Stoner Kebab
New Member
i dont have sources. i call it like i see it. he drives a bus. you have to pay to get on the bus and the bus takes you to like the iron bridge and stuff.
i mean im just saying. he's got a good business acumen.
Mike Joyce on Smiths royalties
- Thread starter vicarinatutugal
- Start date
i dont have sources. i call it like i see it. he drives a bus. you have to pay to get on the bus and the bus takes you to like the iron bridge and stuff.
i mean im just saying. he's got a good business acumen.
Stoner Kebab
New Member
i totally want to. i totally only take buses cos i get totally freaked out underground. i mean i am a laid back lady so i would go. i would bring my mom even.
but i maintain my stance that mike joyce is a braindead cokehead.
and i have a theory that his emotional unrest may have a direct link to sexual impotence from long term coke use!
ok so im starting a rumour.
la la la
but i maintain my stance that mike joyce is a braindead cokehead.
and i have a theory that his emotional unrest may have a direct link to sexual impotence from long term coke use!
ok so im starting a rumour.
la la la
mozmic_dancer
One of the Good Guys
Both Ringo and George for most of their careers earned 10% of songwriting royalties from Lennon/McCartney's publishing company. This came about thanks to Lennon who explained in a Playboy interview before his death that he talked Paul into doing this in order to keep the peace within the band.
10% may have not seemed alot at the time, but when the Beatles stopped touring in 66, and the Lennon/McCartney songwriting book increased in value, that bit of money to George and Ringo was a nice bonus.
Then sometime in the late 90s, George and Ringo decided they wanted a little increase. McCartney tried to fight it out in court and he lost.
Ringo and George now receive 15% of songwriting royalties from Lennon/McCartney songs.
Performance royalties in the Beatles were always divided equally amongst the band. That was because the Beatles valued each other as equals.
In the Smiths it seems that was never the case.
I used to be fairly well-informed Beatles-wise, but this is the first I've heard of this arrangement. And not to nit-pick, but George ain't receiving anything at the moment. His estate, on the other hand...
Worm
Taste the diffidence
And why did they have to deal with all the shit?
True, but the Smiths were unique in the sense that they effectively managed themselves (despite having periodic managers along the way). The Beatles were managed by Brian Epstein, so performance royalties were paid after expenses and management fees (to Brian) were paid. I think in the early days, they use to get £100 a week, having no expenses to pay, and if they wanted a car, one would be provided for them etc.
Joyce and Rourke never paid a penny to expenses, according to Morrissey's 2005 statement
"13. During the Smiths' lifetime, when Joyce willingly took a 10% royalty, he did not contribute towards any expenses of any kind, did not take on any Partnership duties or responsibilities, and he received his 10% as gross earnings."
If Joyce is entitled to 25% of retrospective performance royalties, surely it can be argued by Morrissey's lawyers that he is also quarterly liable for expenses paid by the Morrissey / Marr partnership?
These two points, if true, from Morrissey, is also interesting.
"6. In 2001, as a final payment of back royalties, Johnny Marr paid Joyce 260 thousand pounds, plus "costs." At this time I was in the US and was not served with court proceedings, so Joyce obtained a Default Judgment. He then put forward a claim from me for 688 thousand pounds - well above and beyond the amount Johnny Marr was ordered to pay. In my absence, the figure was not contested.
7. Since 2001, and because of the Default Judgment against me, Joyce has taken out Third Party Orders against the following societies: my personal bank account in England, Smiths royalties from Warner Music, my personal PRS royalties, my personal PPL royalties, and he has attempted to seize UK concert fees from venue to venue. This money, to date, totals 700 thousand pounds. This figure is in addition to the figures mentioned above."
According to Morrissey, the final back payment for performance royalties (£688,000) has been paid through Third Party Orders (£700,000), so why does Joyce say he will stop being a "thorn" in Morrissey side, when the above suggest that he has receive his full share (back payments)?
mozmic_dancer
One of the Good Guys
I used to be fairly well-informed Beatles-wise, but this is the first I've heard of this arrangement. And not to nit-pick, but George ain't receiving anything at the moment. His estate, on the other hand...
