How many people supported Mike Joyce's claim at the trial?

[Anonymous]

All said, the 90+ pages in the Moz's autobio were overkill.

Yes, they were but if he needed this for himself then it's fine by me. And some passages were valuable.

"Yes, time can heal. But it can also disfigure. And surviving the Smiths is not something that should be attempted twice. If the Smiths split was designed to kill me off, then it failed. If the Smiths court case was a second attempt to kill me off, it too must fail. There is another world, there is a better world; well, there must be, and even if the passing of time might mellow you into forgiveness, it doesn’t mean that you ever again want to be friends."

 

[Judge Judy]

Oh dear. You are confusing the result with the method. The judge's job, at least in the UK, is to be impartial and objective and consider all evidence in front of him/her. The end result, by definition, is that he/she comes down on one side. Judges do not have bias. If they did, they'd be booted. At least in the UK. What you are doing is retro-fitting the outcomes to your narrative.

Maybe it's my fault in not being clear but I thought I'd said exactly what you're saying here. I say that if the judge had acted improperly it would be grounds for appeal. This was really about the judge's comments on Morrissey and I feel his opinion was based on his observations in the courtroom and not on some opinion he held previous to the trial.

I do later clearly state that it's about the end result.

And if you think a judge should not take sides I don't know what to say. That's what they are there for. They listen to both sides and render a verdict. His comments about Joyce and Rourke were not flattering either. The judge is not supposed to have a bias at the beginning of the trial. However, during the course of the trial it is the duty of the judge to form an opinion.

 

[Uncleskinny]

Maybe it's my fault in not being clear but I thought I'd said exactly what you're saying here. I say that if the judge had acted improperly it would be grounds for appeal. This was really about the judge's comments on Morrissey and I feel his opinion was based on his observations in the courtroom and not on some opinion he held previous to the trial.

I do later clearly state that it's about the end result.

Fair enough.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Yes, they were but if he needed this for himself then it's fine by me. And some passages were valuable.

"Yes, time can heal. But it can also disfigure. And surviving the Smiths is not something that should be attempted twice. If the Smiths split was designed to kill me off, then it failed. If the Smiths court case was a second attempt to kill me off, it too must fail. There is another world, there is a better world; well, there must be, and even if the passing of time might mellow you into forgiveness, it doesn’t mean that you ever again want to be friends."

"Yes, time can heal. But it can also disfigure. And surviving the Smiths is not something that should be attempted twice. If the Smiths split was designed to kill me off, then it failed. If the Smiths court case was a second attempt to kill me off, it too must fail. There is another world, there is a better world; well, there must be, and even if the passing of time might mellow you into forgiveness, it doesn’t mean that you ever again want to be friends."

 

[Redumbdant]

"Yes, time can heal. But it can also disfigure. And surviving the Smiths is not something that should be attempted twice. If the Smiths split was designed to kill me off, then it failed. If the Smiths court case was a second attempt to kill me off, it too must fail. There is another world, there is a better world; well, there must be, and even if the passing of time might mellow you into forgiveness, it doesn’t mean that you ever again want to be friends."

When you quote something you don't have to quote it again, and if you want to encourage some other Mozbot here is an option to rate a post.
You're welcome.
I ignored this the first time it was posted but since you quoted it I'll add that Morrissey's comments about forgiving his friends in The Smiths is pretty funny since he's "forgiving" them for wanting their money.
It's like if we went out for dinner and I ate your food and then forgave you when you wouldn't pay the bill.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

When you quote something you don't have to quote it again, and if you want to encourage some other Mozbot here is an option to rate a post.
You're welcome.
I ignored this the first time it was posted but since you quoted it I'll add that Morrissey's comments about forgiving his friends in The Smiths is pretty funny since he's "forgiving" them for wanting their money.
It's like if we went out for dinner and I ate your food and then forgave you when you wouldn't pay the bill.

'When you quote something you don't have to quote it again, and if you want to encourage some other Mozbot here is an option to rate a post.
You're welcome.
I ignored this the first time it was posted but since you quoted it I'll add that Morrissey's comments about forgiving his friends in The Smiths is pretty funny since he's "forgiving" them for wanting their money.
It's like if we went out for dinner and I ate your food and then forgave you when you wouldn't pay the bill.'

oh Judy ! silly goose you ! you do as you do and I do as I. You can register and put me on ignore, pretty please will ya? won't ya? please say you will.

