Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TTY)

[lainey]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

Actually, had Morrissey coughed up (like Marr did) after the first court case, it would have cost him £500,000 or so.
It's not Mike's fault it has cost Morrissey a reported £1.5m as a result of appealing (and losing) and subsequant costs......
There are principals and then there are principals.......


Jukebox Jury

4. In '97, M Joyce was paid 215 thousand pounds from me, and 215 thousand pounds from Johnny Marr.

5. In '99, Joyce appeared on British television and made the statement: "There was no contract saying we were gonna get 25%."

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.

All the points are on the previous page JJ

 

[Jukebox Jury]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

4. In '97, M Joyce was paid 215 thousand pounds from me, and 215 thousand pounds from Johnny Marr.

5. In '99, Joyce appeared on British television and made the statement: "There was no contract saying we were gonna get 25%."

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.

All the points are on the previous page JJ

There was no contract saying ''they were not going to get 25%''

So Morrissey was not in the UK...... where was his solicitor?
''In my absence''........
He doesn't tell us WHY he was absent.
Morrissey would have had 'management' type figures who would have known how to contact him. He probably just thought 'I don't live there, I'm above the law' (in my opinion)

Jukebox Jury

 

[Billtwasreallynowt]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

Lainey, if Moz had paid his 'final payment' like Marr, it would never have gone any further. Instead he f***ed off to LA and buried his head.

 

[Irregular Regular]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

Lainey, if Moz had paid his 'final payment' like Marr, it would never have gone any further. Instead he f***ed off to LA and buried his head.

Agree.

Morrissey has always struck me as being petty and really tight fisted when it comes to money.
After all, if Johnny could afford the payments to Mike we wouldn't be wrong in assuming Morrissey could afford the payments too...

In all seriousness now, it is a real shame but money does indeed change everything.

 

[Jukebox Jury]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

Lainey, if Moz had paid his 'final payment' like Marr, it would never have gone any further. Instead he f***ed off to LA and buried his head.

Exactly

Jukebox Jury

 

[Slip-In]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

It doesn't work like that. Even if he's sold his back catalogue to a record company to distrubute he's still entitled to royalties. That's as long as he's recouped.

I do find it weird that some people seem to think it's unreasonable that Morrissey should expect royalties for his own work. Do you really prefer that the money go to some faceless EMI shareholder?

Contracts are contracts. If EMI paid him his share and they still need to collect what they invested in him then its their right to do so. The fact that EMI continues to re-release his back catalogue proves that, EMI has the legal rights.

I never said I wanted EMI to not pay Moz, but again if its all under a contract, Moz has no say in what EMI re-releases, simple as that.

 

[lainey]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

Lainey, if Moz had paid his 'final payment' like Marr, it would never have gone any further. Instead he f***ed off to LA and buried his head.

Agree.

Morrissey has always struck me as being petty and really tight fisted when it comes to money.
After all, if Johnny could afford the payments to Mike we wouldn't be wrong in assuming Morrissey could afford the payments too...

In all seriousness now, it is a real shame but money does indeed change everything.

Exactly

Jukebox Jury

so is it ok for Morrissey not to get any royalties?

and for Joyce to deprive Andy Rourke of his 10% Smiths royalties, and deprive producers John Porter, Stephen Street, Grant Showbiz and Steve Lillywhite (for "Ask") of their entitlements.

 

[Slip-In]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

Lainey, if Moz had paid his 'final payment' like Marr, it would never have gone any further. Instead he f***ed off to LA and buried his head.

I couldn't agree with you more there.

I love Moz but sometimes some of the shit that comes out of his head and his actions are SO stupid and worse yet he ends up f***ing himself up even worse. The 500,000 UK Pounds pay off has turned into more than it needed to, he has no one to blame but himself.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Joyce but had they all signed legal contracts when they first became a band, none of this shit would have happened.

 

[Jukebox Jury]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

so is it ok for Morrissey not to get any royalties?

and for Joyce to deprive Andy Rourke of his 10% Smiths royalties, and deprive producers John Porter, Stephen Street, Grant Showbiz and Steve Lillywhite (for "Ask") of their entitlements.

It all depends on what grounds he is not getting any royalties. Morrissey has just told us he is not getting any..... but hasn't told us why. Unless we have the exact reason as to why he isn't going to get paid, why should we take his word and obey his masters voice?

My 'Panic on the streets' book came out two years ago and I haven't received royalties..... the publishers claim sales have not exceeded my advance (I have no way of knowing whether it has or not) so all i can do is hope that one day sales will exceed my advance and then I will get my 6 monthly pay cheque

As for the royalties of the other people mentioned above, I doubt Morrissey's words on that. The money taken and given to Mike can legally (surely) only be taken from Morrissey's share of the proceedings, not anyone elses share. happy to be proved wrong on the point.