You can check out Lennon's Playboy interview regarding the 10% or even Lennon's biography by Ray Coleman.
The court case regarding the raise came out at the time before Anthology I was to be released.
As an interesting sidenote Pete Best, the drummer that got dropped before they were signed to EMI, got some major Beatle money as a "performer" when the Decca tapes were featured on Anthology I.
mozmic_dancer
One of the Good Guys
That is amazing.
In retrospect, I'm not sure what Morrissey and Marr could have done differently.
Perhaps Joyce figures, "Why stop at that?" Why not demand 25% of everything at this point? The courts would probably rule in his favor as well.
WinkWink
Banned
Maybe somewhere in the UK there is another man named Mike Joyce and the bank f***ed up and is sending him all the royalties checks. That would be kinda funny.
Biggoof009
Junior Member
Personally speaking, Mike Joyce should not be allowed to receive one dime of any "royalties" from any Smiths, album, now or in the future. He didn't play drums on them, so, why pay him? What I mean is: read YEARS ago, that Johnny had to arrange ALL of Mike's drum patterns while he was in the band, not some mind you, ALL of them. Johnny said he did it because Mike was an idiot when it came to that stuff, and didn't "get it" after trying for weeks to rehearse with him.(I think the article was in a Guitar Player/Guitar World zine). I almost shit myself when i read it.
Also, for someone who's had the unique and extreme luck of meeting Morrissey twice, I can assure you Morrissey DETESTS Joyce in the worst way, ABSOLUTELY DETESTS HIM. At least he said so both times, at the mere mention of his name.
Also, for someone who's had the unique and extreme luck of meeting Morrissey twice, I can assure you Morrissey DETESTS Joyce in the worst way, ABSOLUTELY DETESTS HIM. At least he said so both times, at the mere mention of his name.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
"According to Morrissey".
Yes, so far, we can only speculate on what actually has happened based on piecemeal statements from both the Morrissey / Joyce camp, but it is commonly known that the set-up (admin, expenses et al) was run by Morrissey & Marr, and that Rourke / Joyce had no input regards Partnership duties / responsibilities.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
Okay, so it's speculation. Quoting "wow" figures might even be considered somewhat pointless in that case.
By the way: Happy Reading.
Duties that normally fall to a band's manager, in other words? Whose fault is it that The Smiths did not have proper management?
Jones
Senior Member
It doesn't really matter who decided that Morrissey and Marr should assume management duties or whose "fault" it was. The situation was that Rourke and Joyce accepted that Morrissey and Marr assumed those duties yet their subsequent position seems to be that those duties should have been carried out for free.
And anyway, it would be very stupid musicians indeed who left everything to their manager and didn't oversee it.
And anyway, it would be very stupid musicians indeed who left everything to their manager and didn't oversee it.
Worm
Taste the diffidence
It matters because, by choosing-- one way or another-- not to have a proper manager, Morrissey and Marr knowingly left everything murky. A manager would have straightened out the band's finances and flatly told Rourke and Joyce that it was either accept the 10% cut or look for a day job. (Love to hear what Merck would've done-- think he'd have let that situation fester?) Morrissey and Marr made a mistake, one I put down to youthful naivete rather than malice, but a mistake nonetheless. They made the oldest one in the book: they didn't get it in writing. As businessmen they screwed themselves. At least Johnny had the maturity to accept that even with justice on their side they could not win a legal battle in court, so he grudgingly paid up.
Why couldn't Morrissey do that? Would it have been "un-Morrissey like"? Yet I can easily see this Imaginary Interview from 1997 or thereabouts:
NME: The court case ended recently. You lost and had to pay Mike Joyce a million pounds.
