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

[Kewpie]

Re: hmmmm

It's totally irrelevant, but needs to be addressed that some people's inability of using quote function / c & p.

Make sure to use 'Preview post' and check the brakets are in the right places before click 'submit reply'.

What do you mean?

You intentionally removed [ from [/quote].

 

[Jukebox Jury]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

isn't it strange Biggoof009 that JJ's bitches don't comment on anything you have said? I just agreed with you and they're provoked and defensive.

Bitches? You mean have a discussion
The reason I dont comment on anything bigpoof mentions is because it is nonsence.....on how ''he has evidence'' etc

How do you know this? were you in the room when all 4 signed the contracts, or didn't? Where is your proof they didnt have some sort of agreement w/M&M on what their payouts would be? I still haven't seen anything, other than your "opinion" posted in response.

I find it hard to believe that a judge, any judge, would award someone a monetary amount based on one's word? You claim "there was no contract, as one didnt exist". Then, why would a judge give Joyce any money, based on what he said, unless there was some sort of proof? Either, you're fulla shit, or the judge is a complete idiot,(I go with both) as I find it extremely difficult to believe that any sane judge that practices actual law, would award someone something, based on someone's word? Thats apparently what you're claiming. Joyce claims M&M agreed to pay them x amount of dollars correct? thats his word, correct? w/o proof, how could he be able to collect a cent from either Morrissey or Marr w/o some sort of proof(contract/note/etc) to back him up? he couldn't.

If I told you that so and so killed someone, does that man he did it? I dont have any proof, but I say he did it. Nice defense.(rollseyes)

Nice!!! Next time I need to sue, I'll just say"so and so said this", not bring any proof, and expect a payday? great.

I am not speaking on behalf of the judges.... how can I? As I have mentioned 4 years ago.... four mates set up in business...... 2 earn more than the others for playing a gig / performing on the same song (NOT songwriting contributions). Do you think that is fair?
That's what the judge judged. Would YOU perform with mates in a band at a gig and receive less than your mates?
To your first point........ was I in the room when the four signed the contract...... fot the last time............. there was NO CONTRACT SIGNED so no..... I was not in the room.....neither was M&M, Mike & Andy

Jukebox Jury

 

[Jukebox Jury]

stick your hmmmmmm up your arse

It's totally irrelevant, but needs to be addressed that some people's inability of using quote function / c & p.

Make sure to use 'Preview post' and check the brakets are in the right places before click 'submit reply'.

que-pie
Are you deliberately trying to provoke me?
So I messed up when replying to a quote............ IS THIS REALLY AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED? IS IT REALLY ''AN INABILITY''
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HAPPEN? BRING BACK FLOGGING?

You have wound up PT to be banned - that's another person on this site banned because of their dislike of you...... are you pleased with yourself? I bet you are..... and you wont stop until everyone on here gets down and worships at the feet of que-pee.
But you wont do the same to me.
If this is all you are here for, as a Mod....... to pick on a poster who incorrectly quoted someone in a negative way........ then you seriously need to get a life. Quickly.

Jukebox

Jury

 

[Kewpie]

hmmmm

que-pie
Are you deliberately trying to provoke me?
So I messed up when replying to a quote.
IS THIS REALLY AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED? IS IT REALLY ''AN INABILITY''
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HAPPEN? BRING BACK FLOGGING?

You have wound up PT to be banned - that's another person on this site banned because of their dislike of you.
are you pleased with yourself? I bet you are.
and you wont stop until everyone on here gets down and worships at the feet of que-pee.
But you wont do the same to me.
If this is all you are here for, as a Mod to pick on a poster who incorrectly quoted someone in a negative way then you seriously need to get a life. Quickly.

Jukebox Jury

You should calm down really.

For the record, I did not wind up PT.

Since July 2009 I stopped replying PT's (and his mate Revol's) posts because they completely forgot that this is MORRISSEY-SOLO.COM.

He sent me an abusive visitor message which is harassement.

Spelling my user name differently itself shows your mental state.
Very sad indeed.

 

[Biggoof009]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

I am not speaking on behalf of the judges.... how can I? As I have mentioned 4 years ago.... four mates set up in business...... 2 earn more than the others for playing a gig / performing on the same song (NOT songwriting contributions). Do you think that is fair?

Doesnt matter what you or I think does it? if thats the arrangement that was made between the four, then I dont see why J&R would have a right to complain or sue?

That's what the judge judged. Would YOU perform with mates in a band at a gig and receive less than your mates?

Probably not, but J&R apparently knew they were going to get less than M&M and they still decided to be in the Smiths? Pretty dumb on their parts if you ask me.

To your first point........ was I in the room when the four signed the contract...... fot the last time............. there was NO CONTRACT SIGNED so no..... I was not in the room.....neither was M&M, Mike & Andy

For the last time: how do you know there wasn't a contract? some deal sctibbled on a piece of paper between the parties? How would J&R know they were getting less, and sue for that money if there wasn't some sort of agreement/contract between the four? I doubt J&R walked in and blindly stated they felt they were getting ripped off? How would they have any leg to stand on, getting an equal 25% share, if they didnt have at least something to back them up? How would they know that Morrissey and Marr were making more than them?

Stop dodging the questions.

 

[Emotional Guide Dog]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

For the last time: how do you know there wasn't a contract? some deal sctibbled on a piece of paper between the parties?

Are you just playing or are you actually this dumb?

We know there wasn't a contract because if there was...

wait for it...

THEY WOULD'VE PRESENTED IT IN COURT.

Got it?

