"Bulbous salutation in the otherwise festive zone" card

Posted by @mikejoyce / Twitter:

@mikejoyce: It was sent to me today.

festive_card.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Anonymous

Guest
There is no really point in trying to reason with Katamine Sun - he is a Mozbot, and agrees with whatever Morrissey says, so I don't know why people bother. If Morrissey kicked down his front door on Christmas Day and gunned down his entire family, he'd say it was justified.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
But the question still remains,where did the money go that was made from playing live/touring ? From what I remember reading (in your favorite book;)) Autobiography, Marr and M did not receive money from touring and that it went back into paying expenses to putting on the shows/touring. And is there any documentation proving that Marr & M got money from live shows/touring ? .

So the Smiths basically toured for free? There's a fair bit of bullshit in Autobiography, but I think I would have remembered that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
No, I never said that, I myself put the question in my post ..where did the money go? Did it really all go to financing the tours?
I was wondering wouldn't have Joyce's legal team come to court with accountant/bank statements pointing to tour merchandise sales,etc?
Anyways, I was referring to page 305 from the first pressing of Autobiography.

Merry Christmas, the shovel is on me ! Get digging you stupid tit.

Benny-the-British-Butcher
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
"His wife may very well bask in victorious Third Party Orders for the rest of her life, calling instructions to her highwayman from beneath a blistering sunbed, but Joyce has lost his Smiths –now, today, tomorrow and always, and his own sentence begins on the day of his confusing victory, and it would run longer and harder than the sentence bestowed upon me by Weeks. I am as I always was. No future band came to the aid of Joyce, presumably in fear that he might do to them what he had done to the Smiths." Morrisey, Autobiography
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
No, I never said that, I myself put the question in my post ..where did the money go? Did it really all go to financing the tours?

I was wondering wouldn't have Joyce's legal team come to court with accountant/bank statements pointing to tour merchandise sales,etc?

Anyways, I was referring to page 305 from the first pressing(not the American) of Autobiography.


Maybe you are referring to the money of the merchandising advances, that was used to finance the tours. Joyce pleaded for 25% of it, too. (I don't have the printed edition)

"The plea for co-designer of Smiths Art had obviously been removed once Joyce had been advised that no payments had ever existed. Had there been, no doubt the plea would have remained. Joyce maintained his plea for 25 per cent of Smiths merchandising advances, even though any such advances in their entirety served to set up each tour as it came along, and absolutely never fell into the hands of Morrissey and Marr. Joyce maintained and forced this plea even though there would be no evidence that either Morrissey or Marr had benefited on a personal level from such advances, yet Joyce was now happy for both parties to pay him 25 per cent of large sums of money never seen nor received by the very two people who had given him fame. Joyce retained his demand for a 25 per cent cut of all Smiths live earnings on the unproven and insane assumption that 100 per cent of such earnings somehow and magically swept themselves into the personal bank accounts of Morrissey and Marr, and although there were no records indicating that all live fees had ever reached Morrissey and Marr, and although the vast expense of launching each tour would not be considered, Joyce nonetheless wanted money from Morrissey and Marr right now and without question. In essence, Joyce demanded 25 per cent of absolutely everything (excluding publishing) that had ever been created in the Smiths’name, assuming –without proof –that all sums were handed to Morrissey and Marr as clear profit." Morrisey, Autobiography
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
yes, thank you. This starts bottom of page 304 into page 305. Above paragraph is followed by the next line:

' Joyce was making these demands now, in 1996, but had never made such demands during the Smiths' existence.'