Morrissey: It was a travesty. He lied and the judge believed him. It was an unspeakable miscarriage of justice.
NME: Why not fight it, then?
Morrissey: Because I know how the British legal system works. Endless amounts of time and money later, I would have succeeded in doing nothing but paying more money into his pockets, and that I would never, ever do.
NME: So he gets the satisfaction.
Morrissey: For a time. But at the end of the day, the money will stop coming and when it does he'll have to live by his talent and his talent alone-- unluckily for him. And for me, at least, I can finally proclaim The Smiths dead and buried forever. There's a measure of triumph in that, I think.
NME: Let's talk about the new album...
Morrissey: It was a travesty. He lied and the judge believed him. It was an unspeakable miscarriage of justice.
NME: Why not fight it, then?
Morrissey: Because I know how the British legal system works. Endless amounts of time and money later, I would have succeeded in doing nothing but paying more money into his pockets, and that I would never, ever do.
NME: So he gets the satisfaction.
Morrissey: For a time. But at the end of the day, the money will stop coming and when it does he'll have to live by his talent and his talent alone-- unluckily for him. And for me, at least, I can finally proclaim The Smiths dead and buried forever. There's a measure of triumph in that, I think.
NME: Let's talk about the new album...
Thanks for the link, but does it come in bullet points? ...
The figures quoted was only in response to (can't remember name of poster who was at the trial) and Jukebox Jury.
As Jones says, it's not about "fault". One aspect of The Smiths, and its appeal, was they were autonomous, it was their way or no way. Also the nature of expenses is a big factor in this. Morrissey claims no expenses were paid by Messers Joyce or Rourke - if Morrissey is lying, then the £50,000 they were paid in 1986 would have been net payment after expenses but only 10%of overall expenses, and not the 25%. The Judge ruled on the Partnership Act 1890 as default for lack of written agreement on band activities (not songwriting) revenue.
The 1890 Partnership act
"The interests of partners in the partnership property and their rights and duties in relation to the partnership shall be determined, subject to any agreement express or implied between the partners, by the following rules: (a) all the partners are entitled to share equally in the capital and profits of the business, and must contribute equally towards the losses whether of capital or otherwise sustained by the firm ..... "
Surely the Act must work in the other way, and Joyce / Rourke be liable for expenses over the course of the Smiths lifeline? If the case that they did contribute to expenses, but only at 10%, then surely they are liable for the remaining 15%, if not the full 25% if no monies came from the two parties (Messers Rourke / Joyce) for expenses?
Worm
Taste the diffidence
You've made a very astute point.
What we don't know is whether or not the judge took expenses into account when deciding on a figure owed to Joyce. We can't see an itemized description of how they reached the final figure. It may well be that the amount Joyce was awarded reflects a deduction for the expenses.
In any case, as I already wrote in reply to Jones, the financial goings-on were not transparent and not clearly defined, which makes for the central problem in the whole case. I doubt Morrissey and Marr could even go back and piece together an accurate picture of their own finances, let alone figure out precisely how much Joyce should've gotten. The flow of money is probably hopelessly muddled. For instance, what happened to the money that they saved by not paying a percentage to a manager? Isn't that about 10%? Where did that money go? And, since you didn't read the link, I'll highlight this line for you: one of the reasons Morrissey and Marr lost their case was they couldn't prove they had always paid Joyce and Rourke 10%; "The judge found that this was factually incorrect. He held that in one year the drawings of Mr Rourke and Mr Joyce amounted to ¼ of those of Mr Marr, but that no clear pattern emerged." No clear pattern-- there you go.
Last edited:
kissmyshadestoo
Nobody ever looks at me twice
Wow, cool find Worm!
Anaesthesine
Angel of Distemper
Thanks Worm, that is fascinating. For the first time I think I have a pretty clear picture of what actually happened, and why events unfolded the way they did.
Ignorance, naivete, hurt pride - it all adds up to a very sad conclusion.