 

[Billtwasreallynowt]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

Top thread

In fairness, and I have for the most part agreed with most of the arguments JJ has presented, just because one was not presented doesn't mean that one didn't EVER exist, they may just have lost it

 

[Emotional Guide Dog]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

Top thread

In fairness, and I have for the most part agreed with most of the arguments JJ has presented, just because one was not presented doesn't mean that one didn't EVER exist, they may just have lost it

That would certainly be Smiths-esque.

 

[mcrickson]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

That would certainly be Smiths-esque.

Now by "Smiths" do you mean Morrissey and Marr, or Morrissey, Marr, Rourke, and Joyce. Or perhaps John, Paul, George, and Ringo?

 

[Emotional Guide Dog]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

Now by "Smiths" do you mean Morrissey and Marr, or Morrissey, Marr, Rourke, and Joyce. Or perhaps John, Paul, George, and Ringo?

By Smiths I probably mean kitchen sink drama, humdrum Northern town- ness.

 

[Worm]

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

Partnership legislation in the UK states that all partners are assumed to have an equal share of profits (or liabilities) unless there is a contract or similar evidence to the contrary.

Morrissey & Marr could not produce a contract or alternative legal evidence to prove The Smiths partnership was not equal, therefore the judge ruled in Joyce's favour.

We know there wasn't a contract because if there was...

wait for it...

THEY WOULD'VE PRESENTED IT IN COURT.

Got it?

This would have ended the debate on any forum besides Morrissey-Solo.

 

[marred]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

 

[Raphael Lambach]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

Now by "Smiths" do you mean Morrissey and Marr, or Morrissey, Marr, Rourke, and Joyce. Or perhaps John, Paul, George, and Ringo?

Hwy Ringo it's hard to walk tall when you're samll...

Are Smiths 4 or only 2?

 

[marred]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

From the clip above questioned by Tony Wilson.

Joyce: "We're happy where we are in the background. Our time will come (raises finger)".

It's a bit confusing because if there was a contract then they didn't contest it while they were in the band and if there wasn't a contract then how did they know they were only getting 10%?

I agree they probably should've got equal share of performance pay but they still got 10% for performing songs they didn't write

 

[Worm]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

It's a bit confusing because if there was a contract then they didn't contest it while they were in the band

A sensible person might contest it. But imagine: you're young. You're in the best band in the world. The guys in charge pay you regularly. You know that if you make waves, you will cause a problem and likely be sacked.

You'd probably keep quiet and wait to sort it out later. Most of us would.

if there wasn't a contract then how did they know they were only getting 10%?

Rourke had no idea. Joyce had no idea until 1986, when he asked to see the financial statements, and those were so ill-kept he could barely tell even with the numbers in front of him (so he says, the other interpretation being he wasn't bright enough to understand them).

Read the court summary. I'm sure it's posted somewhere in this thread. It all makes sense if you read it objectively, even if you don't agree with the final outcome.

 

[Raphael Lambach]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

This forum could be called: Fight Together...
Every subject here causes discussion.. and always someone goes out offended....

 

[Biggoof009]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

Bitches? You mean have a discussion
The reason I dont comment on anything bigpoof mentions is because it is nonsence.....on how ''he has evidence'' etc

Its Biggoof, but thats ok. At no time did i ever claim to own any "evidence" of this court case, or anything pertaining to, get your head out of the clouds.

 

[Biggoof009]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

From the clip above questioned by Tony Wilson.

Joyce: "We're happy where we are in the background. Our time will come (raises finger)".

It's a bit confusing because if there was a contract then they didn't contest it while they were in the band and if there wasn't a contract then how did they know they were only getting 10%?

I agree they probably should've got equal share of performance pay but they still got 10% for performing songs they didn't write

Thats what I tried asking JJ, but she apparently didnt "get it", and continued on w/some sort of random BS. How could anyone(Joyce/Rourke) know the exact amount they were getting(in this case, supposedly both J&R 10%), unless there was some sort of an agreement made, or something written down at one time? I doubt Joyce just came up with some random percentage?

Notice how when i asked that, I never got a response? I guess no one knows?

 

[Jones]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

It really is pointless arguing about it unless you can read the members of the Smiths minds and were there at the time.

Put simply, they disagree about what was said and what was arranged.

Rourke and Joyce say they were never told about the arrangement.

Marr and Morrissey claim they were told and the four had a verbal contract.

Whether you think the arrangement was fair or not is immaterial, the judgement was not made on the basis of fairness. It was made on the basis of what the default contract should be based on the actions of all involved.

 

[Jukebox Jury]

Re: Morrissey DISAPPROVES solo singles 1988-1995 vinyl box sets & 3CD set release (TT

Thats what I tried asking JJ, but she apparently didnt "get it", and continued on w/some sort of random BS. How could anyone(Joyce/Rourke) know the exact amount they were getting(in this case, supposedly both J&R 10%), unless there was some sort of an agreement made, or something written down at one time? I doubt Joyce just came up with some random percentage?

Notice how when i asked that, I never got a response? I guess no one knows?

Bigghoof
Please read worm's post below.

A sensible person might contest it. But imagine: you're young. You're in the best band in the world. The guys in charge pay you regularly.

Rourke had no idea. Joyce had no idea until 1986, when he asked to see the financial statements, and those were so ill-kept he could barely tell even with the numbers in front of him (so he says, the other interpretation being he wasn't bright enough to understand them).

Read the court summary. I'm sure it's posted somewhere in this thread. It all makes sense if you read it objectively, even if you don't agree with the final outcome.

Jukebox Jury