So as long as your bandmate doesn't make a demand,it's all right to f*** him over live fees?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I don't see it as f***ing him over live fees. Joyce at the time must have not thought too much about his cut of 10 percent
at the time to think he he was getting f***ed over for live fees. He could have quit at the time and started his own band.
He didn't have to stay if he felt he was getting f***ed over. So why did he stay ?

yawning-GIFS.gif
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Maybe you are referring to the money of the merchandising advances, that was used to finance the tours. Joyce pleaded for 25% of it, too. (I don't have the printed edition)

"The plea for co-designer of Smiths Art had obviously been removed once Joyce had been advised that no payments had ever existed. Had there been, no doubt the plea would have remained. Joyce maintained his plea for 25 per cent of Smiths merchandising advances, even though any such advances in their entirety served to set up each tour as it came along, and absolutely never fell into the hands of Morrissey and Marr. Joyce maintained and forced this plea even though there would be no evidence that either Morrissey or Marr had benefited on a personal level from such advances, yet Joyce was now happy for both parties to pay him 25 per cent of large sums of money never seen nor received by the very two people who had given him fame. Joyce retained his demand for a 25 per cent cut of all Smiths live earnings on the unproven and insane assumption that 100 per cent of such earnings somehow and magically swept themselves into the personal bank accounts of Morrissey and Marr, and although there were no records indicating that all live fees had ever reached Morrissey and Marr, and although the vast expense of launching each tour would not be considered, Joyce nonetheless wanted money from Morrissey and Marr right now and without question. In essence, Joyce demanded 25 per cent of absolutely everything (excluding publishing) that had ever been created in the Smiths’name, assuming –without proof –that all sums were handed to Morrissey and Marr as clear profit." Morrisey, Autobiography

oh jesus what a load. what 'vast' advances from the merchandising to set up a tour? they had a booking agent that advanced monies to start up that tour which were hardly 'vast'. a couple of roadies and a van.
of course there were no records it was all cash money delivered to m and m pockets directly.

but moz obviously expected the auto to be read by the bots who would eat up this nonsense.
 
M

Musician

Guest
I don't see it as f***ing him over live fees. Joyce at the time must have not thought too much about his cut of 10 percent
at the time to think he he was getting f***ed over for live fees. He could have quit at the time and started his own band.
He didn't have to stay if he felt he was getting f***ed over. So why did he stay ?

You really seem to have problem understanding things. I'm sorry, it can't be more easily obvious. AT THE TIME clearly he/they (with Andy) had no idea the fee they received was 10% only. This is why they didn't make a demand. This is why they didn't quit. M&M felt they keep 80%. How is this ISN'T f***ing over?
 

Uncleskinny

It's all good
Subscriber
I don't see it as f***ing him over live fees. Joyce at the time must have not thought too much about his cut of 10 percent
at the time to think he he was getting f***ed over for live fees. He could have quit at the time and started his own band.
He didn't have to stay if he felt he was getting f***ed over. So why did he stay ?

Tell it to the judge. Everything else means nothing.
 
M

Musician

Guest
Do you mean the bias, corrupt judge? Judge Weaks is a loser and was under orders by the Queen to make Morrissey "lose" regardless of evidence.

This is hilarious. The Queen ordered the judge. Even Ketamine wouldn't write such...i'm out of adjectives.
 

Uncleskinny

It's all good
Subscriber
Re: Article: "Bulbous salutation in the otherwise festive zone" card

no actually, According to Joyce, He was told in 84/85 that he would be getting a cut in his earnings and will now receive 10 percent.
He called M but no progress was made. So knowing this why didn't he just quit ?

- - - Updated - - -



:lbf:

The point remains. Anything you, or anyone else says about this is pointless, as the judgement in law has been made, and the appeal rejected. Of course, it's open to you to spend your money and mount another appeal if you want, or you can talk bollocks on the internet for evermore.
 

Surface

Vegan Cro’s parents regret the condom splitting
Re: Article: "Bulbous salutation in the otherwise festive zone" card

http://themouthmagazine.com/2015/12/03/mike-joyce/

Around 43:20 mark,

According to Joyce, He was told in late 84 that he would be getting a cut in his earnings and will now receive 10 percent.
He called M but no progress was made. So knowing this why didn't he just quit ?

