Errr...what? - The Smiths Reunion tour - date advertised for Florence, Italy, Sat 15th July 2017

Vegan

Well-Known Member
All of this is completely irrelevant. It was judged in a court of law. Case closed. Literally. Moz appealed and the appealed was dismissed. Where else do you want to take it?

I'm just saying an injustice was done as well as an abuse of power if you ask me. Judge's vicious "truculent" comment shows he had a personal dislike for our hero.
 

Uncleskinny

It's all good
Subscriber
I'm just saying an injustice was done as well as an abuse of power if you ask me. Judge's vicious "truculent" comment shows he had a personal dislike for our hero.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying that all comments judges make in summing up about a subject of a case are informed by personal dislike rather than the facts of their judgement? Or perhaps only in this case that you are interested in? The first option means our legal system is utterly screwed, the second option shows your bias.
 
Last edited:

Surface

Vegan Cro’s parents regret the condom splitting
Even if he is legally 25% of the Smiths, he is still outranked by the rest of them - so - I think - the other 75% could agree to boot him out of the band and keep the name. So, obviously, Joyce would still be due his cut from all the old records etc, but any new tour without him, he wouldn't be due anything.

Isn't something similar happening with New Order, where one of them has been forced out and is trying to sue for more money?

The New Order situation is different. Peter Hook is not disputing anything from the past, he is claiming a % of future earnings.
 

Surface

Vegan Cro’s parents regret the condom splitting
I'm just saying an injustice was done as well as an abuse of power if you ask me. Judge's vicious "truculent" comment shows he had a personal dislike for our hero.

Ironic that you feel an injustice was done, when most rational people around Manchester felt an injustice was done toward Andy and Mike and agreed with the judge.

The two of them can still go out around town with there heads held high, whereas Morrissey would probably get twatted.

A question to you Ketamine and others who moan on about, the judgement, Mike was shit etc

If you were Mike Joyce, would you do the same?
 

Flibberty

Well-Known Member
Ironic that you feel an injustice was done, when most rational people around Manchester felt an injustice was done toward Andy and Mike and agreed with the judge.

The two of them can still go out around town with there heads held high, whereas Morrissey would probably get twatted.

A question to you Ketamine and others who moan on about, the judgement, Mike was shit etc

If you were Mike Joyce, would you do the same?

Not sure how exactly you can know the emotions of half a million people, but even leaving that aside...

I think legally Mike obviously had a case (he won after all!) as Morrissey and Johnny couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was 10% that had been agreed upon.

Morally I think it is a much murkier issue. It is clear from what all of the members - including Mike - have said, that he knew he was on less than 25%. Is it possible that he didn't know that it was 10%? Yes. Is it probable? Debatable.

Morrissey and Johnny offered Mike £273k before the court case which was not an insubstantial sum. If I'd been in Mike's shoes, I probably would have taken it and left it at that, which would have made future Smiths releases and tours a much more likely possibility.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think Mike and Andy should have probably received a little bit more than 10% but if you try to come around Morrisseys AND Johnny Marr's reasoning behind the unequal split of performance royalties it does make sense. There are far more duties and responsibilities in a band setup than just the performance but there are no explicit royalties which cover these things. So Morrissey and Johnny just extended the definition of performance royalties by themselves. Name one person who thinks that a colleague at work who works half as much as you do but earns the same amount of cash is okay.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Guns R Roses reformed without their original drummer, and nobody cares. If the other three want to do it, Joyce would have a very difficult time trying to persuade anyone that they should pay him for gigs he's not playing.
 

Surface

Vegan Cro’s parents regret the condom splitting
Not sure how exactly you can know the emotions of half a million people, but even leaving that aside...

I think legally Mike obviously had a case (he won after all!) as Morrissey and Johnny couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was 10% that had been agreed upon.

Morally I think it is a much murkier issue. It is clear from what all of the members - including Mike - have said, that he knew he was on less than 25%. Is it possible that he didn't know that it was 10%? Yes. Is it probable? Debatable.

Morrissey and Johnny offered Mike £273k before the court case which was not an insubstantial sum. If I'd been in Mike's shoes, I probably would have taken it and left it at that, which would have made future Smiths releases and tours a much more likely possibility.

Talking about people who used to go out drinking at the time in the "indie" area of Manchester but you probably knew that and just wanted to be a clever c***.
 

Flibberty

Well-Known Member
Guns R Roses reformed without their original drummer, and nobody cares. If the other three want to do it, Joyce would have a very difficult time trying to persuade anyone that they should pay him for gigs he's not playing.

Axl owns the name for Guns n Roses I believe so can tour with any hired hands he chooses (and he has).

So it's all about whether Morrissey and Johnny still own the name and can pick whichever rhythm section they choose. Obviously back in the day they could, as theirs were the only names on the contracts, and they could have fired Andy and Mike at any time (another bitter pill for them to swallow now I presume).
 
M

Musician

Guest
I think Mike and Andy should have probably received a little bit more than 10% but if you try to come around Morrisseys AND Johnny Marr's reasoning behind the unequal split of performance royalties it does make sense. There are far more duties and responsibilities in a band setup than just the performance but there are no explicit royalties which cover these things. So Morrissey and Johnny just extended the definition of performance royalties by themselves. Name one person who thinks that a colleague at work who works half as much as you do but earns the same amount of cash is okay.

Well, kinda not good comparison. Surely, Morrissey and Marr worked more, had more duties, etc. But for their duties and responsibilities they got paid off pretty nicely (songwriting royalties, licensing etc) over the years. As for live performance: M&M got 80% of the live fee, plus a year after a nice sum of live royalties. For the same gig. Doesn't look the same, does it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well, kinda not good comparison. Surely, Morrissey and Marr worked more, had more duties, etc. But for their duties and responsibilities they got paid off pretty nicely (songwriting royalties, licensing etc) over the years. As for live performance: M&M got 80% of the live fee, plus a year after a nice sum of live royalties. For the same gig. Doesn't look the same, does it?

But they and there work is the main draw and the reason everyone paid the fee. If I was a background actor in a play I probably won't make the same money as the the writer or the star leads. The smiths could go on without Andy or mike and arguably the same amount of people would pay to be there. Don't think it the same without marr or morrissey so they can get away with asking for more With Andy and mike being forced to agree or lose out completely. There mistake, morrissey and Marrs, as so many accurately point out is that they didn't get it in writing.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You could argue that without the Morrissey/Marr compositions that Joyce and Rourke wouldn't have a "product" to perform live with to earn even 10% (for what it's worth, I do actually agree that the rhythm section deserved a fairer split than what Moz/Marr were proposing).
 

Vegan

Well-Known Member
You have no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying that all comments judges make in summing up about a subject of a case are informed by personal dislike rather than the facts of their judgement? Or perhaps only in this case that you are interested in? The first option means our legal system is utterly screwed, the second option shows your bias.

You clearly have reading comprehension issues. Either that or you are dreadfully presumptuous.
 

stux

Loyal fan
Just back to the question of Mike Joyce getting paid for anything 'The Smiths' might do in the future, I just cant see Mike getting paid for stuff he isnt involved in.

The court ruling was clear that he would get 25% of any product they released, this would be back dated and also apply to any future releases. However, he surely cant be paid for work he isnt involved in. Should they tour, i assume he wouldnt he wouldnt be employed on that tour, if they released a new album they again i would assume someone else would be asked to play. Mike wouldnt get a penny.

If they released another compilation with songs mike has played on then he would get 25%.
 

stux

Loyal fan
Sorry to go on.....

Another thing. If the court ruled that 'The Smiths' were an equal 4 way partnership and that couldnt ever be changed for future work then they reform under a slightly different name.
 

kissmyshadestoo

Cheeky Defendant
Just back to the question of Mike Joyce getting paid for anything 'The Smiths' might do in the future, I just cant see Mike getting paid for stuff he isnt involved in.

The court ruling was clear that he would get 25% of any product they released, this would be back dated and also apply to any future releases. However, he surely cant be paid for work he isnt involved in. Should they tour, i assume he wouldnt he wouldnt be employed on that tour, if they released a new album they again i would assume someone else would be asked to play. Mike wouldnt get a penny.

If they released another compilation with songs mike has played on then he would get 25%.

Stux-

That's what I was thinking when I added to this....

So let's say they reform.....Moz/Johnny/Andy/fill in drummer......they tour. They play Smiths songs.....does any of the money from the tour go to Mike or is it only if they released say a live DVD/CD and sell that....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
They play Smiths songs.....does any of the money from the tour go to Mike or is it only if they released say a live DVD/CD and sell that....

Why would he get any money? Mike Joyce didn't write any of the songs. So he wouldn't be due either performance or songwriters royalties if they did a new tour/DVD and he wasn't involved.

It's no different than when Morrissey or Marr play Smiths covers live, or put out live albums featuring Smiths songs. They need to pay each other a percentage as composers royalties, but they don't need to pay Mike or Andy anything.
 

Quando quando quando

Well-Known Member
Sorry to go on.....

Another thing. If the court ruled that 'The Smiths' were an equal 4 way partnership and that couldnt ever be changed for future work then they reform under a slightly different name.

The Miths.
Or The Moths.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Happily, none of this nonsense applies, because as the photo on the ticket listing shows, Mike is back with the band for this reunion date anyway.
 
Top Bottom