 

[MIDNITE]

I support both there claims in court, both had there own side of there storey, as the only thing of any truth in courts, is the fact that advocates are liars and twist n change the facts around!
Well its what there paid 2 do! and are themselves 2 worried 2 tell the truth given the consequences of otheres higher up trying 2 tell them that there there liars!

Its life ! were all in the same boat!

 

[Anonymous]

Interesting thread, I got to know Mike a bit and I have spoken to him about the court case on numerous occasions and what came across during those conversations was that he was a completely reasonable and decent musician who just wants what was promised to him. SM behaved badly to him and this could have been sorted, SM chose to be difficult and MJ had no choice but to take legal action.

Surprisingly after everything he still has a lot of respect for SM and is more than willing to talk to him (MJ and SM have been in the same room post court case but one party decided not to approach the other at last minute) I have no sides or axe to grind but MJ is not someone who Smiths fans should be throwing stones at..

 

[Quando quando quando]

Interesting thread, I got to know Mike a bit and I have spoken to him about the court case on numerous occasions and what came across during those conversations was that he was a completely reasonable and decent musician who just wants what was promised to him. SM behaved badly to him and this could have been sorted, SM chose to be difficult and MJ had no choice but to take legal action.

Surprisingly after everything he still has a lot of respect for SM and is more than willing to talk to him (MJ and SM have been in the same room post court case but one party decided not to approach the other at last minute) I have no sides or axe to grind but MJ is not someone who Smiths fans should be throwing stones at..

" who just wants what was promised to him"
You do realize that this was what all the fuzz was about?
And, in fact, still is, despite the verdict?
Nobody is someone to throw stones at, as long as justice isn't based on sharia laws.
I might be wrong but last time I checked that wasn't the case yet in England.
You're not mentioning him, but I do hope you don't think Moz IS someone to throw stones at?

 

[Flibberty]

Interesting thread, I got to know Mike a bit and I have spoken to him about the court case on numerous occasions and what came across during those conversations was that he was a completely reasonable and decent musician who just wants what was promised to him. SM behaved badly to him and this could have been sorted, SM chose to be difficult and MJ had no choice but to take legal action.

Surprisingly after everything he still has a lot of respect for SM and is more than willing to talk to him (MJ and SM have been in the same room post court case but one party decided not to approach the other at last minute) I have no sides or axe to grind but MJ is not someone who Smiths fans should be throwing stones at..

Mike himself said that he was not promised 25%. There was no promise at all. That was the whole problem.

 

[Ben Budd]

I'm amazed there's a nine page thread on Solo that is nuanced and clearly written without someone calling someone else a f***ing c***. Well done everything, decent read on my lunch break.

 

[Anonymous]

I trust Johnny's word because he seems to have moved on. I don't think Mike or Morrissey have. I believe the 40/40/10/10 was agreed. I think in terms of songwriting credits this is fair. Performance.. ehh.. Difficult. Compensation is not just about time put into something, especially in creative fields. Money is allocated based on value of contribution. This is why singers tend to make more than backing bands. The emphasis of value in pop music tends to go to the face/voice of a band. I think in a band like the Smiths we see every part as important to the final product, but at the end of the day Morrissey is going to get more credit from the general populace with Johnny being a close second. (Though in my mind, Johnny contributed to the recording process more than anyone else, and his parts are as vital as Morrissey's to the songs.) As fantastic as the drums or bass might be they are not as valuable, and so their time is compensated at a lesser rate. It feels unfair on some level, but that's how the world works. I personally think the 40/40/10/10 is unbalanced for performance.. but I'll agree with what Johnny says. They could have been more generous, but I don't think it is necessarily wrong.

At some point someone in this thread mentioned Mike would only really miss out if the Smiths reform without him.. I really don't hold ill will against Mike. He seems like a very nice man. I wish him all the best... but I know Morrissey still holds issue.. If Morrissey really wanted to get back at Mike, he'd reform the Smiths with a new drummer... I mean.. just a thought Moz.. if you want to show him the consequences of the court case... of how that decision could make him miss out... give Johnny and Andy a call.. do a few dates.. the payout on that reunion would make his winnings in court look measly..

I will exploit anything for a Marrissey reunion.