- - - Updated - - -



:lbf:

So, just as the band are about to hit the big time, he is told he's is having his earnings cut. Never knew that - shows what a wanker Morrissey was with that decision.
 

Surface

Vegan Cro’s parents regret the condom splitting
Re: Article: "Bulbous salutation in the otherwise festive zone" card

proof from the horses mouth (Joyce) that he knew. Yet, why didn't he just quit? If he thought he was such a superb drummer and should be getting paid as much as Marr & M he should have just started his own band or join another. Why didn't he?

And it's funny how you just can't bare the evidence,so you must deflect with a lazy stab at M. I'm sorry but Marr had a hand in this decision also. And they M&M must of had their reasons.

Winge and moan all you want but a court of law found in favour of Mike - case closed
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Re: Article: "Bulbous salutation in the otherwise festive zone" card

proof from the horses mouth (Joyce) that he knew. Yet, why didn't he just quit? If he thought he was such a superb drummer and should be getting paid as much as Marr & M he should have just started his own band or join another. Why didn't he?

And it's funny how you just can't bare the evidence,so you must deflect with a lazy stab at M. I'm sorry but Marr had a hand in this decision also. And they M&M must of had their reasons.

So, in your version (which for all I know may be 100% accurate), Mike is told he's getting a cut from 25% to 10% in late '84, rings Morrissey to object and makes no progress (because Morrissey seems to lose his voice). So where does that leave things? It doesn't sound like this constitutes Mike agreeing to anything, or Morrissey insisting on anything or offering to discuss anything. So, it surely leaves Mike on 25%. That's how is seems regardless of the respective statuses of the two of them. You just can't unilaterally change the terms on someone you are working with two years into the deal. No-one is entitled to do that.

And they're status is legally equal in any case. Mike *could* have quit the band at this point, but why should he? We could just as easily say that Morrissey should have quit when he found out he wasn't getting Mike's agreement.

Apocryphal tale: Mick Jagger calls the hotel bar from his room and says to them: "I need you to send up my drummer". A few minutes later, he opens the door to a drunk Charlie Watts, who punches him to the ground and says: "I ain't your drummer, you're my f***ing singer!"
 

Flibberty

Well-Known Member
Re: Article: "Bulbous salutation in the otherwise festive zone" card

So, in your version (which for all I know may be 100% accurate), Mike is told he's getting a cut from 25% to 10% in late '84, rings Morrissey to object and makes no progress (because Morrissey seems to lose his voice). So where does that leave things? It doesn't sound like this constitutes Mike agreeing to anything, or Morrissey insisting on anything or offering to discuss anything. So, it surely leaves Mike on 25%. That's how is seems regardless of the respective statuses of the two of them. You just can't unilaterally change the terms on someone you are working with two years into the deal. No-one is entitled to do that.

And they're status is legally equal in any case. Mike *could* have quit the band at this point, but why should he? We could just as easily say that Morrissey should have quit when he found out he wasn't getting Mike's agreement.

Apocryphal tale: Mick Jagger calls the hotel bar from his room and says to them: "I need you to send up my drummer". A few minutes later, he opens the door to a drunk Charlie Watts, who punches him to the ground and says: "I ain't your drummer, you're my f***ing singer!"

Nothing unilateral about it at all.

Remember Johnny Marr's comment in 2004: 'It's the only regret I've got. That little loophole where we didn't sign what was agreed.'
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Re: Article: "Bulbous salutation in the otherwise festive zone" card

Nothing unilateral about it at all.

Remember Johnny Marr's comment in 2004: 'It's the only regret I've got. That little loophole where we didn't sign what was agreed.'

Except, in court, he didn't seem to think anything specific enough to have been put in a document had been agreed. In fact, neither Morrissey nor Marr claimed to have heard Mike or Andy say anything equivalent to "I agree to 10%". I think Johnny is being a bit loose with his language in this quote.
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom