ABB was released ?

Or perhaps it is indeed due to Loewenstein's age and after all this time they know how to handle their financial matters and decide to take care of them on their own.

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It actually could mean that the Stones are
> finishing and closing up their businesses, as they
> most probably do not expect to do extensive tours
> or lucrative record deals. It was expected for a
> long time they would part with Loewenstein (he
> reaches 85 or something), but the fact that they
> do not name a succesor coudl mean they're closing
> down.
>
> Mathijs


Man !!! I'am agree with Mathijs this time

__________________________

I thought the same as Mathijs when I read this.

Lorenz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought the same as Mathijs when I read this.


Plus one. Actually i thought it a while ago when i was thinking about ticket prices. I thought they will loose the next generation of fans since young people simply cannot afford the tickets. and the only explanation i found was that they just don't care about those new fans cause they will quit after this tour and just make as much money as possible from it.

Yep

I think that speaks volumes regarding the Stones' future plans after this year - or lack of them. If they dont need someone to "take care of their day to day business" that would suggest that there'll be little need for such a role in the future

I don't believe they are shutting things down. Only five years to go for the 50th anniversary tour ...

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep
>
> I think that speaks volumes regarding the Stones'
> future plans after this year - or lack of them. If
> they dont need someone to "take care of their day
> to day business" that would suggest that there'll
> be little need for such a role in the future

I thought the same

Looking at the glass and thinking it's half empty... You pessimists!!

At their age, with no real touring plans after this summer and still no indication of any moves regarding a new record contract, its unfortunately easy to look at things that way when you hear a story like this one...

gwen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought Cohl add replaced Lowenstein in some
> aspects of Stones management already, around the
> time ABB was released ?


I am confused about this announcement too. I recall there being discussion here or on Shidoobbee a few years back that Lowenstein was retiring and that Cohl had taken over the business side of the Stones. Anyone know the reason for the recent announcement? Was there perhaps a severance period where he was still sharing in the profits or collecting salary and now the ties are officially split?

I don't think they are closing down. Even they stop touring, there is still a lot of money to manage from the royalties and it will last a long time. Think to all this merchandising we have every day from RSFC.

Maybe it is because Lowenstein is so old. After 37 years of private lessons, Jagger must be able to rule the business himself, of course with the help of accountants. Don't expect they give publicity of the aftermath, but I tend to think they have swung to something else.

I understood it that way too. The "some aspects of their career" expression is a bit vague, maybe its just a gradual winding down of duties on Rupert's part.

rupert is 85 years old
he might not find his underwear in the morning
of course they split with him

gazza you are wrong again
and you are a pessimist too

the rolling stones will keep on touring
at least untill 2012/2013

Lumi wrote:
Looking at the glass and thinking it's half empty... You pessimists!!
I'd call it realists!

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep
>
> I think that speaks volumes regarding the Stones'
> future plans after this year - or lack of them. If
> they dont need someone to "take care of their day
> to day business" that would suggest that there'll
> be little need for such a role in the future


Gazza, maybe 85 is the age when the Stones send their people out to pasture. In which case we get another 20 years of the Stones. Just trying accentuate the positive!

glimmer twin 81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> gazza you are wrong again

How can I be 'wrong' when I didnt state anything factual? Look again for the words 'suggest' and 'think'. It should give you an idea that its a guess.

> and you are a pessimist too

No Shite, Sherlock...

>
> the rolling stones will keep on touring
> at least untill 2012/2013


how the f*** do you KNOW it's wrong? Do you have a crystal ball?

Seriously, son - just say no.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-25 23:58 by Gazza.

If the end is near....why not just keep Lowenstein on board? Why even let him go?

I think the key is the wording "day to day business", Justin

They could still officially exist as a band and obviously will always exist as a corporation. Neither would just be 'active' on a regular basis to make it worthwhile to replace him full time, one would imagine.

One of them (cant recall which one) said a few years back that the Stones are like a unique multi-national business which exists for maybe two years at a time, generates a large profit and then effectively shuts down for the next couple of years before starting up again. In the last decade thats been less the case as theyve toured more frequently for the most part and with less breaks in between (obviously theyre aware the clock is ticking). Maybe this is in indeed an indication of an extended hiatus.

The obvious answer to the question about 'keeping him on' is probably his age. Understandable that at his age, he may want to wind things down too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-26 00:19 by Gazza.

Stones history has shown that whatever is officially anounced rarely tells u whats really going on.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2007-05-26 13:20 by His Majesty.

I wanst expecting this.
He is one of the most important persons in stones history.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of them (cant recall which one) said a few
> years back that the Stones are like a unique
> multi-national business which exists for maybe two
> years at a time, generates a large profit and then
> effectively shuts down for the next couple of
> years before starting up again. In the last decade
> thats been less the case as theyve toured more
> frequently for the most part and with less breaks
> in between (obviously theyre aware the clock is
> ticking). Maybe this is in indeed an indication of
> an extended hiatus.
>
> The obvious answer to the question about 'keeping
> him on' is probably his age. Understandable that
> at his age, he may want to wind things down too.


The old mom and pop store, eh?

Whatever the case...the reality is setting in for me and it's dawning on me that the "day when all it all ends for the Stones" is finally creeping its scary head. It's like hearing they're going to tear down Mount Rushmore or make the Grand Canyon into a parking lot....your brain just can't understand it.

Naive, but I thought that Mr.Cohl was the man in charge and that Loewenstein was not in for many years.