~K~

 

[Judge Judy]

Mike himself said that he was not promised 25%. There was no promise at all. That was the whole problem.

 

[Judge Judy]

I trust Johnny's word because he seems to have moved on. I don't think Mike or Morrissey have. I believe the 40/40/10/10 was agreed. I think in terms of songwriting credits this is fair. Performance.. ehh.. Difficult. Compensation is not just about time put into something, especially in creative fields. Money is allocated based on value of contribution. This is why singers tend to make more than backing bands. The emphasis of value in pop music tends to go to the face/voice of a band. I think in a band like the Smiths we see every part as important to the final product, but at the end of the day Morrissey is going to get more credit from the general populace with Johnny being a close second. (Though in my mind, Johnny contributed to the recording process more than anyone else, and his parts are as vital as Morrissey's to the songs.) As fantastic as the drums or bass might be they are not as valuable, and so their time is compensated at a lesser rate. It feels unfair on some level, but that's how the world works. I personally think the 40/40/10/10 is unbalanced for performance.. but I'll agree with what Johnny says. They could have been more generous, but I don't think it is necessarily wrong.

At some point someone in this thread mentioned Mike would only really miss out if the Smiths reform without him.. I really don't hold ill will against Mike. He seems like a very nice man. I wish him all the best... but I know Morrissey still holds issue.. If Morrissey really wanted to get back at Mike, he'd reform the Smiths with a new drummer... I mean.. just a thought Moz.. if you want to show him the consequences of the court case... of how that decision could make him miss out... give Johnny and Andy a call.. do a few dates.. the payout on that reunion would make his winnings in court look measly..

I will exploit anything for a Marrissey reunion.

~K~

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Interesting thread, I got to know Mike a bit and I have spoken to him about the court case on numerous occasions and what came across during those conversations was that he was a completely reasonable and decent musician who just wants what was promised to him. SM behaved badly to him and this could have been sorted, SM chose to be difficult and MJ had no choice but to take legal action.

Surprisingly after everything he still has a lot of respect for SM and is more than willing to talk to him (MJ and SM have been in the same room post court case but one party decided not to approach the other at last minute) I have no sides or axe to grind but MJ is not someone who Smiths fans should be throwing stones at..

i beg your pardon ....

 

[Flibberty]

Sorry, but it's a fact. Mike has admitted that there was no agreement that he was going to get 25%. The burden of proof was on Morrissey and Johnny though. They had to prove that he had agreed to 10%. They couldn't.

 

[Case Closed]

The thing about this whole issue that really makes it "case closed" is the fact that no matter what you believe the agreement was, they didn't even pay him the 10%!
Oh he's a terrible person and they are wonderful superstar rock gods. I get that part. He's a big liar and they are innocent artists who didn't understand that contracts don't count if they can't be produced in court. He may be the first drummer in history to be such an intellectual genius that he can not only count to 4 over and over but can also outsmart a few entertainment lawyers and a judge, not to mention intellectual and experienced posing-with-books model Morrissey. All that I could believe without any trouble...

Except that they didn't even pay him the 10%!
If they had bothered to do so and had the canceled checks I guess Mike could still say he was confused and asked for an accounting. But they didn't do that. And then when he decided he had to sue to get his money, instead of offering him a settlement they tried to pay him the money they had owed him for years, and hoped he would go away.
Again, they didn't even pay the 10% they claim they owed in a timely fashion. So that destroys any credibility they have when they try to play the victim or claim that they were doing the fair thing.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but it's a fact. Mike has admitted that there was no agreement that he was going to get 25%. The burden of proof was on Morrissey and Johnny though. They had to prove that he had agreed to 10%. They couldn't.

He probably said it, but it wouldn't have counted as an "admission".

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but it's a fact. Mike has admitted that there was no agreement that he was going to get 25%. The burden of proof was on Morrissey and Johnny though. They had to prove that he had agreed to 10%. They couldn't.

It's a fact they had no written agreement which is why they couldn't prove it. The fact that it wasn't written down was the problem not that no oral agreement existed

 

[Flibberty]

To quote Mike, 'We didn't come to an agreement that we were going to get 25%."

So he wasn't promised 25%, but he didn't have to prove that he was. Morrissey and Marr had to prove that he accepted a lesser percentage and they couldn't (and Mike claims that there was no agreement over a specific lesser percentage either).