More on Johnny's statement, above.
I was thinking about what he said and I realized that there's a huge problem with his account of how much more work he and Morrissey did than Rourke and Joyce. They did the heavy lifting, while the rhythm section went off for a pint. I haven't seen anyone mention the problem with that idea before. It's this: weren't Morrissey and Marr, as songwriters, producers, and often de facto managers
expected to spend the long hours in the studio and elsewhere, and weren't they paid more for those roles?
But as it turns it out, that doesn't matter. Read this legal briefing on Morrissey's failed appeal. It's the most informative you'll read on the court case.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1711.html&query=joyce
This is the key line:
"Partnership law [states] that the fact that one or more partners makes a greater contribution than others in no way displaces the presumption of equality: see Lindley & Banks (17th Edition) para 19-22: "Whether, therefore, partners have contributed money equally or unequally, whether or not they are on a par as regards skill, connection or character, whether they have or have not laboured equally for the benefit of the firm, their shares will be considered equal, unless some agreement to the contrary can be shown to have been entered into."
Danny, you say it came down to Judge Weeks believing Morrissey and Marr, but what do you make of his reasons? For example, the supposed meeting at the Wool Hall in which Rourke said "We get 10%" and Joyce silently assented. Didn't you think the judge had reason to toss that? What about the Pluto Studios meeting? A few other meetings, like the Top of the Pops night and Joyce's asking for 25% to be manager, could have been believed, but overall I think the judge made the correct legal decision.
And the withheld money I'm referring to wasn't the full 10%, and I wasn't saying he was basically stealing from them. It was reported that he kept back a lot of money because they "weren't interested". The Daily Telegraph of 12/12/96: "The singer told the court he kept back nearly £500,000 in royalties because other band members 'weren't interested in business'".