Jukebox Jury

 

[Billtwasreallynowt]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

so is it ok for Morrissey not to get any royalties?

and for Joyce to deprive Andy Rourke of his 10% Smiths royalties, and deprive producers John Porter, Stephen Street, Grant Showbiz and Steve Lillywhite (for "Ask") of their entitlements.

There are two ways of looking at everything Lainey.

Had Moz made the final payment, these people would be receiving their royalties would they not? So, one could argue that Morrisseys stubbornness is depriving these people.

Rourke himself could have sued for his 25% and chose not to, therefore depriving himself.

I couldn't care less about Joyce or the politics involved. Morrissey could have been a grownup like Marr and dealt with the shit (rightly or wrongly) thrown at him and moved on with his life. He hasn't & I doubt he ever will.

I think its quite sad that he has taken time out of his day to ask people not to buy a specific product because he personally won't get cash from it. Ludicrous really.

 

[Uncleskinny]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

There are two ways of looking at everything Lainey.

Had Moz made the final payment, these people would be receiving their royalties would they not? So, one could argue that Morrisseys stubbornness is depriving these people.

Rourke himself could have sued for his 25% and chose not to, therefore depriving himself.

I couldn't care less about Joyce or the politics involved. Morrissey could have been a grownup like Marr and dealt with the shit (rightly or wrongly) thrown at him and moved on with his life. He hasn't & I doubt he ever will.

I think its quite sad that he has taken time out of his day to ask people not to buy a specific product because he personally won't get cash from it. Ludicrous really.

Agreed 100%

Peter

 

[lainey]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

There are two ways of looking at everything Lainey.

Had Moz made the final payment, these people would be receiving their royalties would they not? So, one could argue that Morrisseys stubbornness is depriving these people.

Rourke himself could have sued for his 25% and chose not to, therefore depriving himself.

I couldn't care less about Joyce or the politics involved. Morrissey could have been a grownup like Marr and dealt with the shit (rightly or wrongly) thrown at him and moved on with his life. He hasn't & I doubt he ever will.

I think its quite sad that he has taken time out of his day to ask people not to buy a specific product because he personally won't get cash from it. Ludicrous really.

disagree 100%

 

[Jukebox Jury]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

disagree 100%

the reason being..................?

Jukebox Jury

 

[Billtwasreallynowt]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

the reason being..................?

Jukebox Jury

Because they can

(And if ever I, just wanted to cry, then I will, because I can) Great track *shuffles off to put it on*

 

[lainey]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

the reason being..................?

Jukebox Jury

this.......
Statement from Morrissey
30 November 2005

Statement from Morrissey:

The latest statements from M Joyce on a BBC 6 radio interview as faithfully reported on the MorrisseySoLow site have been brought to my attention and I feel I should make this reply as an attempt to put the matter straight.

1. From '83 to '87 M Joyce happily and willingly received 10% of Smiths recording royalties.

2. In '89, as is documented, Joyce sued Morrissey & Marr for 25% of Smiths recording royalties.

3. In '96, Joyce took his claim to court - and on the basis of the 1890 Partnership Act the judge awarded Joyce 25%.

4. In '97, M Joyce was paid 215 thousand pounds from me, and 215 thousand pounds from Johnny Marr.

5. In '99, Joyce appeared on British television and made the statement: "There was no contract saying we were gonna get 25%."

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.

8. By grabbing the full total of Smiths royalties from Warner Music (and this means that when the public buy a Smiths CD in the UK, the royalties go to Joyce, and have done so since 2001) Joyce has knowingly deprived Andy Rourke of his 10% Smiths royalties, and has deprived producers John Porter, Stephen Street, Grant Showbiz and Steve Lillywhite (for "Ask") of their entitlements. Joyce did not declare to the courts that others - namely, the above - were also beneficiaries to the Warner Music royalties.

9. In 2001, Joyce attempted to seize both my mother's house and my sister's house by claiming that I had taken my assets out of the UK; he made this claim even though he had direct access to all of the above – which are in the UK. Joyce eventually dropped both of these claims due to lack of evidence, and he refused to pay the 150 thousand pounds that it had cost me to defend his groundless claims. Joyce also dropped his claim as co-composer with Johnny M on Smiths compositions, and Joyce also dropped his claim for Producer royalties on Smiths recordings, and Joyce also dropped his claim for a share of Artwork payments given to me for providing Smiths record sleeves. There were, in fact, no payments to me for Smiths Artwork. Joyce made a further claim for 25% of all Smiths t-shirts sold during the '83 to '87 period, even though there was no evidence that any royalty for t-shirts had been received by either myself or Johnny Marr.

10. In legal fees alone, Joyce has cost me 600 thousand pounds - this is quite apart from any payments made to him, and is quite apart from any money seized by him. In total, Joyce has cost me 1 million, 515 thousand pounds. This is an approximate figure - it could even be higher.

11. The Joyce action is continuous. Because of his Default Judgment he continues to take my royalties, and the royalties of others mentioned above, from Warner Music - consequently I have not received record royalties since 2001.

12. Since 2001, the money claimed by Joyce is charged, to me, at 100 pounds a day in interest.

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.

The point I wish to make is this: Joyce is not poor, unless, living as he does in the Cheshire green-belt, he lives beyond his means. Somehow, he appears to believe that he should have equal financial status to both myself and to Johnny Marr, even though Joyce has done dramatically less than Johnny and I to attain the positions we now have.

Joyce is not poor because of one reason - me. His career now is the fictitious position of an unpaid ex-member of the Smiths. He has also pursued all of his claims on Legal Aid.

I don't make this statement in search of sympathy from anyone, but I wish that the people at MorrisseySoLow who support Joyce would at least get their facts right before they say anything. Even with his 10% share, Joyce was wealthy. Now, he is extremely wealthy.

What more does he want?

I have fought the Joyce action as much as I could over the years, but the simple truth is that, under British law, the word of a judge will not be overturned. In the absence of any evidence from the 1980s, the judge in this case relied upon the Partnership Act of 1890 to help Joyce win his claim. Joyce has exploited the judge's final verdict in order to get as much as he can from me, from Johnny Marr, and also from Andy Rourke.

Finally, Joyce does not have the legal right to sell unreleased Smiths material - it belongs to Warner Music. Joyce did not pay for the recording time under which any demo material was recorded. Furthermore, Joyce cannot sell any unreleased work by Johnny Marr or Andy Rourke without, at very least, their permission.

Thanks for reading this,
MORRISSEY.

why this isn't enough for you I don't understand.

friendship with Joyce? anyway it seems that I will disagree on this with a few of you so I'll retire for showing my loyalty while people bitch and berating him for not having hindsight.

 

[Dothatagain?]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

why this isn't enough for you I don't understand.

friendship with Joyce? anyway it seems that I will disagree on this with a few of you so I'll retire for showing my loyalty while people bitch and berating him for not having hindsight.

Constantly repeating the message from Morrissey isn't going to change people's opinions, because a lot of people here feel that had Morrissey paid up originally, and not, out of sheer spite, cleared off to LA so he wouldn't have to, it would all have been solved and we wouldn't have pathetic statements telling us not to buy this or that.

No one's saying Joyce's behaviour in this is perfect, but the facts are that no contract was signed, and under British law it was decided that Morrissey and Marr owed him money. Marr paid up. Morrissey ran away like a child who's taken someone's dinner money. And ultimately, that's why it's still ongoing.

 

[Jukebox Jury]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

this.......
Statement from Morrissey
30 November 2005

Statement from Morrissey:

The latest statements from M Joyce on a BBC 6 radio interview as faithfully reported on the MorrisseySoLow site have been brought to my attention and I feel I should make this reply as an attempt to put the matter straight.

1. From '83 to '87 M Joyce happily and willingly received 10% of Smiths recording royalties.

2. In '89, as is documented, Joyce sued Morrissey & Marr for 25% of Smiths recording royalties.

3. In '96, Joyce took his claim to court - and on the basis of the 1890 Partnership Act the judge awarded Joyce 25%.

4. In '97, M Joyce was paid 215 thousand pounds from me, and 215 thousand pounds from Johnny Marr.

5. In '99, Joyce appeared on British television and made the statement: "There was no contract saying we were gonna get 25%."

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.

8. By grabbing the full total of Smiths royalties from Warner Music (and this means that when the public buy a Smiths CD in the UK, the royalties go to Joyce, and have done so since 2001) Joyce has knowingly deprived Andy Rourke of his 10% Smiths royalties, and has deprived producers John Porter, Stephen Street, Grant Showbiz and Steve Lillywhite (for "Ask") of their entitlements. Joyce did not declare to the courts that others - namely, the above - were also beneficiaries to the Warner Music royalties.

9. In 2001, Joyce attempted to seize both my mother's house and my sister's house by claiming that I had taken my assets out of the UK; he made this claim even though he had direct access to all of the above – which are in the UK. Joyce eventually dropped both of these claims due to lack of evidence, and he refused to pay the 150 thousand pounds that it had cost me to defend his groundless claims. Joyce also dropped his claim as co-composer with Johnny M on Smiths compositions, and Joyce also dropped his claim for Producer royalties on Smiths recordings, and Joyce also dropped his claim for a share of Artwork payments given to me for providing Smiths record sleeves. There were, in fact, no payments to me for Smiths Artwork. Joyce made a further claim for 25% of all Smiths t-shirts sold during the '83 to '87 period, even though there was no evidence that any royalty for t-shirts had been received by either myself or Johnny Marr.

10. In legal fees alone, Joyce has cost me 600 thousand pounds - this is quite apart from any payments made to him, and is quite apart from any money seized by him. In total, Joyce has cost me 1 million, 515 thousand pounds. This is an approximate figure - it could even be higher.

11. The Joyce action is continuous. Because of his Default Judgment he continues to take my royalties, and the royalties of others mentioned above, from Warner Music - consequently I have not received record royalties since 2001.

12. Since 2001, the money claimed by Joyce is charged, to me, at 100 pounds a day in interest.

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.

The point I wish to make is this: Joyce is not poor, unless, living as he does in the Cheshire green-belt, he lives beyond his means. Somehow, he appears to believe that he should have equal financial status to both myself and to Johnny Marr, even though Joyce has done dramatically less than Johnny and I to attain the positions we now have.

Joyce is not poor because of one reason - me. His career now is the fictitious position of an unpaid ex-member of the Smiths. He has also pursued all of his claims on Legal Aid.

I don't make this statement in search of sympathy from anyone, but I wish that the people at MorrisseySoLow who support Joyce would at least get their facts right before they say anything. Even with his 10% share, Joyce was wealthy. Now, he is extremely wealthy.

What more does he want?

I have fought the Joyce action as much as I could over the years, but the simple truth is that, under British law, the word of a judge will not be overturned. In the absence of any evidence from the 1980s, the judge in this case relied upon the Partnership Act of 1890 to help Joyce win his claim. Joyce has exploited the judge's final verdict in order to get as much as he can from me, from Johnny Marr, and also from Andy Rourke.

Finally, Joyce does not have the legal right to sell unreleased Smiths material - it belongs to Warner Music. Joyce did not pay for the recording time under which any demo material was recorded. Furthermore, Joyce cannot sell any unreleased work by Johnny Marr or Andy Rourke without, at very least, their permission.

Thanks for reading this,
MORRISSEY.

why this isn't enough for you I don't understand.

friendship with Joyce? anyway it seems that I will disagree on this with a few of you so I'll retire for showing my loyalty while people bitch and berating him for not having hindsight.

It isn't enough, because as above myself and a few other posters have picked a lot of holes in the statement. Morrissey only informed us what he wanted us to know (and didn't Mike counter this statement?)

I do not have a friendship with Mike. I know him, have met him a number of times at organised events. Outside of that, I've never met him for a drink etc and don't have his phone number.
We just know each other. As mentioned, two British judges sided against Morrissey. Is that not enough for you (or Morrissey)?

Jukebox Jury

 

[Kewpie]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

Constantly repeating the message from Morrissey isn't going to change people's opinions, because a lot of people here feel that had Morrissey paid up originally, and not, out of sheer spite, cleared off to LA so he wouldn't have to, it would all have been solved and we wouldn't have pathetic statements telling us not to buy this or that.

No one's saying Joyce's behaviour in this is perfect, but the facts are that no contract was signed, and under British law it was decided that Morrissey and Marr owed him money. Marr paid up. Morrissey ran away like a child who's taken someone's dinner money. And ultimately, that's why it's still ongoing.

I agree.

Losing money is painful, but Morrissey still has many chances to earn more.

 

[Danny_]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

I don't know why this argument got around to Joyce anyway. Morrissey has made no claim that this is anything to do with Joyce and he hasn't been reticent about blaming Joyce in the past.

Joyce is a red herring. It's much more likely to do with the usual problems artists all have with record companies not paying out what they should.

 

[Billtwasreallynowt]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets release (TTY)

why this isn't enough for you I don't understand.

friendship with Joyce? anyway it seems that I will disagree on this with a few of you so I'll retire for showing my loyalty while people bitch and berating him for not having hindsight.

"I'm persecuted by a sense of pride and dogged by cunning foresight"

From Morrissey, Select Magazine 1991.
I would say he had cunning foresight of his impending cash loss and thought by fleeing he could avoid it.